Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by dammage79

What I learned from clicking that thread ^. Moon is also in the sin bin. Whoa.

Really though, just proves that this debate over Janko has raged on since the minute he was drafted. Has gone on in the same circle endlessly on the same points since. And it won't stop until he steps on Calgary ice for the first time (signed and earning a roster spot). And even then, the detractors will gleefully point out every minute flaw in his game until he is either traded, busted or until he breaks out and shuts all of em up. There is no dead horse to beat, it's bones have already be pounded into dust and used as flour to make some dead horse bread. Now pass the butter.

You're right that the debate will go on. However, that doesn't mean it's not a valid debate, and more importantly it should be possible to discuss a prospect without looking at it as a pro-prospect, anti-prospect thing where one side are painted as "detractors".

If it's a painful discussion to some, it really can't be helped. A draft pick will always be compared to other draft picks that could have been taken instead of him. Jankowski isn't a special case just because he's a long shot prospect.

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

You're right that the debate will go on. However, that doesn't mean it's not a valid debate, and more importantly it should be possible to discuss a prospect without looking at it as a pro-prospect, anti-prospect thing where one side are painted as "detractors".

If it's a painful discussion to some, it really can't be helped. A draft pick will always be compared to other draft picks that could have been taken instead of him. Jankowski isn't a special case just because he's a long shot prospect.

Can we not create a thread titled "Draft Pick Could Have Beens" where we can discuss all of these very fun comparisons separately?

The reason why most of us want to use this thread is to exclusively discuss the progress/potential of Flames draft pick Mark Jankowski.

You could probably make an all-star team with all the players that the Flames could have drafted but didn't draft. I wish we could somehow keep these similar topics (1.draft choices 2.current prospects) separated.

[FlameZilla]

The debate has gone on... since June 2012. It's a bit like Groundhog Day:

People on this board always comment they want calgary to take the high risk high reward type and now they have.

Personally I think Calgary is overloaded with bottom six players so drafting a player who is top 3 or bust makes sense to me. Why get another for sure moss when you can throw the dice and get a getzlaf.

Versus:

wow. No offense to Jankowski (I honestly don't know much about the guy), but I'm pretty disappointed right now that they didn't take Määttä.

When is does Providence play their next game?

[formulate]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

The debate has gone on... since June 2012. It's a bit like Groundhog Day:
When is does Providence play their next game?

And the debate will continue on probably throughout Jankowski's career, until he either busts or becomes Joe Nieuwendyk. Anything in between will allow the argument to continue.

Providence plays a home-and-home with Massachusetts tomorrow (in Providence) and Saturday (in Amherst). According to their schedule, tomorrow night's game is televised.

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

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by formulate

And the debate will continue on probably throughout Jankowski's career, until he either busts or becomes Joe Nieuwendyk. Anything in between will allow the argument to continue.

Providence plays a home-and-home with Massachusetts tomorrow (in Providence) and Saturday (in Amherst). According to their schedule, tonight's game is televised.

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

Yep. Such is the case when you draft a "project" with your first round pick. "Project" means that the player isn't a sure fire top prospect and more of a hopeful late bloomer. As long as we see guys like Maatta contribute in the NHL and Olympics and Jankowski is still a work in progress all the arguments and criticism is valid and fair. There is going to become a day when we will know what the Flames have in Jankowski as he's either going to be the player Weisebrod thought he would be, or he could be like a Joe Colborn that was traded for a 4th round pick, or he could be a complete bust. Time will tell but the ongoing debate is fair and warranted until Jankowski proves otherwise.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yep. Such is the case when you draft a "project" with your first round pick. "Project" means that the player isn't a sure fire top prospect and more of a hopeful late bloomer. As long as we see guys like Maatta contribute in the NHL and Olympics and Jankowski is still a work in progress all the arguments and criticism is valid and fair. There is going to become a day when we will know what the Flames have in Jankowski as he's either going to be the player Weisebrod thought he would be, or he could be like a Joe Colborn that was traded for a 4th round pick, or he could be a complete bust. Time will tell but the ongoing debate is fair and warranted until Jankowski proves otherwise.

