Quote:
Originally Posted by kehatch
This is the problem. A majority of the pro Jankowski supporters lack any objectivity at all. You know how to point out the really nonobjective flawed argument? It is the one that fails to concede even the most obvious counter points. (Usually it also has really big all cap words as well).
Are you suggesting that selecting a high school project who is years away from the NHL isn't a higher risk than the other 1st round picks in the draft? Jankowski was always a HIGH RISK / HIGH REWARD player. We got the HIGH RISK. We are experiencing the HIGH RISK. If we don't get the HIGH REWARD than ....
The ONLY reason to select Jankowski instead of the other quality prospects in his range was because the Flames believed he had MORE potential than those other players.
|
I think the problem here is your interpretation of HIGH REWARD. I don't think it means "best player in the draft". That was ridiculous hyperbole from Feaster and Weisbrod, now departed. It may turn out to be a wasted pick, Jankowski may not work out, but calling it a bad pick if he doesn't turn out to be a star but just a decent player, at 21st overall in a so so draft year, is just wrong.