Mark Jankowski's First NCAA Season

Justin Azevedo
July 23 2013 08:07AM

 

PC #10 Mark Jankowski and BU #12 Yasin Cissé

 

Mark Jankowski had what could be called a middling freshman year in Providence in terms of production with just seven goals and 18 points in 34 games. I decided to take an in-depth look into his scoring last year to add some context to his counting numbers and to also get an idea about what we should expect from him next year.

How about we run through his scoring stats and see if there's anything we can find out, shall we?

  G A PPG ShPG TS% PPP% PA% S%
Mark Jankowski 7 11 0.53 1.79 18.9% 27.8% 45.5% 11.5%

G/A/PPG : Goals, Assists and Points-Per-Game

Jankowski got a fair amount of playing time on the PP and was on the team's top-2 lines the entire year. Providence was a low scoring team, yes, but Jankowski was given very favourable circumstances. I feel as though this is below-average for guys who are supposed to be high-end prospects. 11 of the 12 assists on his goals were by different players, with Tim Schaller being the only one to appear more than once. Of his assists on others goals, he assisted on 3 of Derek Army's 13 goals, 2 of Ross Mauermann's 12 goals, 2 of Nick Saracino's 11 goals, 2 of Stefan Demopoulos' 8 goals and 2 of Kevin Hart's 3 goals. The spread of his points among different players suggests he wasn't being carried by anyone but likewise he wasn't carrying anyone. His PPG gives us an NHLE of 17.8.

TS% : Team Scoring Percentage

In the CHL, we'd like this number to be 35% or above for anyone who is expected to be a scorer at the next level. The NCAA is a tougher league and based on the age structure of the league we can lower that number a little. I'd say 25% is the minimum for top-end players in their freshman season (about 10 goals difference between the two when applied to Providence's scoring) when taking into account where a freshman generally plays.

Unfortunately, Jankowski comes in under that 25% threshold (18.9%). In real terms, that's about 7 more points we would've liked to have seen from Jankowski, whether they be bar-down snipes from the slot or assists coming off of pucks bouncing off his inner thigh (actually, snipes would be preferred).

PPP% : Power Play Points Percentage

The Friars scored 23 goals on the PP last year, and Jankowski contributed to 5 of those (1G, 4A). That's an okay number, but Jankowski didn't score enough to make it statistically significant. Still, it's a positive that he wasn't overly reliant on the man advantage to put up points. If he can increase his scoring next season by a measurable amount and still keep this percentage low it's a good sign.

PA% : Primary Assist Percentage

Jankowski only had 11 assists this year, but the fact that 6 of those were secondary assists suggests he was a bit of a passenger on scoring plays (that or guys weren't burying his feeds). I'm not putting too much stock into this, however - the difference between him being above 55% (which I consider to be the threshold for a good player) and where he's at was one assist. If this trend continues into next year, though, then we have reason to be concerned.

ShPG/S% : Shots Per Game and Shooting Percentage

For me, these are the most worrying stats. Jankowski shot 11.5% last year, which is considered to be average to slightly above average at the NHL level, so it's reasonable to assume at the NCAA level it's around the average shooting percentage. We know that shooting percentage, at least in the NHL, doesn't tend to rise by meaningful amounts over the course of a player's career (unless his circumstances drastically change) - in fact, it actually drops. That said, we need several thousand shots to get a true idea of a skater's true talent level in the show.

However, even if we throw out every other statistic because of the small sample size, the fact is he isn't producing shots at a meaningful rate (1.8/game) and without sky-high luck he won't improve his goal and point totals if he does not improve. For comparison, Johnny Gaudreau, who by all accounts should have had a tougher time adjusting to the NCAA than Jankowski given his size, averaged 2.8 shots per game in his freshman year at a similar age. In his sophomore season this year, Gaudreau hovered ar four shots per game.

For Jankowski, a one shot per game improvement or better is in order.

Conclusion

I'm willing to give Jankowski a little bit of a break here as most guys who just turned 18 aren't playing at the NCAA level and the Friars were a low scoring team.

