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

[Johnny Hoxville]

I think Janko should be an 8D at best.

And regarding what I said about Gaudreau, I personally believe he will be a special player, but Giroux is in an upper echelon of elite bracket. I'm not proclaiming JG will be that yet. I think their production and playing styles at the stage JG is currently at is very comparable.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

There should be a lot more 8D guys on HF rankings. Not even one of the first guys I would argue about for this although I can see it being made for sure.

 

[McKappa]

I guess you, Trafalgar "Pitkanen is a future Norris winner"* Law sure belong here, if this thread is indeed a riot. Then again, it may just be the Canucks fans in here leading you to that evaluation.

* See: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=11406979&postcount=88

Man you sure got him.

 

[illpucks]

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.

No, I mean if he reaches his potential, he will be at the very least at the same level as Claude Giroux and John Tavares, and those players can be classified as generational talent. Personally, I think his threshold is even higher but we shall see.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

In the 15 years I've been prospect watching, Pavel Brendl is the only one worthy of a 8.5 or 9D. It's probably the rarest prospect type.

Jankowski might not even be worthy of the D. , 7 C may be more fair. He's a project for sure, but he's got all the skills to be a very good 2nd or 3rd liner and he's got all the traits that indicate future success. But superstars almost never come out of nowhere.

 

[illpucks]

In the 15 years I've been prospect watching, Pavel Brendl is the only one worthy of a 8.5 or 9D. It's probably the rarest prospect type.

Jankowski might not even be worthy of the D. , 7 C may be more fair. He's a project for sure, but he's got all the skills to be a very good 2nd or 3rd liner and he's got all the traits that indicate future success. But superstars almost never come out of nowhere.

Claude Giroux and Erik Karlsson say hi.

 

[DayTripper]

Using the fact that I still post here as proof of childishness

If you want proof of your continuing childishness, I suppose this is as close to a smoking a gun as it gets.

is a propositional fallacy.

Which propositional fallacy, specifically? I'm genuinely curious!

I'm still waiting on a recent example, your behaviour here and here, is proof of childishness.

Childish behavior? No way man! I was callin' it like it is!

Post quality tends to improve as one ages/gains more knowledge, this is a fact. The only thing irrelevant here is your "evidence" that not only has nothing to do with whether or not Gaudreau=Giroux, but is also outdated. Remember, it was you who used a 6 year old post as evidence, not me.

It doesn't appear as if you are even capable of following what's going on. Here's a straightforward summary:

1) You made an obnoxious and arrogant remark.
2) I pointed out that you've made errors of the type you're arrogantly accusing others of making, with the difference being we know for sure that you've made an error.
3) You said, in effect, "I was childish then, but I'm not childish now." False, and here's a more recent example of that: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=49724959&highlight=#post49724959
4) So in conclusion, your remark was hypocritical.

First of all, Giroux is a center who plays a solid 2-way game, whereas Gaudreau is an offensively oriented winger. They do share traits such as good agility/playmaking skills, but they have enough differences stylistically that it's an inaccurate comparison. "NHL equivalent points" is a terrible predictor for future NHL success, if it was accurate, Corey Locke would be a perennial All-Star and Rob Schremp would be a franchise player.

Jesus H. Christ, man. The whole conversation was about comparisons between leagues, NHL equivalency points, and so on. I already addressed this earlier, and it's annoying for me to repeat myself. It would be futile to do so anyway, since in my experience, if someone is incapable of understanding it the first time, that's unlikely to change no matter how many times it's repeated for them.

Feel free to ridicule me for my Pitkanen prediction via VM/PM or something, which I too look back on and find laughable. However, the fact is it's completely out of context with regards to "is John Gaudreau comparable to Claude Giroux", not to mention a post from 6 years ago being completely irrelevant to today.

Do you not understand what the damn point was all along? You obnoxiously ridiculed someone for something you yourself have done time and time again (and failed at).

Also, using ad hominem attacks hurt your argument.

I doubt you even know what an ad hominem argument actually is, even though you may think you do.

 

[DayTripper]

As a flames fan 7.5 is very fair. if he explodes next year move him up to 8 D

Yep, I agree. He still has to prove that he's got what it takes.

 

[KarlssonnSchultz]

Claude Giroux and Erik Karlsson say hi.

AAAALLLLMMOOOOSSSTTTT. Not that hard to pick up on.

