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

[SickHandsNoShot]

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?

Honestly Todd Button didn't say in that interview why they do it that way. I assume its for efficiency purposes. Instead of looking at the list of 150ish players for your first round, you have say 15-20 guys. And No, this doesn't me they wouldn't take MacKinnon if he fell. At that point the overall list would be used.

If you wouldn't do it that way that's fine, I just don't understand why anyone cares how they organize it.

 

[Bank Shot]

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.

There's a lot of excuses to be trotted out no doubt.

If the guy truly has high end skill, vision, and hockey IQ to go with good size and skating he should be rising rapidly to the head of the class. He hasn't been. Perhaps the skillset is overrated?

 

[tmurfin]

There's a lot of excuses to be trotted out no doubt.

If the guy truly has high end skill, vision, and hockey IQ to go with good size and skating he should be rising rapidly to the head of the class. He hasn't been. Perhaps the skillset is overrated?

Once again, have you seen him play? He came straight from a high school league to the NCAA, to a low scoring team. He did earn his way up the depth chart on his team and is expected to be a main offensive cog next year. He also put up similar totals to guys like Kreider, not to mention he's only 18. Maybe you should watch him play, or better yet, give him a chance to prove himself.

 

[McPheesMoustache]

...Back in 1985 Jankowski could throw a football a quarter mile...

This whole thread is a joke-kowski right?

 

[Bank Shot]

Once again, have you seen him play? He came straight from a high school league to the NCAA, to a low scoring team. He did earn his way up the depth chart on his team and is expected to be a main offensive cog next year. He also put up similar totals to guys like Kreider, not to mention he's only 18. Maybe you should watch him play, or better yet, give him a chance to prove himself.

Yea, seen him play and he looks like a guy with good but not great skills.

Onus is on the prospects to prove themselves quickly. Those with high end skills and IQ do so.

 

[Gary83*]

Yea, seen him play and he looks like a guy with good but not great skills.

Onus is on the prospects to prove themselves quickly. Those with high end skills and IQ do so.

Looking at a stat sheet doesn't count as watching him play.

Sorry brah.

 

[tmurfin]

Yea, seen him play and he looks like a guy with good but not great skills.

Onus is on the prospects to prove themselves quickly. Those with high end skills and IQ do so.

If you could, let me know where and how you watched him? Would love to watch this coming season .. Btw what number was he again? And was position does/did he play? Can't seem to remember

 

[InfinityIggy]

Yea, seen him play and he looks like a guy with good but not great skills.

Onus is on the prospects to prove themselves quickly. Those with high end skills and IQ do so.

No you didn't. Name 3 strength's and 3 weakness's when you saw him.

 

[illpucks]

What number was Jankowski?

10

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..

He will be a generational talent if he reaches his potential.

 

[thalegion]

I read the first page and this page and I still can't tell if this is a joke thread or not....

 

[illpucks]

I read the first page and this page and I still can't tell if this is a joke thread or not....

stop trolling dude. It's a serious thread. Janko is the real deal. People thought Claude Giroux was a joke at the draft, look at him now, no one is laughing now.

 

[WonderTwinsUnite]

10



He will be a generational talent if he reaches his potential.

If by "generational", you mean "good", or even "first-line" talent, I could see your point. If that is the case, generational does not mean what you think it means.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Who cares where he's at right now? He's a long term prospect. Not an easy guy to peg in terms of ultimate potential.

 

[Trafalgar Sadge Law]

stop trolling dude. It's a serious thread. Janko is the real deal. People thought Claude Giroux was a joke at the draft, look at him now, no one is laughing now.

Giroux was coming off an 100 point season in the Q that season. Jankowski was playing in high school. Giroux followed that season up with another 110 point season in the CHL. Jankowski could barely even reach 0.5 ppg in college. Giroux's accomplishments pre draft and a year after the draft>>>>>>>>>what Jankowski had done.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Comparing the Q to the NCAA is not a good comparison. This season will be much more telling for him.

No, he's not ever gonna be a generational talent. But he may end up being a very good top 6 player.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Giroux was coming off an 100 point season in the Q that season. Jankowski was playing in high school. Giroux followed that season up with another 110 point season in the CHL. Jankowski could barely even reach 0.5 ppg in college. Giroux's accomplishments pre draft and a year after the draft>>>>>>>>>what Jankowski had done.

Are you seriously comparing the Q to NCAA?

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Are you seriously comparing the Q to NCAA?

