Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

It's also very arrogant to declare a player as being drafted "too early" based, solely on CSS rankings and online draft profiles.

What kind of data do you base your player analysis on these days? Let's not pretend that anyone on CP is physically scouting prospects on a regular basis before commenting on them. It's completely obtuse to pretend that this is "solely based on CSS rankings".....whatever you can use to elevate your viewpoint I guess.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

What kind of data do you base your player analysis on these days? Let's not pretend that anyone on CP is physically scouting prospects on a regular basis before commenting on them. It's completely obtuse to pretend that this is "solely based on CSS rankings".....whatever you can use to elevate your viewpoint I guess.

You have failed to back up your assertion that he was "being overvalued and selected too high from the start". There doesn't exist any evidence as far as I'm aware that he was "selected too high" so you're making that part up. That is what GranteedEV is saying, what is the basis for you saying he was selected too high? If it is just because of some rankings, that is neither here nor there. The Flames had him ranked top 15 obviously and those are the only rankings that matter when we're picking. The whole idea of fan saying that a team is taking a kid too high is strange, too high based on who? Every team has a very different list and sticks with it. You can evaluate the draft later in hindsight to say who was selected too high but Jankowski hasn't even started his pro career yet so its extremely premature to judge his draft class. Usually takes about 7 years to accurately be able to say with certainty that anybody was selected too high. If you're talking about saying someone was selected too high immediately after the draft happened then you don't really know what you're talking about do you? Unless you've scouted all the players in question you can't have an informed opinion about it at that point. You can say ISS thinks he was taken too high, or CSS thinks he was taken too high, or Bob Mackenzie thinks he was taken too high and that's about all you can say.

Basically what you're saying is that you don't like the pick for whatever reason. But you're insinuating the Flames completely botched it, "took him too high", but he may yet turn out to be one of the top 20 players from the draft, we don't know yet! If he's one of the top 20 players from the draft in 4 years then he obviously wasn't selected too high was he? Thus GranteedEV's comment about arrogance. You've set yourself up as judge and jury and made a ruling about something that hasn't even happened yet and on a topic you are far from an expert!

You have to take a wait and see attitude with prospects and not speak in absolutes unless you yourself have scouted them a lot. And I'm guessing you haven't seen many games of Jankowski's have you? Basically you're saying, "I'm smarter than these scouts who actually go and watch these games even though I'm not even a part-time scout". That is arrogant and an annoying stance to take and too many have taken it in this thread. Enough already.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Let's not pretend that anyone on CP is physically scouting prospects on a regular basis before commenting on them. It's completely obtuse to pretend that this is "solely based on CSS rankings".....whatever you can use to elevate your viewpoint I guess.

It's not obtuse at all. Anyone claiming the Flames made a mistake / went off the board before the book is written on the player (and it isn't), is claiming they'd have known better than those amateur scouts who actually watch these prospects for a living. There are overreactions every year by fanbases when a draft doesn't follow the CSS rankings (and it never does). Words used are "reach" and "steal". But drafts shake out the way they do for reasons that people on a forum are not privy to. Scouts make mistakes all the time, whether their draft picks resemble the "rankings" doesn't matter because the rankings themselves are made by scouts who make mistakes all the time.

It's as arrogant to think you've got a better read on not only Jankowski, but Teravainen/Maatta/Hertl etc than the staff of Tod Button, and yes, everyone's favorite "I don't even know what he does" John Weisbrod. These guys watch every player live multiple times, and they watch things that aren't seen on camera, they watch the bad as much as they watch the good, and their job is to project long term, not short-term. We don't usually do any of that.

Personally I don't even think the book on Sven Baertschi is written, and this is a project player from a more recent draft.

[Robbob]

The funny thing about Jankowski is although the draft seemed so long ago he is still young. Even though he has played 4 years of college, he will be the same age Gaudreau was when he turned pro after 3 years of college.

[Komskies]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The funny thing about Jankowski is although the draft seemed so long ago he is still young. Even though he has played 4 years of college, he will be the same age Gaudreau was when he turned pro after 3 years of college.

He's a whopping 29 days older than Monahan.

