HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Prospects
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Prospects Discuss hockey prospects from all over the world and the NHL Draft.

C Mark Jankowski - Providence College, HE (2012, 21st overall, Calgary)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-09-2013, 11:52 PM
  #476
Reinhart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Azores
Posts: 660
vCash: 500
Good skater? Check
High-level vision? Check
Size? Check

He was a gamble most certainly, but his ceiling is high. I don't look at him as being a huge 'boom/bust' type - if his skating was bad, or his hockey-IQ was terrible, then he would most certainly be a boom/bust player. However, I think his 'floor' will probably be a 3rd line center. He didn't look out of place in his first prospect camp with Baertschi and Gaudreau. Looking forward to seeing how he looks among the more skilled Flames' picks this time around - especially a direct comparison to Monahan, who is only 1 month younger.

I know HF loves to trash Jankowski after Feaster's retarded comments - I feel sorry for Jankowski because of it, actually. Not his fault Feaster had a really big mouth.

I am really high on him NOT because of what Feaster said about him, but how he is progressing in the NCAA, how he looked at the last prospect camp, and all the other factors that went into him that most people don't really care to look up.

This upcoming NCAA season will be really telling as to what level he will be at. Will he be a 'superstar'? Probably not. He COULD be a very good #1 center, or he could end up being a third liner. He could also bust - but after watching some providence games and factoring in his huge growth spurt, his weight, his previous level of competition and coaching, lack of size in whom he was playing against (18 or 19 year olds max - 24 year olds in the NCAA now), etc., and the fact he finished at better than .5PPG in his first season in the NCAA - this pick is starting to look LESS likely to bust. Anything can happen still - but he is now 190lbs and keeping up to the NCAA.

The worst thing about this pick is what Feaster said about him. I think he should be ranked an 8.0D myself. MAYBE a C, though once again, this upcoming year will really start to show what kind of a prospect he will really be after his considerable move up in leagues and just 'getting his ears wet' the first season playing wing.

Reinhart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 11:53 PM
  #477
Machinehead
Moderator
Purple Hayes
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHudlinator View Post
He wasn't even in the top 30 for the ISS (he was seen much like Petan was this year) so if we are going solely on pre draft ranking yes he was a reach. You most likely haven't seen much of him and are going off the rankings.
I had Nic Petan in my top 10; I almost never go off the rankings. The rankings are obsessed with size.

I'm going off Jankowski's poor QoC.

__________________
Official 2014-15 Dan Girardi Own Goal Tally: 0

"It's Mario Götze!" -Ian Darke
Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 11:56 PM
  #478
tucker3434
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,020
vCash: 500
I think people forget what these rankings mean. 7.5 is a non-elite top six forward. I'd say that pretty well nails Jankowski's upside.

9. Elite Talent – possesses the potential for greatness, a perennial All-Star throughout his career.

Defense: Nicklas Lidstrom, Zdeno Chara, Chris Pronger
Forward: Ilya Kovalchuk, Joe Thornton, Eric Staal
Goaltender: Martin Brodeur, Roberto Luongo, Henrik Lundqvist

8. First-Line Forward/ No. 2 Defenseman / No. 1 Goaltender – players with definite skill that might be just a cut below elite status, but still possessing All-Star potential.

Defense: Dan Boyle, Duncan Keith, Kimmo Timonen
Forward: Patrick Marleau, Jason Spezza, Mike Richards
Goaltender: Cam Ward, Marc-Andre Fleury, Tomas Vokoun

7. Second-Line Forward/ No. 3-4 Defenseman / Journeyman No. 1 Goaltender – players not quite good enough to play on the top line or pairing on a regular basis, but still possessing enough talent to contribute offensively, defend with some authority, or competently play the goaltender's position for long stretches.

Defense: Filip Kuba, Christian Ehrhoff, Henrik Tallinder
Forward: Andy McDonald, Ryan Malone
Goaltender: Chris Mason, Dwayne Roloson, Mike Smith

tucker3434 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 11:58 PM
  #479
BLASPHEMOUS
**** THE KING
 
BLASPHEMOUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sherbrooke
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,753
vCash: 500
11 S should be his score. The S stands for 5 tiers above the number given.

