I mean Backlund as a 3rd line centre is not what we drafted him to be, but he is damn good at that.
That's not a role he's played in the last two years...
We're in a playoff spot with Backlund as a 2nd line center.
I don't think it's out of the question for some teams to be looking at Mark Jankowski and still thinking "This guy could be a top 6 forward for us in a few years" It's pretty much insane to have what we have besides Jankowski down the middle:
A guy who's an above average to elite 1st line center (Moneyhands)
A prospect who projects as an above average to elite 1st line center (Bennett)
Two guys who're above-average 2nd line centers (Backlund / Hudler)
Another guy who could find himself successful as a 2nd line center (Shore)
Some more very promising 3rd line centers with the IQ and skill to play up in the lineup as wingers (Granlund / Colborne / Arnold / Jooris / Byron)
A vet who's an above average 3rd line center and has gotten Selke votes before (Stajan)
A guy who's played a ton of center and has settled in as an above average 3rd line winger (Bouma)
A guy with all the ability to be an average 3rd/4th line center (Max Reinhart)
That... that right there is just.. it's just absurd. It shouldn't take away from Mark Jankowski at all because when he was drafted, the only guys we had from the above were Hudler, Backlund, Arnold and Granlund. The latter two were 19 and 18 at the time I think, Backlund was just getting his feet wet, and Hudler's found more success on the top line wings.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Last edited by GranteedEV; 03-14-2015 at 07:53 PM.
Is Jankowski a bust as a first round draft pick? I can not see how anyone could argue he is not a bust. That of course is based on projections of him becoming the best player out of that draft!
Why would we base his success on these projections?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chubeyr1
A few years back I would of said, and still do say Backlund was a bust too. He seriously is a bust.
Backhand is presently the 14th most productive player from the 2007 entry draft, and he was selected with the #24 pick. There was a lot of unrealistic hope at the time of the draft because of the Flames dearth of quality prospects and minor-leaguers, but under no circumstances, and by any metric can one conclude that Backlund has not become a successful NHL player. The goal with the draft should be to select future successful NHL players. The goal in the first round should be to select players that will be integral to your team in the future. Backlund is just about the furthest thing from a "bust" imaginable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chubeyr1
Take that all with a grain of salt...
This post of yours requires a truckload of salt—not a grain—to make any sense. And even then, I'm not sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chubeyr1
Just cause a player does not live up to their potential does not mean they can not become a very good player or at least serviceable player. I mean Backlund as a 3rd line centre is not what we drafted him to be, but he is damn good at that.
For well over a calendar year now Backlund has been playing as a better than average second line centre. And I disagree vehemently that he failed to "live up to his potential." Sure, like I said above, fans had unrealistic expectations of him when he was drafted. Backlund at the time had above average skills, speed, and smarts, but didn't do anything exceptionally. He had suffered injuries that affected his draft position, and raised concerns about his ability to be an NHL player. For where he was selected, I suspect that most scouts/team analysts projected him to be a quality—if unspectacular—NHL centreman. This is precisely what he has become. No. Backlund is not a bust—not by any measure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chubeyr1
Jankowski on the third line in a few years maybe great in a shut down role with some skill from time to time.
I guess the word "Bust" needs to be defined more! Bust should be a guy who never has an NHL career.
You should have applied this to the first part of your post. I'm fairly confident that the vast majority of observers as fans actually agree with this as a definition, and by extension would find most of what you have said to this point preposterous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chubeyr1
...I just thank god Sutter no longer drafts us players. Great coach, horrible at evaluating talent.
Sutter selected Backlund, Brodie, Bouma, as well as Ferland and Ortio. He is not "horrible" at evaluating talent. He was operating under a different set of criteria for drafting players that didn't work very well. I will concede that he is not a great scout for talent, and his drafting was not excellent, but it was also far from "horrible."