 

[VerySuperFamous]

9 means he has the potential to be a superstar. Has he shown that in highschool hockey or NCAA? Not meaning to slight him but other picks around late first to 3rd rounders have shown similar potential. JG on the other hand has produced and does deserve an 8 D or what ever thing he is now

I'd say his size+skill makes him a potential superstar, not very likely but I'd say he has one of the highest ceilings in the draft, but also one of the highest bust potential. Also superstar is a relative term now, a guy who is big and puts up 70 points with a decent two way game is probably a superstar in today's game. He has the tools to be a superstar or atleast star, but so do a couple other prospects in every draft, and they rarely do. Maybe change the D to an F but it's really relative to whether you think he's a 3rd liner with potential to be more or a 1st liner with potential to be less.

I'd consider him to be the same breed of prospect as guys like Chara, Lucic, and Valabik were, maybe one out of 20 or 30 that get picked get close to their max potential but the ones that do become great.

 

[Trafalgar Sadge Law]

If you want proof of your continuing childishness, I suppose this is as close to a smoking a gun as it gets.

Which propositional fallacy, specifically? I'm genuinely curious!

Childish behavior? No way man! I was callin' it like it is!

It doesn't appear as if you are even capable of following what's going on. Here's a straightforward summary:

1) You made an obnoxious and arrogant remark.
2) I pointed out that you've made errors of the type you're arrogantly accusing others of making, with the difference being we know for sure that you've made an error.
3) You said, in effect, "I was childish then, but I'm not childish now." False, and here's a more recent example of that: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=49724959&highlight=#post49724959
4) So in conclusion, your remark was hypocritical.

If X is true and Y is true. Y is true, therefore X is true.

I'm fairly sure most would consider typing "hahahaha" less childish than editing someone else's username into "Diver2Diver", but whatever makes your gears go.

Me making a dumb prediction does not necessarily mean I'm being hypocritical when I label other comments as unrealistic, as I admit that my comment is absurd. Just because you are wrong once doesn't mean you can never criticize anything else ever. Also I think you have difficulty grasping the concept that just because a poster was dumb 6 years ago doesn't mean they'll be that dumb forever.

Jesus H. Christ, man. The whole conversation was about comparisons between leagues, NHL equivalency points, and so on. I already addressed this earlier, and it's annoying for me to repeat myself. It would be futile to do so anyway, since in my experience, if someone is incapable of understanding it the first time, that's unlikely to change no matter how many times it's repeated for them.

Do you not understand what the damn point was all along? You obnoxiously ridiculed someone for something you yourself have done time and time again (and failed at).

Time and time again, as in many years ago. Give a recent example of me doing this, like within the last few months or something. You have a very odd perspective of what being obnoxious is. A post that was largely passed by for everyone except yourself is just your everyday internet forum post, this current bickering on the other hand is obnoxious. Like I said in a previous post, take it to PM with me if you want.

I doubt you even know what an ad hominem argument actually is, even though you may think you do.

You attacked the poster rather than the post. That's textbook ad hominem.

 

[DayTripper]

If X is true and Y is true. Y is true, therefore X is true.

Did you mean to type: "If X is true, then Y is true. Y is true, therefore X is true." (affirming the consequent)

Where exactly did I commit an Affirming the Consequent fallacy?

I'm fairly sure most would consider typing "hahahaha" less childish than editing someone else's username into "Diver2Diver", but whatever makes your gears go.

Whether I'm childish has no bearing on whether you're childish or not, which is the only thing that matters is whether you've suddenly become qualified (which you equated with increased maturity) to evaluate claims of this kind. To suggest that it is is a logical fallacy (Red Herring). There is no evidence that you have suddenly become an astute and mature talent evaluater, so why should we believe you've suddenly acquired the skill?

Me making a dumb prediction does not necessarily mean I'm being hypocritical when I label other comments as unrealistic, as I admit that my comment is absurd. Just because you are wrong once doesn't mean you can never criticize anything else ever. Also I think you have difficulty grasping the concept that just because a poster was dumb 6 years ago doesn't mean they'll be that dumb forever.

You're right, actually. Hypocrisy is the wrong word, and often misused in the same way I did. I guess that old idiom of the tea calling the kettle black is more appropriate.

You considering "LOL this thread is a riot lololol" as criticism is laughable though. Good Lord.

Time and time again, as in many years ago. Give a recent example of me doing this, like within the last few months or something. You have a very odd perspective of what being obnoxious is. A post that was largely passed by for everyone except yourself is just your everyday internet forum post, this current bickering on the other hand is obnoxious. Like I said in a previous post, take it to PM with me if you want.

