HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Prospects
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
07-15-2013, 04:46 PM
  #551
herashak
Registered User
 
herashak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Shot View Post
I think people just react to the overrating of Jankowski's skill by Flames fans. There are 9 other players from rounds 1+2 of his draft that outscored him in college last season.

9.

If his skill set and hockey IQ are high end/elite as claimed, then why isn't he using them to rise to the top of his draft class? There's a big disconnection between the verbal about Jankowski and his actual results.
do you know what a project is?

herashak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 04:58 PM
  #552
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Shot View Post
I think people just react to the overrating of Jankowski's skill by Flames fans. There are 9 other players from rounds 1+2 of his draft that outscored him in college last season.

9.

If his skill set and hockey IQ are high end/elite as claimed, then why isn't he using them to rise to the top of his draft class? There's a big disconnection between the verbal about Jankowski and his actual results.
Jankowski is only 18. He was a freshman who got minimal minutes playing on a less offensively gifted team. Throw Jankowski onto top PP time on Boston, and he's got entirely different numbers.

Don't let random facts get in the way of your opinions though.

blankall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 04:58 PM
  #553
Jacob
Registered User
 
Jacob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 25,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Shot View Post
I think people just react to the overrating of Jankowski's skill by Flames fans. There are 9 other players from rounds 1+2 of his draft that outscored him in college last season.

9.

If his skill set and hockey IQ are high end/elite as claimed, then why isn't he using them to rise to the top of his draft class? There's a big disconnection between the verbal about Jankowski and his actual results.
I think Flames fans only overrate him because their GM called him the best player in the draft, or something along those lines.

Jacob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 04:59 PM
  #554
GetThePuckOut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,308
vCash: 1081
Providence is just such a low scoring team. I think going to the OHL would be the best thing for him at this point, to work on his offensive game, but I highly doubt he does that. He's already a good 2-way player though.

GetThePuckOut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 05:03 PM
  #555
HighLifeMan
HFB Partner
 
HighLifeMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,909
vCash: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Shot View Post
I think people just react to the overrating of Jankowski's skill by Flames fans. There are 9 other players from rounds 1+2 of his draft that outscored him in college last season.

9.


If his skill set and hockey IQ are high end/elite as claimed, then why isn't he using them to rise to the top of his draft class? There's a big disconnection between the verbal about Jankowski and his actual results.
So?
Matt Deblouw outscored Mark Jankowski last year and he is not even in the same stratosphere in terms of skill level or talent.

I know this because I have seen both players play head to head.

I will tell you for a fact that of those nine players that outscored him, none of them experienced the jump up in competition that Jankowski did. Not only that but a players like Di Giussepe and Hart are essentially an entire year older, and one of them was playing in his second collegiate year.

This will become a slight concern if it happens again next year, but until then there are far to many factors that determine the production levels of freshmen players. For example both Blake Wheeler and Chris Kreider had similar production levels in their freshmen years, and were of a similar build.

HighLifeMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 05:04 PM
  #556
InfinityIggy
Inflammatory Poster
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,100
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Shot View Post
I think people just react to the overrating of Jankowski's skill by Flames fans. There are 9 other players from rounds 1+2 of his draft that outscored him in college last season.

9.

If his skill set and hockey IQ are high end/elite as claimed, then why isn't he using them to rise to the top of his draft class? There's a big disconnection between the verbal about Jankowski and his actual results.
I wasn't aware all players were the same age....

InfinityIggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 05:08 PM
  #557
Kass Effect
Registered User
 
Kass Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Data Corrupted
Posts: 1,193
vCash: 358
I think the 7.5D rating is fair. I actually think pretty highly of Jankowski, but he has a long ways to go yet. I read he became more aggressive with his board battles towards the end of the year, so he might be on track for a breakout season assuming he adds strength over the summer. Still boom/bust so the "D" is appropriate. Not generational talent, but I would say top-6 calibre, so 7.5 is about right, maybe even high by .5 at this point, but not worth nit-picking over..

Kass Effect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 05:14 PM
  #558
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
I think Flames fans only overrate him because their GM called him the best player in the draft, or something along those lines.
I don't think they do.

Most acknowledge he is a project. Very few have him rated at the top of their prospect pool.

blankall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 05:24 PM
  #559
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by illpucks View Post


Shades of Brilliance.

Anyways, If I was making a joke thread I would say he should be 10A. But a 8.5-9.0 D is a fair rating to me for Janko.
What number was Jankowski?

