Boeser vs Virtanen - Better Career | Page 4 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Boeser vs Virtanen - Better Career

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, MS is spot on. And it's not like JV turning out to be Kreider will be a disaster, it's just realistic expectations. Nothing wrong with a 2nd line north-south PWF type who steps up his game in the playoffs(fingers crossed that JV is similar in that regard when/if he plays in the post-season).
 
mrmyheadhurts said:
Yeah, I really don't know to be honest. Like I said, it's really hard to compare Virtanen to other players, he's just so unique and physically gifted. The tricky part of the question is how do you define success, because simply pointing at numbers is obviously not enough. Longevity, team success, individual accolades? Pretty open to interpretation. Virtanen's style could limit his longevity, but it could lead to more team success in the post season; just too many variables (as usual) to not look foolish playing these prediction games. Did Bure or Lindros have a better career than a guy like Luc Robitaille?I honestly don't know.

Pretty happy we have both of them though!
Click to expand...

All 3 of those players produced PPG+ in their prime and were clearly stars in the league.

Their "styles" (position too) were very different. So some might prefer Lindros, some might prefer Bure.

Personally, I see Boeser as a highend finisher who will have a decent 2-way game, with some physicality. I see him developing into a Pacioretty level player, not a superstar but a star.

Virtanen, frankly, I'm simply not very high on. Physical tools are off the charts but when you lack that much hockey sense, I'm not sure if he's going to turn out much better than a Jason Chimera level 3rd liner maybe with that Torres hitting factor.
 
ahmon said:
All 3 of those players produced PPG+ in their prime and were clearly stars in the league.

Their "styles" (position too) were very different. So some might prefer Lindros, some might prefer Bure.

Personally, I see Boeser as a highend finisher who will have a decent 2-way game, with some physicality. I see him developing into a Pacioretty level player, not a superstar but a star.

Virtanen, frankly, I'm simply not very high on. Physical tools are off the charts but when you lack that much hockey sense, I'm not sure if he's going to turn out much better than a Jason Chimera level 3rd liner maybe with that Torres hitting factor.
Click to expand...

I thought this myth had been sufficiently busted.

Glad to see it come back in such hyperbolic form. God job.
 
DL44 said:
I thought this myth had been sufficiently busted.

Glad to see it come back in such hyperbolic form. God job.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. I just don't. I think of that play (i think against Florida) where off a draw he reached out with his backhand, chipped it over to his forehand and roofed it. I can't imagine many 19 year olds with this so called lack of "hockey sense" people keep claiming he has make that play. I don't see the issue with his hockey IQ
 
Kreider comp is spot on and I think Virtanen can hit that level or slightly better. Don't forget at Jake's current age Kreider was in his second of three seasons at Boston College then would play over half a season in the AHL before stepping on NHL ice. Basically Virtanen in January 2018 will be the equivalent of Kreider's rookie season.

As for effectiveness, Kreider ranked 77th amongst forwards this season for EV G/60 with a .88/60 rate. Jake was down at 200th with a .63/60 rate but I could see him climbing past where Kreider is today in 2-3 years.

NHL star? Probably not.

Very useful player? I think there's a good chance.

Though for the purposes of this poll I do think Boeser has better chances to be a first liner or "star" player. He and Tkachuk would be beastly in the offensive zone.
 
me2 said:
He hasn't really shown here has it either. Jury is still out on how bad or good it is.
Click to expand...

The defensive awareness myth was destroyed.

Passing ability and vision... enough flashes that further showed concerns were overblown..

Yet to be determined how well his learning curve goes in terms of finding his space in the offensive zone and working the cycle.. but considering everything else ... you have reason to be not too concerned about him figuring it out.
 
:huh: I'll never understand this idea that people should now be eating crow about Virtanen's IQ being some silly myth.

Everything hockey-sense-related that I was concerned about when he was drafted is the same thing I'm seeing from him at the NHL level. He's clearly going to be a useful NHLer and there's nothing wrong with a straight-line bull who relies on physical abilities, but calling a spade a spade, it seems pretty clear to me that that's his weakness (pretty much his only one, but also a very big one).

The only way I can understand this is that there must be some semantic disagreement about how to define hockey sense.

It feels like people want it both ways or something-- simultaneously arguing "If Virtanen had strong hockey sense to go along with his physical tools, he wouldn't have been available in our spot" and "Virtanen's lack of hockey sense is blown out of proportion-- he's shown enough flashes to have no reason to think it will be a problem." ..... but people who are optimistic can't seem to agree on which it is.

