Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This is EXACTLY why I like the Jankowski pick - I felt there was no other player available with that ceiling. What prospects are you referring to that had such a high ceiling, and were more of a sure thing? If that is the case, I will 100% agree that this was a bad pick. I don't think there was anyone on the board that had that ceiling left, especially at that position.

Players with similar/higher ceilings that have higher floors (more sure bets to make it) are generally all gone after the first 5-10 picks, especially at center.

Well it's hard to say now with the benefit of hindsight but TT, Hertl, Girgensons, Laughton all have pretty high ceilings. As much as we like to hype Janko's toolbox there's basically nothing that exceptional there besides his size/hands ratio. I mean that's nice but those other players have similar or better skillsets to Janko.

And we were so bereft of talent THROUGHOUT the roster that focusing on center was just simply naive. Were we so blind to think that we would have 3 to 4 years of high picks to draft a center? Why were we drafting for position for a prospect that was 4 years away?

[dieHARDflameZ]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

It amazes me how much effort some of you put into trying to convince yourselves that the Jankowski pick was worth it.

Amazing and amusing.

It amazes me how much effort some people put into trying to convince themselves that the Jankowski pick was a bad one...

The kid is 19 years old and has shown progress in every season since being drafted a mere two years ago. Not every guy is a generational talent that can step into the league at 18 years old and light it up.

It was said from day one that he was a 3-4 year project minimum. Give it another year or two and see where he's at instead of writing a kid off in his sophomore season of division 1 college hockey...

[RichKlit]

Originally Posted by moon

I still think your wording is different than mine but yes I think I. Terms of offensive, defensive, hockey IQ he is below every other forward in the first round but may have more offense than some if the defencemen.

I think in terms of his overall game at this moment he is not as good a player as every other guy chosen.

Ridiculous statement.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by moon

I still think your wording is different than mine but yes I think I. Terms of offensive, defensive, hockey IQ he is below every other forward in the first round but may have more offense than some if the defencemen.

I think in terms of his overall game at this moment he is not as good a player as every other guy chosen.

Fine. We didn't draft him to be a success 18 months after he was selected. Is there something in the player that can be cultivated, say, developed, into NHL talent? Absolutely. He's big, he's got a good shot, good hands, he can skate. He's a center.

The pick wasn't great value, as of right now. What would've made it worse is if we'd traded out of 14 and drafted Gaunce because we 'needed a centre'. Go big or go home.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Well it's hard to say now with the benefit of hindsight but TT, Hertl, Girgensons, Laughton all have pretty high ceilings. As much as we like to hype Janko's toolbox there's basically nothing that exceptional there besides his size/hands ratio. I mean that's nice but those other players have similar or better skillsets to Janko.

And we were so bereft of talent THROUGHOUT the roster that focusing on center was just simply naive. Were we so blind to think that we would have 3 to 4 years of high picks to draft a center? Why were we drafting for position for a prospect that was 4 years away?

Thats pretty much it right, hindsight. If Feaster/Weisbrod could see in their crystal ball we probably would have the best prospect from every draft. Wouldn't that be amazing?

On the guys you point out:

Hertl is playing on Joe Thornton's line a guywho made Cheechoo a 56 goal scorer in the NHL. Of course Hertl is talented but would he be doing as good playing third line minutes with less talented players? Last year Hertl in the Czech league had 30 points in 43 games, looking at the rest of his team, they struggled to scre but Cerevenka put up 13 points in 9 games.

TT is playing in Finland 3 goals in 29 games. What's so amazing about that?

Girgensons, 4 goals and 14 points in 38 games. Getting plenty of time now under Nolan.

Laughton, in the juniors. Plenty of Junior players put up those kinds of numbers.

So the crystal ball still doesn't tell us who will be the best of the bunch.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Thats pretty much it right, hindsight. If Feaster/Weisbrod could see in their crystal ball we probably would have the best prospect from every draft. Wouldn't that be amazing?

On the guys you point out:

Hertl is playing on Joe Thornton's line a guywho made Cheechoo a 56 goal scorer in the NHL. Of course Hertl is talented but would he be doing as good playing third line minutes with less talented players? Last year Hertl in the Czech league had 30 points in 43 games, looking at the rest of his team, they struggled to scre but Cerevenka put up 13 points in 9 games.

TT is playing in Finland 3 goals in 29 games. What's so amazing about that?

Girgensons, 4 goals and 14 points in 38 games. Getting plenty of time now under Nolan.

Laughton, in the juniors. Plenty of Junior players put up those kinds of numbers.

So the crystal ball still doesn't tell us who will be the best of the bunch.

Sure.

But my point is in response to above asking which guys were on the board that had higher ceilings that Jankowski.

All of those guys have roughly equal or higher ceilings. The fact that Girgensons and Hertl, regardless of their situations, are scoring points right now in the NHL at an equal or better clip than Jankowski in the NCAA. Tough to argue that Janko has a higher ceiling in light of that. Maata is getting Olympic consideration. Laughton is captaining Team Canada at the WJCs, clearly there's something there as well. If we say that Laughton scoring points in Junior doesn't matter then how can we at the same time say that Janko NOT scoring points doesn't matter?