...Having said all that, I'm still optimistic about Jankowski, and hope to see him and the Flames agree to a contract next year. There is still a good chance that he does not play well enough as a senior to get a contract offer, or that he is traded before hitting UFA next year. I have always maintained that this was a good pick to make for a team like the Flames, who needed an infusion of high-end talent, but in a fairly uninspiring draft year. The potential made the gamble worth it, in my opinion. But like all gambles, some don't work out. It looks probable that Jankowski will not end up being the best player in the 2012 draft—also likely that he will not be a top-line centre. But at this point, if he becomes a serviceable NHLer, then this is not a bad pick for the Flames. Like all mid-round first rounders, there is always the very high likelihood that the player will never become a star.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Is Jankowski a bust as a first round draft pick? I can not see how anyone could argue he is not a bust. That of course is based on projections of him becoming the best player out of that draft!
A few years back I would of said, and still do say Backlund was a bust too. He seriously is a bust.
Take that all with a grain of salt. Just cause a player does not live up to their potential does not mean they can not become a very good player or at least serviceable player. I mean Backlund as a 3rd line centre is not what we drafted him to be, but he is damn good at that.
Jankowski on the third line in a few years maybe great in a shut down role with some skill from time to time.
I guess the word "Bust" needs to be defined more! Bust should be a guy who never has an NHL career.
The draft is a crap shoot, more picks you have the better. At 18 one player may look great, but at 21 he does not continue to develop like the guys that were behind him in his draft year. Like Shea Weber versus Dion Phaneuf. Weber is the way better Dman select later than Phaneuf. It happens!
I just thank god Sutter no longer drafts us players. Great coach, horrible at evaluating talent.
I say Jankowski is a potato. I have my own definition of a potato and that is what he is.
Backlubd is the colour magenta.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
I agree that some people expect way too much from some of our prospects. I think of the first round as 3 rounds in itself. top third I hope for a top line player, middle third a 2nd liner, bottom third a 3rd liner. Sure some outliers will exist in both directs but it keeps my expectations a little more grounded.
You draft players because you want them to play in the National Hockey League. The earlier the pick, the more you hope them to be able to play in the league. (If not the more you EXPECT them to.)
Roles don't really matter that much if they can be productive players for your organization.
is jankowski a bust as a first round draft pick? I can not see how anyone could argue he is not a bust. That of course is based on projections of him becoming the best player out of that draft!
A few years back i would of said, and still do say backlund was a bust too. He seriously is a bust.
Take that all with a grain of salt. Just cause a player does not live up to their potential does not mean they can not become a very good player or at least serviceable player. I mean backlund as a 3rd line centre is not what we drafted him to be, but he is damn good at that.
Jankowski on the third line in a few years maybe great in a shut down role with some skill from time to time.
I guess the word "bust" needs to be defined more! Bust should be a guy who never has an nhl career.
The draft is a crap shoot, more picks you have the better. At 18 one player may look great, but at 21 he does not continue to develop like the guys that were behind him in his draft year. Like shea weber versus dion phaneuf. Weber is the way better dman select later than phaneuf. It happens!
I just thank god sutter no longer drafts us players. Great coach, horrible at evaluating talent.
nm
Last edited by ben voyonsdonc; 03-15-2015 at 02:22 PM.
I don't think Jankowski is a bust exactly, but I think it's unlikely that we'll ever get a second rounder for him through trade. At a certain point I question whether or not the Flames would be better off getting a second round pick for him and then instantly flipping the second rounder for a better player/prospect. Of course we still have his entire senior year to see whether or not he can prove to the organization that he has more value than the second rounder would.
I will argue that if people are judging Jankowski simply on his PPG, they aren't being fair to him. Is he worth a 2nd round pick? Would that be a fair trade?
I don't know about most people, but I would rather keep the 6'4" 200lb (and growing) center prospect who skates very well, who plays a very solid 200ft game, and to quote his coach (who by the way, has a very big reputation within the NCAA) "The best forward for us" saying this more than once. All at the tender age of 20.
Everyone has to remember that he was selected as a PROJECT. This means that he was at least 3 years away from turning pro - if not 4-5 years.
The most important questions people should be asking when thinking about projects is:
"What is his ceiling? Is it potentially worth the wait?"
"What are his weaknesses? How big of a chance is there that the kid busts, given that he needs so much more time to develop?"
So, what was his ceiling? A top 6 center - top line center amongst some scouts. Is that worth waiting for? I think so. There was only one other top line potential center available at the Flames' first slot, and that was 5'10" Teravainen. I am satisfied with the answer there.
