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

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

Point is, people who don't give Feaster credit for picking Monahan because it was a 'no-brainer' don't realise how easily he could have effed it up.

That is how bad Feaster was. For anything he did there was always a good chance he would be incredibly wrong. The Flames fans were satisfied with him not totally making a mess out of it..... Jankowski style.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

When we drafted Jankowski we didn't have Monahan or Bennett. We had no future top two line centre at all. In the mid first round we managed to take a big centre who has top two line potential. It was a great roll of the dice and I wish the Flames had done more of that in the past trying to find big, skilled centres. I liked the pick then, like it still now. Too many people are hung up on it because we took a guy who is a project and they don't have the patience to wait and see if he becomes as good as Maatta. I don't really covet Teravainen at all personally.

The amount of flack the pick gets is absurd. Big, skilled centres with skating go top 10 in the draft usually. If you can find one later that you think can pan out you take him in an instant. Nuff said. They are that rare and valuable of a commodity.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't know if you can trust NHL hit stats - even a little bit.

Yeah, there's no way Monahan got up to 39 hits.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm a bit confused about how you imagine Edmonton had anything to do with Calgary's selection of Monahan, since he was the #6 draft pick, and the Oilers first pick in 2013 was #7. They took Nurse right after the Flames, so I don't see how that had any effect on what the Flames did that afternoon.

As I recall, when the Flames were making their selection the seemingly obvious choice was between Monahan and Nichushkin. I don't remember many other players entering the conversation. Was there much appetite for the Flames to pick one of the "tier two" defensemen (Nurse, Ristolainen) ahead of one of the "tier two" centres (Monahan, Lindholm)?

Flamezilla said Monahan wasn't the obvious choice because Nichuskin was ranked higher on the TSN rankings in the clip that was posted. I said there were concerns with him because of the Russian factor so Monahan was the obvious choice. He said he could see it being a toss up between Monahan and Nurse. So if we would have selected Nurse I think Oilers likely would have taken Monahan. I still believe Monahan was the obvious choice at 6 though and I'm glad we got him.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't know if you can trust NHL hit stats - even a little bit.

Do you trust shots on goal? Shots attempted and blocked shots?

The Hit stats may very from rink to rink but Monahan's ranking on the Flames forwards as the 12 most hits seems to reflect his physical play from watching him play.

He has more hits and plays a more physical game than Hudler, Gaudreau and Raymond. Other than that I would be hard pressed to point out a Flame forward that plays a less physically aggressive game. Any suggestions?

Perhaps it is the style of play with Hudler and Gaudreau there is no amount of hitting Monahan could do to make up for the non-aggressive style of the line.

He didn't match up physically against either Getzlaff or Kessler in the playoffs.

I don't watch many Carolina games but Lindholm is the #3/4 Cane forward in hits.... I can't imagine that he was getting an irregular amount of phantom bonus hits.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

When we drafted Jankowski we didn't have Monahan or Bennett. We had no future top two line centre at all. In the mid first round we managed to take a big centre who has top two line potential. It was a great roll of the dice and I wish the Flames had done more of that in the past trying to find big, skilled centres. I liked the pick then, like it still now. Too many people are hung up on it because we took a guy who is a project and they don't have the patience to wait and see if he becomes as good as Maatta. I don't really covet Teravainen at all personally.

The amount of flack the pick gets is absurd. Big, skilled centres with skating go top 10 in the draft usually. If you can find one later that you think can pan out you take him in an instant. Nuff said. They are that rare and valuable of a commodity.

The part that kind of bothered me was that we had a very weak prospect base and we took a gamble with our 1st. Not only was he a project that wouldn't play for us for at least 5 years but he was a kid out of high school. Kind of tough to judge someone when their competition is weak. Seemed like a pick with too much bust potential which I didn't like given we desperately needed to find NHL players. If you wanted a big center a guy like Tomas Hertl seems like it would be a much safer pick. I know some guys on here really liked Hertl and wanted him at 14. I guess whoever was in charge didn't feel the same unfortunately.

[OutOfTheCube]

Calgary should've just kept 14 and took Girgensons. He's what everyone is hoping Jankowski will turn into, but he's doing it right now in the NHL (and on a bad team, too).

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

He didn't match up physically against either Getzlaff or Kessler in the playoffs.

He was clearly playing injured in the playoffs. He's not an overly physical player at the best of times but using the post season as an example when he could clearly be seen playing through pain is a terrible example.

There are just way too many variables you never take into account in your one dimensional, linear rants.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Hackey

The part that kind of bothered me was that we had a very weak prospect base and we took a gamble with our 1st. Not only was he a project that wouldn't play for us for at least 5 years but he was a kid out of high school. Kind of tough to judge someone when their competition is weak. Seemed like a pick with too much bust potential which I didn't like given we desperately needed to find NHL players. If you wanted a big center a guy like Tomas Hertl seems like it would be a much safer pick. I know some guys on here really liked Hertl and wanted him at 14. I guess whoever was in charge didn't feel the same unfortunately.

This is all true but on the other hand it seems like it was either Jankowski or trade the pick for our management. This was probably the less disastrous choice.

[dieHARDflameZ]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Calgary should've just kept 14 and took Girgensons. He's what everyone is hoping Jankowski will turn into, but he's doing it right now in the NHL (and on a bad team, too).

And that is exactly what I'd expect to hear from a Sabres fan.

[Hackey]

I would have taken 15 goals in 60 games from Jankowski last year.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Do you trust shots on goal? Shots attempted and blocked shots?

No, they are all bull#### and vary from arena to arena. The NHL admits as much.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

And that is exactly what I'd expect to hear from a Sabres fan.

Doesn't necessarily make him wrong. And I'm a Jankowski supporter

[JohnnySkittles]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

And that is exactly what I'd expect to hear from a Sabres fan.

Nevertheless he's not wrong, it was a ballsy move by Feaster and so far we have yet to see if it was a positive move.

[Steve Bozek]

By accident, I opened the first page of this thread.
SureLoss started it with the following instructions/advice:
"Please use this thread to discuss the prospect only.
If you want to discuss the merits of trading down for this player please use this thread:
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=118410 "

Sure wish that advice had been followed....

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by JohnnySkittles

Nevertheless he's not wrong, it was a ballsy move by Feaster and so far we have yet to see if it was a positive move.

And by the same token we have yet to see if it was a negative move.

[JohnnySkittles]

Originally Posted by Zevo

And by the same token we have yet to see if it was a negative move.

Right now it is one, but has the potential to turn into a positive.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

No, they are all bull#### and vary from arena to arena. The NHL admits as much.

They do?

While I agree that there are discrepancies in the counts for shot totals in at least a few arenas (The Staples Centre comes to mind), it is nothing compared to how wildly divergent the hits counts can be from one place to the next.

Neither dataset is error free, but I would argue that the shot counts are likely to be a lot more accurate than hits.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by JohnnySkittles

Right now it is one, but has the potential to turn into a positive.

Actually right now it is neither with the potential to be either.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

They do?.

Yes. There was an article on this web site where the NHL admitted the problems with data collection.