Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

No one expected Janko to be in the NHL now. That is a horrible evaluation criteria to use to call the pick bad

That isn't the point. The point is knowing how long Janko will take, if he ever makes it, it wasn't a good pick for the Flames. The longer he takes to develop, the more chances he has not to take the next step. Meanwhile 17 other players have already taken the big step, which is huge for a 19 year old.

Another point why it was stupid pick for Feaster is, if it was going to take 5 years to see possible results, there was a good chance he wouldn't be around to enjoy it.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Another point why it was stupid pick for Feaster is, if it was going to take 5 years to see possible results, there was a good chance he wouldn't be around to enjoy it.

That's a reason why I liked the pick at the time and why I still like Feaster. If he was trying to save his own job, he'd have gone with the "safe" pick and/or with someone who was as NHL-ready as possible. Instead, he tried to do what was best for the team rather than worrying about himself. I can only hope our next GM is as willing to put the team's interests over his own.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Anyone know how he looked last night?

Got a point but I'd like to hear beyond that since the game is more then just points.

I watched the game. He was pretty invisible in the first period. I don't know how much ice time he got, but I didn't really notice him. Then, in the second, he drew a penalty going to the net early in the period (the BC announcers said it looked like accidental contact to them, but it looked like a good call to me). He started on the second PP unit, but the first unit didn't seem to be able to get anything going, so Jankowski's line was getting a lot of ice on the PP.

His assist came late in the second. It was just after a penalty expired, so they were still in PP mode. Jankowski dropped back to cover the point while his d-man pinched. The d-man and a BC player got tied up, and Jankowski fished the puck free. The pass wasn't spectacular, but it was a nice hard pass right onto his linemate's stick, which was quickly deflected to their other linemate, who buried it.

In the third, they fell behind early. When it was 3-2, Jankowski got a really good scoring chance, but it either went off the post, or the goalie got a piece of it to send it away (hard to tell on the camera angle they use). Late in the game, after it was already 5-2, he had a partial break and got a nice shot away.

Providence is not a high-octane offence type of team. They play a strong defensive game and capitalize on their chances. The Mauermann line is their undisputed #1 line, but the other three rotate pretty evenly.

One thing I did notice is that he plays in the middle of the ice a lot, and lets his linemates go into the corners and crash the boards. I'd say that Burke's comments about him needing to play a harder game and get into the dirty areas is a fair assessment of his game.

Originally Posted by kehatch

That leaves the Jankowski pick. A guy they drafted out of high school that they only saw a couple of times.

According to what Weisbrod said at the Draft, they had at least one member of the scouting staff watch every game he played after Weisbrod had his fateful drive through the blizzard to watch him play that game. I believe he also said that they had every member of the scouting staff watch at least one game.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by gargamel

That's a reason why I liked the pick at the time and why I still like Feaster. If he was trying to save his own job, he'd have gone with the "safe" pick and/or with someone who was as NHL-ready as possible. Instead, he tried to do what was best for the team rather than worrying about himself. I can only hope our next GM is as willing to put the team's interests over his own.

That's one way to look at it. The other way is that I want a GM who is smart enough to protect his own job. Feaster wasn't. If he can't protect his own job than he won't be in a position to do any good. It's fine to be an altruist but you have to protect yourself first.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by kehatch

I don't think many are saying he is a sure fire bust. I think many people are saying he is progressing at a rate that defends the Flames decision to draft him where they did.

I am disappointed by Jankowski's production this year, but it still seems premature to me to get bent out of shape about it. Jankowski really is a unique player—a one-of-a-kind draft pick, given his history, and because of this, tracking his development by way of comparison to other players (attempting to find similar players) is fraught with problems. I really believe that even if he turns out to be a good NHL player, we will not see it until he is 22 or 23 years old.

Originally Posted by kehatch

So far I am unimpressed with Jankowski and the Flames decision to go off the board the way that they did. Feaster's routine exaggerated sales job didn't help either. A lot of people are expecting boy wonder out of this kid because we were told that is what he is. So far I am not seeing it.

What do you mean by this? Your last sentence doesn't really reflect what I am reading on the board, from even the most optimistic observers. I see a number of posters who like the pick and have high hopes that Jankowski will be a top-six forward in the NHL. These posters see a skill set and potential size combination that has them think he could top-out as a top-line centre. Can you point to anyone who is EXPECTING all of this to happen? Based on what I have seen, everyone has been pretty cautiously optimistic about him, but also recognise that a very high level of patience is required to see this pick through.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Again why do they need prospects to help now? Now isn't important at all

This bears repeating because so far it has gone unaddressed. For those who feel that the Jankowski pick was bad based on the fact that he is surrounded by draft peers who are playing in the NHL this year, why should we care?

