I'm not even a Colborne fan, but I think we'd be lucky if Jankowski turned into a Colborne. Colborne was a PPG in his second year in College. Their team was a good scoring team, but not outrageous and their total goals were in line with a large number of teams in their conference.
Points aren't everything, but an NHL bound college player should produce, and this kid doesn't.
I have seen Jankowski play several times this year and last year...I do agree that he has improved. I do not agree that his upside is anywhere near the NHL. People can downplay offensive impact all they want but look around college hockey over the years and you aren't going to find many guys who made it in any role to the NHL and weren't putting up at least solid point totals. There are a lot of guys I have seen in college hockey at the same age and size range who were far more impactful players who never sniffed the NHL.
Of course I hope I'm wrong. And I wouldn't be totally surprised if he developed into a solid depth player in the NHL given his steep curve and draft position.
Knowing Stanstead College quite well and having coached at that level for a long time, it is still beyond comprehension to me how anyone can project a player from there with such high confidence to select in the first round. People questioned drafting guys like Turris, Zajac, Chucko out of the BCHL and even that is questionable in my mind to project (it is a level below US College) but that league is way way better than where Jankowski was picked out of.
No offensive, but I'm going to go ahead and take the opinion of professional scouts over someone who says "There's no way he makes the NHL even if he develops perfectly, but I wouldn't be surprised if he makes the NHL."
His upside is absolutely that of an NHL regular. I think it's a long shot, but to say even his upside isn't NHL bound shows you don't really pay attention to the player.
The Following User Says Thank You to strombad For This Useful Post:
Chris Kreider was drafted out of MN high school; put up ok numbers in his first two seasons at BC, then took off in his third year before turning pro. He averaged 0.67 pts per game in his first two college years. A little better than Jankowski's 0.57pts/game, but he did that in a very deep program with many good college players
Kevin Hayes was also drafted out of high school; went to BC and had a couple of average college seasons before producing last year, and really taking off this year. In fact Hayes first two seasons at BC are about the same as what Jankowski has done in his first two years. Hayes is now considered among the best players in college hockey, for what thats worth
No offensive, but I'm going to go ahead and take the opinion of professional scouts over someone who says "There's no way he makes the NHL even if he develops perfectly, but I wouldn't be surprised if he makes the NHL."
His upside is absolutely that of an NHL regular. I think it's a long shot, but to say even his upside isn't NHL bound shows you don't really pay attention to the player.
I'm not getting into the debate on whether he is or isn't making the NHL as I'm not sure, but I wouldn't rest my judgement of that on the scout who's responsible for it.
Ask yourself this: Would Button have said he doesn't think Jankowski will amount to much if he thought so? No way in hell he would. In fact, he was going to say good things no matter what
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
I'm not getting into the debate on whether he is or isn't making the NHL as I'm not sure, but I wouldn't rest my judgement of that on the scout who's responsible for it.
Ask yourself this: Would Button have said he doesn't think Jankowski will amount to much if he thought so? No way in hell he would. In fact, he was going to say good things no matter what
It doesn't matter if he drafted him or not. Fact is, Todd Button drafted him in the first round with the belief that he would be an NHL player. I don't expect him to change his tune, but I will still take the opinion of a professional who used a first round pick on him over a poster who coached hockey once.
As I said, there isn't any offence meant by it, but you'd have to be daft to say his upside isn't even that of an NHLer.
It doesn't matter if he drafted him or not. Fact is, Todd Button drafted him in the first round with the belief that he would be an NHL player. I don't expect him to change his tune, but I will still take the opinion of a professional who used a first round pick on him over a poster who coached hockey once.
As I said, there isn't any offence meant by it, but you'd have to be daft to say his upside isn't even that of an NHLer.
Haha. No offense, but you're daft
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
It doesn't matter if he drafted him or not. Fact is, Todd Button drafted him in the first round with the belief that he would be an NHL player. I don't expect him to change his tune, but I will still take the opinion of a professional who used a first round pick on him over a poster who coached hockey once.
As I said, there isn't any offence meant by it, but you'd have to be daft to say his upside isn't even that of an NHLer.
Jankowski was Weisbrod and Feaster, but mainly Weisbrod. I think that's pretty clear. Obviously Button is suspect for his history, but I think he's blameless on this one. I think he's just waving the company flag on this one.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Hmm no one else excited about Sutter working with Poirer ?
