Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[ForeverFlameFan]

You guys make it seem like that every draft pick has to be a success. Maybe Feaster swung and struck out on this one, you can't win them all. Give me a break, we drafted the kid when he was still in high school, let the kid develop! If he doesn't turn out to be what we want him to be, then we'll have to move on. Besides, we have other prospects to worry about that are more NHL ready than him.

I agree with nik, I did think his production would have been a little better by now, but again, the kid still has and needs time to grow and develop his game.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by New Era

If your expectations are always production growth, regardless of a players situation, you must be apoplectic over Baertschi this year. A 7% drop in scoring from last year to this year in NHL scoring, and then a 38% drop in AHL scoring on top of that. Based on the magic 25% increase in scoring method, Baertschi is off where he should be by 32% at the NHL level and 52% at the AHL level! Good thing point production doesn't make a hill of beans when it comes to evaluating players in their preparation for playing in the NHL.

Relax and let these kids work with their coaches and learn to play the game as their respective teams expect them to play. I'll take a highly skilled kid who is coachable and play a 200 foot game over ones who are not, any day of the week. Look up the QE2 to see what uncoachable skill gets you.

Let me know when the NCAA is on par with the NHL.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well lets just hope the linemates and system excuse doesn't become a pattern

There's a difference between excuses and explanations.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Husky

And it looks to have improved so far this year...higher point per game ratio.

Barely... .53 vs .60. That's hardly a meaningful difference.

I didn't expect him to crest 1.00PPG this year but I did expect better then a .07 improvement.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

There's a difference between excuses and explanations.

There is, but that doesn't mean the explanation isn't something a lot of prospects have to deal with. Eventually it becomes an excuse.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

Let me know when the NCAA is on par with the NHL.

What is your point? You're complaining about lack of positive point production growth by a player. I pointed out another player who is failing in a similar measure, except in a much greater fashion, and he's our best prospect. If you're going to apply that brush to one prospect, please apply it to all.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by saXon

I come to the prospect threads daily for news and insight as to what is going on in the world of the kids in the Flames' prospect system. not to be spoon fed dead horse that's been kicked to death and rotting for 2.5 years.

Since this thread is about Janko, and not about Maatta, why don't you just move on from the conversation?

Maybe start a 'Who the Flames should have picked' thread and move your issues there so we can get back to the real news.

Real news? Providence play 2 times a week. Get back to what real news? Nobody expects real providence news mid-week?..

Should we only post game updates? lol. This thread is not about Maata but a lot of people have said we should have picked him. We surely dont need a new thread to respond to that? Maybe -Nik and new era need a new thread to debate point production too..

People will talk about skittles in the Gaudreau thread and about Mantha in the Poirier thread, etc etc. Lighten up and enjoy CP for what it is rather than coming into threads to say "move the #### on" to people discussing something you dont like.

This must be your first forum if you cant ignore posts or think its possible to stop people from straying at least a little bit off topic or beating a dead horse once in a while

Originally Posted by stignasty

Originally Posted by saXon

The Flames didn't pick Maatta. They picked Jankowski. They also picked Erixon, Nemisz, Kidd, Fata, Irving, Pelech, and Krahn.

Jankowski is nothing like any of the picks you mentioned.
But you seem a bit butthurt and pessimistic about the flames drafting so I will let you believe what you like about him.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by New Era

What is your point? You're complaining about lack of positive point production growth by a player. I pointed out another player who is failing in a similar measure, except in a much greater fashion, and he's our best prospect. If you're going to apply that brush to one prospect, please apply it to all.

He's failing in a "much greater fashion" because he's on a much higher stage. You can't apply the same brush to all because their situations aren't the same. I'm applying this to Jankowski, because he's in the exact same league, on the same team, with the same coach and with another year of experience and it's just flatness.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Where's Cheese when you need him? We need something to go along with all this whine.

[nik-]

How is that whining? Because I don't agree with the Jankowski gospel?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by nik-

How is that whining? Because I don't agree with the Jankowski gospel?