Whileee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 05:27 PM
  #560
SaintAnton
Registered User
 
SaintAnton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,611
vCash: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweech View Post
Screw Jankowski.

Jacob Trouba's 7.5C score is criminal.
Seems harsh on Jankowski Im almost positive he had no say over hf's under-rating of Jacob.

SaintAnton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 05:33 PM
  #561
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
I think Flames fans only overrate him because their GM called him the best player in the draft, or something along those lines.
Feaster is a very lucky GM. This year he got three players that he rated in the top 13. Why do all the other teams keep on passing on these top-rated prospects and letting Feaster snatch them up with later picks? He must have some powerful spell on the other GMs.

Whileee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 05:40 PM
  #562
Walkingthroughforest
Johnny B. Goode
 
Walkingthroughforest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Feaster is a very lucky GM. This year he got three players that he rated in the top 13. Why do all the other teams keep on passing on these top-rated prospects and letting Feaster snatch them up with later picks? He must have some powerful spell on the other GMs.
You do know that the "Top 13" was a list that only included players that could have been eligible at the #6, #22 and #28 spots, right? Essentially cutting that list down to less then half the actual drafted players in the first round.

Walkingthroughforest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 05:43 PM
  #563
SaintAnton
Registered User
 
SaintAnton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,611
vCash: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Feaster is a very lucky GM. This year he got three players that he rated in the top 13. Why do all the other teams keep on passing on these top-rated prospects and letting Feaster snatch them up with later picks? He must have some powerful spell on the other GMs.
Not sure if it needs to be explained again essentially their list he's refering too doesnt include players they wouldnt be able to draft. So 1-2 on the list likely were Monahan and Lindholm with the top 4 being all but set. After that guys who could never fall out of the top 15 ex. Nurse, Ristolainen, Horvat, Nichushkin, would not be on the list.

So they likely had Poirier as ~18-20 and Klimchuck as ~21-24

SaintAnton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 06:45 PM
  #564
Crumblin Erb Brooks
Registered User
 
Crumblin Erb Brooks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Grenyarnia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintAnton View Post
Not sure if it needs to be explained again essentially their list he's refering too doesnt include players they wouldnt be able to draft. So 1-2 on the list likely were Monahan and Lindholm with the top 4 being all but set. After that guys who could never fall out of the top 15 ex. Nurse, Ristolainen, Horvat, Nichushkin, would not be on the list.

So they likely had Poirier as ~18-20 and Klimchuck as ~21-24
Ive never heard of this, but it seems like a silly way to evaluate/organize prospects for the draft.

Ranking players based on the likelihood you think they could fall to your pick rather than their talent level. Did they really just ignore players that they knew were going to go between their first and second 1st rounders? They had 3 first rounders, if they really liked a prospect, they could have easily moved up to get someone in the middle of the first round.

Crumblin Erb Brooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 06:50 PM
  #565
shogun99
Registered User
 
shogun99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,699
vCash: 500
I feel so bad for all the flack the kid gets that i'm actually rooting for him to have a productive NHL career.

shogun99 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 06:57 PM
  #566
ESH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 748
vCash: 500
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1j-Uqs_oEE

To all the people that say Feaster claimed that Jankowski will be the best player from the draft, he did NOT outright say that. He said John Weisbrod told him that he thought Jankowski could be the best player from the draft in 10 years.

ESH is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 07:00 PM
  #567
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,834
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Shot View Post
I think people just react to the overrating of Jankowski's skill by Flames fans. There are 9 other players from rounds 1+2 of his draft that outscored him in college last season.

9.

If his skill set and hockey IQ are high end/elite as claimed, then why isn't he using them to rise to the top of his draft class? There's a big disconnection between the verbal about Jankowski and his actual results.
Flames overrate him? Most see him as a project that could be a top 6 player. Most Flames fans are constantly being told he is a bust and that our GM called him the best player of his draft. Both of which are wrong.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 07:29 PM
  #568
SickHandsNoShot
Registered User
 
SickHandsNoShot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumblin Erb Brooks View Post
Ive never heard of this, but it seems like a silly way to evaluate/organize prospects for the draft.

Ranking players based on the likelihood you think they could fall to your pick rather than their talent level. Did they really just ignore players that they knew were going to go between their first and second 1st rounders? They had 3 first rounders, if they really liked a prospect, they could have easily moved up to get someone in the middle of the first round.
What was not mentioned was this list Jay Feaster gets ripped for is their second list. The reason they use it that way is to narrow the list down. They still have a full list of ranked players.

