U20 tournament - Junior Evaluation Camp (Sieloff, Gillies, Monahan, Poirier & Janko)

[SuperMatt18]

Ryan McDonagh is another guy who plays a similar style and didn't put up huge points in college. 12, 16, & 18 points in his three seasons after being drafted.

His 12 points in 40 games in his first college season is similar to Sieloffs' 11 points in 45 games in Windsor.

My hope for Sieloff is that he turns into a poor mans Ryan McDonagh. Not as much offense, and maybe not as great defensively but plays a similar solid, physical defensive game.

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by bax

Niklas Hjalmarsson only had 8 points in 65 games in Sweden before coming to North America and he turned out okay. Also, Matt Greene's best offensive season in college was 17 points in 40 games which came in his second year in the league. His point totals from his 3 years in college went 4, 17, 9. No doubt Sieloff has some work ahead of him, but I still think he's a player. Playing on a bad team isn't helping his offensive stats at all.

Hjalmarsson was a boy playing against men, completely different scenario. The fact that he played 65 games in a mens league is what you should be looking at.

As for Greene, NCAA hockey is a much better league then the OHL. NCAA is a league dominated by 22-24 year olds, none of these guys would be eligible for junior. That is what makes Gaurdreau's point production so impressive as he did it as an 18-19 year old. Not to mention Gillies doing what he did as a 19 year old.

I am not saying you are wrong as I haven't looked at the data, and I agree that you shouldn't write off Sieloff because he doesn't put up points, but I do think there is some serious merit to the thesis being brought up that D who put up points have a high correlation to D that make the NHL.

I think that the points that are being put up in junior shows that this guy is:
A) getting a lot of ice time (thus in good condition, can play in all ends of the ice)
B) the guy has hockey sense and can make a break out pass
C) the guy is more physically gifted than his peer group

I would think that the correlation of points-effective defensman is actually pretty high. I would like to see the stats though before I agree or disagree with the point being brought up.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by kehatch

But I haven't seen anything here that supports the inference being made. In absence of that I trust the professional scouts. And I haven't heard any concerns from them that Sieloff's game won't translate to the NHL.

http://thats-offside.blogspot.ca/201...and-draft.html

http://thats-offside.blogspot.ca/201...eman-post.html

I think those links support the inference being made, and rather well actually.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Ryan McDonagh is another guy who plays a similar style and didn't put up huge points in college. 12, 16, & 18 points in his three seasons after being drafted.

What Dienasty said above. Can't really compare them because they play in different leagues. Especially one that has different age restrictions.

[bax]

Yeah, that's all fair enough. I don't think point production is the be all end all for Sieloff though. I suspect his numbers this year will be much better anyways.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

http://thats-offside.blogspot.ca/201...and-draft.html

http://thats-offside.blogspot.ca/201...eman-post.html

I think those links support the inference being made, and rather well actually.

Really interesting stuff. However, looking at the 12 (out of 105) guys that didn't have a strong Point/game in their last CHL season, some pretty decent names there that i think shows the value on taking a shot at non point getters in the draft.

curious if the same analysis can be applied for forwards (ie. even good depth/3rd-4th line forwards in the NHL were solid point producers in the CHL).......

[edslunch]

Sieloff and Jankowski are two interesting cases in that neither has followed the normal paths. They haven't had the same amount of experience or competition as their peers, so straightforward comparisons may not be accurate. So far both are progressing well and getting good reviews, but they still have catching up to do. Whether they will or not is the question.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Sieloff and Jankowski are two interesting cases in that neither has followed the normal paths. They haven't had the same amount of experience or competition as their peers, so straightforward comparisons may not be accurate. So far both are progressing well and getting good reviews, but they still have catching up to do. Whether they will or not is the question.

If you believe junior stats are a big predictor of future success then Jankowski absolutely has to explode in production this year if he's to approach his ceiling.

Last year, sure there were a bunch of factors working against him that the simple stats line wont catch like age and moving to a new league. But the NHL-E test will need to show significant improvement otherwise he'll be in bust territory. Hope he does it.

Here's a summary of Janko's season and projection moving forward:

http://flamesnation.ca/2013/5/8/flam...mark-jankowski

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

If you believe junior stats are a big predictor of future success then Jankowski absolutely has to explode in production this year if he's to approach his ceiling.

Last year, sure there were a bunch of factors working against him that the simple stats line wont catch like age and moving to a new league. But the NHL-E test will need to show significant improvement otherwise he'll be in bust territory. Hope he does it.

Here's a summary of Janko's season and projection moving forward:

http://flamesnation.ca/2013/5/8/flam...mark-jankowski

He doesn't need to explode, he needs to progress. Too much is being made of age and draft year in my opinion and not enough of experience. These guys simply don't have the same number of hours of quality competition under their belts so naturally they will lag their potential. Give them time, be patient, don't set arbitrary benchmarks and timelines.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think we can set arbitrary goals because its fun to do so. If he bumps up to a point per game next season, I will be pretty happy with that. He goes from .53 to .63 TBQH, not all that happy. He goes > than PPG we will all be ecstatic. He stays the same as last year, is anyone going to be happy with that. I am sure he sets goals himself, personal and team.

Goals are good and yours sound good to me. I was reacting to the explode this year or bust and the be at NHL-E by a certain age or bust comments

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

If you believe junior stats are a big predictor of future success then Jankowski absolutely has to explode in production this year if he's to approach his ceiling.

Last year, sure there were a bunch of factors working against him that the simple stats line wont catch like age and moving to a new league. But the NHL-E test will need to show significant improvement otherwise he'll be in bust territory. Hope he does it.

