[News] With the 21st overall pick Flames select C Mark Jankowski

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

I love that we have Gillies, but to use him as a knock on Jankowski is just stupid.

You and MMF are just the kings of putting words in my mouth.

I asked the question of how much Gillies had to do with Jankowski being labeled a defensive stud. My point is to wait and see what happens next season because I'm not as convinced as some of you are. Providence will be a different team and Jankowski will have a bigger role.

Jankowski will have a tough test to be a plus player next year. He also doesn't have the excuse of being 2nd pp unit, 2nd liner without any linemates. If he runs with it, of course you sign him. If he doesn't seem to have progressed much, it's a tougher call to make between him and the 2nd round pick. Of course I want him to succeed, I even mentioned as much several pages back that I don't understand why there are flames fans who seem to be cheering against him.

THAT WAS THE ONLY POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SO CHILL OUT!

Had to caps lock that because I know you two have selective reading.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Dropping like a stone. Trade him now.

I did find this: Gillies is ranked by SBN as the 11th best NHL prospect in the NCAA (and the best goalie prospect):

http://www.sbncollegehockey.com/2015...yko/in/7830396

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by flameswin

The amount of reaching going on in here to label Jankowski a bust is mind-blowing.

It feels like fans of other teams are in here doing the usual "our prospects are all awesome yours are all crap and here's some irrelevant stats and future scenarios we've made up to prove our point" routine.

But it's our own fans, I guess clinging on to the fact that they didn't like the pick and feeling a need to prove and almost wish for the failure of Jankowski to be able to say "Yes!!! I was right!!!".

That is for sure. Not all prospects make it, and undoubtedly fans will overvalue their own. However, to declare, " Jankowski looks to be nothing more than a 3rd line tweener" is ridiculous. 1. It is too early to make that projection, 2. Based on actual viewings, it is questionable at best to land on that conclusion and 3. Even if does become a 3rd line tweener, does that make him a bad prospect (worse than an unknown 2nd rounder)? Nope, to all of the above.

[Daradon]

It was an amazingly bad pick, but it's far too early to label Jankowski a bust. Kid is only 20. Even if he doesn't make it with Calgary I could see him eking out a living somewhere in the NHL. It can take a while to learn the game for some. And he still has some upside.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

There's a difference between regression and being a bottom-feeder team. I fully expect providence to regress, but if Jankowski was truly a big part of this seasons success like some of you are quick to mention, than he should be able to take over top line duties and keep providence out of the basement next season. He's got a highly touted defensive game, but how much of that was due to Gillies .950 save percentage?

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

You and MMF are just the kings of putting words in my mouth.

I asked the question of how much Gillies had to do with Jankowski being labeled a defensive stud. My point is to wait and see what happens next season because I'm not as convinced as some of you are. Providence will be a different team and Jankowski will have a bigger role.

Jankowski will have a tough test to be a plus player next year. He also doesn't have the excuse of being 2nd pp unit, 2nd liner without any linemates. If he runs with it, of course you sign him. If he doesn't seem to have progressed much, it's a tougher call to make between him and the 2nd round pick. Of course I want him to succeed, I even mentioned as much several pages back that I don't understand why there are flames fans who seem to be cheering against him.

THAT WAS THE ONLY POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SO CHILL OUT!

Had to caps lock that because I know you two have selective reading.

There you go. How is that not a knock???

Edit: With your statement, I also asked that could it perhaps be that Gillies' strong play comes from the defensive-minded system Providence has? Pretty much vise versa of what you said about Jankowski.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I'm not going to keep debating this because all the facts are already on the table.

What facts?

The only facts you've shown are that Weisbrod (but not Weisbrod exclusively) was publically very high on Jankowski. That's it. That does not mean Wiesbrod overrode Button during the draft with an off-the-Flames-board pick.

Please explain why Weisbrod was hired as Assistant GM if not to give advice to feaster? When I say he's 'a hockey guy' that means he knows how to evaluate players (or at least should).

Weisbrod was hired as an Assistant GM. Last I checked, an assistant GM is not the Head of Amateur Scouting. If Weisbrod had any particular say into Jankowski, then he did equally so for Poirier, Klimchuk, Sieloff, Kulak, Culkin, Monahan, Kanzig, Gilmour, Gillies. Especially the 2013 Trio of first rounders. Weisbrod had input. Of course he did. That does not mean he undercut Tod Button. No source has confirmed anything of the sort. Jankowski as a pick is very much like the Gaudreau pick, a reach on a high risk high reward player.

Drafting is a full process, it wasn't just "Wiesbrod decided to draft Jankowksi, so we did".

Button really wanted Weisbrod to see Jankowski because this was a high school program that was out of the way, meaning lots of scouts wouldn't be interested to go view the team.