His weaknesses? Really needed to put on some size. He was frail. Gaudreau's build essentially. That takes time to pack on that amount of size. Biggest reason for him having the project label.
Secondly, he was known as a 2-way center at the draft, but the quality of competition made this notion a bit ambiguous. Could he really be an effective defensive player against players who are much better than the players he plays currently with and against? I think without a shred of doubt that he has not only been able to show he can now, but that he excels at it. His coach insists on throwing him out in those exact situations when they need that from him - at the end of a game while trying to protect the lead. Now the NCAA is not the NHL, but he has thus far more than answered that question.
Can he create offence against much better players? Will his offensive ability translate from his prep school into a league against much better players? Well, this is the sticking point thus far. In my opinion, he has done well. He hasn't 'excelled' yet, but he has done well.
I look at him being a 20 year old kid - still below average age in the NCAA - and a kid that is 6'4" now, who skates very well, who is packing on size, who is extremely strong in the faceoff dot, who has a great defensive game, who has shown absolute flashes of sheer offensive brilliance (just look up Friedman's story on him), but a guy who is just 'ok' offensively but improving every year.
The absolute most important question to ask AFTER you select a project every year is: "Is he progressing?"
Who can offer a no to that question? Maybe some posters will want to quantify it with: "Yes, but not at the rate one would hope for" or something, but that isn't the most critical. Different players have different learning curves. Projects are much harder to gauge as to how quickly they should or shouldn't be developing. The most important aspect of Jankowski is that he indeed is developing. I will take that a step further and say that not only is Jankowski progressing, but he is progressing in the key areas that are more likely for him to be a contributing future player in the NHL.
I just can't understand why some posters are so ready to trade Jankowski for a 2nd round pick when the kid has shown zero regression in any area since going to the NCAA, and that his weaknesses at the draft are quickly disappearing.
I really believe that if he was scoring at a 1.5ppg rate, but being horrible defensively and not having added so much size to his frame as he has done, would make some people happier. I think the Flames would be extremely foolish to give up on a prospect of his size and ability while he has shown absolutely nothing except progression. Projects require time. Flames are not in a rush to insert him into the lineup. Why not be patient?
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
Absolutely no reason to make any decision on Jankowski. Likely to spend another year in college, and if not, he almost certainly goes to the AHL for seasoning. This is not a Sven situation where we needed to make a decision on what appeared to be a depreciating asset. Jankowski may not make it at the end of the day, but it is well worth being patient, as his odds aren't nearly as long as some are making them.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
Over the course of 10 years (drafts 2001 to 2009) Fwds picked in between spots 21-25 (as both Backlund and Jankowski were), average to 316 GP and 164 pts, or 0.52 PPG.
Backlund has played 285 GP and recorded 126 pts, or 0.44 PPG.
54% of Fwds chosen in this range have played over 250 GP in their career so far.
Being at the end of this range (2008), Backlund has not had the opportunity to play as many games as others, but he is clearly on pace to exceed the avg GP.
His PPG as well is increasing, and I expect he will exceed the norm for this as well (he is at 0.64 PPG this season)
It is quite ludicrous to claim Backlund is a bust in any way, shape or form.
And this only takes PPG into account, ignoring all the other facets of Backlund's game which are so valuable.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Red Menace For This Useful Post:
I don't know about most people, but I would rather keep the 6'4" 200lb (and growing) center prospect who skates very well, who plays a very solid 200ft game, and to quote his coach (who by the way, has a very big reputation within the NCAA) "The best forward for us" saying this more than once. All at the tender age of 20.
Everyone has to remember that he was selected as a PROJECT. This means that he was at least 3 years away from turning pro - if not 4-5 years.
Secondly, he was known as a 2-way center at the draft, but the quality of competition made this notion a bit ambiguous. Could he really be an effective defensive player against players who are much better than the players he plays currently with and against?
Agree with much of your post, but a couple question marks have been raised for me. I haven't seen any praise from his coach, can you give some context as to Jankowski being "the best forward for us" - Was this in reference to a game, the season, or what?