[Vulcan]

The way I look at it is the time frame that he can be expected to contribute to the Flames. When Weisbrod drafted him he said we'd need to be patient and it would be about 3 years until he could be expected to contribute. Fair enough but when looking at his expected progress the first year would be adapting and physically growing to the college game.

The second year would be taking over a centre spot and establishing himself as a top team player. The third year he should be dominating and scoring at a PPG pace. He didn't but he seemed to progress well at the end of the season but wasn't ready yet to turn pro. This fourth year he should be dominating as a top player but he isn't. He'll turn pro next season and will probably need at least one year in the AHL. So six years later we may get a return. That's the growth that a goalie should follow and not a first round pick either and it's longer than what Weisbrod predicted. The longer it takes the more that can go wrong so to me his pick was a gamble when there were some other safe picks available. Having said this I hope he turns out, he does have some pretty good tools.

[Komskies]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The way I look at it is the time frame that he can be expected to contribute to the Flames. When Weisbrod drafted him he said we'd need to be patient and it would be about 3 years until he could be expected to contribute. Fair enough but when looking at his expected progress the first year would be adapting and physically growing to the college game.

The second year would be taking over a centre spot and establishing himself as a top team player. The third year he should be dominating and scoring at a PPG pace. He didn't but he seemed to progress well at the end of the season but wasn't ready yet to turn pro. This fourth year he should be dominating as a top player but he isn't. He'll turn pro next season and will probably need at least one year in the AHL. So six years later we may get a return. That's the growth that a goalie should follow and not a first round pick either and it's longer than what Weisbrod predicted. The longer it takes the more that can go wrong so to me his pick was a gamble when there were some other safe picks available. Having said this I hope he turns out, he does have some pretty good tools.

I believe the Flames thinking at the time was he was going to be an early second rounder. They probably didn't want to risk having him drafted before our second round pick at 42 OA, so they took him with pick 21 instead.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The funny thing about Jankowski is although the draft seemed so long ago he is still young. Even though he has played 4 years of college, he will be the same age Gaudreau was when he turned pro after 3 years of college.

Not correct. Gaudreau is exactly 13 months older than Jankowski and is already playing his second pro year. So Jankowski will be a year older than what Gaudreau was when he finishes his college.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Not correct. Gaudreau is exactly 13 months older than Jankowski and is already playing his second pro year. So Jankowski will be a year older than Gaudreau when he finishes his college.

Yeah, exactly. Jankowski will leave a senior, Gaudreau left as a junior.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The way I look at it is the time frame that he can be expected to contribute to the Flames. When Weisbrod drafted him he said we'd need to be patient and it would be about 3 years until he could be expected to contribute. Fair enough but when looking at his expected progress the first year would be adapting and physically growing to the college game.

I think you're misremembering. I don't recall anyone saying 3 years. They said he was going to be a long term project from what I recall. I assumed around 4-6 years for Janko. 3-4 years in college followed by 1-2 in the minors.

Not sure why you were expecting 3 years, I'm pretty sure no one said that. Long term project is what they said IIRC.

[Johnny Rotten]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think you're misremembering. I don't recall anyone saying 3 years. They said he was going to be a long term project from what I recall. I assumed around 4-6 years for Janko. 3-4 years in college followed by 1-2 in the minors.

Not sure why you were expecting 3 years, I'm pretty sure no one said that. Long term project is what they said IIRC.

I think Feaster announced on the day he was drafted that in ten years Jankowski could be the best player of the '12 draft.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think you're misremembering. I don't recall anyone saying 3 years. They said he was going to be a long term project from what I recall. I assumed around 4-6 years for Janko. 3-4 years in college followed by 1-2 in the minors.

Not sure why you were expecting 3 years, I'm pretty sure no one said that. Long term project is what they said IIRC.

I'll take this, because I know exactly what he's referring to, because he's brought it up a million times, because he refuses to alter his view of things once his locked into an opinion.

