Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[getbak]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

He is still only 20, so he has loads of time to develop IMO.

Yup. It's always good to remember that he's only 29 days older than Monahan, who is still the youngest player playing North American pro hockey in the organization. He won't be the same age that Jooris is now until 2018.

Lots of time.

[sureLoss]

These charts were popular last time and a fellow cper asked me to update them.

The points % chart does now take into account injuries (i.e. I only included goals that the respective players actually played in)





Now these charts attempt to track Jankowski's progress offensively in context with the two closest comparables to his situation: Chris Kreider and Kevin Hayes.

I feel they are comparables because:

• all 3 were drafted out of high school late 1st round
• all 3 are big bodied forwards (or at least tall)
• all 3 went on to play in Hockey East right after being drafted

Notable differences are:

• Jankowski was drafted out of Canadian high school while Hayes and Kreider came from US high schools
• Kreider and Hayes play for a better offensive team in BC, while Jankowski plays for a more defensive team
• Kreider played LW for all his time in BC
• Hayes played C for the majority of his first 2 years, then switched to primarily RW for his last 2 years
• Jankowski started LW then moved to center in his 2nd year

Now this doesn't necessarily prove anything. Doesn't mean Jankowski is better or worse than those 2 guys. Just puts into context what Jankowski's offence is relative to the two other guys.

Also doesn't necessarily mean anything if Jankowski fails to meet the curve set by Hayes or Kreider. Again just context.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Interesting stuff, thanks sureLoss.

[FBI]

Can't wait for that big green line to be matched next year

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by FBI

Can't wait for that big green line to be matched next year

When he too plays with Gaudreau?

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Since1984

Actually at that point in time the flames were 5-6 years away from being a contender and IMHO in a perfect place to take a risky later round pick that could become a "Joe Nieuwendyk" player. I think at times this season kind of blurs the fact that we are still in a major rebuild and that we have some great pieces put in place but we are still a few years away from being a true Stanley Cup contender.

Be patient with Jankowski, I tend to forget we have a "high risk, high reward" prospect like him in the pipeline all the time. I think we often take this pipeline for granted as the cupboards were quite bare not too long ago.

I realize this has been beaten do death, and the only reason I brought it up was due to the other side of the discussion being brought up again..

But please explain why exactly were the Flames in perfect position to take Jankowski? At the time we had 1-2 B-level prospects in our system. Instead of picking another B-level prospect, the Flames decided to take a project pick who HAS A CHANCE to become an A-level prospect in 3-4 years. I have no issues with the wait, it's the HIGH RISK. The pick would be ideal for a team like Detroit who doesn't have the room to develop players in the NHL and already had plenty of B-level prospects almost ready to make the jump from AHL.

I can almost guarantee that many more posters would have exception with this if it wasn't for all the 2nd - 6th round picks that have adjusted well to pro.

Jankowski hasn't shown much flash or consistency after 3 years and was deemed our 11th ranked prospect. I'm seeing the 'high reward' slipping away, even through my homer glasses.

[Harry Lime]

Actually I think that 1984 summed it up quite nicely.

There are only two sensible times to take a 'high risk, high reward' player. One is if you have a solid farm system that can withstand a 'miss', such as your Detroit example. The other is if you are right at the beginning of a rebuild, but still only have a middle pick. The thought being that drawing a 'B' prospect that is more of a sure thing would have minimal impact on a team not expected to contend for another 5-6 years. But picking up a potential 'A' prospect that would emerge right at the end of your rebuild could be the difference between a playoff team and a contender.

There is a lot of talk about how an unexpected emergence of a player, such as a Giordano or a Brodie, can effectively take years off a rebuild, and their value is beyond that of a 'sure thing' prospect, because they essentially were 'free'. You receive the high calibre player as well as the regular building blocks from 1st round draft picks.

The thought process in taking a Jankowski at that spot is that we can possibly attain a Bennett or Monahan level asset at a time would be most valuable to the club, without having a pick that would justify his presence on the roster.

Between Gaudreau and Jankowski, we have 2 possible top 10 calibre players without using or having a draft pick that would otherwise need to be used to acquire one.

Jankowski's progression right now seems to indicate that he may end up being a Joel Otto or Jordan Staal type of third line centre or better. That would allow the team to concentrate on the defensive positions to build. The progression of this one player could be a real indicator of whether this team will be in contention for a Stanley Cup, and that is why everyone cares about his success.

We have Bennett and Monahan as the Gilmour and Neiuwendyk, we need Joel Otto.

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I realize this has been beaten do death, and the only reason I brought it up was due to the other side of the discussion being brought up again..

But please explain why exactly were the Flames in perfect position to take Jankowski? At the time we had 1-2 B-level prospects in our system. Instead of picking another B-level prospect, the Flames decided to take a project pick who HAS A CHANCE to become an A-level prospect in 3-4 years. I have no issues with the wait, it's the HIGH RISK. The pick would be ideal for a team like Detroit who doesn't have the room to develop players in the NHL and already had plenty of B-level prospects almost ready to make the jump from AHL.

