A comment like this tells me that I shouldn't state my different opinion because I am not as informed as those who hold a different one.
All I am saying is when following hockey for decades, I have seen many players who did not live up to what they were projected to be. Unfortunately, many of them were Flames. I'm going to hold my excitement until he actually makes it. Hopefully, he will.
OK I can see where that came off slightly offensive. Well please continue stating your differing opinion. If we all agreed it would not make for a very good forum. Don't let a bit of criticism put you off.
Imagine you said Giordano is overrated on this board. Then admitted you had never seen him play. What do you think the reaction would be? Of course it's the posters opinion. But when it's not based on as much solid information as other people's opinions it will be criticized.
As far as Jankowski being "unproven" that's not totally true. At every level they play at prospects prove things to scouts, fans, coaches, etc. Jankowski has developed and come to be a key member of an NCAA championship squad showing his skill, skating and size. There were questions about how he'd adapt to the pro game. Then he seamlessly jumped to the pro game and started excelling right off the bat. He showed his skill, skating and size at the minor league level versus men in the 2nd best league in the world and came to be a critical member of our minor league team. Hes proven things to management, our scouts and our minor league coaches. Eric Vail has chosen to ignore all of this.
Usually we advise caution when evaluating prospects that are not yet playing at the pro level. Let's see how he performs against men would be a classic response to someone dominating junior. Jankowski has excelled at the pro level against men. Jankowski is unproven at the NHL level but he's far from an unproven prospect.
re: bolded part Unproven at the NHL level is synonymous to unproven for me at least.
I used to take a lot of flak as a Flames fan for the "wasted" 1st round pick used to select Mark Jankowski. We all did.
While Mark has more to prove assuredly, I love that he has at least for now quieted most the critics of that selection. I think a lot of fans are extra defensive of him on this count.
I hope he completely silences those critics and serves multiple dishes of crow this year and for years to come.
The Following User Says Thank You to Yrebmi For This Useful Post:
re: bolded part Unproven at the NHL level is synonymous to unproven for me at least.
Eh there's a lot of differing levels of unproven. When drafted Jankowski was completely unproven at high level hockey. Now he's proven at the NCAA level and proven at the minor league level. So he's far less of an unproven prospect than he was 5 years ago no?
Imagine you said Giordano is overrated on this board. Then admitted you had never seen him play. What do you think the reaction would be? Of course it's the posters opinion. But when it's not based on as much solid information as other people's opinions it will be criticized.
As far as Jankowski being "unproven" that's not totally true. At every level they play at prospects prove things to scouts, fans, coaches, etc. Jankowski has developed and come to be a key member of an NCAA championship squad showing his skill, skating and size. There were questions about how he'd adapt to the pro game. Then he seamlessly jumped to the pro game and started excelling right off the bat. He showed his skill, skating and size at the minor league level versus men in the 2nd best league in the world and came to be a critical member of our minor league team. Hes proven things to management, our scouts and our minor league coaches. Eric Vail has chosen to ignore all of this.
Usually we advise caution when evaluating prospects that are not yet playing at the pro level. Let's see how he performs against men would be a classic response to someone dominating junior. Jankowski has excelled at the pro level against men. Jankowski is unproven at the NHL level but he's far from an unproven prospect.
Doesn't it go without saying that I was saying he is unproven at playing in the NHL? There are lots of things that he has certainly proven, in hockey and in life. The thread is about whether he should be the third line centre for the Flames. You too, have stated that he is unproven at the NHL level. Every player drafted and many who haven't are considered proven prospects - like Jankowski. There are many players who have proven themselves to be NHL prospects.
Eh there's a lot of differing levels of unproven. When drafted Jankowski was completely unproven at high level hockey. Now he's proven at the NCAA level and proven at the minor league level. So he's far less of an unproven prospect than he was 5 years ago no?
Yes. Success at every level is a good indicator but not a guarantee of NHL success. So he has yet to "prove" he is an NHL player.
Eh there's a lot of differing levels of unproven. When drafted Jankowski was completely unproven at high level hockey. Now he's proven at the NCAA level and proven at the minor league level. So he's far less of an unproven prospect than he was 5 years ago no?
