Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Would the Flames be benefiting more from one of the two aforementioned defenders now? Yes. Something you seem to glaze over every time you respond.

They would also have much safer bet to start moving the team in the right direction on their hands. I have not interest in arguing about who could be better in a few years, especially when you're not willing to concede that a 19 year old player who's a regular in the NHL is just as special as what we have with Monohan. If you can't see that, I find it equally laughable.

Why bother posting then, seriously?

Nobody is calling Jankowski the better pick over Maatta at this point - they are leaving the possibility open.

Nobody is saying that Maatta is going to bust out of the NHL, or isn't going to be an impact player moving forward.

Nobody is anointing Jankowski as the #1 center who is going to take this organization on his back all the way to Lord Stanley.

Point is, you can look through the NHL's draft history and see many guys who have required more development time, but were proven to be the smart pick. You can also look at some players that have stepped up quickly after their draft, and became NHL players, only to have mediocre seasons or even shortened ones.

Declaring anyone a 'winner' and a 'loser' so close after the draft, is folly. Declaring you are not interested in discussing who may be the better player in the long run after a draft... well.. I guess then there is no discussion.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Why bother posting then, seriously?

Nobody is calling Jankowski the better pick over Maatta at this point - they are leaving the possibility open.

Nobody is saying that Maatta is going to bust out of the NHL, or isn't going to be an impact player moving forward.

Nobody is anointing Jankowski as the #1 center who is going to take this organization on his back all the way to Lord Stanley.

Point is, you can look through the NHL's draft history and see many guys who have required more development time, but were proven to be the smart pick. You can also look at some players that have stepped up quickly after their draft, and became NHL players, only to have mediocre seasons or even shortened ones.

Declaring anyone a 'winner' and a 'loser' so close after the draft, is folly. Declaring you are not interested in discussing who may be the better player in the long run after a draft... well.. I guess then there is no discussion.

Okay we can't declare a winner yet but considering the progress of the two players, I'd put the odds for Jankowski to end up being the better player at about 5 to 1. Not a good gamble.

[saillias]

Can we ban the phrase "cup of coffee" when referring to prospects getting a chance. Maybe it can be autocorrected to Ramholt or Breen?

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Okay we can't declare a winner yet but considering the progress of the two players, I'd put the odds for Jankowski to end up being the better player at about 5 to 1. Not a good gamble.

That's basically the point I've been trying to get across, but anyone defending the Jankowski pick simply ignores this fact.

It WAS and still IS a gamble pick. I'd say a 5 to 1 chance that he can turn into a top 6 NHLer is reasonable and maybe even a little generous. Our cupboards were close to empty with half decent prospects and Feaster decided to gamble with our highest pick of the draft.

He MAY turn into something better than what Maatta or Ceci currently are, but there's so many what if's that you can't put together a strong argument to say for sure.

I've never been one to bash Feaster and I do like the majority of the trades he made, but he's made some colossal mistakes as well. There's no denying that.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Would the Flames be benefiting more from one of the two aforementioned defenders now? Yes. Something you seem to glaze over every time you respond.

They would also have much safer bet to start moving the team in the right direction on their hands. I have not interest in arguing about who could be better in a few years, especially when you're not willing to concede that a 19 year old player who's a regular in the NHL is just as special as what we have with Monohan. If you can't see that, I find it equally laughable.

At the time of the draft the Flames had zero centre prospects with top 6 potential and zero centre prospects with size. Jankowski looks less vital now with the drafting of Monahan, and the acquisitions of Knight and Colborne and the emergence of Reinhart and Granlund.

I assume by Monahan you mean Jankowski since Monahan hasn't even been mentioned. And I never said anyone wasn't as special as jankowski. I am saying it's too soon to make absolute statements on anyone that was drafted in 2012.

It would be like declaring Steve Bernier better than Ryan Kesler when Bernier had 14 goals in his first 39 NHL games. You simply do not know who is a late bloomer, who will top out younger or even who will get hurt.

Why not just try supporting the players we do have instead of bitch and cry about the ones we don't?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Okay we can't declare a winner yet but considering the progress of the two players, I'd put the odds for Jankowski to end up being the better player at about 5 to 1. Not a good gamble.

What facts or figures are you basing your '5-1' odds from?

What is a gamble pick? Every single pick in the draft is a 'gamble pick', correct? How do you minimize the 'gamble'? You scout as much and as well as you can to formulate the very best projections. Did the Flames do this to a satisfactory level for you?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

That's basically the point I've been trying to get across, but anyone defending the Jankowski pick simply ignores this fact. What am I ignoring here? Please explain.

It WAS and still IS a gamble pick. I'd say a 5 to 1 chance that he can turn into a top 6 NHLer is reasonable and maybe even a little generous. Our cupboards were close to empty with half decent prospects and Feaster decided to gamble with our highest pick of the draft. 5-1 odds being generous. Please explain as to how those are realistic odds in any way.

Once again, as per my post above - 'gambling' is done on every single pick in the draft, and teams increase their odds of success by thoroughly scouting prospects. Sounds like the Flames scouted Jankowski very, very thoroughly, as there was at least one scout present at every single one of his games from at least the midpoint of the season and on, and the Flames had their entire scouting staff scout him. You see 'project' and you think 'gamble'.

He MAY turn into something better than what Maatta or Ceci currently are, but there's so many what if's that you can't put together a strong argument to say for sure. Your only argument is that because Maatta or Ceci have made the NHL already, they are better players and it was a mistake to draft Jankowski because he isn't. History dictates that this logic is no guarantee as a future predictor of careers.