You must see be the first Canadian I've seen bring up that argument. Wait-you're a Flames fan!

 

[WarriorofTime]

You must see be the first Canadian I've seen bring up that argument. Wait-you're a Flames fan!

The Q is a joke. Very easy league to put up big point totals.

 

[InfinityIggy]

You must see be the first Canadian I've seen bring up that argument. Wait-you're a Flames fan!

What are you even talking about.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

re: QMJHL vs NCAA

They're not 100% comparable, obviously (average age is notably higher in the NCAA, etc.), but NHLE (point equivalency factor) for the Q is roughly .3, while NHLE for NCAA is roughly .4. It's not a perfect measure by any means, but it does indicate that the difference in difficulty between leagues is likely ~33% increase from QMJHL (or any CHL league) to NCAA. Certainly they're close enough that it's entirely legitimate to say that 1.5 points/game in the Q is better than 0.5 points/game in the NCAA, regardless of other factors.

At this point Jankowski should not be compared to Giroux. To be honest, he shouldn't be compared to anyone, because he doesn't really have much (or anything) in the way of comparables. Guys just don't get drafted out of prep schools like Janks did; the vast majority of draftees from high school were from Minnesota, which has a system far superior to any other high school/prep school-style leagues.

Stop the comparisons, let him do his thing, and in a couple of years we can better judge what we've got.

 

[garret9]

re: QMJHL vs NCAA

They're not 100% comparable, obviously (average age is notably higher in the NCAA, etc.), but NHLE (point equivalency factor) for the Q is roughly .3, while NHLE for NCAA is roughly .4. It's not a perfect measure by any means, but it does indicate that the difference in difficulty between leagues is likely ~33% increase from QMJHL (or any CHL league) to NCAA. Certainly they're close enough that it's entirely legitimate to say that 1.5 points/game in the Q is better than 0.5 points/game in the NCAA, regardless of other factors.

At this point Jankowski should not be compared to Giroux. To be honest, he shouldn't be compared to anyone, because he doesn't really have much (or anything) in the way of comparables. Guys just don't get drafted out of prep schools like Janks did; the vast majority of draftees from high school were from Minnesota, which has a system far superior to any other high school/prep school-style leagues.

Stop the comparisons, let him do his thing, and in a couple of years we can better judge what we've got.

I'll have to double check but Rob Volman has updated the NHLE's to each individual section of NCAA.

 

[InfinityIggy]

re: QMJHL vs NCAA

They're not 100% comparable, obviously (average age is notably higher in the NCAA, etc.), but NHLE (point equivalency factor) for the Q is roughly .3, while NHLE for NCAA is roughly .4. It's not a perfect measure by any means, but it does indicate that the difference in difficulty between leagues is likely ~33% increase from QMJHL (or any CHL league) to NCAA. Certainly they're close enough that it's entirely legitimate to say that 1.5 points/game in the Q is better than 0.5 points/game in the NCAA, regardless of other factors.

At this point Jankowski should not be compared to Giroux. To be honest, he shouldn't be compared to anyone, because he doesn't really have much (or anything) in the way of comparables. Guys just don't get drafted out of prep schools like Janks did; the vast majority of draftees from high school were from Minnesota, which has a system far superior to any other high school/prep school-style leagues.

Stop the comparisons, let him do his thing, and in a couple of years we can better judge what we've got.

The difference between NCAA teams is oceans apart from the difference between Q teams. Trying to compare the two leagues is an act of futility when you are trying to compare point totals. Either way, I agree comparing Jankowski to Giroux is foolish at this point.

 

[HarrisonFord]

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?

I believe that hfboards just mistakenly put a decimal between the 7 and the 5.

 

[Leafidelity]

His ranking seems fair in my opinion.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

The difference between NCAA teams is oceans apart from the difference between Q teams. Trying to compare the two leagues is an act of futility when you are trying to compare point totals. Either way, I agree comparing Jankowski to Giroux is foolish at this point.

Oh direct comparison is certainly difficult, I'm just saying that the gap is big enough in cases like this that it's pretty clear who is performing better in his respective season. If we were arguing about a dude at 0.8 ppg in NCAA vs a dude with 1.3 PPG in a CHL league, that would be a different story.

I'll have to double check but Rob Volman has updated the NHLE's to each individual section of NCAA.

Exciting! I'll have to take a look. I know Hockey East is at the upper end, which works in Janko's favour, but I don't imagine the difference is too great (maybe 0.45 or something)