[News] With the 21st overall pick Flames select C Mark Jankowski

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Haha I try not to. I just see a distinct difference between 'elite level prospect' and '3-5 year project'. I've yet to put down the pick or claim he'll end up on either side of the fence. Playing it safe on this one

I think he's an elite level 2-5 year project. Loads of potental but no guarantee he will live up to it.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think one of the problems with evaluating a draft in the future is that when you look at busts they are compared to the best player that wasnt chosen.

So if Jankowski is a bust it isnt fair to compare him to the best of TT, Ceci, Gergunsen oe Gaunce because we couldnt have had all of those players we would have only have had one. So if you wanted to draft TT and both he and Jankoski are busts but gergensen is an all star you shouldnt really be outraged because you would have also been upset if the flames drafted gergensen.

So if in the future you want to complain about this pick i think it is important to compare him to the player you would have picked and not to the field.

Also even if Jankowski is a bust that doesnt mean he was the wrong pick because we are looking at probabilities rather than absolutes. You might have to draft 10 Jankowskis to get a bonified number 1 center and 1 second line center but if you draft 10 Gaunces you might get 8 number 3 center and 1 number 2 center. So years down the road if Gauce is a number 2 center and Jankowski is a wash out does that mean he was the wrong choice? I dont think it does as what we were trying to draft was a number 1 center and that comes with higher risk.

So even if he doesnt pan out it might still have been the right choice as if you keep taking the high rish, high reward players eventually you should get rewarded.

Disagree. Calgary, like any team that "misses" had the chance to draft any of those kids. So even though they can only chose one of them, the choice is their choice, based on their scouting and internal discussion

If I am asked to choose between 10 stocks, and do my due diligence and research and my selection is a bust, I am not going to limit the comparison to choice #2 because their were 9 alternatives on the table. It was my matrix that put them a pecking order.

Unless the staff flat out says the choice two was player X, you can't really limit comparisons because you don't know who was on their board.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Well its appears you are right about Zajac, but wrong about Oshie, and Bennett.

I will remove Zajac as he was drafted as an overager and not in the same position as the others.

The numbers won't prove anything. They are just a nice way to form an opinion.

Lol, why would you remove Zajac now, because it makes you look silly?

The opt in rule was removed in the current CBA, but it was too late to effect TJ Oshie who opted out of the 2004 draft already and was 19 on draft day.

[PeteLFan]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Haha I try not to. I just see a distinct difference between 'elite level prospect' and '3-5 year project'. I've yet to put down the pick or claim he'll end up on either side of the fence. Playing it safe on this one

From all accounts his skill set is elite. We are not waiting for him to develop his game or skill set, or converting positions. What we are watching is him adjusting to his body and filling out, and putting his high end skillset against better competition.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Lol, why would you remove Zajac now, because it makes you look silly?

The opt in rule was removed in the current CBA, but it was too late to effect TJ Oshie who opted out of the 2004 draft already and was 19 on draft day.

You make yourself look silly all by yourself.

Please quit spamming insults. Debate posts like an adult or ignore them.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

You make yourself look silly all by yourself.

Please quit spamming insults. Debate posts like an adult or ignore them.

This from the guy who ignored Textcritic's response to him and then fabricated Text's thoughts about Jankowski.

How adult of you.

[trackercowe]

I think the guy is trying to make the Oilers picking Cogliano look good, when he turned out to be a bust. The problem is Cogliano is a 5.10 shrimp, while this guy can bring a lot more to his game with his size, points aren't everything.

[trublmaker]

Why do oiler fans come here and critique our team and picks when their own team is such a sorry mess from top to bottom. Strange.

[PeteLFan]

Why is a Oiler fan trying to out down our pick so much, digging up stats etc to prove to us he will be a failure. You know why because he's trying to convince himself that Jankowski will bust, when there's a real good chance he could be better then Yakupov who could be in the KHL when Jankowski is potting hat tricks against Edmonton.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

This from the guy who ignored Textcritic's response to him and then fabricated Text's thoughts about Jankowski.

How adult of you.

That was an error in judgement. My apologies to Textcritic. I believe you are still wrong about Oshie. He's a year and three months younger then Ovie who missed the 2003 cutoff by 3 days.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

Why is a Oiler fan trying to out down our pick so much, digging up stats etc to prove to us he will be a failure. You know why because he's trying to convince himself that Jankowski will bust, when there's a real good chance he could be better then Yakupov who could be in the KHL when Jankowski is potting hat tricks against Edmonton.

I don't even care about Yakupov or the Oilers, he's going to be a good player. Let's leave him and the Oilers out of this thread.

But by all means, continue to expose the troll.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

That was an error in judgement. My apologies to Textcritic.

Then by all means, reply to his post.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

Why is a Oiler fan trying to out down our pick so much, digging up stats etc to prove to us he will be a failure. You know why because he's trying to convince himself that Jankowski will bust, when there's a real good chance he could be better then Yakupov who could be in the KHL when Jankowski is potting hat tricks against Edmonton.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Jankowski may or may not be a bust. It wouldn't surprise me to see him become a good NHL player.

The stats are what they are. They won't prevent Jankowski from developing in any way shape or form.

What I get from them is that Jankowski isn't trending to be the best player in the draft as claimed by Calgary management. That's just an opinion. I don't believe its all that offensive.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Yeah. I didn't agree with it. No point in responding to posters who have already decided this kid has franchise center upside two days after being picked at 21.

