Quote:
Originally Posted by AC
I have to disagree actually. I think Ferland was consistently physical last year but didn't get recognized for it, or for his good offensive play for whatever reason.
(numbers removed for cleaner quote)
Nothing super scientific, but as someone who looks through the games for each hit he makes the numbers should be pretty accurate.
|
Well that's fair enough, I guess we'll just have to disagree. Think he's looked much better in all facets this season and is getting praise for it appropriately.
As for not being recognized for his good offensive play? Well the reason is he put up four goals in over 70 games last year. Right now he has four in about 50 less games.. so yeah, that's probably it.
Really glad he's playing well. Offensively I still think he's rather limited but not as much as I thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Stain
I see a lot of fans with this attitude towards veteran players and prospects. Cogliano was going to be Marchant with hands for instance. Turns out their career ppg is identical at the moment, and Marchant was a better defensive player, hence a better player overall.
I'm not saying Jankowski vs Stajan will turn out this way, but it seems some fans are much more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a player that is unproven versus one that has actually accomplished something in the NHL.
Stajan is discredited by saying that he could only put up points on a bad team, but when Stajan was 22 he scored 39 points on a team that finished the season with 91 points. That was a better team than the Flames were last year and what they are on pace for this season.
If we go by the cold hard numbers, Jankowski at 22 is lagging behind Stajan at 22 thus far. Jankowski has some real work to do to catch up to Stajan's career path. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
|
Matt Stajan ain't Todd Marchant and he ain't Andrew Cogliano defensively either. He's a jack of all trades master of none 4th line player.
No one is discrediting Stajan for putting up points on a bad team, they're discrediting him for not putting up points since those two seasons. Stajan's been on a bad team for most of his time in Calgary and never put up points.
He came to Calgary as a pending UFA and signed a bigger deal based on two 50+ point seasons. Matt never lived up to that deal and when that was expiring he signed a new four year deal for slightly less money on a team wanting to retain some vet presence for a rebuild. He found a niche on a bottom feeding rebuilding team and good for him but at times he's hardly been anything impressive.
As for your "cold hard numbers" they're really rather meaningless. Jankowski's path is very different than Stajan's and little meaning if any can be found from it. Stajan also put up 18 points as a 27/28 year old. Should that trajectory be factored in as well? He fell off a cliff after those two seasons. Those 50 point seasons are the exception to his career.
Quote:
|
Other interesting guys to look at would be Joe Colborne, and Blake Wheeler for the fact that they are also big men who played at lower levels predraft and went to University. Wheeler in particular was drafted out of high school hockey in a situation similar to Jankowski.
|
Literally debated to death over the past four years in the prospect forum. With those names mentioned endless times.
