I really like the Jankowski pick. How many 6'3"+ centers are available in any draft year with his ceiling? Yes, gamble for sure, but guys of his stature + skill are very difficult to find I think. Isn't he at 6'4" now or something?
I had a rollercoaster of emotions watching the draft.. seeing Teravainen available when the Flames picked, and then the announcement they were trading down - furious! When they picked Jankowski, I was thrilled! Totally forgot about him while I was fixated on watching Grigorenko dropping (and praying), and then watching Teravainen being available.
It is about time the Flames took a bit of a gamble on a guy with that ceiling. If he pans out, this guy can be a 'franchise player', and something you just can't trade for without a ridiculous cost. He has the size for the NHL (well, at least if he fills out) so there is at least a decent chance he could at least be a 'warm body' in the NHL one day, rather than having someone who is 'top 6 or bust'.
I really like Teravainen, but I think I am happier with the Jankowski pick, even though it has more of a gamble - but I think it has more upside. Count me in as one of the guys who doesn't think Teravainen will become a 1st line center (or perhaps, even a center at all). Time will tell for both of these guys, and I am sure they will always be compared to one another by Flames fans.
If you think about it, he has really excelled this year - exploded in growth and thus probably still getting used to his size (probably a bit 'clumsy' like most people after a huge spurt), came from playing non-systems hockey, not used to the quality of competition, not used to the age of competition (and size/strength) and probably had poor coaching for years. Puts things into perspective. Though it still is a gamble, SO FAR it seems to be working out!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
Not sure he has any higher ceiling than other guys chosen in the top 2 rounds and maybe even after that.
A mythical ceiling might sound nice when trying to justify a pick or get overly excited about a guy but I would prefer a guy that has that made up ceiling along with showing a lot of talent as well.
The Following User Says Thank You to moon For This Useful Post:
Not sure he has any higher ceiling than other guys chosen in the top 2 rounds and maybe even after that..
I don't really see your point here. You think every player has the same ceiling? I can assure you this isn't true, and it defies the logic that every scout uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moon
A mythical ceiling might sound nice when trying to justify a pick or get overly excited about a guy but I would prefer a guy that has that made up ceiling along with showing a lot of talent as well.
That sounds exactly like Jankowski. Lots of talent and a high ceiling
I don't really see your point here. You think every player has the same ceiling? I can assure you this isn't true, and it defies the logic that every scout uses.
Main point is that the concept of ceiling is pretty much BS. Scott Laughton has played better and in better leagues yet Jankowski is supposed to have some BS higher ceiling because he hasn't played at the level yet so we don't know what he can do?
How many people said that Weber had a higher ceiling than most guys in his draft year?
Ceiling seems like a nice buzz word to overrate guys but in reality it is based on nothing more than gut feelings and should be low, low on the list of ranking prospects.
Quote:
That sounds exactly like Jankowski. Lots of talent and a high ceiling
Haven't seen anything to indicate a lot of talent but sure he does have that made up high ceiling.
Just to give you guys an idea of what kind of hands Big Janks has.
That was a 6'3 guy doing some Johnny Hockey kinda stick work in tight right there, pretty impressive to say the least.
I could see him really breaking out points-wise in his sophomore season.
Looks like Jagr there.
Also made a sick pass preceding that play too, coming out off the half wall, passing it back and to the right against his body onto the tape of a teammate coming from the corner.
Edit: Also, he's able to steal that puck back because of solid defensive positioning high in the offensive zone. Neat video.
Main point is that the concept of ceiling is pretty much BS.
Nope it isn't. There are some guys like Manny Malhotra in his draft year that didn't have a high ceiling. He was projected as a great 3rd line centre. His top end would have been a 2nd liner if he had exceeded expectations. And yet he was taken top 10. Another example is Eric Nystrom. He was seen a having an upside of being an elite 3rd liner. That isn't a high "ceiling".
A guy like Semin on the other hand had a higher ceiling because of his skill but may have been seen as riskier because of size/defensive play/russian factor. Smaller guys like Giroux and Pierre Marc-Bouchard had high ceilings due to skill but their size was a question mark. One achieved his high ceiling.
Ceiling and likelihood of turning out are not BS concepts. Not sure why you are trying to dismiss one.
Jankowski has a high ceiling because he has the skill/skating/size to be a 1st line centre. Whether he will fulfill that is yet to be seen. But he certainly has a higher "ceiling" than a guy like Bill Arnold no? He has a higher "ceiling" than a guy like Lance Bouma no?
Pretty easy concept to grasp. Not sure why you are trying to go all Moon on it and denying its existence.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Well what happens to the concept of ceiling when a guy like Malhotra exceeds what is expected?
I think it us for the most part a garbage label put on guys who have big questions to try and make picks/prospects look better.
This seems to be especially true is Jankowski who hasn't shown a ton but has so many questions that people throw high ceiling behind his name to try and justify things.
He has shown 0 to indicate that his ceiling us better than a Scott Laughton or Brendan Gaunce.
Well what happens to the concept of ceiling when a guy like Malhotra exceeds what is expected?