I can almost guarantee that many more posters would have exception with this if it wasn't for all the 2nd - 6th round picks that have adjusted well to pro.

Jankowski hasn't shown much flash or consistency after 3 years and was deemed our 11th ranked prospect. I'm seeing the 'high reward' slipping away, even through my homer glasses.

To me, at that point in time, it looked like the Flames were going to push the Vets for a couple more years to try and make the playoffs. I fully believe Feaster and Weisbrod were planning on making the playoffs with a patchwork of players. To them, it probably looked like a good 3-4 years of playoff attempts...then they would have a young high risk high reward player possibly ready to step in to the rebuilding years.

Please remember the Flames were picking at 21 to gain a second round pick(Sieloff). At 21 in the first round to have a raw prospect with size and a skill set that could translate in to a "Joe Nieuwendyk" type player with more experience and playing time. This seems like a great time to me to Take a risk.

We all know what transpired the next two seasons. Now Even if he trends to a "Joel Otto" type 3rd or 4th liner that is defensively Responsible, good on the draw and still has the raw offensive talent to make some beauty plays I think it was worth it. Hell even if he flops, the % of players drafted 20 or lower that have solid NHL careers is still quite low.

Either way, our drafts have been pretty solid since 2011 and looking at what we have in the pipeline I like what I see. I have patience and trust in how Jankowski is being developed in Providence. It is his Third year in NCAA Div 1 which is a huge step up from his High School Prep League and has not looked out of place.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Actually I think that 1984 summed it up quite nicely.

There are only two sensible times to take a 'high risk, high reward' player. One is if you have a solid farm system that can withstand a 'miss', such as your Detroit example. The other is if you are right at the beginning of a rebuild, but still only have a middle pick. The thought being that drawing a 'B' prospect that is more of a sure thing would have minimal impact on a team not expected to contend for another 5-6 years. But picking up a potential 'A' prospect that would emerge right at the end of your rebuild could be the difference between a playoff team and a contender.

There is a lot of talk about how an unexpected emergence of a player, such as a Giordano or a Brodie, can effectively take years off a rebuild, and their value is beyond that of a 'sure thing' prospect, because they essentially were 'free'. You receive the high calibre player as well as the regular building blocks from 1st round draft picks.

The thought process in taking a Jankowski at that spot is that we can possibly attain a Bennett or Monahan level asset at a time would be most valuable to the club, without having a pick that would justify his presence on the roster.

Between Gaudreau and Jankowski, we have 2 possible top 10 calibre players without using or having a draft pick that would otherwise need to be used to acquire one.

Jankowski's progression right now seems to indicate that he may end up being a Joel Otto or Jordan Staal type of third line centre or better. That would allow the team to concentrate on the defensive positions to build. The progression of this one player could be a real indicator of whether this team will be in contention for a Stanley Cup, and that is why everyone cares about his success.

We have Bennett and Monahan as the Gilmour and Neiuwendyk, we need Joel Otto.

Jankowski might be an NHLer but he will never be compared to Joel Otto.

[TheDebaser]

Originally Posted by Fire

Jankowski might be an NHLer but he will never be compared to Joel Otto.

He already has been... Multiple times in this thread.

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by Fire

Jankowski might be an NHLer but he will never be compared to Joel Otto.

It's pointless to speak in absolutes when you don't know how the chips will fall.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

It's pointless to speak in absolutes when you don't know how the chips will fall.

Joel Otto was a very physical centre. Jankowski's game isn't very physical, in fact that's part of his problem. He may overcome it but it's early to compare the two in this way. To me it's kind of like comparing Baertschi to Tie Domi as they are both about the same height.

[MrMastodonFarm]

The comparison speaks to roles.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Jankowski with an assist halfway through tonights game btw, 2-1 Friars so far.
14 points in 17 games.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

The comparison speaks to roles.

So Jankowski's going to be a secondary fighter and take on the Messier equivalent? He may turn out to be a checking line centre but the Otto comparison is out to lunch.

[Murph]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Jankowski with an assist halfway through tonights game btw, 2-1 Friars so far.
14 points in 17 games.

Where do you follow the game/get updates?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So Jankowski's going to be a secondary fighter and take on the Messier equivalent? He may turn out to be a checking line centre but the Otto comparison is out to lunch.

Think you're missing the point.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Think you're missing the point.

Okay, I'll listen, make your point.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Murph

Where do you follow the game/get updates?

@FriarsHockey on Twitter
They'll also tweet out a link to start games that do live updates and scoreboards.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Okay, I'll listen, make your point.

The comparison speaks for roles. Not across the board player comparable. 3rd line support role, similar to Backlund.

The game is pillowy soft compared to the 80s to speak to your point. You need a guy that can skate, be smart, and have a decent ability to produce points on the 3rd line, not a warrior. You're getting hung up on the name Otto, it was a comparison of 3rd line support roles.

I've never once dropped the name Otto in this context but it's pretty obvious that's what some are suggesting.