Summer 2013 Prospect Rank Poll Round 3

[TurnedTheCorner]

I'll be honest, I saw the landslide win for Johnny and picked the first name I didn't recognize. Sorry.

[Kaine]

Bah dunno how I missed Johnny. Voted Wotherspoon but I would have picked Johnny this round.

[StrykerSteve]

Sieloff

not

Sielof

[Vinny01]

In my opinion the flames top 3 prospects are hard to dispute. The order is tougher to determine but I have agreed with the rest of the majority
1. Monahan
2. Baertschi
3. Gaudreau

[SebC]

Originally Posted by New Era

And you've seen Jankowski and Poirier play how many times? Did you even know who Poirier was before the Flames drafted him 35 days ago?

Once each, and no.

Luckily we live in an age where we have access to scouting reports and statistics, so I can have an opinion without having to personally watch QMJHL and NCAA games.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Gaudreau's size is just too concerning to overlook. Wotherspoon's development over the past 12-24 months has been impressive. He gets the nod over Gillis for me.

I'm actually more excited about Poirier than Jankowski/Gaudreau.

Well its not like Gaudreau plays against midgets in college hockey. He's been shockingly successful at the University level and at the World Junior Championship level against top level competition with size. His skill, skating and what he's shown so far against good competition has to erase almost all of the size concerns. He made the best Canadian defenders aged 18 and 19 look silly at the World Juniors.

It's not like this the old clutch and grab NHL either where some small players still managed to thrive (Fleury, St. Louis, etc.) The success of guys like Desharnais, Gionta, Ennis, etc shows that size doesn't have to be a determiner.

Strange to be more excited about Poirier than Janko and Gaudreau, especially Gaudreau. Gaudreau is far more proven than the other two.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Gaudreau was impressive at the development camp, but I think his style of play benefits more from that camp than other styles of play. I question how his game in the NCAA would translate if he were playing in the Q or the W. I suspect not as well, but that's all hypothetical. His skill is there, no doubt. But his size has to knock him down a few rungs on the prospect ladder because his likelihood of success in the NHL is dramatically reduced (I know, I know, St. Louis and Fleury).

I don't understand why you think Gaudreau's style benefits more from the development camp. What is his style? Amazing skill and offensive ability? That's going to look in any environment I would think. Not sure what you're getting at there.

I don't see why you'd question how his game would translate to the Q or W. He'd easily dominate there as well, no question about it. If he dominated against the best 18 and 19 year olds in the world, why wouldn't he dominate against some mediocre Canadian teens as well? He'd have insane numbers in juniors, no question about it.

In the new NHL small size is not as big of a negative as you make it out to be. His skill, hockey sense, skating makes up for it. There are guys like Gaudreau excelling in the NHL. Smaller players have trouble making the NHL when they don't have elite attributes. Gaudreau has elite attributes that make up for his lack of size.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by SebC

Once each, and no.

Luckily we live in an age where we have access to scouting reports and statistics, so I can have an opinion without having to personally watch QMJHL and NCAA games.

So you can tell how a player stacks up against another through a scouting report? You can tell how far along a player is against another through this same scouting report?

What do these scouting reports have to say about Jankowski's development over the past season? The previous reports said the biggest knocks against him were his size and adjusting to a much superior league. Jankowski is now about the same size as Monahan. Disaster averted. Jankowski adjusted quite well to the college game and has a great second half of the season, finishing only six points off the team lead and finishing top four, trailing players three to five years his senior, while playing four less games. In fact, Jankowski's performance and production was superior to that of Corbin Knight when he was a freshman, so it seems his adjustment was quite successful. Disaster averted again.

All this hand wringing over Jankowski is completely blown out of proportion. The kid is a whole month older than Monahan and appears to be at the same skill and developmental level based on the prospects camp. All this stuff of him being 4+ years away is a bunch of BS dreamed up by the talking heads who were left looking stupid on draft day a year ago. They didn't know this kid, hadn't seen him, and decided that he was an off the board pick that needed years of development, and that narrative has stuck with joe fan. This is why I like to judge these kids based on what they do after their draft year and how the development of their game is. Monahan, Poirier and Klimchuk were just at their first camp and were told what they have to work on. Let's see what improvement they make in their respective games before we call them our best prospects. Your best prospects are the ones who have shown continued growth and success each and every year, not the ones who just had their name called. The new guys hold promise, but have to live up to that promise to prove worthy of their draft position.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I voted Jankowski, it's not meant to be a slight on Gaudreau. At least in my opinion Gaudreau's got the most skill in the bunch and therefore the most potential. However, he's also on the hardest journey to reach it. For every St. Louis there's a couple Gerbes.