Hope the kid pans out for Calgary. Liked the way he handled himself in the draft interview after getting picked, seems like a great kid.

BLASPHEMOUS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 12:01 AM
  #480
Benny FTW
C===Benny
 
Benny FTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,687
vCash: 500
7.0 d*

Benny FTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 12:02 AM
  #481
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,877
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I had Nic Petan in my top 10; I almost never go off the rankings. The rankings are obsessed with size.

I'm going off Jankowski's poor QoC.
So you have seen every player you rank?

So you are going off the fact he played in high school?

Then I give up there are plenty of players that been successful after being drafted from highschool. He was a gamble but to write him off at 18 is moronic.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 12:08 AM
  #482
Machinehead
Moderator
Purple Hayes
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHudlinator View Post
So you have seen every player you rank?

So you are going off the fact he played in high school?

Then I give up there are plenty of players that been successful after being drafted from highschool. He was a gamble but to write him off at 18 is moronic.
When did I write him off? I just think you should take a safer pick in the 1st round and see what a player like Jankowski can do later on.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 12:19 AM
  #483
Ashasx
Registered User
 
Ashasx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
When did I write him off?
When you called him another Hugh Jessiman????

Ashasx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 12:21 AM
  #484
Machinehead
Moderator
Purple Hayes
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx View Post
When you called him another Hugh Jessiman????
Perhaps I should have worded that better. I meant that the concepts behind each pick were similar, not that Jankowski's career will end up the same way.

I don't like the pick where it was taken, I can tell you that much, but I don't have a crystal ball.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 12:25 AM
  #485
Reinhart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Azores
Posts: 660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
When did I write him off? I just think you should take a safer pick in the 1st round and see what a player like Jankowski can do later on.
I think it was a great pick because of his ceiling, size and skating.

Todd Button - Flames director of amateur scouting - put it this way:

"Jankowski is someone that is difficult to scout because of the level of competition he was playing at. You need experienced scouts who have scouted at this talent level before to more accurately gauge the quality. Our entire scouting department was involved in scouting him continuously, and we are confident with this pick."

Now, if this was the Flames drafting from 10 years ago - I would wholeheartedly agree he has a big bust potential. However, the Flames have been adding a lot to their scouting department, and it is STARTING to pay off.

Most 'busts' end up happening because of:
1) Poor work ethic (Jankowski is gaining weight and seems very focused on developing - he is a definite hard-worker)
2) Poor hockey IQ - Flames have been emphasizing this as a 'must-have' trait. Players with higher hockey IQ can transition better into the NHL into different roles, even when they come nowhere close to their ceilings)
3) Size - Obviously harder (but not impossible) for smaller players to make it. Jankowski has size.
4) Poor skating - even then, some players can be taught to skate better. Jankowski is actually a really smooth skater with very good mechanics.

After his first season in the NCAA, I would argue the Flames did a good job in scouting him. He didn't look out of place after his first 5 or so games for the most part. You can tell he had very little experience playing in systems, but by the end of the season he was doing much better. His stat line is nothing to sneeze at for one of the youngest players in the NCAA, making probably one of the biggest jumps getting to the NCAA, playing out of position on the wing, and being very under-developed (6'3" and only around 170 or so?).

If anything this showed, was that he is LESS likely to bust. This year will show more of what his potential (and ceiling) really is. I think very few people on this site (including myself) can accurately gauge what his ceiling is. Flames scouting seem to think he has the ceiling of a #1 center. The re-ranking from (I think) TSN had him in the first round still. He is a project though.

So, would Teravainen have been a 'safer pick'? He was available when the Flames traded down (and I was furious), but he is still a bit of a project and now a lot of posters feel he will most likely be a winger due to his size (though this is arguable). Flames were definitely swinging for the fences on this pick - but how much of a gamble was he when they had their entire scouting staff scouting him?