Vulcan is referring to this interview, where after Weisbrod called Jankowski a "really raw young kid" who is "a long ways away" he said Mark had to "percolate for 3-4 years". Vulcan has focused on that 3-4 years, for some reason thinking that meant he will be in the NHL by then, when every other quote would lead one to suggest John meant time in College (USHL) at the time. Then pro, after that time.

But hey, if there is a quote out there to suggest anyone on the team thought Jankowski would be contributing to the Flames after three years, I'd love to see it.

Jankowski is right on the timeline that everyone talked about. Long term, ways aways, percolate for 3-4 years.

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

I think Feaster announced on the day he was drafted that in ten years Jankowski could be the best player of the '12 draft.

Well, okay then. That has nothing to do with what FDW was replying to.

[Johnny Rotten]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher View Post
I think you're misremembering. I don't recall anyone saying 3 years. They said he was going to be a long term project from what I recall. I assumed around 4-6 years for Janko. 3-4 years in college followed by 1-2 in the minors.

Not sure why you were expecting 3 years, I'm pretty sure no one said that. Long term project is what they said IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten View Post
I think Feaster announced on the day he was drafted that in ten years Jankowski could be the best player of the '12 draft.

Well, okay then. That has nothing to do with what FDW was replying to.

I was trying to suggest that Janko was/is a long term project... I think Feaster thought the same when he said best player in ten years..

[Vulcan]

"percolate for 3-4 years".

For me this means until he's ready to contribute to the Flames. He may be ready next season but I think most believe he'll need a year in the AHL, so that's 5-6 years. Anyways my main point is that with the length of time it will take him he's a gamble. Weisbrod even says he needs to cross the shark infested waters so he acknowledges there is a gamble with the pick. He liked the gamble and I hope he turns out but the more I looked at it, I liked other choices better. Some disagree and that's fine and I hope to be proven wrong.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

For me this means until he's ready to contribute to the Flames. He may be ready next season but I think most believe he'll need a year in the AHL, so that's 5-6 years.

Putting that quote in context with every other thing Weisbrod said about Jankowski during that interview... I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. Truly mind bottling.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

For me this means until he's ready to contribute to the Flames. He may be ready next season but I think most believe he'll need a year in the AHL, so that's 5-6 years. Anyways my main point is that with the length of time it will take him he's a gamble. Weisbrod even says he needs to cross the shark infested waters so he acknowledges there is a gamble with the pick. He liked the gamble and I hope he turns out but the more I looked at it, I liked other choices better. Some disagree and that's fine and I hope to be proven wrong.

Didn't think that was the case at all - think it was pretty clear that they meant it would be 3-4 years until he started to show his true potential - didn't think they ever meant 3-4 year until he was in the NHL.

This was a kid who was supposed to go to the USHL still at the time that quote was made, and then would likely spend at least 3 years in the NCAA.

Jankowski was always a long term project - 3 to 4 years is pretty much the lead time of a standard prospect.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

For me this means until he's ready to contribute to the Flames. He may be ready next season but I think most believe he'll need a year in the AHL

I don't believe he'll 'need' a year in the AHL, but I believe between Backlund, Stajan, Monahan, Bennett, (...Granlund/Grant), we've got the NHL depth at center where there's no spot just waiting there for him unless he shows he's a clear top two line guy. Heck, at center there's no spot being made for Sam Bennett right now, and Sam Bennett is a guy who needs to be playing center too.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Putting that quote in context with every other thing Weisbrod said about Jankowski during that interview... I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. Truly mind bottling.

What do you find mind bottling? Even Flames Draft Watcher and I imagine most agree with the general time line.

Flames Draft Watcher

I assumed around 4-6 years for Janko. 3-4 years in college followed by 1-2 in the minors.

Now if you want to get into the definition of what happens after something has percolated, say coffee, it's ready to use. Is Jankowski ready after 3 or 4 years? It doesn't look like it.

[MrMastodonFarm]

You're taking a quick off the cuff analogy way too literal. It's even more odd when you take that quote into context with everything else that was said during that interview.

That's mind bottling.

[Vulcan]

Look this is getting out of hand mostly what I'm saying is that he was a gamble when picked. As I've previously said Jankowski has some good tools and I hope he makes it.