Good question. Would teams be willing to draft him at 21st overall? To me, that states the value of the prospect. If a team is willing to part with a big asset to acquire the player, he must be an excellent prospect.
Doesn't it go without saying that I was saying he is unproven at playing in the NHL? There are lots of things that he has certainly proven, in hockey and in life. The thread is about whether he should be the third line centre for the Flames. You have, too have stated that he is unproven at the NHL level. Every player drafted and many who haven't are considered proven prospects - like Jankowski. There are many players who have proven themselves to be NHL prospects.
Well if you had said you caution against pencilling him into the lineup this fall because he's unproven at the NHL level I don't think anyone would've taken exception to that comment. Training camp will show everyone if he's ready or not. He'll have a chance to force his way onto the team. I don't think management is pencilling him in but they certainly believe he'll push hard for a spot.
Telling the entire board that we "overrate" Jankowski and that he's not likely to be an impact NHLer is basically like telling us our opinion is wrong and you know better. When it comes out you haven't even see him play your comment looks arrogant and uninformed. If you go back and reread your comment that sparked this I think it's obvious why you got the reaction you did.
Well if you had said you caution against pencilling him into the lineup this fall because he's unproven at the NHL level I don't think anyone would've taken exception to that comment. Training camp will show everyone if he's ready or not. He'll have a chance to force his way onto the team. I don't think management is pencilling him in but they certainly believe he'll push hard for a spot.
Telling the entire board that we "overrate" Jankowski and that he's not likely to be an impact NHLer is basically like telling us our opinion is wrong and you know better. When it comes out you haven't even see him play your comment looks arrogant and uninformed. If you go back and reread your comment that sparked this I think it's obvious why you got the reaction you did.
I didn't say the entire board overrate's Jankowski. I said many do. I think that is true, and not an offensive comment or arrogant or uninformed.
I can make a reasonable conclusion about a player based on what I read about him from others. I can look at statistics like others do. I would say that there aren't many of us who can say they can make an accurate judgement about the career projections of a player by seeing him play a couple times. If there were such posters here, they'd likely be employed by a hockey team.
Because it is a rare case for a player to take as long as Jankowski to make the NHL, it is reasonable to question whether he is going to be a long-term NHL player. You may disagree for other good reasons, but that doesn't make my stance "arrogant".
What really stands out to me is how key Jankowski's training camp will be to these lines. Sub plots like breaking up the 3M line or moving Bennett to the wing are real, and interesting but the lines have three different looks to me ...
a) The lines with Jankowski not making the team at all (status quo)
b) The lines with Jankowski making the team but playing the fourth line
c) The lines with Jankowski making the team and landing a top 9 role
If it's "C" the Flames have some really good balance with a solid trickle down and many many options.
I didn't say the entire board overrate's Jankowski. I said many do. I think that is true, and not an offensive comment or arrogant or uninformed.
I can make a reasonable conclusion about a player based on what I read about him from others. I can look at statistics like others do. I would say that there aren't many of us who can say they can make an accurate judgement about the career projections of a player by seeing him play a couple times. If there were such posters here, they'd likely be employed by a hockey team.
Because it is a rare case for a player to take as long as Jankowski to make the NHL, it is reasonable to question whether he is going to be a long-term NHL player. You may disagree for other good reasons, but that doesn't make my stance "arrogant".
Fair enough, I may have gone a bit overboard with that last post. I apologize.
Still not sure what you've read of him or seen in his stats that would make you question his long term NHL prospects. Pretty impressive start to his minor league career right after finishing college. Pretty impressive rookie year in the AHL. Pretty impressive progression in his college career. He seem to have mostly impressed the past couple seasons so it seems strange to be down on him when the indications are there's never been a better time to believe in him.
"Because it is a rare case for a player to take as long as Jankowski to make the NHL, it is reasonable to question whether he is going to be a long-term NHL player."
That's the thing though, it actually isn't rare at all! It's the norm. It's commonplace. Players who step in early are the exceptions. That's what is so puzzling about your logic in this case. Not sure where to find the stats exactly but if you take the NHL as a whole and look at the age players step in it would probably average out to 23 if I had to guess. Jankowski is 22 right now. Nothing would be rare about him stepping in this year at all. Nothing unusual. Very typical in fact. An expected timeline given the league he was drafted out of and the weight he needed to put on his frame.
