Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinny01
I disagree with the Jankowski pick due to organizational philosophy at the time. This was a team that was selling a fan base on competing for a cup/playoff spot while improving the roster and bringing in young players. Drafting a 4-5 year project with your first round pick was not the right move for the organization. I am fine with trading down because moving only 7 spots landed them another pick in the top 60 that they needed. I remember as they walked up to the podium I was convinced we were getting Matta who dropped in the draft and was projected to go in the top 15. Taking Janko with the pick made little sense as he likely would have been available with our 2nd but Weisbroad had tunnel vision and convinced the scouts this kid was going to be a superstar.
Who knows maybe he pans out the potential is still there and now that they have started to rebuild and the flames have Monahan, Bennett and Johnny who looks like a late round steal the there is not as much pressure on Janko. I just didn't agree with the move as it relates to the teams philosophy at the time.
There were rumors other teams were picking Jankowski in the first round if the flames didn't but that was only speculation on the Feasters part to justify the pick. There were also rumors that Weisbroad was in charge of the Bouwmeester trade which was absolutely horrendous for the Flames. Luckily the Blues made the playoffs and were best early so we got their 2013 pick. Having said that it was also only a rumor so could be totally false.
|
If one of the teams that was 'suspected' of planning to take Jankowski in the first round was Vancouver, that isn't a team we should have been emulating or aligning drafting philosophies with.
However, as Ryan Pinder has often pointed out, Weisbrod did a good job of updating how the scouting staff was organized. He eliminatied scouts reading or cross referencing scouting reports and pinned down the organization's definitions of arbitrary hockey terms like 'hockey sense', 'grit', or 'tenacity'. This isn't revolutionary stuff, but just basic things that were not previously being utilized to effectively organize talent evaluation.