When the pick was made, almost all of us recognised that this team was in no position to be competitive again for at least three years, and possibly as many as five or six. Jankowski's long-term developmental track matches the timeline, so why the angst about players who are seeing some success still several years premature?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This bears repeating because so far it has gone unaddressed. For those who feel that the Jankowski pick was bad based on the fact that he is surrounded by draft peers who are playing in the NHL this year, why should we care?

When the pick was made, almost all of us recognised that this team was in no position to be competitive again for at least three years, and possibly as many as five or six. Jankowski's long-term developmental track matches the timeline, so why the angst about players who are seeing some success still several years premature?

Well some of us fans may have had that opinion but it wasn't the goal for Feaster and co. We had just let the main problem Brent go and we still had Iginla and Bowmeester to take another run at the playoffs. We could have used some quicker help, at least according to Feaster who was considering trading that pick for immediate help. That they did a 180 when nothing had changed their teams outlook, made no sense.

The only way this pick would make sense is if a team said lets let one simmer in the oven for a while because we have all these other great picks ready for the show. We didn't and don't.

[Alberta_Beef]

The goal at the draft is not to improve your team now, so it doesn't matter if Feaster wanted to be competitive the next day or 10 years from then.

When you are drafting you draft the BPA according to your teams list. This does not mean drafting the quickest guy to the NHL, it means drafting the player who's you feel will have the greatest impact at the NHL level. It's not the greatest impact in 2 years, or the greatest impact in 5 years. It would be the greatest impact though the players entire career.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

The goal at the draft is not to improve your team now, so it doesn't matter if Feaster wanted to be competitive the next day or 10 years from them.

When you are drafting you draft the BPA according to your teams list. This does not mean drafting the quickest guy to the NHL, it means drafting the player who's you feel will have the greatest impact at the NHL level. It's not the greatest impact in 2 years, or the greatest impact in 5 years. It would be the greatest impact though the players entire career.

and a good indicator of BPA, is where they are now. I'm not arguing that a team should never take on a project, I'm arguing in our situation and looking at the picks that were available, we made a poor choice. I look at the Janko pick as taking as long for results and having the probability of success as drafting a goalie. Anybody think we should have drafted a goalie with our 1st if he was the BPA?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

and a good indicator of BPA, is where they are now.

NO IT'S NOT.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

...still talking about who has an hasn't played in the NHL is pretty poor argument. Burmistov was drafted in 2010, played in the 2010-2011 season but he's in the KHL now. Even if he wasn't a flight risk and Winnipeg was actually using him improperly, no one would take him over Schwartz and Tarasenko in St. Louis today. Yet they didn't play until the 2012-2013 season, 2 years after Burmistov.

Paarjavi was drafted in 2009 and played in the 2010-2011 season but at this point Kreider, who was also 2009, is looking much much better despite this being his rookie NHL season.

Josh Bailey was drafted in 2008, played the entire 2008-2009 season. While Erik Karlsson, drafted the same year, didn't touch NHL ice until the 2009-2010 season and Pietrangelo first real season was 2010-2011.

Playing in the NHL before another prospect isn't the best indicator of determining who's the better prospect. Making an actual impact in the NHL is a bit different.

Not that I'm saying anything about Jankowski, just that making the NHL earlier isn't always the biggest decider.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not arguing that a team should never take on a project, I'm arguing in our situation and looking at the picks that were available, we made a poor choice. I look at the Janko pick as taking as long for results and having the probability of success as drafting a goalie. Anybody think we should have drafted a goalie with our 1st if he was the BPA?

I think the problem is that goalies are seldom the best player available in the first round, and furthermore, present a higher risk factor because their own development is so specialised. It's a good comparison with regards to the timeframe, but a poor comparison beyond this because Jankowski is a forward, and because of the several other factors that make the pick unique.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

NO IT'S NOT.




I think the problem is that goalies are seldom the best player available in the first round, and furthermore, present a higher risk factor because their own development is so specialised. It's a good comparison with regards to the timeframe, but a poor comparison beyond this because Jankowski is a forward, and because of the several other factors that make the pick unique.

You notice he ends his post with this.

Not that I'm saying anything about Jankowski, just that making the NHL earlier isn't always the biggest decider.

So your absolute statement doesn't stand up. Sure there are exceptions to the rule and sure all players don't develop on the same time line, but as I said, "a good indicator of BPA, is where they are now." That to me is the first thing I look at. Second would be potential for growth but if they weren't very good to begin with or playing in a third rate league by choice, why would they even get a look.