But I'm guessing you'll never be swayed because I think some of the people above me have put some pretty strong arguments as to why Jankowski was always going to take this long and have provided you some great examples that disprove your theory that he's taken too long to be an impact NHLer. In the end we'll have to agree to disagree. Sorry for getting snooty at the end there.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
That's the thing though, it actually isn't rare at all! It's the norm. It's commonplace. Players who step in early are the exceptions. That's what is so puzzling about your logic in this case. Not sure where to find the stats exactly but if you take the NHL as a whole and look at the age players step in it would probably average out to 23 if I had to guess. Jankowski is 22 right now. Nothing would be rare about him stepping in this year at all. Nothing unusual. Very typical in fact. An expected timeline given the league he was drafted out of and the weight he needed to put on his frame.
Was intrigued by this...so looked at the birth year for the 93 players that classified as rookies last year and played more than 25 games (aka lost their rookie eligibility.
So for Jankowski being a late 1994 birthday he is probably pretty close to where he should be breaking into the NHL. Maybe a year later than the "norm" but wouldn't be that out of the ordinary, especially for a player who went the college route.
You could argue that it is rare for a true top 6 player that becomes a big impact scoring forward to break in after the age of 22 or later but there is always the exception to the rule. I do think the likelihood for Jankowski is more of a 3rd line, 200 ft player that can put up 30-35 points than a scoring 50-60 point top 6 center but with his development curve anything is possible. I honestly didn't see that strong of a first season in the AHL coming either.
Last edited by SuperMatt18; 07-12-2017 at 03:18 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
You could argue that it is rare for a true top 6 player that becomes a big impact scoring forward to break in after the age of 22 or later but there is always the exception to the rule. I do think the likelihood for Jankowski is more of a 3rd line, 200 ft player that can put up 30-35 points than a scoring 50-60 point top 6 center but with his development curve anything is possible. I honestly didn't see that strong of a first season in the AHL coming either.
I totally agree with your assessment, given how far he has come and how long it's taken, he is looking more and more like a solid two-way 3C that can be counted on for a moderate amount of secondary scoring. I do think that Treliving has him penciled in for this role as a contingency in the unfortunate event that Backs is too pricey to re-up.
A comment like this tells me that I shouldn't state my different opinion because I am not as informed as those who hold a different one.
All I am saying is when following hockey for decades, I have seen many players who did not live up to what they were projected to be. Unfortunately, many of them were Flames. I'm going to hold my excitement until he actually makes it. Hopefully, he will.
This is a really funny thing here.
I researched that draft in 2012, and Jankowski was definitely on my radar as a possibility. Then the draft happened, and again I did a tonne of research into Jankowski, as I always love to do for some really strange and idiotic reason every draft.
Then I watched as many games as possible from Providence just to watch him play and see what the Flames had in him. I read as much information from sources as possible - even if it was just the local college papers. I watched him at prospect camps. I followed him closely every year, as I really find him as a prospect very intriguing and fascinating.
It was a heck of a lot easier to follow him this past a season as he turned pro and even played 1 NHL game. I really tracked his progression, saw him putting on weight. I saw how he was winning more and more board battles and individual battles for the puck and positioning in front of the net. I love seeing his vision and how slick he is at finding someone even through traffic, or how awesome he is at going around defenders with his reach to protect the puck, and make really good plays.
I love how he skates and have compared him to his peers and NHL players - even directly during his NHL game. I feel his skating is better than NHL average. I thought he looked really good defensively that game (and throughout his development) and really think he has the vision and skill to make a really, really good center in the NHL.
However, thank you for providing your 'opinion' of him based on nothing more than the simple fact that most prospects don't make the NHL. I will throw out my opinion of him based on all the years following him, tracking him and viewing him. I should definitely not criticize your opinion since you have watched hockey for years now and have seen many "can't miss prospects" miss. I really thought Jankowski was a can't miss prospect, but your argument has convinced me to not expect Jankowski to be anything in the NHL. I mean, most prospects bust after all.