Also, contrary to this board - Jankowski was not ranked first on the Flames' list. Weisbrod was quoted as saying Galchenyuk was first on their list. They really loved Jankowski, but also mentioned he is a bit of a project. They felt strongly enough that he has a very high ceiling, but also a decent enough floor to make the pick worth it. He is not 'boom or bust' - just a guy who is a bit of a project. I don't think that is a risk of a pick - as long as you believe that Flames' scouting department is competent in their ability to scout at that level properly.

Reinhart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 01:29 AM
  #486
DayTripper
Registered User
 
DayTripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Earth
Country: North Korea
Posts: 505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by illpucks View Post
He is at 7.5, D

I think he should be a 8.5-9.0, D. Meaning that if he succeeds he is the next league superstar, but his chance of succeeding is not super high.

Stamkos 9.0, A, Tavares 8.5, B
He should be at this level, but with a lot lower chance of success, hence the D.

What do you think?
8.5 for Jankowski? Get real. He'll never hold a candle to the outstanding career of Chuck Kobasew, who was rated 8.5 a decade ago.

DayTripper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 01:34 AM
  #487
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,907
vCash: 500
I'm not really sure I understand the .5's in the prospect talent rating. For example, if you're an 8.5 does it mean that your potential as a forward lies somewhere in between perennial all-star and first line forward, or does it mean you might be a perennial all-star, or a first line forward?

NotProkofievian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 01:43 AM
  #488
McTankel
HFBoards Sponsor
 
McTankel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,099
vCash: 500
I think 9.0 D would be more accurate. However I guess 8.5 D would work better as already pointed out by a few other posters.

McTankel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 09:09 AM
  #489
madmike77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reinhart View Post
Good skater? Check
High-level vision? Check
Size? Check

He was a gamble most certainly, but his ceiling is high. I don't look at him as being a huge 'boom/bust' type - if his skating was bad, or his hockey-IQ was terrible, then he would most certainly be a boom/bust player. However, I think his 'floor' will probably be a 3rd line center. He didn't look out of place in his first prospect camp with Baertschi and Gaudreau. Looking forward to seeing how he looks among the more skilled Flames' picks this time around - especially a direct comparison to Monahan, who is only 1 month younger.

I know HF loves to trash Jankowski after Feaster's retarded comments - I feel sorry for Jankowski because of it, actually. Not his fault Feaster had a really big mouth.

I am really high on him NOT because of what Feaster said about him, but how he is progressing in the NCAA, how he looked at the last prospect camp, and all the other factors that went into him that most people don't really care to look up.

This upcoming NCAA season will be really telling as to what level he will be at. Will he be a 'superstar'? Probably not. He COULD be a very good #1 center, or he could end up being a third liner. He could also bust - but after watching some providence games and factoring in his huge growth spurt, his weight, his previous level of competition and coaching, lack of size in whom he was playing against (18 or 19 year olds max - 24 year olds in the NCAA now), etc., and the fact he finished at better than .5PPG in his first season in the NCAA - this pick is starting to look LESS likely to bust. Anything can happen still - but he is now 190lbs and keeping up to the NCAA.

The worst thing about this pick is what Feaster said about him. I think he should be ranked an 8.0D myself. MAYBE a C, though once again, this upcoming year will really start to show what kind of a prospect he will really be after his considerable move up in leagues and just 'getting his ears wet' the first season playing wing.
I agree with this 100%. I really like Feaster's drafting. I just wish he could find someone else to talk to the media about it.

madmike77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 09:13 AM
  #490
madmike77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DayTripper View Post
8.5 for Jankowski? Get real. He'll never hold a candle to the outstanding career of Chuck Kobasew, who was rated 8.5 a decade ago.
Don't mock Chuck! He's still in the NHL. He did have a couple of decent seasons with the Bruins - but other than that yeah he hasn't been close to an 8.5.

I'm sure the guy has had a better career than a lot of other 8.5ers though.

madmike77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 09:34 AM
  #491
NEhockeycoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 111
vCash: 500
I know that he is a high character kid. Stanstead is similar to the preps here in New England. Maybe not a top 10 prep, but good enough to hang with the upper end teams most seasons. I know the coach of the school, and he turns our high character kids.