People are whining about the Jankowski pick well before he's even close to busting. Tons of whining in this thread, it permeates it. Which a lot of us think is really silly because he still looks like he might turn out just fine. Would people rather have Maatta right now? Sure. But to expect your team to always take the best player available in the second half of the first round is crazy unrealistic. Feaster, Weisbrod and Button swung for the fences with Jankowski and it was a good gamble. The Flames had been looking for a big skilled centre for what, 15 years? Since Nieuwendyk left? Just because we drafted Monahan last year does not mean any can claim that we didn't badly, badly, badly need a big top two line centre. And Jankowski may very well turn out to be that. Which could still turn out to be a tremendous asset for us when he's fully developed.

I believe the Hockey News did an article on re-drafting Jankowski's draft and the scouts still had him as a first rounder so clearly that hockey world is not as down on Mark as many of the pessimists around here are.

Bottom line to me is that we all knew the kid was a 4-5 year project when he was drafted so those people going on and on and on about how terrible the pick after two years where he made a successful transition to college hockey and has showed improvement are being extremely premature in their assessment.

[nik-]

First: Why was it a good gamble? We aren't a team that can afford to gamble with first round picks and he was playing in a BS league. Please tell me why he was a good gamble? Because of some his "skillset" which shows up in rare flashes. Two or three times a season we get a youtube clip?

Second: What does "turn out just fine" mean to you? Because I think if turning out just fine means a top 2 center to you, then it's likely that you're going to be disappointed.

Please someone resell me on this kid with evidence, not hype, because I really really want him to work out. This organization cannot afford a DNF on a first round pick.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by nik-

First: Why was it a good gamble? We aren't a team that can afford to gamble with first round picks and he was playing in a BS league. Please tell me why he was a good gamble? Because of some his "skillset" which shows up in rare flashes. Two or three times a season we get a youtube clip?

Second: What does "turn out just fine" mean to you? Because I think if turning out just fine means a top 2 center to you, then it's likely that you're going to be disappointed.

Please someone resell me on this kid with evidence, not hype, because I really really want him to work out. This organization cannot afford a DNF on a first round pick.

It's a good gamble because normally you can't get a big top two line centre outside of the top 5-10. The only way to do it is to have an insane draft (see 2003 with Getzlaf, etc) or draft somebody out of a lesser known area (see Kopitar not getting draft top 5-10 due to being Slovenian) or just to get insanely lucky. Jankowski has the size, skill and skating to turn into a top two line centre.

You do realize that at least half of 1st rounders taken in the second half end up busting right? Maybe you don't because many seem to expect surefire NHLers when the draft doesn't work like that except in the deepest of draft years.

I think he certainly still has top two line centre potential. I think many in this thread are making the mistake of not realizing that he could have gone to the USHL, put up gaudy numbers there, then moved to college and he'd only be a freshman this season. In fact that was his original plan. The new plan where he moved to college earlier than most players do was always going to make his numbers look worse for the first couple years. If he went the USHL route most fans would probably feel happier about the pick because he would've dominated there and this season we'd be able to write off because he was adapting to college hockey and his numbers wouldn't be as big of a deal.

But he ended up going straight into college at an age younger than most players do. He did so straight from a very low level league and did okay. That is promising. What's funny is that people instead think that is disappointing because they are so focused on the numbers.

I watched the kid in development camp and he shows more than just a flash once or twice a season as your hyperbolic statement suggested. He didn't look miles behind Monahan in that camp when I watched both closely.

IMO we really aren't really able to read too much into his numbers yet. He was a project and remains so. As others have pointed out his team is not the most offensive team in the league. People need to suck it up, have some patience and wait and see how his junior and then senior years work out. He's far from a bust and seems to be on track when you realize that a lot of players start college a year or two later then he did.

And of course there's the fact that he was one of the youngest kids in his draft year, only being a month or so older than Monahan?