I think it us for the most part a garbage label put on guys who have big questions to try and make picks/prospects look better.
This seems to be especially true is Jankowski who hasn't shown a ton but has so many questions that people throw high ceiling behind his name to try and justify things.
He has shown 0 to indicate that his ceiling us better than a Scott Laughton or Brendan Gaunce.
I thought I made it clear. Malhotra was expected to be an elite 3rd line centre. His ceiling would be a 2nd line centre if he exceeded expectations. Thus his ceiling would not be as high as a guy who has 1st line upside.
It is not a "garbage label." It helps to distinguish which prospects have 1st line upside, 2nd line upside, etc. Most of our prospects do not have 1st line upside. The few that do are Baertschi, Gaudreau and Jankowski. Those are our prospects with high ceilings. It appears you do not understand why the concept is important. I guess we'll move on.
Jankowski has shown some of this, you just haven't been watching.
Well what happens to the concept of ceiling when a guy like Malhotra exceeds what is expected?
I think it us for the most part a garbage label put on guys who have big questions to try and make picks/prospects look better.
This seems to be especially true is Jankowski who hasn't shown a ton but has so many questions that people throw high ceiling behind his name to try and justify things.
He has shown 0 to indicate that his ceiling us better than a Scott Laughton or Brendan Gaunce.
Malholtra was a top 10 pick, I am pretty sure he did not exceed expectations with his career best 35 point season.
I realize that you find it impossible to believe that any decent prospect could ever come out of the NCAA, but Jankowski is a decent prospect. He is putting up similar numbers to what a Brock Nelson did in his first year at UND, and Nelson would be considered a pretty good prospect by most hockey observers right now. He is putting up similar numbers to what Chris Kreider did at Boston College and most people would say that Kreider is a decent prospect. He is putting up similar numbers to what Kyle Palmieri did at Notre Dame and a lot of people would consider Palmieri a decent prospect.
Now he has not proven himself at a "higher level" like Greg Nemisz did, but the guy is still a pretty good prospect.
The Following User Says Thank You to EddyBeers For This Useful Post:
Still, gaining what looks to be a solid 2nd round pick with our Jankowski pick seems like it's still a pretty solid move in my books.
Agreed. You have to look at Jankowski vs other Cs, but also Jankowski plus Sieloff.
Sieloff appears to be doing well in Windsor. Impressed the USA juniors brass enough to make the team and played a significant role on the PK winning gold. And Windsor faltered when he was away.
I think the idea of a "high ceiling" applies to Jankowski for the following reasons: 1) He has obviously not filled out, physically. 2) He was young for his draft year. 3) He hadn't played at a level that was up to the standards others his age did.
This doesn't mean he'll be the next Joe Thornton, but I can justify the risk for the pick.
__________________
You’ll find that empty vessels make the most sound.
-Johnny Rotten
Malholtra was a top 10 pick, I am pretty sure he did not exceed expectations with his career best 35 point season.
I realize that you find it impossible to believe that any decent prospect could ever come out of the NCAA, but Jankowski is a decent prospect. He is putting up similar numbers to what a Brock Nelson did in his first year at UND, and Nelson would be considered a pretty good prospect by most hockey observers right now. He is putting up similar numbers to what Chris Kreider did at Boston College and most people would say that Kreider is a decent prospect. He is putting up similar numbers to what Kyle Palmieri did at Notre Dame and a lot of people would consider Palmieri a decent prospect.
Now he has not proven himself at a "higher level" like Greg Nemisz did, but the guy is still a pretty good prospect.
Excellent post. I always wonder why fans put a higher rating on guys who play junior, European Leagues etc., than young players who choose the NCAA route. If memory serves me I think some junior hockey teams have played exhibition games against NCAA/CIS teams in the past and almost always lose to them based on tougher competition than they are used to. In fact don't the Oilers rookies play the UofA every year and get beat?
As a fan if you don't like the pick because you had another favourite player, just say so, don't try to disparrage a guy because "you" know how they will be 2-3 years down the road. I am happy the Flames took Janko, he is what the team identified that they don't have enough of, big centermen with skill
Jankowski is high-risk, hopefully high-reward.
In a perfect world, Jankowski joins the Flames in a few years as a 6-5 centre with sick hands and good skating ability. I'd take him over Teuvo Teravainen. I wish the Flames could've grabbed Grigorenko though.
Jankowski will be the litmus test for our organizations ability to develop prospects. It could easily be argued that he hasn't faced the caliber of opponents that WHL prospects face, however he's shown that he does have skill and he definitely has physical assets that won't limit his potential.
Jankowski will be the litmus test for our organizations ability to develop prospects. It could easily be argued that he hasn't faced the caliber of opponents that WHL prospects face, however he's shown that he does have skill and he definitely has physical assets that won't limit his potential.
I just hope we don't wreck him.
He has played well against teams that are better than most WHL teams this year, so I think his risk factor has gone down a lot since the draft.
The risk factor was highest because of where he was drafted from, if you look at his skill-set it doesn't scream risky pick. Good size, skating, and hockey sense.