In saying that, though, Jankowski is big enough that playing in the NCAA shouldn't have been that big of a jump if his perceived skill level is what it is. The bad news is, his stats are below-average almost across the board. If you recall Kent's comparables article from last summer, he showed pretty much every current NHLer who rose through a tier-2 league and then college ranks scored at least at a 0.70 point-per-game pace in their freshman college season. Janko came in at 0.53. That is David Van Der Gulik (0.50) and Kris Chucko (0.49) territory. 

Taken all together, it's obvious the former first rounder didn't really clear any of the quantitative bars we set as markers for future NHLers, to say nothing of future NHL scorers. These sorts of yardsticks aren't unerring signs of doom, but they certainly suggest the kid is a bit behind the curve currently.

I understand Jankowski was a project when drafted, but that shouldn't preclude him from showing meaningful improvement year-over-year. In order to get where he needs to be, I'd like to see his shot totals jump to somewhere around 3 shots per game at the very least. Ideally, Janko will get up to at least .75 PPG as well, if not 1.0+. If he's going to produce at the NHL level, he needs to be a notable scorer in college first.

The good news for Jankowski is he is relaatively young and he has an undeniable package of skills. The results weren't there for him in his draft+1 season, but he still has time and opportunity to put things together and become a noteworthy prospect. If he takes a big step forward for Providence this year, it will be wasy to put his underwhelming rookie season in the rear view mirror.

Around the Nation

A9d138d0e612f28cd46f9b7057ed715d
Justin is a 22-year-old Flames fan who also happens to be pursuing a double major at the University of Calgary. He has played hockey at high levels, enjoys wearing shorts and tends to drink far too much Grasshopper. Please don't hate him.
Avatar
#1 the-wolf
July 23 2013, 08:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

It's make or break. If there's no meaningful improvement this season, I can't see it happening at all.

From the prospects camp, he seems like the proverbial guy with the tools and no tool box. Here's hoping he finds one.

Avatar
#2 Subz
July 23 2013, 08:22AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Fantastic stuff,

Though numbers may not suggest it , I see Janko becoming a ppg this season. His strength definitely needs to catch up to his frame, but he recognizes this, he remains what he was, a high risk prospect. The addition of other high end prospects(and future 2014 prospects) takes the spotlight of him, which I believe is a good thing.

Avatar
#3 jai kiran
July 23 2013, 08:22AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

You say Gaudreau "averaged 2.8 shots per game in his freshman year at a similar age". But didn't Gaudreau play a year in the USHL first? Isn't Janko's comparable year his next one?

Avatar
#4 Jeff In Lethbridge
July 23 2013, 08:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

If M Jank. has to pack his bags, Feaster might as well pack his too. I'm sharpening my pitch-fork.

Avatar
#5 McRib
July 23 2013, 08:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@jai kiran

Correct, considering Jankowski's late Bithdate most NCAA candidates his age spent their 18 Year-Old Seasons playing Teir Two Canadian Junior, Prep School or in the USHL.

For all intensive purposes he should have been in the USHL last year although we no longer run the risk of having a Justin Schultz situation come up.

Avatar
#6 ChinookArch
July 23 2013, 08:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

Janko's closer to bust than project at this point. This is his final year to figure it out. He seems to have grown into his body and hopefully we'll see better results this year. His Flames-camp team mates seemed to be impressed with his skills, so . . . maybe.

I like what the Flames are attempting to do, in terms of finding young projects that may end up being a steal in the following year, but picking Jankowski in the first round still appears to have been a mistake.

Avatar
#7 coachedpotatoe
July 23 2013, 08:39AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

Give the kid a break. What was his faceoff %? With his size maybe he becomes the next Joel Otto or Pepper. I did not see development camp or watch College hockey so I can't give as much of an opinion. But all the negative talk drives me nuts. He's not even at the real NHL tryout level and people are sharpening their pitchforks.

Avatar
#8 McRib
July 23 2013, 08:44AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
0
props

"In saying that, though, Jankowski is big enough that playing in the NCAA shouldn't have been that big of a jump if his perceived skill level is what it is."