I've never been one to bash Feaster and I do like the majority of the trades he made, but he's made some colossal mistakes as well. There's no denying that. I think very little of Feaster and his body of work as the GM of the Flames. I thought most of his trades stunk, with very rare 'wins'. Drafting seemed thus far to be very good under his tenure, because he allowed the scouts to run the drafts. Feaster had nothing to do with Jankowski - even made it a point to tell the world that "Weisbrod loved him", "Weisbrod thinks he will be the best player from this draft", etc. Feaster had nothing to do with this pick except for allowing the scouts to pick who they wanted, and calling his name out at the draft.

Reply in bold.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

What facts or figures are you basing your '5-1' odds from?

What is a gamble pick? Every single pick in the draft is a 'gamble pick', correct? How do you minimize the 'gamble'? You scout as much and as well as you can to formulate the very best projections. Did the Flames do this to a satisfactory level for you?

The fact that Jankowski was so 'raw' and undeveloped makes him a gamble pick. Someone projected to be 4-5 years away from being a possible NHLer compared to many others who were further developed at the time of the draft and 1-2 years from making the NHL based off scout projections.

Please keep replying to any loosely based comments and ignore any hard facts. /sarcasm

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

The fact that Jankowski was so 'raw' and undeveloped makes him a gamble pick. Someone projected to be 4-5 years away from being a possible NHLer compared to many others who were further developed at the time of the draft and 1-2 years from making the NHL based off scout projections.

Please keep replying to any loosely based comments and ignore any hard facts. /sarcasm

considering he was supposed to play a year in the USHL before going the college route, why does the 4-5 years even matter? for all we know even if he was dominating the NCAA he would still finish school.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

considering he was supposed to play a year in the USHL before going the college route, why does the 4-5 years even matter? for all we know even if he was dominating the NCAA he would still finish school.

There was no supposed to. He planned to play in the USHL because he didn't have the confidence to play College hockey. If he had gone to the USHL his projection would have been even longer than the 5 years.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

There was no supposed to. He planned to play in the USHL because he didn't have the confidence to play College hockey. If he had gone to the USHL his projection would have been even longer than the 5 years.

I'm glad you have so much insight into his confidence and psyche

[Vulcan]

Your only argument is that because Maatta or Ceci have made the NHL already, they are better players and it was a mistake to draft Jankowski because he isn't. History dictates that this logic is no guarantee as a future predictor of careers.

No guarantee but I'd put my money almost every time on the player who at the same age is already in the NHL. Sure there are outliers but to bet your future on one, isn't smart, especially when your wallet is empty.

[Vulcan]

Laugh.

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I'm glad you have so much insight into his confidence and psyche

Having to pick between the two programs was extremely difficult as Jankowski thinks the world of Dubuque, their coaching staff and players.

He also reflected on how he played against his fellow prospects earlier this month at the Flames development camp. He was able to get a taste of what kind of competition he would face at the next level and gained confidence from how he performed.

"I was a little nervous at first, playing against a lot of older guys," the 17 year-old admitted. "But coming out of there, I felt really confident. I held my own playing against and with those guys."

http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=638851

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Vulcan you're on your own, I've brought up my points and don't feel like spending any more time defending my posts. Some people are too close minded and stubborn to admit they are wrong. They'll spend hours trying to find ways of skewing words and be oblivious to several solid points against their stance.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Laugh.





http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=638851

Gaining confidence does not mean he lacked it to start with. But keep trying

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Vulcan you're on your own, I've brought up my points and don't feel like spending any more time defending my posts. Some people are too close minded and stubborn to admit they are wrong. They'll spend hours trying to find ways of skewing words and be oblivious to several solid points against their stance.

we are close minded because we are saying its too early to tell?

That's actually quite hilarious considering we are more open minded to possibilities

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Gaining confidence does not mean he lacked it to start with. But keep trying

As BIF said, no sense in arguing. I've found that even if some posters opinion has been proven wrong multiple times, a week later they'll still be repeating their bogus thoughts.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As BIF said, no sense in arguing. I've found that even if some posters opinion has been proven wrong multiple times, a week later they'll still be repeating their bogus thoughts.

What have you proven, that his opinion is different than yours, so he must be wrong and you are right?

[Francis's Hairpiece]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

we are close minded because we are saying its too early to tell?

That's actually quite hilarious considering we are more open minded to possibilities

Apparently we are closed minded because we won't condemn a pick be fore he has had a chance to turn out.

For shame! Bow down to their superior knowledge an intellect!
Forget the fact you haven't said he is good or bad. You are wrong!

[TjRhythmic]

I find it humorous that the ones saying Jankowski is a bad pick, and finding every single reason to validate he won't make it are the ones calling everyone else close minded.

Yet the people that take a "wait and see" approach are. The wait and see people are the ones that are open minded to the possibilities that Jankowski could possibly be a good player for Calgary.

I see some people say that there are outliers. Who's to say that Jankowski isn't one of those outliers. Can we all be "open minded" about that?

With any player you can't compare player A to player B... Why? Because Player A isn't player B. it's simple. We can't look at one player and see how well he's doing because we don't know how he'll play in Calgary's system, with their players. We can't compare the developmental curve because they are totally different players player different styles and so forth. But hey, keep the tunnel vision hate going.

I'm just going to keep and "open mind" and see what happens.