Here you go: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=69173475#post69173475

PMs are for suckaz, by the way. Unfounded arrogance deserves to be publicly exposed.

You attacked the poster rather than the post. That's textbook ad hominem.

No, this is what an Ad Hominem is:

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

What I've done doesn't count as an ad hominem because I wasn't attacking any argument you made. If I were to commit an ad hominem, I would have said something like: "You've made a fool of yourself in the past when attempting to evaluate talent, therefore your insinuation that a Gaudreau/Giroux comparison is ludicrous is wrong." But I never said that. I gave reasons in another post why it wasn't ludicrous to even compare the two when they were similar ages. That was a side point, and the main point was exposing the irony and how much of a...Well, I can't give you any label. It's against da r00lz, and I might get another infraction! MVW didn't deserve a garbage trolling response like that, basically.

 

[settinguptheplay]

No, I mean if he reaches his potential, he will be at the very least at the same level as Claude Giroux and John Tavares, and those players can be classified as generational talent. Personally, I think his threshold is even higher but we shall see.

Neither Giroux or Tavares are generational talents. Unless you have a very watered down version of what generational talent means.

Generational means 1 in a lifetime (or generation) and neither of those players can be seen that way. Generational talents are the best player in the league. Neither Giroux or Tavares have ever been considered the best in the league.

Think...

Gretzky
Lemieux

these are generational talents...

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

The thing is, Jankowski ceiling is top-6 max. If it was top-line potential, he would have gone earlier, regardless of his level and experience. He was picked where he was for a reason.

 

[Trafalgar Sadge Law]

Did you mean to type: "If X is true, then Y is true. Y is true, therefore X is true." (affirming the consequent)

Where exactly did I commit an Affirming the Consequent fallacy?

Paraphrasing: You were childish when you posted 6 years ago. You still post today, therefore you're childish.

Whether I'm childish has no bearing on whether you're childish or not, which is the only thing that matters is whether you've suddenly become qualified (which you equated with increased maturity) to evaluate claims of this kind. To suggest that it is is a logical fallacy (Red Herring). There is no evidence that you have suddenly become an astute and mature talent evaluater, so why should we believe you've suddenly acquired the skill?

You're right, actually. Hypocrisy is the wrong word, and often misused in the same way I did. I guess that old idiom of the tea calling the kettle black is more appropriate.

You considering "LOL this thread is a riot lololol" as criticism is laughable though. Good Lord.

Did I say I was some sort of keen talent analyzer? Now you're just pulling bs out of nowhere. You insinuated that I'm childish, while bringing no recent evidence whatsoever. Pot calling kettle black is a fair enough assessment, which would also happen to fit you claiming my posts are childish perfectly.

Here you go: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=69173475#post69173475

PMs are for suckaz, by the way. Unfounded arrogance deserves to be publicly exposed.

Smileys=/=childish bud, it's similar to posting a gif or something. And yes, you are doing a very good job flaunting your arrogance, I agree.

No, this is what an Ad Hominem is:

What I've done doesn't count as an ad hominem because I wasn't attacking any argument you made. If I were to commit an ad hominem, I would have said something like: "You've made a fool of yourself in the past when attempting to evaluate talent, therefore your insinuation that a Gaudreau/Giroux comparison is ludicrous is wrong." But I never said that. I gave reasons in another post why it wasn't ludicrous to even compare the two when they were similar ages. That was a side point, and the main point was exposing the irony and how much of a...Well, I can't give you any label. It's against da r00lz, and I might get another infraction! MVW didn't deserve a garbage trolling response like that, basically.

Your initial response to why I can't claim Gaudreau=/=Giroux is based off "your post I dug up from a long time ago from who knows where means you're childish". You tacked on the actual argument later on. Also, leet speak? Really now?

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I would argue easily that Janko does have top line potential. The likelihood of him reaching it is what is debatable. To me, worst case scenario he ends up being a 3rd line center.

 

[KJS14]

I would argue easily that Janko does have top line potential. The likelihood of him reaching it is what is debatable. To me, worst case scenario he ends up being a 3rd line center.

I can agree with that. I see a lot of people saying he should be a 8.5D or a 9.0D, because he has first line potential. HF's rankings say that a 7.0 is second line potential, an 8.0 is first line potential and a 9.0 is elite player potential. So HF's 7.5D for Jankowski is pretty fair. They're basically saying he has fringe first line potential with a bottom 6 potential floor. You could argue he should be an 8.0D, but anymore than that is pushing it.

Edit:

I think Janko should be an 8D at best.

Just realized you said the same thing..