Now why would Button really want Weisbrod to see Jankowski, if Button, our Head Scout, was not really high on Jankowski?

It was an off-the-board selection in their eyes,

Please show me the quote from a Flames executive that says this.

but according to this very reliable source, all signs point to Weisbrod who was at the table and got Feaster to draft him.

Please show me the quote that says this. because "all signs" don't point to anything other than fan speculation.

Conroy was very high on Sam Bennett, too. I'm sure if you look up enough "sources" you can twist it so that "all signs" point to Conroy deciding we take Bennett even if it was a no-brainer pick.

"All signs" only point to Jankowski being heavily scouted by many different people in the Flames organization, and them coming to a collective consensus that he was the BPA on Tod Button's draft board.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

And I asked you one question, but apparently you will ignore the fact that you flat out lied in your last post.

I'm not going to continue circling around this issue because you don't seem to respond to anything concrete and read things the way you want to. The exact same thing happened when we had this discussion in the back burner.

I know you want this to be a Jankowski circle jerk thread, so I'll stop asking the questions that seem to be tough for you to hear.

I inferred you thought he would have a poor season based on questioning if he would be so bad the Flames let him go. Apologies if I'm wrong. Flat out lied? Oh dear. Drama!

I'd prefer this thread be about the player, not about the endless debate that's been happening for three years now, the exact same one that'll happen in a month. It's boring.

The tough questions? I have doubts you've seen Jankowski play regularly, I have doubts you've seen Gillies play regularly based on you calling his horrible world juniors a success, you're not in a position to ask tough questions.

[sureLoss]

The 51st OA pick in the 2017 draft most likely gets you a prospect with more question marks than Jankowski right now.

[You Need a Thneed]

Am I the only one that sees Jankowski as AT WORST a future third line tweener at this point?

He looks like he could be a better Colborne - with average progression. He's essentially exactly the same age as Monahan. He'll only be just barely 22 at the start of the 2016-17 season.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

What facts?

The only facts you've shown are that Weisbrod (but not Weisbrod exclusively) was publically very high on Jankowski. That's it. That does not mean Wiesbrod overrode Button during the draft with an off-the-Flames-board pick.



Weisbrod was hired as an Assistant GM. Last I checked, an assistant GM is not the Head of Amateur Scouting. If Weisbrod had any particular say into Jankowski, then he did equally so for Poirier, Klimchuk, Sieloff, Kulak, Culkin, Monahan, Kanzig, Gilmour, Gillies. Especially the 2013 Trio of first rounders. Weisbrod had input. Of course he did. That does not mean he undercut Tod Button. No source has confirmed anything of the sort. Jankowski as a pick is very much like the Gaudreau pick, a reach on a high risk high reward player.

Drafting is a full process, it wasn't just "Wiesbrod decided to draft Jankowksi, so we did".



Now why would Button really want Weisbrod to see Jankowski, if Button, our Head Scout, was not really high on Jankowski



Please show me the quote from a Flames executive that says this.



Please show me the quote that says this. because "all signs" don't point to anything other than fan speculation.

Conroy was very high on Sam Bennett, too. I'm sure if you look up enough "sources" you can twist it so that "all signs" point to Conroy deciding we take Bennett even if it was a no-brainer pick.

I cannot believe I'm wasting more time giving you sources...

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/bu...052648549.html

An exec (weisbrod) saying what I said:

We knew he was playing in a league where people would undervalue him, playing weaker competition, playing in obscure places."

Here's weisbrod pumping up Jankowski to Flames scouts..

Like I've been saying to our scouts all week long, 'He's Joe Nieuwendyk.'

Weisbrod saying he didn't think Janko would make it past the first round:

“I don’t want to share anyone’s business,” said Weisbrod, “but I know he wouldn’t have made it through [the first round]. I know at least two teams that would have taken him. We knew we had to take him [Friday] — it was just a matter of where.”

Now please drop it..

[GranteedEV]

Nothing that you posted shows a single thing about Wiesbrod power-tripping. At most it implies he was very high on the player, which was never denied.

In your own quotes, look how many times the word "we" pops up.

Of course if Weisbrod is the person being interviewed, a story is going to be slanted from his perspective.

Does it say at any point "some scouts disagreed with me, but I went ahead and did it"?

Does it even say "We had a few guys we were considering, but I liked Jankowski best?

Your "sources" are articles everyone has read before. They simply do not say John Weisbrod selected Mark Jankowski. They only prove that Weisbrod was one of the people who liked the player in the organaztion. Are you really trying to argue that because the player the organization selected was a player that a person within the organization liked, that one person selected the player overriding an entire scouting staff including the Head of Amateur Scouting?