I could agree with this statement if Jankowski wasn't severely undeveloped last year. It puts it into perspective when you consider Anthony Mantha is only three days younger than Jankowski and was drafted a year later.

Mark Jankowski was very impressive for me in camp he hit two posts in the second scrimmage and got open in the slot four or five other times in the both games, Corbin Knight broke up a nice Agostino feed that would have been a tap in for him in the first game. If bounces went his way he comes away from camp with 4+ goals and everyone is signing a different tune.

The biggest thing for me is he will be playing his natural centre position this season and has added the necessary size to carve out space in the slot. The Flames Development Camp was extremely competitive, some people have our prospect crop in the Top. 5 of the league now. I think this kid is going to surprise in the World Junior Camp, as the competition will not be far off this as long as he burys chances there (Fortunately Teammate Gillies will not be robbing him).

I know Jankowski has upside Tools but also think he has upside Hockey IQ as he was finding open ice everywhere in camp. Its all about gaining confidence with his developing game. He is easily a 0.8-1.0 PPG player this season for me considering if he almost scored multiple goals in both games here in far superior competition to what he will be playing againast (except a hanful of NCAA teams BC, Minn, Etc). I can only imagine what he will do against the other NCAA Teams.

Avatar
#9 Demetric
July 23 2013, 08:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

he also played wing last season and they say moving to center this season. So lets hope that helps improve his numbers.

Avatar
#10 seve927
July 23 2013, 08:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
ChinookArch wrote:

Janko's closer to bust than project at this point. This is his final year to figure it out. He seems to have grown into his body and hopefully we'll see better results this year. His Flames-camp team mates seemed to be impressed with his skills, so . . . maybe.

I like what the Flames are attempting to do, in terms of finding young projects that may end up being a steal in the following year, but picking Jankowski in the first round still appears to have been a mistake.

His last year to figure it out? He's had one. He's hardly in Greg Nemisz territory. He's played 34 games against guys a lot stronger than he is, and looked pretty good at times. I watched about 3 games online, and he was invisible at times, but could have definitely had more points too - a few posts, a little more scoring touch from his linemates...

He looks much stronger now, so I'd say close to a point per game, if he's got any help at all, would be the minimum expectation for a legitimate prospect. Hopefully Saracino, Mauermann and Demopolous can step it up as well.

Avatar
#11 Kent Wilson
July 23 2013, 08:58AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props

@coachedpotatoe

He mostly played wing in college, so faceoff % is irrelevant.

His results are underwhelming. There's really no way to get around it. There's definitely reasons to give him a pass for his first season (age, quality of team), and I am personally not writing him off at all, but there's no question real improvement is needed moving forward.

Avatar
#12 CDB
July 23 2013, 09:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

This will be an interesting year for his development. I don't think comparing Gadreau to Jankowski is to fair. They are very different players who went into very different situations. Lets not forget that Gadreau weighed 155 on his 5'6 fram, while Jankowski had about 20 pounds spread across 9 inches. The kid was a bean pole and one of the youngest players in college hockey. Terrific analysis, and while those underlying numbers don't look terrific, half a point a game some someone so young, and underdeveloped on a weak team isn't a terrible thing. He definitely showed some flashes in the prospect camp.

I don't view this as a make or break year for him. Still so young, though I am expecting and hoping for a significant step forward.

It's interesting how everyone acknowledges his tools but the varying opinions on his hockey IQ. That was immmediately one of my concerns when they drafted him. Often, players that come from lower levels haven't developed the ability to read the play at the same rate, nor has their hockey sense developed as much as some of their peers coming from higher competition. Jankowski was so much better than his teammates and competition growing up in his lesser leagues that I imagine he could rely on his skillset and didnt have to utilize "hockey IQ". So despite having some high end tools, he may be lacking in that department. Which I find ironic given that has been a focus for this organization of late.

This is something that smart players can develop over time and it will be interesting to see how it plays out for him. Very curious how he stacks up at the WJ camp. Yes his uncle is the head guy at Hockey Canada, but he if was no where near the radar he wouldn't have garnered an invite. I look forward to seeing how he stacks up.

