herashak
Registered User
- Mar 24, 2013
- 5,501
- 663
C Mark Jankowski - Providence College, NCAA (2012, 21st, CGY)
- Thread starter Phion Keneuf
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
blankall
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2007
- 15,202
- 5,601
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.
Jacob
as seen on TV
- Feb 27, 2002
- 50,647
- 27,972
I think Flames fans only overrate him because their GM called him the best player in the draft, or something along those lines.
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.
HighLifeMan
#SnowyStrong
- Feb 26, 2009
- 7,536
- 2,935
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.
InfinityIggy
Zagidulin's Dad
NoRaise4Brackett
But Brackett!!!
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..
blankall
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2007
- 15,202
- 5,601
I don't think they do.
Most acknowledge he is a project. Very few have him rated at the top of their prospect pool.
SaintMorose
Registered User
- Jul 21, 2009
- 4,017
- 598
Seems harsh on Jankowski Im almost positive he had no say over hf's under-rating of Jacob.
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.
Walkingthroughforest
I got the worst ******* attorneys
- Aug 19, 2007
- 7,678
- 1,958
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.
SaintMorose
Registered User
- Jul 21, 2009
- 4,017
- 598
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
David Dennison
I'm a tariff, man.
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.
McShogun99
Registered User
I feel so bad for all the flack the kid gets that i'm actually rooting for him to have a productive NHL career.
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.
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.
TheHudlinator
Registered User
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.
SickHandsNoShot
Registered User
- May 7, 2012
- 413
- 0
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.
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.
SaintMorose
Registered User
- Jul 21, 2009
- 4,017
- 598
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.
David Dennison
I'm a tariff, man.
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.
Walkingthroughforest
I got the worst ******* attorneys
- Aug 19, 2007
- 7,678
- 1,958
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
David Dennison
I'm a tariff, man.
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.
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?
HockeySauce
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2011
- 16,349
- 759
- Status
