Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[Calgary4LIfe]

"Risk" in prospects:

Jankowski is viewed by some in this thread mostly because of where he was drafted from and the word 'project' labeled on him. That may be one way to interpret it, sure. Nothing will assuage their stance from thinking about him as a 'risk' or 'gamble' pick.

Apparently, the Flames scouted Jankowski so intensely. Not only did they scout his game so much, they scouted other scouts and were pretty sure where they could end up picking him in the draft. Literally ever single game since he appeared on their radar (which was before the midway point of the season). Every game, with a rotation of having every single scout take a look at him.

Every pick is a risk. There are players who bomb, there are players who really surprise. No team gets every pick right in a draft, much less every year.

How do you mitigate risk? You scout, interview and do everything else you can to ensure you are making the best possible selection.

Alexander Daigle was the next 'great one'. Had Ottawa scouted him a bit more thoroughly and discovered some personality flaws, or some 'goals' that were incongruent to being a hockey player. Scouting someone like Shremp more thoroughly would have shown a team that his play is not transferable to the NHL without an unrealistic jump in IQ and commitment.

Organizations reduce risk (though EVERY PLAYER still carries risk) by scouting. The more a team scouts a player, the more risk is reduced. The more experienced eyes you have scouting a player, the more a risk is reduced.

People see "Project" and they think: "Long shot, probable bust, etc".

The NHL is littered with 'projects' that require a few years. Some were just "hail-mary's" types, of organizations just taking a super slick player (normally, with numerous shortcomings). This isn't the case. Jankowski was legitimately ranked in the late 1st round - 2nd round on most draft reports. People talk about him like he was some obscure 7th round pick that the Flames reached for.

This is a kid who started drawing 50+ scouts to every single game - games that rarely draw even a single scout.

You have to map out his strength and weaknesses for yourself. I keep thinking of other 'reaches' now and then, or past busts that failed at the NHL level. Guys like Brendl and his inability to play defence, physical or into any dirty areas. Guys like Daigle with character issues who were sort of burned out. Guys like Kabanov with attitude/defence problems.

Does Jankowski have:

1) Skill? Yes, in spades.
2) Size? Height is there, but build is only 'getting there'. Will need to bulk up, but shouldn't be a roadblock.
3) IQ? He is known for having pretty high hockey IQ, and being a pretty slick playmaker as well. You see some of his passes in the highlights.
4) Skating ability? He has good acceleration (not great) with very good top-end speed, and is very agile as well (again, you can see that in some of his spectacular highlights at the beginning of the season - this kid can move both forward and laterally!).
5) Physical game? "Evolving". He doesn't initiate contact all the time, but he no longer shies away from it, and he goes to all the dirty areas, especially to the front of the net.
6) Willingness to play defence? Coach has him out there at the end of a game while up by 1. If a player isn't willing to play defence, he isn't put out there.
7) Character? Seems to have a hard-working character. Has put on decent weight from his rail-thin draft days. Does what the coach asks of him.

To me, these are all the 'basics' of what a prospect should be. There really isn't any glaring weaknesses (imo), that make me very concerned. It isn't like Nemisz and his skating, for instance. There isn't any terrible weaknesses that seem like they are either not improving, or that will prevent Jankowski from having an NHL future.

What is he bad at? Why is he a project?

Well, it isn't one of the 'killer' things above. It relates to his frame (skinny guys just aren't ready for the NHL). I believe there are 2 reasons:

1) His frame needs some growing into. He is well on his way in that area.
2) "Systems play" - due from the league he was drafted from, he simply needs time to build up his systems acumen, especially considering he is a center and the Flames seem intent to keep him there (as they should).

I would be concerned if he had bad character and a poor physique - would make it harder to build him up. I would be concerned with 'low hockey IQ' and 'inexperience at systems play' - would make it tough to learn.

I just don't find any 'showstoppers' in his over-all label of 'project'. If he was overly diminutive like Gaudreau, maybe had diabetes or another ailment like Max Domi, had some serious character flaws (seriously, this kid comes from an extensive and storied hockey family), or other things.