I expect him to turn into a 30-40 point 2nd/3rd line tweener/energy player who can chip in at asupportive rate. Best case scenario, I can see him being a solid 2nd line winger who's really good at his role and can absolutely give teams fits, but is still going to be frustrating any time he plays up on the 1st line.

Boeser obviously is unproven, but he's tracking spectacularly well and his upside is much less limited. Stud 1st liner is within reach. I'd be pleasantly shocked if Virtanen gets there.
 
Last edited:
Shareefruck said:
:huh: I'll never understand this idea that people should now be eating crow about Virtanen's IQ being some silly myth.

Everything hockey-sense-related that I was concerned about when he was drafted is the same thing I'm seeing from him at the NHL level. He's clearly going to be a useful NHLer and there's nothing wrong with a straight-line bull who relies on physical abilities, but calling a spade a spade, it seems pretty clear to me that that's his weakness.

I expect him to turn into a 30-40 point 2nd/3rd line tweener/energy player who can chip in at asupportive rate. Best case scenario, I can see him being a solid 2nd line winger who's really good at his role and can absolutely give teams fits, but is incredibly frustrating any time he plays up on the 1st line.

Boeser obvious is unproven, but he's tracking spectacularly well and his upside is much less limited.
Click to expand...

To be fair Virtanen's lack of fit on our first line is as much the Sedins as Jake. They don't know how to use him anymore than he knows how to best use them. Simply a terrible meshing of styles. If our first line was Seguin-Benn instead I think Jake would fit in quite nicely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dim jim
CanaFan said:
To be fair Virtanen's lack of fit on our first line is as much the Sedins as Jake. They don't know how to use him anymore than he knows how to best use them. Simply a terrible meshing of styles. If our first line was Seguin-Benn instead I think Jake would fit in quite nicely.
Click to expand...
I wasn't really basing it on his performance with the Sedins though (although I agree, it's the absolute worst fit possible). I intended that as a comment on how I think he approaches the game in such a way that I would still be frustrated with him if he was one of the guys carrying the offense, even playing with the guys you mentioned. As a second wave offensive guy, I like what he brings.

Not to the same eggregious degree as Raymond or Booth, but I do see some of that in his game. He has similar challenges to Kesler, and I think it's alot to ask of him to do what Kesler did to overcome it. Even after successfully doing the unthinkable, there's a ceiling to Kesler's offensive game that can still be somewhat frustrating.
 
Last edited:
Shareefruck said:
I wasn't really basing it on his performance with the Sedins though (although I agree, it's the absolute worst fit possible). I intended that as a comment on how I think he approaches the game in such a way that I would still be frustrated with him if he was one of the guys carrying the offense, even playing with the guys you mentioned. As a second wave offensive guy, I like what he brings.

Not to the same eggregious degree as Raymond or Booth, but I do see a hint of that in his game.
Click to expand...

I think he can play a valuable role on a big minute line - zone entries, forecheck, net presence, shoot for goals/rebounds- provided the line is properly balanced. He has a role and obviously if youre expecting him to fulfill some other role then you'll be disappointed. He's not a puck distributor, he's not a primary puck possessor in the o zone, he's not the half wall guy on the power play. But his speed, aggression, and shot will allow him to play a very disruptive role with the right linemates.
 
CanaFan said:
I think he can play a valuable role on a big minute line - zone entries, forecheck, net presence, shoot for goals/rebounds- provided the line is properly balanced. He has a role and obviously if youre expecting him to fulfill some other role then you'll be disappointed. He's not a puck distributor, he's not a primary puck possessor in the o zone, he's not the half wall guy on the power play. But his speed, aggression, and shot will allow him to play a very disruptive role with the right linemates.
Click to expand...
It would really have to be a line perfectly catered to him for me to imagine that. Short of spectacular chemistry/deployment, I'm skeptical about that possibility. I still think there are things that he does poorly enough (that I don't expect enough improvement on to turn around) that it would be tricky to make that work.

Anything's possible, though. I'd rather he be a mainstay on the second line if things go well.
 
Last edited:
This board has a weird complex about Virtanen. "His disappointing rookie season cements the reality he'll never live up to his draft position!" Derp derp derp.