I mean sure we have all convinced ourselves that Janko's skill set is rare and potentially elite but is it really? Is it really better than any of the other prospects we could have drafted? I don't see it.

[FBI]

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p...php?pid=155332

Needs 0 goals and 6 assists in 16 games to surpass last years totals.

[FBI]

Looks like he is no longer public on twitter either.. Wonder if he was getting harassed too much, bummer..

[thymebalm]

Feaster was right about one thing. Today it looks like a bad decision. It looks like there were some other options out there that are having more impact today.

But Jankowski was always predicted to be a 5-year project at minimum.

It's very difficult to compare one guy at one stage in his development to another guy in another league and his development.

I'm not going to panic until I compare Jankowski's stats from year to year and start to see a dip. So far, it seems like he's making steady progress and that this year will be better than the last. Keep that up for 2.5 more seasons and he'll be a different player than the one we are analysing today.

[moon]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Fine. We didn't draft him to be a success 18 months after he was selected. Is there something in the player that can be cultivated, say, developed, into NHL talent? Absolutely. He's big, he's got a good shot, good hands, he can skate. He's a center.

Well the conversation was about his holes so I was talking about the holes in his game he has now. I mentioned a few times that he could develop into an NHL guy.

The pick wasn't great value, as of right now. What would've made it worse is if we'd traded out of 14 and drafted Gaunce because we 'needed a centre'. Go big or go home.

Not sure why choosing Gaunce would have been any worse he is just as likely, if not more, to be a 1st line center as Jankowski and fits the go big or go home as much as he does.

[Da_Chief]

I think the simple argument is why didn't we draft a more NHL ready prospect?

Those who believe we should've must think we're close to contending?

[moon]

My argument is why didn't we draft a better prospect.

I don't care if they are NHL ready or not.

I don't think it is as simple as saying those that wanted a different play think we are closer to contending.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

I think the simple argument is why didn't we draft a more NHL ready prospect?

Those who believe we should've must think we're close to contending?

I don't think not wanting the team to draft a long shot, long term prospect means people think the team was close to competing. Not sure why you're trying to twist it into that.

[Da_Chief]

Oh and only reason Maatta is getting Olymypic consideration is because he is one of five Finnish dman to have played an NHL game this season. 3 of the 5 are rookies. Finnish defensive depth is at an all time low right now. They will be filling out the D from Europe leagues.

Thats like saying Sven making the Swiss Olympic team is a bug acheivement.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by nik-

I don't think not wanting the team to draft a long shot, long term prospect means people think the team was close to competing. Not sure why you're trying to twist it into that.

Well thats what I'm asking, i'm not trying to twist anyone's words into anything. It was a question put forward to those who are asking why didn't we draft a more NHL ready prospect instead.

[nik-]

The only people who thought that we could legitimately compete at that point was management, so why didn't they draft a more NHL ready player?

It's not simply a question of more NHL ready, people feel other choices were better prospects in general, regardless of the timeline. More NHL ready is a bonus.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by nik-

The only people who thought that we could legitimately compete at that point was management, so why didn't they draft a more NHL ready player?

It's not simply a question of more NHL ready, people feel other choices were better prospects in general, regardless of the timeline. More NHL ready is a bonus.

And that is why you, me and those people are sitting in a front of our monitors and are playing the "i'm right, your'e wrong" game while the paid scouts are scouting and putting their career on the line with these picks.

If the management thought we could compete at this time wouldn't they draft a more NHL ready prospect? I'm sure as heck Feaster knew what he had in the locker room but his hands were tied by the ownership group. To be honest kudos to him for not trying to jeopardize the future of this franchise and sticking with who they thought had the highest potential of the available prospects.

They could very well end up being wrong but they scouted the player and thought he was the best player available for this franchise. Were they right? We'll have that answer in couple more years.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

And that is why you, me and those people are sitting in a front of our monitors and are playing the "i'm right, your'e wrong" game while the paid scouts are scouting and putting their career on the line with these picks.

Odd point, since it was likely one of the things that got Feaster and Weisbrod fired.

So ... I agree?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Sure.

But my point is in response to above asking which guys were on the board that had higher ceilings that Jankowski.

All of those guys have roughly equal or higher ceilings. The fact that Girgensons and Hertl, regardless of their situations, are scoring points right now in the NHL at an equal or better clip than Jankowski in the NCAA. Tough to argue that Janko has a higher ceiling in light of that. Maata is getting Olympic consideration. Laughton is captaining Team Canada at the WJCs, clearly there's something there as well. If we say that Laughton scoring points in Junior doesn't matter then how can we at the same time say that Janko NOT scoring points doesn't matter?

I mean sure we have all convinced ourselves that Janko's skill set is rare and potentially elite but is it really? Is it really better than any of the other prospects we could have drafted? I don't see it.

At the time of the draft both Girg and Laughton were perceived to have lower ceilings than many other prospects

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by nik-

Odd point, since it was likely one of the things that got Feaster and Weisbrod fired.

So ... I agree?

No, because the scouting staff that scouted him is still there. You don't really believe one prospect selcetion led to their firing? do you? Their firing is a while different story.