Some of you should play a little mental trick to adjust your expectations on Jankowski. Pretend he went to the USHL last year and this is instead his freshman year. Then judge his numbers.

[SuperMatt18]

Know what I find hilarious, people on CalgaryPuck would be all over making a trade for former Chicago Blackhawks first rounder Kevin Hayes right now, yet don't have the patience to see Jankowski develop.

Hayes:
Freshman: 0.45 PPG
Sophomore: 0.63 PPG

Jankowski:
Freshman: 0.53 PPG
Sophomore: 0.60 PPG

So pretty much identical stats, but Hayes was playing on one of the highest scoring teams in the country those two years and a national champion in his Sophomore season, while Jankowski is playing on a team that struggles to score goals and gets very little PP time.

[dammage79]

And there's your winner winner chicken dinner. Seriously, give Janko some offensive firepower on his wings and we would see a different tale of the tape I am sure.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Know what I find hilarious, people on CalgaryPuck would be all over making a trade for former Chicago Blackhawks first rounder Kevin Hayes right now, yet don't have the patience to see Jankowski develop.

Hayes:
Freshman: 0.45 PPG
Sophomore: 0.63 PPG

Jankowski:
Freshman: 0.53 PPG
Sophomore: 0.60 PPG

So pretty much identical stats, but Hayes was playing on one of the highest scoring teams in the country those two years and a national champion in his Sophomore season, while Jankowski is playing on a team that struggles to score goals and gets very little PP time.

Great find. I think some people don't seem to realize that most players play on lower lines as freshman/sophomores and usually aren't expected to put up great numbers. On most teams juniors and seniors are shouldering the load and getting the prime ice time. The Gaudreau types are definitely the exception, not the norm. And the fact someone isn't putting up Gaudreau like numbers in their first two years of college does not at all mean they will bust.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by nik-

First: Why was it a good gamble? We aren't a team that can afford to gamble with first round picks and he was playing in a BS league. Please tell me why he was a good gamble? Because of some his "skillset" which shows up in rare flashes. Two or three times a season we get a youtube clip?

Second: What does "turn out just fine" mean to you? Because I think if turning out just fine means a top 2 center to you, then it's likely that you're going to be disappointed.
.

What if he ends up as a big 3rd line centre with some pop?

[nik-]

At this point I'd be content with that, depending on what you define as "some pop" a 15g 35 point guy?

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Know what I find hilarious, people on CalgaryPuck would be all over making a trade for former Chicago Blackhawks first rounder Kevin Hayes right now, yet don't have the patience to see Jankowski develop.

Hayes:
Freshman: 0.45 PPG
Sophomore: 0.63 PPG

Jankowski:
Freshman: 0.53 PPG
Sophomore: 0.60 PPG

So pretty much identical stats, but Hayes was playing on one of the highest scoring teams in the country those two years and a national champion in his Sophomore season, while Jankowski is playing on a team that struggles to score goals and gets very little PP time.

Get back on topic.

This thread isnt about Hayes.

We didnt draft hayes, we drafted fata, kidd and erixon.

####. Everytime I come in here people are talking about Maata or Hayes or some other prospect that has nothing to do with Jankowski.

/thread police


Im just kidding - great post SuperMatt18. I agree. :P

[Trailer Fire]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Know what I find hilarious, people on CalgaryPuck would be all over making a trade for former Chicago Blackhawks first rounder Kevin Hayes right now, yet don't have the patience to see Jankowski develop.

Hayes:
Freshman: 0.45 PPG
Sophomore: 0.63 PPG

Jankowski:
Freshman: 0.53 PPG
Sophomore: 0.60 PPG

So pretty much identical stats, but Hayes was playing on one of the highest scoring teams in the country those two years and a national champion in his Sophomore season, while Jankowski is playing on a team that struggles to score goals and gets very little PP time.

Wicked post, sir. Wicked.

I know it is never going to happen, but people just need to have patience. Janko is still one of my favorite prospects because of how generally intriguing he is. Im willing to wait until his 4th year of college before making any big leaps.