SickHandsNoShot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 02:40 AM
  #569
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintAnton View Post
Not sure if it needs to be explained again essentially their list he's refering too doesnt include players they wouldnt be able to draft. So 1-2 on the list likely were Monahan and Lindholm with the top 4 being all but set. After that guys who could never fall out of the top 15 ex. Nurse, Ristolainen, Horvat, Nichushkin, would not be on the list.

So they likely had Poirier as ~18-20 and Klimchuck as ~21-24
That's a pretty weird way of describing their rating system, since nobody really knows who the Flames thought were going to be available at their picks. Whenever a GM goes out of his way to say that, it usually means that he knows that some folks are going to question him. I get that, but I'm not sure it does anyone any favours. It just sounds like he's being a bit defensive, and it opens him up to criticism if the player doesn't live up to his lofty predictions.

Whileee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 03:42 PM
  #570
SaintAnton
Registered User
 
SaintAnton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,611
vCash: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
That's a pretty weird way of describing their rating system, since nobody really knows who the Flames thought were going to be available at their picks. Whenever a GM goes out of his way to say that, it usually means that he knows that some folks are going to question him. I get that, but I'm not sure it does anyone any favours. It just sounds like he's being a bit defensive, and it opens him up to criticism if the player doesn't live up to his lofty predictions.
Well the point is to show that they went in with a game plan they stuck to it and excited to come out better than expected; once you try and read more than that like the Flames first 3 picks are 100% going to all be in the best 13 players of the draft discussion you are just looking for a reason to rag on him.

Every year we see quite a few guys outside of the first round that should of been a top 15 pick in their year. Should we roast 29 GMs for each of those guys?

Feaster knows it's a crapshoot and he just really likes where the org has placed their bets.

SaintAnton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 07:26 PM
  #571
Crumblin Erb Brooks
Registered User
 
Crumblin Erb Brooks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Grenyarnia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SickHandsNoShot View Post
What was not mentioned was this list Jay Feaster gets ripped for is their second list. The reason they use it that way is to narrow the list down. They still have a full list of ranked players.
Im not criticizing, Im sure we are just getting bits and pieces of how hey run the draft. Just seems like the second list of players that they think will be available at their pick is unnecessary.

Crumblin Erb Brooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 08:04 PM
  #572
Walkingthroughforest
Johnny B. Goode
 
Walkingthroughforest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumblin Erb Brooks View Post
Im not criticizing, Im sure we are just getting bits and pieces of how hey run the draft. Just seems like the second list of players that they think will be available at their pick is unnecessary.
It's unnecessary that they have a list which focuses on players likely available at the teams draft position?

I'm no Feaster fan, but come on. Now I've heard everything

Walkingthroughforest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 08:54 PM
  #573
Crumblin Erb Brooks
Registered User
 
Crumblin Erb Brooks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Grenyarnia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walkingthroughforest View Post
It's unnecessary that they have a list which focuses on players likely available at the teams draft position?

I'm no Feaster fan, but come on. Now I've heard everything
I still dont understand why the second list is necessary. If they have a list ranking all of the players (or of at least the players that they rated highly), what is the point of the second list? The order doesnt change.

Over the course of a season, they inevitably scouted players that were going to be going in that 5-15 range. You arent saying that they eliminated those prospects from their list later in the season because they werent likely to be available.

Im not trying to be a hater on Feaster, and as I said, I am sure they are telling half truths, but you rank players based on the likelihood that they become good NHL players. I think its silly to eliminate players from your list just because they wont be available at your second pick, especially when you have pieces to move up if they really liked a player. Especially in a draft with a well defined Top 9 or 10 players.

Crumblin Erb Brooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 10:20 PM
  #574
tucker3434
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walkingthroughforest View Post
It's unnecessary that they have a list which focuses on players likely available at the teams draft position?

I'm no Feaster fan, but come on. Now I've heard everything
I just don't get it. It seems like two lists just overcomplicate things. In the end, you have to pick from your master BPA list anyway. Otherwise you risk skipping over a guy that fell down the board. If MacKinnon fell to them at four, would Feaster have said he was -3 on his list or would have have skipped him completely because he wasn't on the list?

tucker3434 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2013, 10:28 PM
  #575
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,778
vCash: 500
What is it, 7.5? That's very fair.

HockeySensible 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 12:30 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.