You watch him play, and you sometimes forget he is a 19 year old kid. I rank his progress as 'improving' in every facet of his game. If it wasn't, I would also be concerned. He is progressing positively, and that is what counts.

Project does NOT equal gamble or risk.

You don't reduce risk necessarily by selecting the most NHL-ready prospect. Pelech, Chucko, Nemisz (and Nemisz was a 'winner' with loads of intangibles and played a very good 2-way game). There are tonnes of examples of NHL-ready prospects floundering before the NHL, or shortly afterwards, or lighting it up and quickly fizzling out.

You reduce risk by properly scouting, analyzing, interviewing and doing all the possible due-diligence you can with a prospect. It sounds like the Flames did a very thorough job of that, so in my mind the risk is reduced. Seeing Jankowski moving forward in the NCAA is a positive reflection of that. I liked the pick when it happened, but at the same time I was TERRIFIED we would see him fall apart in the NCAA. That didn't happen - instead, he did well, and continues to improve.

A good sign for any prospect.

I guess it is what you see in someone, and what you rationalize. This is what I see, and what I rationalize. Doesn't make me 'right'. I just personally refuse to say someone is a worse pick than someone else based on my own ignorance of said prospects specifically, or competent scouting in general.

I think patience is required before any labels are thrust on prospects - positive or negative. Jankowski could very well still end up really being the next Nieuwendyk, and Maatta may fizzle out, and this conversation becomes 'funny' later on. Just as easily, Jankowski may never make the NHL at any capacity, and Maatta becomes the next Ray Bourque or whomever he compares the closest with. This conversation would also be just as 'funny'.

Instead, we should just track this prospect and let him evolve and develop, and then base our comments on whether the Flames made a huge mistake, or whether they made a wonderfully brilliant and courageous move.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Jankowski is a P R O J E C T that has yet to be finished. Don't know how hard it is to get into some of your heads. I'll be honest, I haven't even seen the kid play one bit. And I don't think I am the only one here that has not. I thought drafting him as our first rounder was a bit much too, but not anymore. My attitude towards Janko is better now.

He still needs time. We drafted him early, so he is going to take longer to develop. So far, from the stats that have been provided from the people that have actually watched Jankowski play, are making me believe that he is turning out to be a good player for us.

Now I know that this has nothing to do with the thread and not even relevant one bit, I wasn't even part of this forum when this happened, but remember when Sutter traded a second rounder for a goalie that turned out to be the best player during our SC run in 2004? I bet some of you were livid. I know I was. The point I am trying to get to is GM's take high risks, to either get a huge reward or to get backfired. Not saying Mark Jankowski is going to turn out to be our best player by any means, I am just giving an example.

Just like me, a lot of us are very impatient for this prospect. I feel like that all of our other prospects are doing well, so we decide to talk crap about this one, even though his circumstances were a little different. Lighten up CP, the Flames' future is bright, and for those that are still hating Jankowski, need to have a little more patience.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Unfortunately Jankowski's progress or lack of progress will be forever linked to the circumstances of how he was drafted.

If you don't like certain posters continually bringing it up, add them to your ignore list.

Is there a way to ignore people for a specific thread? Some of the guys who keep bringing up the draft position are solid posters, but they're insufferable in this discussion.

At the risk of going slightly off-topic myself, the guys who have seen Providence play often keep pointing out that they play a very defensive style of hockey. While that's encouraging in the Jankowski evaluation, is it a concern when evaluating Gillies' progression? I haven't seen enough of Providence this year to say either way, but some of the discussion in this thread has me starting to think that I may be overrating Gillies at this point.

[BloodFetish]

^^^



Sooooo....

Any news on Jankowski?

[Alberta_Beef]

The part I can't stand is those posters that continue to fellate Maata every opportunity possible come in here and tell people open to possibilities that they are narrow minded.

If they are unable to grasp a simple concept like narrow mindedness why would we put any stock in their thoughts on something as complex as player development?