And yes, Weisbrod didn't think the player would make it past the first round, because Weisbrod was privy to discussions within the Flames organization. How does that prove your UNFOUNDED implication that the rest of the scouting staff i.e. Tod Button thought the player would have been there at #42 or that there was a better player available according to Tod Button and his staff?

You are being absolutely ridiculous in singling out Weisbrod as the guy who drafted Jankowski. He scouted the player and he liked the player a lot. So did a LOT of other people in the organization, including Todd Button and a few other guys.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I inferred you thought he would have a poor season based on questioning if he would be so bad the Flames let him go. Apologies if I'm wrong. Flat out lied? Oh dear. Drama!

I'd prefer this thread be about the player, not about the endless debate that's been happening for three years now, the exact same one that'll happen in a month. It's boring.

The tough questions? I have doubts you've seen Jankowski play regularly, I have doubts you've seen Gillies play regularly based on you calling his horrible world juniors a success, you're not in a position to ask tough questions.

Has my whole discussion not been about the player? We aren't talking about him being a 1st round draft pick today are we?

And yes Gillies didn't have the best showing, but he was part of a gold medal winning team regardless. No shame in backing up the best goalie prospect in the NHL (Gibson).

Who are you to say I can't ask questions? This is a damn discussion forum, get your head out of your ass. Maybe I can't come up with conclusions without regularly viewing them, but I can damn well ask questions.

You say you want to talk about the player, yet I can't question the player. Makes sense.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Has my whole discussion not been about the player? We aren't talking about him being a 1st round draft pick today are we?

And yes Gillies didn't have the best showing, but he was part of a gold medal winning team regardless. No shame in backing up the best goalie prospect in the NHL (Gibson).

Who are you to say I can't ask questions? This is a damn discussion forum, get your head out of your ass. Maybe I can't come up with conclusions without regularly viewing them, but I can damn well ask questions.

You say you want to talk about the player, yet I can't question the player. Makes sense.

The problem is that your starting point is an absurd assertion that, "Jankowski looks to be nothing more than a 3rd line tweener." Once you declare that little nugget, you can expect to get piled on, for reasons I mentioned earlier.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Has my whole discussion not been about the player? We aren't talking about him being a 1st round draft pick today are we?

And yes Gillies didn't have the best showing, but he was part of a gold medal winning team regardless. No shame in backing up the best goalie prospect in the NHL (Gibson).

Who are you to say I can't ask questions? This is a damn discussion forum, get your head out of your ass. Maybe I can't come up with conclusions without regularly viewing them, but I can damn well ask questions.

You say you want to talk about the player, yet I can't question the player. Makes sense.

I didn't say you can't, I said you're not in a position to. Don't put words in my mouth!!!!! Haha.

Playing 20 minutes the entire time is not a success. It's awesome he was part of a winner but to even suggest Jon Gillies has had success at the International level like you did is being disingenuous. He was a failure at the World Juniors. Full stop.

Now that doesn't mean too much, I've long said World Junior experience and success means diddly squat long term but let's not pretend he was good when he obviously wasn't.

Capiche?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Am I the only one that sees Jankowski as AT WORST a future third line tweener at this point?

He looks like he could be a better Colborne - with average progression. He's essentially exactly the same age as Monahan. He'll only be just barely 22 at the start of the 2016-17 season.

Thats pretty much what I see too and that would be excellent. I'd consider him an excellent prospect if thats the level that he achieves.

[Igster]

Imagine if Jankowski does become Nieuwendyk. This thread will be quite the read after the fact if that happens.

[puckedoff]

I say if we end up with a 6'4" 225lb center who can skate, and is good in the faceoff dot, we end up alright.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Am I the only one that sees Jankowski as AT WORST a future third line tweener at this point?

He looks like he could be a better Colborne - with average progression. He's essentially exactly the same age as Monahan. He'll only be just barely 22 at the start of the 2016-17 season.

I'm pretty high on Jankowski, his absolute ceiling is a 2nd liner for me. Do I see that happening? Nope, not really. I too see him as more of a 3rd line/4th line center for the Flames.

I see him as a combination of Backlund and Colborne. Has good play making/decent physicality like Colborne, and great defensively like Backlund.

I don't think you'll find anyone on here who thinks he will be as good as Monahan, but what people need to realize on here is just because he hasn't played on the NHL or AHL level does not mean he is a bust. The NCAA right now is best for his development, firstly because he has played in it for 3 years, and the other reason that he will be getting a lot more responsibility than those 3 years he played in.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

I'm pretty high on Jankowski, his absolute ceiling is a 2nd liner for me.

What particular limiting aspect of his game defines that ceiling?

[GioforPM]

I'm kinda sorry I mentioned the old fight about who made that pick.

My real point stands - good or bad pick, it was made. The GM and AGM at the time are gone. The only question is what his role, if any will be, and where he is on the path to the NHL.