From what I saw of him this year at PC, he was definitely their best player. Easily had the most pro potential in the lineup. Does that mean he will be a first liner? I don't think so. But he could be a good addition to the middle six of the lineup. Give him two more years at PC and you will see him in a Flames jersey.

NEhockeycoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 09:50 AM
  #492
Trafalgar Law
Waive Dallas Eakins
 
Trafalgar Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awwufelloff View Post
I think 9.0 D would be more accurate. However I guess 8.5 D would work better as already pointed out by a few other posters.
Please tell me you're making a joke.

Trafalgar Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 10:10 AM
  #493
theIceWookie
Pessimism Revoked
 
theIceWookie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,003
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
He's another Hugh Jessiman. He put up shameless numbers at some school somewhere and management thought that was justification to waste a high pick on him. Same story as Jessiman and look how that turned out.
Hugh Jessiman is an awful statistical comparison. Jessiman put up big high school numbers the season prior to his draft season, and then dominated the NCAA in his draft year.

Jankowski is much more comparable to Bjugstad.

theIceWookie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 10:13 AM
  #494
theIceWookie
Pessimism Revoked
 
theIceWookie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,003
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Giroux put up nearly 2 PPG in the CHL. The CHL, not Stanstead College. So no, I wouldn't call that a reach.
Nearly two years after he was drafted...

theIceWookie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 10:13 AM
  #495
InfinityIggy
Inflammatory Poster
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,783
vCash: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by theIceWookie View Post
Hugh Jessiman is an awful statistical comparison. Jessiman put up big high school numbers the season prior to his draft season, and then dominated the NCAA in his draft year.

Jankowski is much more comparable to Bjugstad.
Better comparable. Jankowski is even more of a project than Bjugstad was though.

InfinityIggy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 10:17 AM
  #496
SickHandsNoShot
Registered User
 
SickHandsNoShot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 315
vCash: 500
Ive honestly never seen someone say why they don't think Jankowski will succeed, other than cause he was drafted out of high school. Or cause of Feaster's comments, or the blow up at TSN. (Really nothing about the player himself.)

Not one person has ever said anything about any facet in his game that will make it so he wouldn't be able to make it to the show.

Its all TSN and stat watching from Jankowski haters.

SickHandsNoShot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 10:19 AM
  #497
InfinityIggy
Inflammatory Poster
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,783
vCash: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by SickHandsNoShot View Post
Ive honestly never seen someone say why they don't think Jankowski will succeed, other than cause he was drafted out of high school. Or cause of Feaster's comments, or the blow up at TSN. (Really nothing about the player himself.)

Not one person has ever said anything about any facet in his game that will make it so he wouldn't be able to make it to the show.

Its all TSN and stat watching from Jankowski haters.
Thats because most people like to bash the Flames at any opportunity. Its the cool thing at the moment.

Im doubting 80% of the posters in this thread have ever seen more than a game or two of him, if at all.

InfinityIggy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 10:29 AM
  #498
candyman82
Registered User
 
candyman82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 2,433
vCash: 500
His HF score has no bearing on how he turns out as a player. Who cares where they rank him?

candyman82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 10:48 AM
  #499
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Formerly MVW
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,680
vCash: 500
I hated that we traded down and missed on TT, but I am hating the move less and less. I don't think anyone can say at this point that TT is more likely to make it than Janko. Yes he's a project, but he's done everything asked of him to this point which shows how much he wants to make it and he has every tool you could ask for in a top line 1C. 7.5-8.0D is a fair ranking.

Johnny Hoxville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 10:53 AM
  #500
madmike77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
I hated that we traded down and missed on TT, but I am hating the move less and less. I don't think anyone can say at this point that TT is more likely to make it than Janko. Yes he's a project, but he's done everything asked of him to this point which shows how much he wants to make it and he has every tool you could ask for in a top line 1C. 7.5-8.0D is a fair ranking.
TT was a "safer" pick, but look back at all the safe picks the Flames have made in recent years. Not one of them has panned out.

At this point I'm fine with Feaster going for the home run.

madmike77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.