Those of us old enough to have seen the Sutter clan play should be
thanks OP for a great find
It doesn't matter if he drafted him or not. Fact is, Todd Button drafted him in the first round with the belief that he would be an NHL player. I don't expect him to change his tune, but I will still take the opinion of a professional who used a first round pick on him over a poster who coached hockey once.
As I said, there isn't any offence meant by it, but you'd have to be daft to say his upside isn't even that of an NHLer.
I appreciate the opinion of someone who has watched him play. There aren't many here who have.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Henry Fool For This Useful Post:
I have to admit I am not an expert, but is anyone else a bit skeptical that Gudreau will transate his college success to the NHL?
Burke says we gotta surround him with beef. Ideally I'd say a power forward Ferland/Colborne perhaps along with Arnold. If for whatever reason he doesn't play with Arnold, stick an enforcer with him (Macdermid/Westgarth/McGrats)
if he can let the beef do the beefin, I'm sure he'll be quick and skilled enough to break through for scoring chances.
__________________
Until the Flames make the Western Finals again, this signature shall remain frozen.
Not to mention he's going to be playing the massively sized Pacific division with Beefy teams like LA, ANA, SJ and PHX circling around. Many of those games are grind-em out types. Gaudreau certainly isn't built for that and I just don't see him excelling in the Western Conference, let alone our division. He's going to have to scratch and claw to have any semblance of success in this league. He's not going to be able to dance around defencemen like he can in college. He's literally going to HAVE to be a top 6 forward, or he's a bust.
Then again, I read reports about he is the exception to the rule (ala St. Louis & Fleury) and I have hope. I really wish I had a time machine so I could go forward 5 years and see exactly how he will do. I haven't seen an intriguing prospect like Gaudreau in a long time. All the odds stacked against him...yet the potential to be an absolute star. Time will tell.
Gaudreau is such a tease. Extremely skilled, if he was 6"0 he'd be talked about as a top pick but it's so hard to project how well small players will translate to the NHL. If he translates seamlessly he could very well be Patrick Kane 2.0 , but the realist in me would be happy with a Tyler Ennis type IF he makes it as a NHL regular.
Gaudreau is such a tease. Extremely skilled, if he was 6"0 he'd be talked about as a top pick but it's so hard to project how well small players will translate to the NHL. If he translates seamlessly he could very well be Patrick Kane 2.0 , but the realist in me would be happy with a Tyler Ennis type IF he makes it as a NHL regular.
Kane is 5'11" and Gudreau is 5'7". 4" is a big difference.
The Following User Says Thank You to the_only_turek_fan For This Useful Post:
Not to mention he's going to be playing the massively sized Pacific division with Beefy teams like LA, ANA, SJ and PHX circling around. Many of those games are grind-em out types. Gaudreau certainly isn't built for that and I just don't see him excelling in the Western Conference, let alone our division. He's going to have to scratch and claw to have any semblance of success in this league. He's not going to be able to dance around defencemen like he can in college. He's literally going to HAVE to be a top 6 forward, or he's a bust.
Then again, I read reports about he is the exception to the rule (ala St. Louis & Fleury) and I have hope. I really wish I had a time machine so I could go forward 5 years and see exactly how he will do. I haven't seen an intriguing prospect like Gaudreau in a long time. All the odds stacked against him...yet the potential to be an absolute star. Time will tell.
He'll play as much against those teams as Kane has the past 5 years which I can't recall Kane ever getting absolutely cracked.
Kane is bigger than Gaudreau, however they're both elusive to the same degree in my opinion. Size matters if you're taking hits often which he doesn't.
Guess time will tell but i'm extremely excited. It's hard not to be
If you watch this video, they list Kane at 5'10, 160lbs (most draft measures seem to have him a 5'9.5"). Really not tremendously different than Gaudreau who's listed at 5'8, 158lbs on the BC site. He'll fill out and be similar in size to Kane (maybe slighter smaller and lighter). Kane also did one rep on the bench press at the combine... about as weak as you come.
Kane is 5'11" and Gudreau is 5'7". 4" is a big difference.
Like how St.Louis is listed as 5"8? Kane is 5"10 max, probably smaller. However the point was if his skill translates seamlessly he has the potential of a mini Patrick Kane.