So you're saying goalies are specialized but Jankowski is unique. I don't see a lot of difference.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So your absolute statement doesn't stand up.

Prove it.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Sure there are exceptions to the rule and sure all players don't develop on the same time line, but as I said, "a good indicator of BPA, is where they are now."

Is "now" always a good indicator? I don't think so. "Now" if we are talking about a draft that happened three or four years ago would seem to always be a good indicator of the best player available. "Now" relative to to players that were drafted 18 months ago is clearly not, as OR's post shows. Again, IT IS TOO EARLY TO BE MAKING DECLARATIONS ABOUT THE BPA FROM THE 2012 DRAFT.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Prove it.


Is "now" always a good indicator? I don't think so. "Now" if we are talking about a draft that happened three or four years ago would seem to always be a good indicator of the best player available. "Now" relative to to players that were drafted 18 months ago is clearly not, as OR's post shows. Again, IT IS TOO EARLY TO BE MAKING DECLARATIONS ABOUT THE BPA FROM THE 2012 DRAFT.

You're really getting exasperated and lost sight of the fact that you're the one who made the statement so the onus is on you to prove it.

Look, I haven't made any declarations, I've offered my opinions.

Even at the 2014 draft, we'll be looking first at where the player is now in comparison to his peers. If he isn't any good, we won't be looking at him. This is where Jankowski becomes a gamble, he couldn't be compared to his peers. After that we'll look at potential which gets into trying to forecast the future. We can make educated guesses but in my mind that's getting into god's territory or if you're a gambler maybe try the racetrack.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You're really getting exasperated and lost sight of the fact that you're the one who made the statement so the onus is on you to prove it.

I think that my reference drawn to the 2007 draft and OR's post that I linked above fairly effectively shows that making the NHL is not a good indicator of the best player available after only 18 months or 2 years of the draft in question. I haven't seen anything from you to challenge this argument.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Look, I haven't made any declarations, I've offered my opinions.

"...a good indicator of BPA, is where they are now," IS A DECLARATION, and one that is fraught with problems, as I and others have shown.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Even at the 2014 draft, we'll be looking first at where the player is now in comparison to his peers...

Of course we will, but it would be foolish (as it ALWAYS is) to start making declarations about who was and who was not the best player available in the 2014 draft based on such an incredibly pre-mature collection of data. Once again, IT'S TOO EARLY.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I am high on Jankowski and love the pick, but it is because I am buying what Feaster was peddling? You may not like the pick, but don't try and rationalize that the only reason I (or others) like it is because we drank Feaster's Kool-aid.

I like Jankowski regardless of what Feaster had to say about him. Why? Because I read the scouting reports. I watch the occasional game when I can. I watch whatever highlights are available. I watched him in 2 prospect camps. I like to read what others write down about him who have been able to follow him better. I base my 'like' for the pick on a variety of factors, and NONE of them have anything to do at all with Feaster.

How about I just turn the argument around and say: "The only fathomable reason someone wouldn't like the Jankowski pick was because they don't like Feaster."

How true would that be for you? Ridiculous argument, wouldn't you agree?

There are some very good reasons to really like Jankowski. There are some really good reasons not to like him either. I can understand both sides. However, Feaster is not a reason to support either side.

You are seriously getting this defensive over what I wrote? I don't know you at all so my comments certainly aren't directed by you. But the overwhelming consensus following the selection was that people HATED the pick. A few Feaster speeches later many were applauding it. Generally the same people touting "intellectual honesty". You may not drink the Koolaid, but many did.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am disappointed by Jankowski's production this year, but it still seems premature to me to get bent out of shape about it. Jankowski really is a unique player—a one-of-a-kind draft pick, given his history, and because of this, tracking his development by way of comparison to other players (attempting to find similar players) is fraught with problems. I really believe that even if he turns out to be a good NHL player, we will not see it until he is 22 or 23 years old.


What do you mean by this? Your last sentence doesn't really reflect what I am reading on the board, from even the most optimistic observers. I see a number of posters who like the pick and have high hopes that Jankowski will be a top-six forward in the NHL. These posters see a skill set and potential size combination that has them think he could top-out as a top-line centre. Can you point to anyone who is EXPECTING all of this to happen? Based on what I have seen, everyone has been pretty cautiously optimistic about him, but also recognise that a very high level of patience is required to see this pick through.

Why is Jankowski so unique? Because he played in high school? He was unique when we drafted him. Now he is a second year college student now. He should be judged against other second year college student's.

I am not writing him off. But he hasn't progressed to the point that you would expect given the time he has had. Both in terms of point production and in his play. He has been pretty terrible for a large chunk of the season.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think that my reference drawn to the 2007 draft and OR's post that I linked above fairly effectively shows that making the NHL is not a good indicator of the best player available after only 18 months or 2 years of the draft in question. I haven't seen anything from you to challenge this argument.