So I went with Jankowski. Jankowski plays a skilled small man's game but has the size that will allow for him to translate to the NHL easier and the potential to evolve and develop his game into a big player with a lot of skill. He's 6'3'' and still only 18 years old. If he grows another inch and adds a couple (50...) pounds he'll be a mix of skill and size. And sure size isn't everything with regards to both players, and Jankowski's upside may be closer to someone like Pyatt, a big but not physical winger instead of the strong, powerful and skilled center I'm hoping he develops into but I'm liking the Jankowski pick more and more.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

So you can tell how a player stacks up against another through a scouting report? You can tell how far along a player is against another through this same scouting report?

What do these scouting reports have to say about Jankowski's development over the past season? The previous reports said the biggest knocks against him were his size and adjusting to a much superior league. Jankowski is now about the same size as Monahan. Disaster averted. Jankowski adjusted quite well to the college game and has a great second half of the season, finishing only six points off the team lead and finishing top four, trailing players three to five years his senior, while playing four less games. In fact, Jankowski's performance and production was superior to that of Corbin Knight when he was a freshman, so it seems his adjustment was quite successful. Disaster averted again.

All this hand wringing over Jankowski is completely blown out of proportion. The kid is a whole month older than Monahan and appears to be at the same skill and developmental level based on the prospects camp. All this stuff of him being 4+ years away is a bunch of BS dreamed up by the talking heads who were left looking stupid on draft day a year ago. They didn't know this kid, hadn't seen him, and decided that he was an off the board pick that needed years of development, and that narrative has stuck with joe fan. This is why I like to judge these kids based on what they do after their draft year and how the development of their game is. Monahan, Poirier and Klimchuk were just at their first camp and were told what they have to work on. Let's see what improvement they make in their respective games before we call them our best prospects. Your best prospects are the ones who have shown continued growth and success each and every year, not the ones who just had their name called. The new guys hold promise, but have to live up to that promise to prove worthy of their draft position.

Love the first half of your post.

Disagree with you that he isn't still a project though. He needs a longer development curve because of both the poor level of hockey he was playing at when we drafted him combined with the fact he wasn't physically mature. Fast forward a year, he had a solid freshman year for his age and seems to be adapting well to a much, much higher level of competition. He also has put on some muscle but still needs to improve in that area.

So what does he still need to become an NHLer? He'll need to dominate college, either this year or next. He'll need to physically mature in the next few years. Depending on how mature his game is after he leaves college he may need a year or more in the minors. So when he was drafted I think it was totally fair to say he was 4-5 years away. Fast forward a year and he's probably still 3-4 years away.

Like him a lot as a prospect though and I do think some people underrate him and underrate how successful his freshman season was for his age and for his previous playing level.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Love the first half of your post.

Disagree with you that he isn't still a project though. He needs a longer development curve because of both the poor level of hockey he was playing at when we drafted him combined with the fact he wasn't physically mature. Fast forward a year, he had a solid freshman year for his age and seems to be adapting well to a much, much higher level of competition. He also has put on some muscle but still needs to improve in that area.

So what does he still need to become an NHLer? He'll need to dominate college, either this year or next. He'll need to physically mature in the next few years. Depending on how mature his game is after he leaves college he may need a year or more in the minors. So when he was drafted I think it was totally fair to say he was 4-5 years away. Fast forward a year and he's probably still 3-4 years away.

Like him a lot as a prospect though and I do think some people underrate him and underrate how successful his freshman season was for his age and for his previous playing level.

They are all projects. It doesn't matter who is called or when they are called, they are all projects. Monahan has just as much to prove as Poirier or Klimchuk or Jankowski or Gaudreau or Gillies or even Bartschi. The difference I see in all of these kids is that some have stepped up and already shown growth. I like that and I suspect the team likes that as well. It proves their hunches about these kids were correct. The recent three first rounders will have to step up and show they can get better and improve on their weaknesses. When they do that they will show they are more than just a project.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by SebC

I like Poirier over Jankowski too, but not over Gaudreau. Poirier's draft year was better than Jankowski's draft+1 year! People are way too high on Jankowski.

So what you are telling me is Poirier who played on the 1st line of an more offensive team against younger (and some say weaker) competition produced more than Jankowski did playing in the middle 6 of a defense first team in a league that has young (and some say stronger) competition?