 

[smackdaddy]

I would argue easily that Janko does have top line potential. The likelihood of him reaching it is what is debatable. To me, worst case scenario he ends up being a 3rd line center.

Really? The worst case scenario is he busts. Your expectations of this completely off the board prospect is extremely high and will likely end in disappointment.

 

[Oiltankjob Fail]

Giroux is a little bigger than JG, but their styles are very similar. Anyone that cannot see any resemblance I would then question if they have watched him play. Gaudreau is extremely shifty side to side and elusive with the puck. And his hockey sense, along with vision and creativity are among the best of any prospect at his age. The only thing preventing Gaudreau from becoming a star in the NHL will be his size. But his current production and level of play would of been close to Giroux's as well at that stage.

I personally think Gaudreau will end up being a better player than Baertschi.

I Think there seems to be a very unfair evaluation of Flame prospects compared to other teams on hf. Anyone who watched Gaudreau in wjc would understand how talented he is. I also thinks since Flames are rebuilding will get more of a look than other top prospects therefore will make impacts faster than others. And I definitely would not bet against Gauderau making it as a nhl player.

 

[Hammman]

Hey guys, no offence but maybe you should take your argument to PM's?

 

[herashak]

Really? The worst case scenario is he busts. Your expectations of this completely off the board prospect is extremely high and will likely end in disappointment.

Its not like jank has a extremely low floor. with great size, skating, and hockey iq. janks bust factor came from people wondering if he was just racking up points on crappy high school kids. now that he is showing he can play with good players it is starting to put those fears to rest. not saying he is a lock to be an nhler but his floor isnt all that low.

 

[KJS14]

I Think there seems to be a very unfair evaluation of Flame prospects compared to other teams on hf. Anyone who watched Gaudreau in wjc would understand how talented he is. I also thinks since Flames are rebuilding will get more of a look than other top prospects therefore will make impacts faster than others. And I definitely would not bet against Gauderau making it as a nhl player.

I'm pretty sure every team's prospects get unfair evaluations, and I definitely don't think the Flames get it the worst. From what I have seen, Flames fans seem to overvalue their own prospects more than most other team's fans do (there are exceptions).

I would bet against Gaudreau becoming a high impact player in the NHL. I believe he is listed as 5'8, but I have been fortunate enough to meet him once, and I doubt he is even 5'8. There's no denying his skills and intangibles, but I believe his size is going to prevent him from becoming an impact player. Flames fans keep arguing that he has succeeded at every level so far, but the Gaudreau has been playing amongst his peers up to this point. Playing against his peers in college and at the WJC is a whole lot different than playing against men in the NHL.

 

[Oiltankjob Fail]

I'm pretty sure every team's prospects get unfair evaluations, and I definitely don't think the Flames get it the worst. From what I have seen, Flames fans seem to overvalue their own prospects more than most other team's fans do (there are exceptions).

I would bet against Gaudreau becoming a high impact player in the NHL. I believe he is listed as 5'8, but I have been fortunate enough to meet him once, and I doubt he is even 5'8. There's no denying his skills and intangibles, but I believe his size is going to prevent him from becoming an impact player. Flames fans keep arguing that he has succeeded at every level so far, but the Gaudreau has been playing amongst his peers up to this point. Playing against his peers in college and at the WJC is a whole lot different than playing against men in the NHL.

Well Flames had another similar talented 5'6 player they gave up on cause they thought he was to small to make a impact . Not a Flames fan but seems all their prospects get mocked as junk compared to others.

 

[herashak]

The thing that does worry me about jankowski is mentally. he doesnt always play confident and might not have an extra gear mentally to push and become what he could be.

 

[HighLifeMan]

The thing that does worry me about jankowski is mentally. he doesnt always play confident and might not have an extra gear mentally to push and become what he could be.

That is likely due to the fact that these are all new experiences and environments for him. We are talking about a kid who was passed over by the CHL, and as a result was playing prep league hockey just over a year ago for crying out loud. Since that moment he has gone on to become a 1st round NHL draft pick, an NHL development camp standout, a WJC summer camp invitee, and a solid contributor to an NCAA program that is beginning to turn around (thanks in large part to him).

Even being as raw as he is in terms of pure development when in comparison to the rest of his peers, he is still showing that he can not only fit in, but compete with the best of the best on a day to day basis. That is incredibly encouraging.

There is always the possibility that he never finds that assertiveness or confidence in his game, but judging by the growth he has made over the past year, I don't believe that should be much of a worry at this juncture.