What a waste of time for me! All those hours and hours following him!! Geez.. I am never going to bother following any prospect. My uniform opinion on everyone from now on is going to be "This guy is a bust" regardless of draft position, development curve, etc.., and I will be proven right more often than not. The ones that make it are obvious the exceptions to the rule, and there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to figure them out anyways, regardless of development anywhere.
In all seriousness, does this perhaps offer any insight as to why people may have been 'jumping' on your 'opinon' of Jankowski? I mean, if you have never seen him play, in what world is what you provided an opinion? It is nothing more than a simple guess based on the fact that the majority of prospects bust than make it. Of course you are going to make people who actually spent a LOT of time watching Jankowski over the years a bit annoyed, no?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
Jankowski now has a record of succeeding at every level he's tried. Of course, NHL is a different animal - from goaltending to systems to speed. But his record suggests he has a better than even chance of making it.
Now, where he gets overrated is by posters saying he's better than, say, Stajan "right now". Or that he's better at centre than Bennett. That's a clearer case of basing an opinion on facts not in evidence.
I researched that draft in 2012, and Jankowski was definitely on my radar as a possibility. Then the draft happened, and again I did a tonne of research into Jankowski, as I always love to do for some really strange and idiotic reason every draft.
Then I watched as many games as possible from Providence just to watch him play and see what the Flames had in him. I read as much information from sources as possible - even if it was just the local college papers. I watched him at prospect camps. I followed him closely every year, as I really find him as a prospect very intriguing and fascinating.
It was a heck of a lot easier to follow him this past a season as he turned pro and even played 1 NHL game. I really tracked his progression, saw him putting on weight. I saw how he was winning more and more board battles and individual battles for the puck and positioning in front of the net. I love seeing his vision and how slick he is at finding someone even through traffic, or how awesome he is at going around defenders with his reach to protect the puck, and make really good plays.
I love how he skates and have compared him to his peers and NHL players - even directly during his NHL game. I feel his skating is better than NHL average. I thought he looked really good defensively that game (and throughout his development) and really think he has the vision and skill to make a really, really good center in the NHL.
However, thank you for providing your 'opinion' of him based on nothing more than the simple fact that most prospects don't make the NHL. I will throw out my opinion of him based on all the years following him, tracking him and viewing him. I should definitely not criticize your opinion since you have watched hockey for years now and have seen many "can't miss prospects" miss. I really thought Jankowski was a can't miss prospect, but your argument has convinced me to not expect Jankowski to be anything in the NHL. I mean, most prospects bust after all.
What a waste of time for me! All those hours and hours following him!! Geez.. I am never going to bother following any prospect. My uniform opinion on everyone from now on is going to be "This guy is a bust" regardless of draft position, development curve, etc.., and I will be proven right more often than not. The ones that make it are obvious the exceptions to the rule, and there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to figure them out anyways, regardless of development anywhere.
In all seriousness, does this perhaps offer any insight as to why people may have been 'jumping' on your 'opinon' of Jankowski? I mean, if you have never seen him play, in what world is what you provided an opinion? It is nothing more than a simple guess based on the fact that the majority of prospects bust than make it. Of course you are going to make people who actually spent a LOT of time watching Jankowski over the years a bit annoyed, no?
Note that I didn't say that you couldn't form your own opinion on him - though you are putting those words in my mouth.
Instead of arguing your case for Jankowski, you choose to ridicule a fellow poster.
I don't come to message boards to fight about who is allowed to have an opinion and who isn't or what is fair to post and what isn't. I come here to learn something about the Flames and the NHL. I have no interest in furthering this, even when I expect that you will continue your ridicule with a response to this post.
I'm done.
The Following User Says Thank You to Eric Vail For This Useful Post:
It's not unreasonable at all to say, in a macro-sense, that its extremely rare for impact top 6 NHL FORWARDS to take 5 years to make the NHL. Doesn't mean he won't be a solid player for us but history is not on his side for becoming an elite player.
And I watched Janko with my own eyes in a preseason game last year and he was awful. Once again, doesn't mean he won't be a nice player but apparently you have to have seen every jankowski game to even offer an opinion on what kind of player he'll be
