Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[Alberta_Beef]

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.

There has been nothing proven, that is the whole point. You can't prove something with speculation.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

No guarantee but I'd put my money almost every time on the player who at the same age is already in the NHL...

I would like to see some data to substantiate this claim. Of course, I think you would agree with me that there tends to be a pretty big gap between top 5—sometimes top 10—draft selections and first rounders in the range between 12–25, which is where the Flames picked Jankowski. Do you have some hard numbers that demonstrate to a convincing degree that players playing in the NHL a full year removed from their draft year are better players than those who are still developing?

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Sure there are outliers but to bet your future on one, isn't smart, especially when your wallet is empty.

Not this again. The "gambling" analogy is rely poorly applied in this discussion. Please tell us—in keeping with your terribly flawed similitude—what did the Flames lose by drafting Jankowski? You speak as though the "gamble" (if there ever was one in the first place) has played out and the Flames are worse off for it. If the loss was Maatta, then I remain unimpressed. I'm not impressed because ALL of these players—Jankowski, Maatta, Ceci, Hertl, Yakupov, Murray, Reinhart, Faksa, Teravainen, and all the rest are still very much works in progress.

In your opinion, what should have been the Flames's goal at the 2012 draft? If the results of the draft are still in progress, then why the rigid—and most clearly closed-minded—insistence that this was a bad pick?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

"I'm big enough, I'm fast enough, and dog-gone-it! I play a position that would see me in the NHL in some capacity!"

So a six foot three 190-200 lb centre without skating issues, who has a hockey IQ according to every scout that watches him, and who has above average hands at worst is a long shot to ever play in the NHL?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by TjRhythmic

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

I kept an open mind once.

It was cold.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Responses in bold.



Well I'm hopeful too even though the logic behind this pick stinks.

I disagree strongly, Maatta has already shown as much as we can hope Jankowski shows in another three years.

This is wrong. I hope Jankowski shows much more in three years than Maatta has already shown. I'm pretty sure everyone hopes that.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hmm, where in any of my posts did I say he won't make it?

To summarize, He was drafted out of high school, had skill but was very raw and underdeveloped for his age. We knew from day one he wouldn't be NHL ready for upwards of 4 years. The flames had very few quality prospects and needed someone who wasn't a long term project pick with that first rounder. I'm not saying Jankowski shouldn't of been drafted in the first round, just not by the Flames.

I've not given up hope and want him to become a star, but the odds were and still are against him. Just trying to be realistic here.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Hmm, where in any of my posts did I say he won't make it?

To summarize, He was drafted out of high school, had skill but was very raw and underdeveloped for his age. We knew from day one he wouldn't be NHL ready for upwards of 4 years. The flames had very few quality prospects and needed someone who wasn't a long term project pick with that first rounder. I'm not saying Jankowski shouldn't of been drafted in the first round, just not by the Flames.

I've not given up hope and want him to become a star, but the odds were and still are against him. Just trying to be realistic here.

But what difference does it matter of Jankowski takes 2 years or 4 years? The point of a draft for any team is to find the player who will have the best career, not the best first few years.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

But what difference does it matter of Jankowski takes 2 years or 4 years? The point of a draft for any team is to find the player who will have the best career, not the best first few years.

Because the longer it takes it means the more steps he has to take. The more steps he has to take, the more chances he has to fail.

I appreciate everyone coming to Jankowski's defence but it isn't Jankowski I'm criticizing it's Feaster's pick that I'm criticizing.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I disagree strongly, Maatta has already shown as much as we can hope Jankowski shows in another three years.

This is wrong. I hope Jankowski shows much more in three years than Maatta has already shown. I'm pretty sure everyone hopes that.

I hope so too but I wouldn't put money on it.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Because the longer it takes it means the more steps he has to take. The more steps he has to take, the more chances he has to fail.

I appreciate everyone coming to Jankowski's defence but it isn't Jankowski I'm criticizing it's Feaster's pick that I'm criticizing.

The longer it takes, the more time he has to develop. the better he gets in every aspect. the better the chance he has to succeed.

Look I can make blind assumptions too.

Also Jankowski was the pick of Weisbrod and the scouting department, not Feaster.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would like to see some data to substantiate this claim. Of course, I think you would agree with me that there tends to be a pretty big gap between top 5—sometimes top 10—draft selections and first rounders in the range between 12–25, which is where the Flames picked Jankowski. Do you have some hard numbers that demonstrate to a convincing degree that players playing in the NHL a full year removed from their draft year are better players than those who are still developing?