You don't say.

[Ashasx]

After Gaudreau it's Gillies and then Knight for me.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

So what you are telling me is Poirier who played on the 1st line of an more offensive team against younger (and some say weaker) competition produced more than Jankowski did playing in the middle 6 of a defense first team in a league that has young (and some say stronger) competition?

You don't say.

I'm telling you that Poirier outscored by Jankowski by enough that after you adjust for the different leagues they play in he still comes out on top. And he's younger.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well its not like Gaudreau plays against midgets in college hockey. He's been shockingly successful at the University level and at the World Junior Championship level against top level competition with size. His skill, skating and what he's shown so far against good competition has to erase almost all of the size concerns. He made the best Canadian defenders aged 18 and 19 look silly at the World Juniors.

It's not like this the old clutch and grab NHL either where some small players still managed to thrive (Fleury, St. Louis, etc.) The success of guys like Desharnais, Gionta, Ennis, etc shows that size doesn't have to be a determiner.

Strange to be more excited about Poirier than Janko and Gaudreau, especially Gaudreau. Gaudreau is far more proven than the other two.

His performance at the WJHC was nothing short of impressive. Gaudreau's also has been a standout at every level he's played at. I still approach him with more caution than certain other prospects because (a) his stature is so small and (b) the road he has to take to be able to achieve success at the NHL level is more daunting than the average prospect - his skill has to be that much better, his lower body strength that much more developed, his skating that much more superior, etc. His skills are highend, I'm just being subjectively realistic to his chances of success.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I don't understand why you think Gaudreau's style benefits more from the development camp. What is his style? Amazing skill and offensive ability? That's going to look in any environment I would think. Not sure what you're getting at there.

I don't see why you'd question how his game would translate to the Q or W. He'd easily dominate there as well, no question about it. If he dominated against the best 18 and 19 year olds in the world, why wouldn't he dominate against some mediocre Canadian teens as well? He'd have insane numbers in juniors, no question about it.

In the new NHL small size is not as big of a negative as you make it out to be. His skill, hockey sense, skating makes up for it. There are guys like Gaudreau excelling in the NHL. Smaller players have trouble making the NHL when they don't have elite attributes. Gaudreau has elite attributes that make up for his lack of size.

We'll see. I think the development camp is more geared towards the higher skilled guys than the power forwards and defensive defensemen simply because it's not as physical as live game action (IMO, anyways).

Hopefully Poirer, Jankowski and Gaudreau all suit up for the Flames down the road. I just think Guadreau's path is the most difficult which, IMO, knocks him down a few notches (1. Monahan; 2. Baertschi; 3. Wotherspoon; 4. Gillis; 5. Poirer; 6. Gaudreau; 7. Sieloff; 8. Knight; 9. Jankowski; 10. Reinhart - I think anyways... haha).

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'm telling you that Poirier outscored by Jankowski by enough that after you adjust for the different leagues they play in he still comes out on top. And he's younger.

I'm telling you that is the worst damn logic ever. You can't simply "adjust" stats.

And you are right, Poirer is younger, a whole 3 months younger.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I'm telling you that is the worst damn logic ever. You can't simply "adjust" stats.

Sure you can. You can't do it perfectly, but you can do it.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by SebC

Sure you can. You can't do it perfectly, but you can do it.

no you can't, you can try and fail. it's these garbage adjustments that had people thinking Cervenka had 50 point potential in his debut season. You can not accurately adjust stats

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

They are all projects. It doesn't matter who is called or when they are called, they are all projects. Monahan has just as much to prove as Poirier or Klimchuk or Jankowski or Gaudreau or Gillies or even Bartschi. The difference I see in all of these kids is that some have stepped up and already shown growth. I like that and I suspect the team likes that as well. It proves their hunches about these kids were correct. The recent three first rounders will have to step up and show they can get better and improve on their weaknesses. When they do that they will show they are more than just a project.

Monahan is not nearly as much of a project as Jankowski. Young players are projects when they have a lot of raw tools but when they still need to work on a lot of areas of their game. Monahan may be NHL ready and if not he's close to it. Jankowski has raw skill but still needs to polish his game and add weight. Baertschi is close to NHL ready and thus isn't a project either. Almost all goalies are projects so I agree with you on Gillies.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by SebC

I like Poirier over Jankowski too, but not over Gaudreau. Poirier's draft year was better than Jankowski's draft+1 year! People are way too high on Jankowski.

And you're way too high on pure statistics.