It's even more hilarious that they focus solely on points when the management group stresses play in all 3 zones and one of the clubs top prospects in Baertschi has been relegated to the minors to improve his 200ft game, while Janko continually shows improvement all over the ice.

Another thing to consider, maybe calling Janko the best in the draft was not Weisbrod thinking Janko would be an elite player and more about him thinking the draft was extremely weak with no impact players (hence them willing to move the pick).

[FlameZilla]

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by gargamel

Is there a way to ignore people for a specific thread? Some of the guys who keep bringing up the draft position are solid posters, but they're insufferable in this discussion.

At the risk of going slightly off-topic myself, the guys who have seen Providence play often keep pointing out that they play a very defensive style of hockey. While that's encouraging in the Jankowski evaluation, is it a concern when evaluating Gillies' progression? I haven't seen enough of Providence this year to say either way, but some of the discussion in this thread has me starting to think that I may be overrating Gillies at this point.

I tend to temper my expectations with goalies because it is tougher to assess the validity of their stats and their development curve can just be strange. Heck I had completely written Ortio off as a prospect and now he's back on the radar. Years ago many believed Matt Keetley was going to be a possible answer in net.

Really we won't know more until he turns pro and see how his game translates to that higher level. And then again at the NHL level.

Which is all stating the obvious - but just saying that with goalies - really tough to make any strong conclusions until they hit the NHL.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Unfortunately Jankowski's progress or lack of progress will be forever linked to the circumstances of how he was drafted.

If you don't like certain posters continually bringing it up, add them to your ignore list.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that, sureLoss. What you're seeing in this thread is frustration that this thread is almost always taken away from what a single prospect thread is about, the player, and almost almost steered towards the issues surrounding the pick.

It's beyond annoying and frustrating. Jankowski had two goals in two games this weekend, both game winners and 90% of the posts here aren't about that.

I'm temped to start a Jankowski scouting thread, to talk only about the player, his stats and people who've seen him play. Let the endless circular talk keep going here.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I don't think anyone is suggesting that, sureLoss. What you're seeing in this thread is frustration that this thread is almost always taken away from what a single prospect thread is about, the player, and almost almost steered towards the issues surrounding the pick.

It's beyond annoying and frustrating. Jankowski had two goals in two games this weekend, both game winners and 90% of the posts here aren't about that.

I'm temped to start a Jankowski scouting thread, to talk only about the player, his stats and people who've seen him play. Let the endless circular talk keep going here.

I never even saw - thread is swamped with crap. Please do, I would appreciate it.

[FBI]

You mean put my thread out of it's misery?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

at.

I'm temped to start a Jankowski scouting thread, to talk only about the player, his stats and people who've seen him play. Let the endless circular talk keep going here.

Really won't help, someone will bring it up in there too. The pick is too controversial.

All it will take is for Jankowski to go quiet offensively for a stretch and one of Teurovinen, Maatta, etc to look really good and it will come up again.

Unless a mod starts policing the thread regularly.

[Freeway]

Nice to see Jankowski have a good offensive weekend.

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Really won't help, someone will bring it up in there too. The pick is too controversial.

All it will take is for Jankowski to go quiet offensively for a stretch and one of Teurovinen, Maatta, etc to look really good and it will come up again.

Unless a mod starts policing the thread regularly.

We at the Back Burner are proudly self-moderated. Can't you see how well it's going?

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Friars website.

http://www.friars.com/sports/m-hocke.../teamcume.html

He has won 281 of 508 draws for 55.3%

I find this extremely encouraging. Winning over 55 percent in his first year as C is impressive ... best of the regular faceoff guys at Providence, he only trails 5 guys who have taken 10 or less faceoffs this season. He's also second in faceoffs taken, only behind Mauermann. Looking at the FO totals of Jankowski and Acciari, the numbers suggest that their 2nd and 3rd lines roughly get the same ice time, as somebody has already pointed out.

Jankowski: 281 of 508 - .553%
Mauermann: 374 of 682 - .548%
Acciari: 252 of 495 - .509%
Rooney: 129 of 283 - .456%

everybody else took 100 or less.