"...a good indicator of BPA, is where they are now," IS A DECLARATION, and one that is fraught with problems, as I and others have shown.


Of course we will, but it would be foolish (as it ALWAYS is) to start making declarations about who was and who was not the best player available in the 2014 draft based on such an incredibly pre-mature collection of data. Once again, IT'S TOO EARLY.

If we didn't pick the BPA at the time, second round picks would be worth as much as 1st round picks, etc. That things change is a given but it's the best we have, and has a track record. As for your reference all it shows is some anomalies.

You've shown nothing.

I'm not declaring who is the best pick from 2012 or 2014. I'm looking at where they are now and making my opinion known. If you don't like it that's your problem.

This is like during the Iraq war and someone saying it was too early to say if Bush is a good president or not. IMO it was pretty obvious at the time that he was a liar and a lousy president. Some things you don't have to wait ten years to arrive at an opinion.

"...a good indicator of BPA, is where they are now," IS A DECLARATION, and one that is fraught with problems, as I and others have shown.

Some things are just self evident but I'll play, what would you base your pick upon? You like the cut of their jib?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by fotze

So with Jankowski you just can't evaluate the pick for 4 years? Just ignore everything for 4 years. Can you guys let us know what day we can start evaluating it?

Start doing it now, it's what I'm doing. But evaluate him on how he was in his draft year compared to last year, this season compared to last season, this month compared to last month. Which makes sense not only for Jankowski but for all players.

Next season should be a big year. Ross Mauermann will have graduated, Jankowski should be moved into the top line, playing with the best wingers in Providence and as getbak pointed out that team tends to lean on it's top players mostly. Jankowski will be a 20 year old junior, he's been doing a lot of learning this season and (especially) last.

I think the junior season is the one a lot of people have pointed to as the biggest one development wise. He'll be put into a consistent offensive role but should have all the defensive and two-way tools he's been taught this year.

I know we all tend to look at the scoresheet and I'm as guilty of that as anyone but a lot more to the game then that.

My problem with the pick as it sits now is it is eerily following the Chucko path. I followed his progress in Minnesota and it feels like the same thing. I hope I am wrong

The first season? Yeah, maybe. Chucko didn't have near the jump to make as Jankowski did. Going from Junior A to College is normal, going from High School Hockey to College isn't. Chucko never had skating, Jankowski does. Chucko's biggest knock was that he never was the one pushing his offense, played with Zajac in the BCHL... if you've watched Friars games you know Jankowski is creating his chances. Jankowski is 4th on his teams scoring in his sophomore year, Chucko was 16th.

[GGG]

Also even if Jankowski busts and never plays another game in the NHL doesnt mean he was the wrong pick. He was always a high risk high reward pick. So if the players around him cap out at bottom 6, bottom pairing defensemen and Janko never plays an NHL game then he was likely the right pick.

Im also not a fan of comparing him to Matta as the cp concensus alternatvie was Terruvinan at the time. Matta really didnt come up in the CP conversations about who should have been picked.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by fotze

So with Jankowski you just can't evaluate the pick for 4 years? Just ignore everything for 4 years. Can you guys let us know what day we can start evaluating it?

This is not at all what I have been saying. I have in fact noted in an earlier post that I am disappointed by Jankowski's production this season. I expected more. However, what I have been saying is that it is too early to be making declarations about who was the best player available in the draft.

Originally Posted by fotze

It is too early to make declarations (no one is doing that anyway) but we will evaluate the pick every day ongoing. If I had the information I had today regarding Jankowski and the others around that point, I would have chosen someone else. My problem with the pick as it sits now is it is eerily following the Chucko path. I followed his progress in Minnesota and it feels like the same thing. I hope I am wrong.

Agreed, but I hold out hope with Jankowski that his skill set is not what is holding him back. Chucko's problem was that he was a poor skater with average hands who looked pretty good playing on a line with Travis Zajac. Jankowski so far has not had ANY help inflating his production.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

That's one way to look at it. The other way is that I want a GM who is smart enough to protect his own job. Feaster wasn't. If he can't protect his own job than he won't be in a position to do any good. It's fine to be an altruist but you have to protect yourself first.

No. My gm needs to understand that unless his name is ken holland or Lou lamoriello he's going to be fired at some point. His job is to do what's best for the organization. Rather than bow to some misguided 'win now' directive, he did what he thought was best for his team long term.

When a GM tries to 'protect his job', fans blink and notice Stajan, White, Mayers and Hagman are sitting at the end of the bench.