C Mark Jankowski - Providence College, NCAA (2012, 21st, CGY)

[Noble]

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?

The sad part is... I honestly can't tell if this is a joke or not.

 

[Icebreakers]

Why? Hes nothing special. If he turned out to be a 2nd liner Flames fans would be ecstatic.

If feaster didn't draft him that high no one would know who he is , at least the casual fan.

 

[King In The North]

This is definitely a joke of a post to make fun of the Jankowski pick

 

[Machinehead]

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.

 

[40oz]

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.

He didnt put up really insane number in his draft year though, but he's got great bloodlines and obviously the Flames saw something in him. His numbers for his age group in the NCAA are solid, but not spectacular; ended up 12th in U19 scoring.

 

[Primetimey*]

Mark is that you?

 

[InfinityIggy]

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.

You don't have to like the pick but this is a terrible comparison.

 

[Carl33]

The sad part is... I honestly can't tell if this is a joke or not

haha nice one...I agree

 

[TheHudlinator]

I think he should be 8 D but its not like the HF board prospect rankings have any barring on what he becomes. The best thing about Janko is the fact he was only 3 days away from being a 2013 pick he is extremely young (he is only 3 days older than Mantha).

 

[Machinehead]

You don't have to like the pick but this is a terrible comparison.

It's really not. He's a boom or bust project with some skill that shouldn't have been taken in the 1st round. It's the same thing.

 

[illpucks]

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.

 

[tucker3434]

The sad part is... I honestly can't tell if this is a joke or not.

I'm right there with you.

 

[TheHudlinator]

It's really not. He's a boom or bust project with some skill that shouldn't have been taken in the 1st round. It's the same thing.

So was Wheeler and we saw how that worked out so Janko pick = success?

 

[Machinehead]

So was Wheeler and we saw how that worked out so Janko pick = success?

Yeah the Coyotes played Russian roulette with Wheeler and he was a winner (not so much the Coyotes though) but still most of these type of picks don't work.

 

[Artaud]

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.

Feaster has really gotten into your mind...

Anyways its not like the rankings mean anything. I don't think he should be 8.5-9 because these rankings are usually reserved for blue chip prospects, which to me he is not.

 

[Haatley]

Im a flame fan and like the jankowski pick, but 8.5-9.0D is generous.

Maybe an 8.0D would be fair but the 7.5 isn't far off. Let the kid prove himself as a top guy in the ncaa before anything.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

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.

Jessiman couldn't skate, and didn't have particularly good hockey sense. The only two knocks on Jankowski are that he's raw, and there wasn't any understanding of what his quality of competition was in his draft year. By all accounts he's fast, makes good decisions, and is above average (at least) in all of the offensive areas (not sure about defensively). It's just about seeing whether he can "put it all together", as they love to say.

 

[HighLifeMan]

I don't think he is nearly as boom or bust as everyone makes him out to be. The kid has the frame, skating ability, and work ethic to become a solid bottom six contributor if his offense doesn't pan out over time.

I think a 7.5C, or 8.0D is a good ranking for him personally.

 

[tucker3434]

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.

Maybe an 8D. Even Tavares was only an 8.5. He isn't in that category.

 

[Machinehead]

Jessiman couldn't skate, and didn't have particularly good hockey sense. The only two knocks on Jankowski are that he's raw, and there wasn't any understanding of what his quality of competition was in his draft year. By all accounts he's fast, makes good decisions, and is above average (at least) in all of the offensive areas (not sure about defensively). It's just about seeing whether he can "put it all together", as they love to say.

Well no, it's not as bad as the Jessiman pick. A)Jessiman didn't have talent, he was just big really. Jankowski clearly does. B)The 2003 draft was STACKED. There's no guarantee the Flames end up a winner anyway whereas the Rangers took just about the only guy who wasn't a future all-star.

But it's of the same breed. It's swinging for the fences with a kid who had low QoC with safer picks on the board.

 

[Granlund2Pulkkinen*]

If you use HF's Talent Scores to gauge the talent/potential of your team's prospects, you're gonna have a bad time.

EDIT: Keep in mind this is the site that had Steven Stamkos at an 8.0 C mid-way through his Rookie season.

 

[TheHudlinator]

Yeah the Coyotes played Russian roulette with Wheeler and he was a winner (not so much the Coyotes though) but still most of these type of picks don't work.

That is why comparing the pick to anyone is a stupid thing to do because we simply don't know how he will work out but you have demonstrated the great HF logic of prospects are determined by their draft rankings.

BTW if you had gone by ISS Giroux would have been a big reach in 2006 so I guess he is a bust?

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Well no, it's not as bad as the Jessiman pick. A)Jessiman didn't have talent, he was just big really. Jankowski clearly does. B)The 2003 draft was STACKED. There's no guarantee the Flames end up a winner anyway whereas the Rangers took just about the only guy who wasn't a future all-star.

But it's of the same breed. It's swinging for the fences with a kid who had low QoC with safer picks on the board.

Oh agreed, definitely a similar style of pick. I'm okay with it, though, for the reasons you mentioned. Makes life more interesting watching this kind of prospect, anyway.

 

[Machinehead]

That is why comparing the pick to anyone is a stupid thing to do because we simply don't know how he will work out but you have demonstrated the great HF logic of prospects are determined by their draft rankings.

BTW if you had gone by ISS Giroux would have been a big reach in 2006 so I guess he is a bust?

Giroux put up nearly 2 PPG in the CHL. The CHL, not Stanstead College. So no, I wouldn't call that a reach.

 

[TheHudlinator]

Giroux put up nearly 2 PPG in the CHL. The CHL, not Stanstead College. So no, I wouldn't call that a reach.

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.