I also don't recall Jankowski being touted for his 2-way play, but more for his offensive abilities. His biggest selling point was having the skill and soft hands of a small finess player, but recently gaining the size to become a power forward.
I'm hoping for the best with Jankowski, but you can't blame fans for losing patience, as it has been 3 seasons now. It's safe to say he's going back for his senior year, where an NHL caliber player like Gaudreau had a tough choice to make.
Agree with much of your post, but a couple question marks have been raised for me. I haven't seen any praise from his coach, can you give some context as to Jankowski being "the best forward for us" - Was this in reference to a game, the season, or what?
I also don't recall Jankowski being touted for his 2-way play, but more for his offensive abilities. His biggest selling point was having the skill and soft hands of a small finess player, but recently gaining the size to become a power forward.
I'm hoping for the best with Jankowski, but you can't blame fans for losing patience, as it has been 3 seasons now. It's safe to say he's going back for his senior year, where an NHL caliber player like Gaudreau had a tough choice to make.
Gaudreau is an outlier. You don't usually find a Calder candidate in the 4th round.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Gaudreau is an outlier. You don't usually find a Calder candidate in the 4th round.
Not sure what draft position has to do with my point, more that they were both project picks if anything.
My point was that after 3 seasons Gaudreau was NHL ready but still went back for the 4th season. With Jankowski we likely aren't even trying to sign him now and want him to go back for his last year. Both have physically matured, but Jankowski still looks far from becoming a top-6 NHLer. I think his ceiling is realistically a solid 2-way 3rd liner, and I'm okay with that.
Not sure what draft position has to do with my point, more that they were both project picks if anything.
My point was that after 3 seasons Gaudreau was NHL ready but still went back for the 4th season. With Jankowski we likely aren't even trying to sign him now and want him to go back for his last year. Both have physically matured, but Jankowski still looks far from becoming a top-6 NHLer. I think his ceiling is realistically a solid 2-way 3rd liner, and I'm okay with that.
I would be more than happy with that. The draft is a crap shoot at best. The NHL is littered with players that didn't live up to their potential or players that exceeded their expectaions (Zetterberg & Datsyuk).
Getting any of your draft players into the NHL and playing regular shifts is a huge bonus for any team.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
My point was that after 3 seasons Gaudreau was NHL ready but still went back for the 4th season.
no, he didn't.
But still, I don't really get your point. So Jankowski is probably not NHL ready after 3 years, so what? He was a long-term project and the timeline was always going to be 4-5 years. I don't see a problem with that at all, and it's not like going back for a 4th year is the death kiss of his NHL career or anything like that. There are dozens of players in the NHL right now who have played 4 full college seasons. Alex Killorn, Carl Hagelin and Ben Smith would be examples at forward that come to mind. Ben Smith is actually an interesting case - his production nosedived dramatically between his second (50 points in 44 games) and third college year (17 points in 37 games) and he still became an everyday NHL player.
But still, I don't really get your point. So Jankowski is probably not NHL ready after 3 years, so what? He was a long-term project and the timeline was always going to be 4-5 years. I don't see a problem with that at all, and it's not like going back for a 4th year is the death kiss of his NHL career or anything like that. There are dozens of players in the NHL right now who have played 4 full college seasons. Alex Killorn, Carl Hagelin and Ben Smith would be examples at forward that come to mind. Ben Smith is actually an interesting case - his production nosedived dramatically between his second (50 points in 44 games) and third college year (17 points in 37 games) and he still became an everyday NHL player.
Uhh... Yes he did? Sorry maybe it was Gaudreau going back for his 3rd season, but the point stands. He wanted to play a year with his brother and his mom wanted him to finish school. He went back and showed that he was too good for the league.
My point kind of got thrown out the window with the Gaudreau talk. My point is that, many saw this as a project pick and if you go back the timeline was 3-5 years. It's been 3 years and he's not even knocking at the door in regards to turning pro. Yes it's still too soon, but you can't blame fans for losing hope of Jankowski ever reaching his top-6 potential.
Also, if I'm to do some stat picking, you can say that Jankowski regressed at scoring goals. This year was his least productive goal scoring season, with less than half as many as last year.
Last edited by Bandwagon In Flames; 03-16-2015 at 02:45 PM.