Not this again. The "gambling" analogy is rely poorly applied in this discussion. Please tell us—in keeping with your terribly flawed similitude—what did the Flames lose by drafting Jankowski? You speak as though the "gamble" (if there ever was one in the first place) has played out and the Flames are worse off for it. If the loss was Maatta, then I remain unimpressed. I'm not impressed because ALL of these players—Jankowski, Maatta, Ceci, Hertl, Yakupov, Murray, Reinhart, Faksa, Teravainen, and all the rest are still very much works in progress.

In your opinion, what should have been the Flames's goal at the 2012 draft? If the results of the draft are still in progress, then why the rigid—and most clearly closed-minded—insistence that this was a bad pick?

All you need to do is look at team Canada's lineup and check out their stats of when they were drafted and when they played in the NHL. Except for delays caused by the lockout, most entered the NHL within a year or two and they weren't all top five picks either.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

All you need to do is look at team Canada's lineup and check out their stats of when they were drafted and when they played in the NHL. Except for delays caused by the lockout, most entered the NHL within a year or two and they weren't all top five picks either.

you're seriously using an all-star team as a basis for putting down the Jankowski pick?

Now you are just grasping at straws.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

you're seriously using an all-star team as a basis for putting down the Jankowski pick?

Now you are just grasping at straws.

He wanted examples of players who entered the league shortly after being drafted compared to those who took longer.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

The longer it takes, the more time he has to develop. the better he gets in every aspect. the better the chance he has to succeed.

Look I can make blind assumptions too.

Also Jankowski was the pick of Weisbrod and the scouting department, not Feaster.

So yu think the student who takes 5 years to get through junior high is the better student than one who gets through in 2 years?

I don't see any point in carrying on thsi conversation with people who don't know the basics.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So yu think the student who takes 5 years to get through junior high is the better student than one who gets through in 2 years?

I don't see any point in carrying on thsi conversation with people who don't know the basics.

Jesus, where do you come up with these bull#### analogies?

I hate to break it to you but the path of an NCAA player is different than that of a CHL or even European league player.

Once you grasp that basic, then maybe we can talk.

Maybe instead of comparing Jankowski to players that can leave their respective leagues after 2 years without any ramifications you should try comparing him to players that took the NCAA path as well. After all those are the ones that would face similar consequences (no longer eligible for NCAA play) if they left school early.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So yu think the student who takes 5 years to get through junior high is the better student than one who gets through in 2 years?

I don't see any point in carrying on thsi conversation with people who don't know the basics.

You can't honestly believe that's a relevant comparison at all can you?

[JiriHrdina]

Here's the frustrating thing about this debate.
At the time of the draft we knew
- Jankowski would take longer to reach the NHL by virtue of where he was playing and the fact he was going the college route.
- There would be players that reached the NHL sooner than him.

So what's changed? Things have played out exactly as anticipated
- Some players have reached the NHL faster
- Janko is developing in college on a longer path

Nothing should be unexpected or surprising here.

Why are some in such a rush to judge this pick NOW? What is the harm in waiting until the kid at least turns pro and gets an NHL chance? That's all that is being said. No one is saying "THIS KID IS GOING TO BE AN ALLSTAR NO DOUBT!" They are just saying wait and see how things play out.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I just assumed everyone realized he would take a few years minimum to mature and challenge for a spot with the big team.

I agree with Jiri, this is pretty much exactly how I thought things would play out so far. Sucks seeing other players drafted after him in the NHL already, but that was to be expected.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So yu think the student who takes 5 years to get through junior high is the better student than one who gets through in 2 years?

I don't see any point in carrying on thsi conversation with people who don't know the basics.

Incredible analogy.

Jankowski will be a mystery to us untill his first NHL game. Same can be said for Gaudreau. Who knows how these kids will translate their game to this level?

But it will take longer for Janko since he was the 2nd youngest player in the draft and the only pick in the first round still playing high school hockey. (highest high school pick in nhl history) On top of that he is going the NCAA route which takes usually 3-4 years for the majority of players. He also grew something like 8 inches in the last few seasons of hockey so he has some filling out to do. The fact it wouldnt be smart to throw him in the NHL right out of highschool doesnt make him a bad player or like someone who takes extra time to finish highschool. Every player is different.

I love the Jankowski pick because we swung for the fences rather than taking the consensus pick.

I'm not 100% sure Maata or Hertl etc will have better careers than Jankowski. They are both rookies on great teams, not great enough players to cry about missing out on imo.

I think some people just want something (anything) to complain about.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I just assumed everyone realized he would take a few years minimum to mature and challenge for a spot with the big team.

I agree with Jiri, this is pretty much exactly how I thought things would play out so far. Sucks seeing other players drafted after him in the NHL already, but that was to be expected.

pretty much and should be expected of any player that goes the NCAA route.

It's also funny because a guy like Derek Forbort is still held in high regard, drafted 15th overall in 2010, yet to play an NHL game mostly due to the fact he spent 3 years at North Dakota after being drafted.