[FBI]

I've always wondered if winning faceoffs in junior actually translates to the NHL?
I remember Monahan saying he really prides himself on faceoffs and I think his percentage was really high in junior but then he was getting killed in Year 1 in NHL..

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by FBI

I've always wondered if winning faceoffs in junior actually translates to the NHL?
I remember Monahan saying he really prides himself on faceoffs and I think his percentage was really high in junior but then he was getting killed in Year 1 in NHL..

I've got to imagine that's a strength thing. You get the skill down in junior/college, but then you have to develop the strength to win those draws against NHLers.

[GreenLantern2814]

He's scored the last two GWG for Providence, does that count for anything? It's better than not scoring them...

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by FBI

I've always wondered if winning faceoffs in junior actually translates to the NHL?
I remember Monahan saying he really prides himself on faceoffs and I think his percentage was really high in junior but then he was getting killed in Year 1 in NHL..

I am sure it will translate with experience. Faceoffs are generally something a player improves at with age.

Using Monahan as an example (without going through every stats sheet) we have seen the following:

October - 12 Games

• Games under 40%: 5 (1 game was under 30%)
• Games 40-44.9%: 3
• Games 45-49.9%: 2
• Games 50-54.9%: 0
• Games 55-59.9%: 1
• Games 60% and higher: 1

November - 12 games

• Games under 40%: 2
• Games 40-44.9%: 3
• Games 45-49.9%: 1
• Games 50-54.9%: 3
• Games 55-59.9%: 2
• Games 60% and higher: 1

December - 9 games

• Games under 40%: 4
• Games 40-44.9%: 1
• Games 45-49.9%: 2
• Games 50-54.9%: 1
• Games 55-59.9%: 1
• Games 60% and higher: 0

January - 14 games

• Games under 40%: 4 games (1 game was under 30%)
• Games 40-44.9%: 1
• Games 45-49.9%: 2
• Games 50-54.9%: 3
• Games 55-59.9%: 2
• Games 60% and higher: 2 (1 game was at 80%)

February - 4 games

• Games under 40%: 2
• Games 40-44.9%: 0
• Games 45-49.9%: 0
• Games 50-54.9%: 0
• Games 55-59.9%: 0
• Games 60% and higher: 2

I see definite progression there, with a bit of a regression after he returned from his broken foot in December.

[Komskies]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I am sure it will translate with experience. Faceoffs are generally something a player improves at with age.

Using Monahan as an example (without going through every stats sheet) we have seen the following:

October - 12 Games

• Games under 40%: 5 (1 game was under 30%)
• Games 40-44.9%: 3
• Games 45-49.9%: 2
• Games 50-54.9%: 0
• Games 55-59.9%: 1
• Games 60% and higher: 1

November - 12 games

• Games under 40%: 2
• Games 40-44.9%: 3
• Games 45-49.9%: 1
• Games 50-54.9%: 3
• Games 55-59.9%: 2
• Games 60% and higher: 1

December - 9 games

• Games under 40%: 4
• Games 40-44.9%: 1
• Games 45-49.9%: 2
• Games 50-54.9%: 1
• Games 55-59.9%: 1
• Games 60% and higher: 0

January - 14 games

• Games under 40%: 4 games (1 game was under 30%)
• Games 40-44.9%: 1
• Games 45-49.9%: 2
• Games 50-54.9%: 3
• Games 55-59.9%: 2
• Games 60% and higher: 2 (1 game was at 80%)

February - 4 games

• Games under 40%: 2
• Games 40-44.9%: 0
• Games 45-49.9%: 0
• Games 50-54.9%: 0
• Games 55-59.9%: 0
• Games 60% and higher: 2

I see definite progression there, with a bit of a regression after he returned from his broken foot in December.

Crosby only won 45.5% of his faceoffs in his rookie year. 49.8% in his second year. He's been over 50% every year since then.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Komskies

Crosby only won 45.5% of his faceoffs in his rookie year. 49.8% in his second year. He's been over 50% every year since then.

Bergeron won 49% in his rookie season so I'd say Monahan winning 45% in his rookie season is pretty good.