I'm excited about Boeser, but I want to see him play AHL/NHL action and get a sense to how his game translates before I anoint him the second coming. Virtanen I have seen play, and while his game is abundantly warty the guy has an eye popping physical tool-set. If he turns into "just" a 20-20 forward who plays a punishing physical game that's a ridiculously useful player. And given his extremely young age, I think that's a conservative ceiling for the guy.

So, as of now, with the obvious annotation that it's way too early to declare anything either way, I'll go with the guy who has played at the pro level and shown glimpses of rare ability. Will re-evaluate when Boeser has been given the opportunity to do the same.
 
Shareefruck said:
It would really have to be a line perfectly catered to him for me to imagine that. Short of spectacular chemistry/deployment, I'm skeptical about that possibility. I still think there are things that he does poorly enough (that I don't expect enough improvement on to turn around) that it would be tricky to make that work.

Anything's possible, though. I'd rather he be a mainstay on the second line.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Don't think it has to be "perfect" or anything, just a good mix of skills and roles. Currently there is so little offensive talent on this team it leaves Virtanen having to do more than he is ideally suited to. I think as we acquire more talent that his role will be better defined and his efficacy will be greater. But for now he's a 19 year old kid on a terrible (talent and coaching) team. I find it funny how much people have "set" their expectations already.

Oh well.
 
CanaFan said:
Hmm. Don't think it has to be "perfect" or anything, just a good mix of skills and roles. Currently there is so little offensive talent on this team it leaves Virtanen having to do more than he is ideally suited to. I think as we acquire more talent that his role will be better defined and his efficacy will be greater. But for now he's a 19 year old kid on a terrible (talent and coaching) team. I find it funny how much people have "set" their expectations already.

Oh well.
Click to expand...
What would "unset" expectations be, though? Your expectations are what they are, and beyond "anything can happen", there's not really a compelling reason to entertain anything too much more optimistic than what you can realistically imagine based on your own assessment. It's not some stubborn, set in stone guarantee, and surely you agree that expectations should be measured to varying degrees for most prospects.

If someone had said that they thought Gaunce could have been significantly more than a 3rd liner a few years ago, it wouldn't be an overly "set" expectation to be skeptical about that. I don't see how this is different, other than the fact that Virtanen's perceived weakness is less proveable/tangible.
 
Last edited:
Some other rookie seasons (randomly selected from comparable players, other 6th overall selections, and Joe Thornton for lulz):

Chris Kreider - 3 points in 23 games
Scott Hartnell - 16 points in 75 games
Shane Doan - 17 points in 75 games
Raffi Torres - 1 point in 14 games
Joe Thornton - 7 points in 55 games
Mikko Koivu - 21 points in 64 games
Ryan Smyth - 11 points in 48 games
Milan Lucic - 27 points in 77 games
Wayne Simmonds - 23 points in 82 games

Jake Virtanen - 13 points in 55 games

Keep in mind that the guy is one of the youngest players in the NHL (not just a 19 year old, but one of the youngest players from his draft year), and was playing on a train wreck team that finished 3rd last...dead last in goals differential...and finished 2nd last in goals for. He received very little ice time, had his shifts carefully managed, and saw primary duty on the 4th line with AHL quality line mates.

I'm not saying he shot out the lights, or that he's poised for stardom, but are we REALLY comfortable making declarative statements about what a raging disappointment he's been, and how his lack of offensive upside is now firmly established as fact?
 
Last edited:
Shareefruck said:
You're exaggerating, IMO. Nobody has suggested that his limitations are close to established fact. It's mere skepticism.
Click to expand...

We have a post in this thread declaring "he will never live up to 6OA". You can't just throw around terms like "nobody" when "somebodies" are very prone to making authoritative statements. It's hardly a foreign occurrence on message boards. Even if you think they're just shooting from the hip and accidentally stating strong opinions as inviolate fact, that doesn't remove merit from debating their position.

"Jake is a disappointing 6OA" is a common refrain heard around here. There's a few 6OA picks in that list I posted. I guess they were disappointments too? Notably, they're not among the 30-50% of 6OA picks that busted out completely.
 
DL44 said:
I thought this myth had been sufficiently busted.

Glad to see it come back in such hyperbolic form. God job.
Click to expand...

When was it a myth? When was it busted?

I call what i see. I see a player with low hockey iq.

Not only that, he seems to get frustrated very easily and lose focus.

There are players who bait other players to take silly penalties, there are players who take the silly penalties.

IMO, Virtanen is in the latter group.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom