[Vulcan]

[QUOTE=Calgary4LIfe;4623124]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

The fact that Jankowski was so 'raw' and undeveloped makes him a gamble pick. Someone projected to be 4-5 years away from being a possible NHLer compared to many others who were further developed at the time of the draft and 1-2 years from making the NHL based off scout projections.
“A real late bloomer, he skates well, has great vision with the puck and tremendous playmaking understanding and potential. He comes from a great hockey family and really just looks to giving only a small glimpse of what he could progress to be at this point.” - See more at: http://thehockeywriters.com/mark-jan....qUuBsJM5.dpuf

His sudden spike in development is a healthy sign for NHL clubs. This year he dominated the MPHL and helped his draft stock considerably with a strong end of season showing at the Beanpot Classic playing against better players. Jankowski has the potential to be a top six scoring centre at the NHL level. ” - See more at: http://thehockeywriters.com/mark-jan....qUuBsJM5.dpuf
Please keep replying to any loosely based comments and ignore any hard facts. /sarcasm[/QUOTE]

Exactly what hard facts have you been providing here that have been getting ignored? Sorry, your opinions are not 'facts'.



That is really rich. Anyone that doesn't agree with your 'facts' (err.. opinions) is closed-minded, stubborn and wrong. I have been proven wrong on these boards in the past, but have changed my mind on my initial stance. You have done nothing to make me waver from my stance yet. I will be more than happy to do so when you present real facts and figures for me that prove your point.



What have you proven? What has either side proven here? There are legitimate prospects that take a few more years to develop and enter the NHL. The NHL is full of these examples. Why can't Jankowski be one of these examples? What makes you so sure that it was a terrible pick, when history does dictate that there are in fact many players that excel in the NHL after having to further develop for 'x' amount of years. The fact is that Jankowski is positively developing at providence in a defensive system. If he was stalled or regressing, I would then agree with you. That is not the case.



Nice article. This is neither a scouting report, nor is it an 'unbiased' look at the pick. How hard did you have to search for it? HILARIOUS!!! You go and search an article trying to blast the Flames as much as possible (Ryan Lambert, of all people) and try to use it as 'evidence' that you are right? Grasping at straws!!

You keep pointing it as 'gambling' and ignoring EVERYTHING people are saying. All picks are 'gambles', and the ONLY way to limit the gambling portion and draft the best players is to actually scout them, and scout them thoroughly. Would you agree here? Do you disagree with this???

Here is some 'unbiased' scouting reports on Jankowski. They list him all over the draft ranking, and have positive and negative reviews. This is actual scouting reports pre and post draft.

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/jrh...052648549.html



http://www.inlouwetrust.com/2012/6/1...ospect-profile



http://lastwordonsports.com/2012/06/...ark-jankowski/



http://www.hockeywilderness.com/2012...mark-jankowski



http://thehockeywriters.com/mark-jan...the-wild-card/

I don't think I've argued that Jankowski isn't a first round pick, although that could be debated. I've argued that he was a poor choice for the Flames as his length of development into a NHL player is too long and coming out of a poor high school league, trying to rank him was too much of a gamble. Let other teams with a strong base of prospects take the chance, especially when there were other strong choices available, so basically I'm being attacked for a position I haven't taken.

Originally Posted by Vulcan
As BIF said, no sense in arguing. I've found that even if some posters opinion has been proven wrong multiple times, a week later they'll still be repeating their bogus thoughts.

I was being sloppy when I posted this as I was referring to past arguments on this board where some posters have ignored links I've provided and gone on repeating their false claims.

I am not trying to blast the Flames, although I have no problem blasting Feaster and Weisbrod.

I've stated my opinion on this pick multiple times and I don't see any need to repeat it over and over. You and some others disagree, that's fine but I don't enjoy the attacks so I'm going to resume watching the Swede- Swiss game and enjoy some hockey. I hope everyone else is able to do the same.