They are not ALL valid and fair. Those that we continue to see in which the Jankowski pick is judged to be poor, or to show that Maatta would have been a better pick for the Flames depend on unacceptably absolute statements, and a poor, premature appraisal of the information. This is an UNFAIR way to judge this—or any other pick. I would agree that it is fair to be concerned, and to doubt that this will turn out to be a good pick, but a number of posters are leaping past this to firm declarations about the imagined certainty for Jankowski's future potential as an NHL player.

[Tinordi]

It's also not just Jankowski vs. Maata it's Jankowski/Sieloff vs Maata/Hertl/Teravainen/Girgensons/Laughton

Anyway, there's lots of reasons to not throw the towel in on Jankowski. And you have to dance with the girl you brought. But, it still doesn't mean it wasn't a bad pick, and no matter how much hand waving there is to plead for patience the fact of the matter is that you have a guy who's relatively unimpressive in college being compared to guys that are relatively impressive in the NHL or otherwise.

With that said, this conversation has definitely run its course. There's just nothing more than axe grinding left. The two guys responsible for the pick have been sacked (partly because of the pick) time to look forward and hope for the best from Janko.

Lets just drop it.

[StrykerSteve]

I don't know why I keep coming in this thread.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's also not just Jankowski vs. Maata it's Jankowski/Sieloff vs Maata/Hertl/Teravainen/Girgensons/Laughton

Anyway, there's lots of reasons to not throw the towel in on Jankowski. And you have to dance with the girl you brought. But, it still doesn't mean it wasn't a bad pick, and no matter how much hand waving there is to plead for patience the fact of the matter is that you have a guy who's relatively unimpressive in college being compared to guys that are relatively impressive in the NHL or otherwise.

With that said, this conversation has definitely run its course. There's just nothing more than axe grinding left. The two guys responsible for the pick have been sacked (partly because of the pick) time to look forward and hope for the best from Janko.

Lets just drop it.

Yes please. I'd rather just see stats and if possible, analysis from people watching him play. Like the Abbotsford Heat threads. Don't know what you guys hope to accomplish beating this dead horse over and over.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Jankowski's linemates got worse from his Freshman season to his Sophomore season and he is playing in the same place in the line-up as he did before. Worse linemates, same role and more production is more of a progression than you give him credit for.

Sure, but that just provides more questions then answers. If his talent has has significantly progressed:
-Why does he not have a bigger role?
- Why does he not have a more prominant place?
-Are his linemates actually worse and if they are should he not be elevating them?

The production is only marginally more. It's not a "wow" increase. I mean it's better then nothing (or worse a regression) but nothing to write home about.

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

You know who went through similar things last year? Sean Monahan. Same number of points in 4 fewer games, except he had little help on his team.

Sure but Monahan was the "the man" with the 67's. Even if his points increased only slighly he did it while having his level of responsibility increase significantly.

I'm on my phone so i can't check, but i bet his 7 point gain so far might be a better percentage based on overall team scoring.

It's slightly better... 3.1% increase, 17.1% vs 20.2%. Since Monahan was mentioned above in his draft year he was in on 39% of the 67's scoring. Methodology was I went to HockeyDB looked up team stats for the appropriate years counted all the goals and then divided individual point totals by the team goals total.

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Sure, but that just provides more questions then answers. If his talent has has significantly progressed:
-Why does he not have a bigger role?
- Why does he not have a more prominant place?
-Are his linemates actually worse and if they are should he not be elevating them?

The production is only marginally more. It's not a "wow" increase. I mean it's better then nothing (or worse a regression) but nothing to write home about.



Sure but Monahan was the "the man" with the 67's. Even if his points increased only slighly he did it while having his level of responsibility increase significantly.



It's slightly better... 3.1% increase, 17.1% vs 20.2%. Since Monahan was mentioned above in his draft year he was in on 39% of the 67's scoring. Methodology was I went to HockeyDB looked up team stats for the appropriate years counted all the goals and then divided individual point totals by the team goals total.