I said WHAT now???

Not once have I asserted such, but I have indicated that I am very high on this pick, and I do believe that Jankowski's ceiling ranges close to top-line potential, but this potential is also accompanied by significant risk.

You just don't seem to get it, so I will go real, REAL slow, in an effort to ensure that you understand.

First, CSA player rankings are compiled through a variety of factors that include skill, size, personality and character, pedigree, development and development trend, age, etc. Some players will be ranked higher because they excel especially in one facet as opposed to others. For example, Eric Nystrom was probably one of the most highly ranked checking centres of all time, by virtue of his lineage, but also because he was easily one of the best character players in his draft year.

Second, CSA's rankings are likely never identical to all other NHL team rankings, so when players drift all over the board on draft day relative to where they have been ranked, this is not because scouts don't know what they are doing, this is because different teams put together different lists. Slater Koekoek was top-ten pick who didn't even crack CSA's top-20 list of NA players. Teuvo Teravainen was the #2 European who was not selected until #18. Is Koekoek a more skilled player than Teravainen?

Just because Jankowski was ranked low by CSA does not mean that he was ranked as low by all other NHL team scouts. In fact, given what we have heard after the draft now, it is probably safe to assume that a number of teams had him ranked well ahead of the mid-second round.

But like I said, Jankowski's ranking had much less to do with his hockey skills, and much more to do with other factors. You have stated that you disagree, and I would like to know precisely why. Have you seen scouting reports that raise concerns about Jankowski's skills? His on-ice vision? His hockey IQ? If so, I should really like to see them because in virtually everything that I have read there is no such criticism. If he happened to be passed over by 20 NHL teams at the draft, it was not because he is less skilled than every other player selected ahead of him. There are other reasons, but I sincerely doubt that his skills were among them.

[PeteLFan]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I'm not trying to prove anything. Jankowski may or may not be a bust. It wouldn't surprise me to see him become a good NHL player.

The stats are what they are. They won't prevent Jankowski from developing in any way shape or form.

What I get from them is that Jankowski isn't trending to be the best player in the draft as claimed by Calgary management. That's just an opinion. I don't believe its all that offensive.

Why does it bother you so much though? Who cares what they think, that's our problem. You don't believe he will be the best player that's your opinion, but you have spent a lot of effort and time trying to prove he won't be good at all, there must be a reason why?

[PantherExtreme]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Disagree. Calgary, like any team that "misses" had the chance to draft any of those kids. So even though they can only chose one of them, the choice is their choice, based on their scouting and internal discussion

If I am asked to choose between 10 stocks, and do my due diligence and research and my selection is a bust, I am not going to limit the comparison to choice #2 because their were 9 alternatives on the table. It was my matrix that put them a pecking order.

Unless the staff flat out says the choice two was player X, you can't really limit comparisons because you don't know who was on their board.

Completely missing the point, which is that statistically if you cast a wide enough comparison someone later in the draft will turn out better than your pick. Yes if the flames pick the wrong guy they have screwed up and should be held responsible. But as far as bragging rights goes you need to pick someone now, not bitch later that they should have picked the 1 out of 4 that works out. You can claim the flames should have known better but dont claim YOU did know better unless you pick now.

[trublmaker]

Give it up Text, the only way you might get oilstain to understand is if you write it in big letters and in crayon

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by PantherExtreme

Completely missing the point, which is that statistically if you cast a wide enough comparison someone later in the draft will turn out better than your pick. Yes if the flames pick the wrong guy they have screwed up and should be held responsible. But as far as bragging rights goes you need to pick someone now, not bitch later that they should have picked the 1 out of 4 that works out. You can claim the flames should have known better but dont claim YOU did know better unless you pick now.

as individual selections from posters go, I think I've mentioned that TT was the guy I was hoping for...not really into the entire notion of 'bragging rights' mind you.

i think, for the most part, the discussion in the latter part of the thread has been pretty reasonable from either side of the argument.

for my part, I think that jury is out until he does his stint in the USHL. Despite scouting reports, it is still unknown whether his skills will translate to the next level. The USHL will help immensely to see if that is indeed the case.

[PantherExtreme]

All the bs hobby scouting sites have the same quote about him playing in the beanpot is there anymore info on that? Also heard his team played against US highschools or ushl or something? Any info on this stuff appreciated.

Definitely risky but the only way to get that 6'3 playmaking #1 center is to tank, or take a risk. And even the oilers havent been able to find him in 3 drafts.

[toquester]

As late as the Flames have been drafting in recent years, the majority of the picks tend to be either longshots or journeyman quality. It is the rare late first rounder who steps out of the shadows to be an exceptional NHLer.

Of these long shots, I would say the Flames got the best in terms of hockey smarts, speed, size and overall potential. Not going for the best bet to be an NHLer seems to be the direction the team is taking and every time they step up to bat, they have the potential of connecting.

That was true with Baertschi because of his size, and it is true of Jankowski because of the level of competition, his age and how he fills in to his ever-developing frame.

Upside, I think Jankowski can be as good as he believes he can be.

" “I like to play the game more like Evgeni Malkin,” he said without a trace of arrogance. “I’m a big forward who likes to generate offense, but not necessarily a physical, power forward type.”

http://www.hockeyjournal.com/blog/ki...Mark_Jankowski

I am ecstatic about the direction the Flames have decided to go and even if he does not develop into a Malkin type of player, I applaud them for sticking to their guns and not deciding to "tank it" in order to improve.