Here's a summary of Janko's season and projection moving forward:

http://flamesnation.ca/2013/5/8/flam...mark-jankowski

Two quick comments.

Stats are a crap predictor of transitioning between leagues, especially when you get into upper leagues where systems are more relied upon and players are expected to play a certain way, which many times affects their personal stats. Jankowski played a defense first team, which reflected in his point totals. Also, he was a freshman in a league where seniors get the vast majority of ice time. Coming in 4th on his team and only six points off the scoring lead, in 4 less games played, is a pretty good accomplishment. Of course, stats don't tell you that part of the story.

Second point, What the hell does Kent Wilson know about anything? There are a tonne of holes in everything he writes. So bad that I sometimes wonder if he thinks before he writes his stuff. This post is a perfect example of why I stopped reading and following FlamesNation. Complete tripe.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think we can set arbitrary goals because its fun to do so. If he bumps up to a point per game next season, I will be pretty happy with that. He goes from .53 to .63 TBQH, not all that happy. He goes > than PPG we will all be ecstatic. He stays the same as last year, is anyone going to be happy with that. I am sure he sets goals himself, personal and team.

I'm more expecting a bump up to the 0.75PPG ratio level. His numbers last year were not good enough for a player of his draft pedigree but he had enough (IMO) valid caveats that it can be overlooked. But he has none of those caveats this year so I think 0.75PPG is a reasonable expectation with a subsequent expectation that he hit 1.00PPG or better his junior year.

[Vulcan]

One thing is Jankowski is moving back to centre after playing on the wing last season. Taking on the added responsibility may hamper his scoring so I'm waiting for his third year to put up strong point totals.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I'm more expecting a bump up to the 0.75PPG ratio level. His numbers last year were not good enough for a player of his draft pedigree but he had enough (IMO) valid caveats that it can be overlooked. But he has none of those caveats this year so I think 0.75PPG is a reasonable expectation with a subsequent expectation that he hit 1.00PPG or better his junior year.

Was going to say the same thing.

(quoted Parallex but this is addressed to the conversation in general)

First of all, if he puts up the same as last year, in the 0.5 PPG range, obviously that would show a lack of progression and would be very disappointing.

However, 1.0 PPG is very high in the NCAA and I think that is asking a lot of a softmore. Having said that, if he were to achieve it, then yes, that would be extremely exciting.

I think the line in the sand is somewhere around 0.7 or 0.75. Anything more than that is awesome and anything less than that would be disappointing. 0.75 PPG and he is progressing very nicely.

[GreenLantern2814]

A Brief History and Projection for Janko:

Year 1: Adjusting to the NCAA, new league, better competition than he's ever seen. He had an okay year. He also played wing.

Year 2: Gets more responsibility. Moves back to centre.

Year 3: He is 'the guy' for Providence.

Year 4: Turns pro.

I'm fine with that.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

A Brief History and Projection for Janko:

Year 1: Adjusting to the NCAA, new league, better competition than he's ever seen. He had an okay year. He also played wing.

Year 2: Gets more responsibility. Moves back to centre.

Year 3: He is 'the guy' for Providence.

Year 4: Turns pro.

I'm fine with that.

He was top five in scoring for them and with Schaller graduating I think he will get more ice time. Depending on development I could see year 3 in your projection coming sooner.

[TheDebaser]

The interesting thing about this kid is that I really do think he has all the right pieces and any argument against him never seem to involve the way he actually plays hockey. He does have size and smarts and speed and skill in spades. I think that last year he made the jump into a much tougher league and had to rethink the way he played the game a bit. He was only a month older than Monahan but he was playing against college seniors who could outmuscle him at will. Because of that I think that he really dropped the physical aspect of his game this year but I think if he keeps gaining weight like he has been he'll be able to do much better.

I wonder if the stats would back that theory up. We saw what we'd expect to see out of a weak player gaining strength last year; A lackluster start where he gets shoved around and a solid finish as he gradually becomes stronger and learns to play in a tougher league. I think this year will be one where he discovers that size and strength is actually one of his most valuable assets and he will begin to learn how to use his new found strength.

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by TheDebaser

I wonder if the stats would back that theory up. We saw what we'd expect to see out of a weak player gaining strength last year; A lackluster start where he gets shoved around and a solid finish as he gradually becomes stronger and learns to play in a tougher league. I think this year will be one where he discovers that size and strength is actually one of his most valuable assets and he will begin to learn how to use his new found strength.

The stats don't seem to support that: http://www.uscho.com/stats/player/mi...wski/#20122013

But it's such a small sample size that we'd have to get some input from someone who regularly watches his team.

[TheDebaser]

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

The stats don't seem to support that: http://www.uscho.com/stats/player/mi...wski/#20122013

But it's such a small sample size that we'd have to get some input from someone who regularly watches his team.

Yeah, not as impressive as I thought. Oh well, this upcoming season should clarify everything anyway.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

His college numbers don't say much. They're not low enough to say he's probably a write off based on his poor production alone (unlike... some other Flames prospects).

But neither are they the "holy ****" numbers that you'd expect from a future NHL star.

Just for comparison, Martin St Louis went from a non-major-junior league to NCAA at the same age as Jankowski, with an even greater physical gap to close, and he had 1.5ppg (*triple* Jankowski's points production) in his rookie year.

Jankowski's numbers are on the low end of acceptable for an aspiring NHL player. And although I expect him to be a replacement-level player at the NHL level, there is still plenty of time for him to develop into much more than that.

This really is Jankowski's "show me" year.