What do you want out of this discussion? What is the end goal you have in mind? To discredit the growth Jankowski has had? To marginalize it? It's true, he's not a wow college player. I don't know what else to suggest but get over it? Is there a particular person you think it's being unreasonable with their expectations? I just don't know who the audience or what the point of these kinds of posts is anymore.

It's like Flames fans trolling Flames fans.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

What do you want out of this discussion? What is the end goal you have in mind? To discredit the growth Jankowski has had? To marginalize it?

Huh?

If I'm marginalizing something I'm doing it because whatever it is has been marginal, I have no incentive to make it seem better or worse. I thought this thread was for discussing Jankowski... near as I can tell that's what I'm doing so I don't get what your particular beef is.

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Huh?

If I'm marginalizing something I'm doing it because whatever it is has been marginal, I have no incentive to make it seem better or worse. I thought this thread was for discussing Jankowski... near as I can tell that's what I'm doing so I don't get what your particular beef is.

I just don't know what hasn't been made clear already. It's like someone says

"look! he got a bit better!"

and the response is

"Yea, but just a bit."

well.. yeah? Of course. That's what he just said.

I'm serious though about the end goal of the post. Is it to convey disappointment in his growth this season? In the pick in general?

I'm just lost in the circles of this conversation. Maybe we should just go one at a time, and just say what we think about Mark. Like an AA meeting. Nobody to judge anyone else's opinion, and everyone gets to be heard.

I just don't know why this thread is so confrontational at every turn.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

I just don't know why this thread is so confrontational at every turn.

But... have you considered the corsi puck touch progression of Olli Maata?

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by saillias

But... have you considered the corsi puck touch progression of Olli Maata?

No, but I did notice he was Finland's best defenseman in the Olympics.

Honestly, a comment like yours isn't a very good way to avoid the "dead horse" you complained about earlier. All we have to do is agree that we'll leave the comparisons outside this thread for now.

[thymebalm]

There is no real way to escape this. It's been the course since draft day 2012. It's too bad Sieloff wasn't healthy to be the best defender on team USA in the WJC this year, it might have helped balance that argument.

Thank goodness the Friars play today. Maybe he'll take some shots on goal. 5pm MT 4pm PT

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Sure, but that just provides more questions then answers. If his talent has has significantly progressed:
-Why does he not have a bigger role?

Because he is now developing as a centerman. Last year he played LW and his centre from last year moved up to the top line and he shifted back to centre. He is playing a more important role because of his defensive responsibilities

Originally Posted by Parallex

- Why does he not have a more prominant place?

is this not the same as the last question?

Originally Posted by Parallex

-Are his linemates actually worse and if they are should he not be elevating them?

Yes the linemates are worse. Mauermann is the top scorer on the team and is now centering the top line. His linemates have little offensive instincts. As for him making them better, sometimes you can't squeeze blood from a stone.

Originally Posted by Parallex

The production is only marginally more. It's not a "wow" increase. I mean it's better then nothing (or worse a regression) but nothing to write home about.

No one said his production was a "wow" increase. But his game has increase more defensively than offensively this year, which is not a bad thing as it increases the chances he can be an NHL player.

Originally Posted by Parallex

Sure but Monahan was the "the man" with the 67's. Even if his points increased only slighly he did it while having his level of responsibility increase significantly.

In college hockey the majority of teams make seniors "the man". it is a very political system at most schools.

Originally Posted by Parallex

It's slightly better... 3.1% increase, 17.1% vs 20.2%. Since Monahan was mentioned above in his draft year he was in on 39% of the 67's scoring. Methodology was I went to HockeyDB looked up team stats for the appropriate years counted all the goals and then divided individual point totals by the team goals total.

No one is suggesting Monahan isn't a significantly better prospect, the point was you need to look beyond the numbers and dig deeper to learn his actual value and improvement.

[thymebalm]

Providence college game has started. Jankowski is +1 as his line scores early 5v5.

Gillies is in net.

[thymebalm]

Jankowski scores. 4-1 Providence.

[getbak]

Finally, a good reason to bump this thread.

10th goal of the season.