Avatar
#13 Ryan Lambert
July 23 2013, 09:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
5
props

to the guy who said jankowski can be a point-a-game player next season: there were 30 who did that in the NCAA last year. it's exceedingly rare, and most were on teams with a large number of high-quality prospects.

it also bears repeating that, while not addressed in this post, the teams jankowski largely racked up points against were mostly garbage.

Here's the breakdown: vs. Sacred Heart (2-21-4): 1 GP, 2-0-2 (2 ESG)

vs. Miami (25-12-5): 2 GP, 0-1-1 (secondary PPA)

vs. Vermont (11-19-6): 2 GP, 1-0-1 (ESG)

vs. Northeastern (9-21-4): 3 GP, 2-3-5 (1 ESG, 1 PPG, 1 primary ESA, 2 secondary ESA)

vs. Brown (16-14-6): 1 GP, 0-1-1 (1 primary ESA)

vs. UMass Amherst (12-19-3): 3 GP, 0-1-1 (1 secondary PPA)

vs. UMass Lowell (28-11-2): 4 GP, 0-2-2 (2 primary ESA)

vs. Maine (11-19-8): 3 GP, 1-0-1 (ESG)

vs. UNH (20-12-7): 6 GP, 1-2-3 (1 ESG, 1 primary ESA, 1 secondary PPA)

vs. Boston College (22-12-4): 2 GP, 0-1-1 (secondary PPA)

so of the seven goals he scored, one came against a team that was better than .500. i'll take a deeper look at these numbers in five things this week but anyone trying to convince themselves jankowski can be good has a lot of ground to cover over the next three seasons. i've seen him maybe six or seven times and i'm not convinced.

Avatar
#14 Avalain
July 23 2013, 09:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Jeff In Lethbridge wrote:

If M Jank. has to pack his bags, Feaster might as well pack his too. I'm sharpening my pitch-fork.

Really? So if Baertschi, Gaudreau, Gillies, Poirier, and Klimchuk all end up being fantastic picks but Jankowski is a bust, that's reason enough to fire a guy? What if Sieloff becomes something? (Note that Monahan was virtually picked for Feaster as a result of who were picked in the top 5, so I wouldn't consider this a win or loss for him either way)

Honestly, I want the GM of the Flames to be willing to take some level of risk. If he had to follow the BPA according to public scouting reports and always had to make the safe moves for fear of being fired, then this team is doomed to mediocrity.

On top of that, this was a reach for the exact kind of player that the Flames have needed for years. A big, skilled pivot who, if he works out, will be virtually impossible to pick up via trade or free agency. If he doesn't work out, well, you can't win them all. In fact, I think it's fair to say no team has a perfect drafting record, even if you include only the 1st round. The important thing is that the Flames' prospect pool has been improving.

Avatar
#15 McRib
July 23 2013, 09:12AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

The one thing I still disagree with is Kent's comapriables last year and cannot understand why FN is so hung up on them?!?!?! Considering not one Prep School to NCAA player was included in it makes it highly inaccurate!!! Prep school kids have far more growing pains during their freshman year over BCHL/AJHL kids.

Chris Kreider (0.60) is the perfect example to this, its also interesting Corbin Knight (0.35 PPG) & Matt Frattin (0.36 PPG, Colin Greening (61.3 PPG), Carl Hagelin (0.53 PPG), Daniel Winnik (0.38 PPG), Cam Atkinson (0.53 PPG) if memory serves me were also not apart of the list among many others. Patrick Sharp (0.79 PPG) & Tyler Bozak (0.83 PPG) were three and four years older than Jankowski entering NCAA and still didn't put up a point a game.

Dustin Penner was playing Div III for MSU-Bottineau his freshman year!! The list is just very hand picked, considering at the time it was comprised of off the top of the head examples and although it was interesting. A majority of late bloomers were not included on that list.

Avatar
#16 SmellOfVictory
July 23 2013, 09:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
jai kiran wrote:

You say Gaudreau "averaged 2.8 shots per game in his freshman year at a similar age". But didn't Gaudreau play a year in the USHL first? Isn't Janko's comparable year his next one?

Gaudreau played a year in the USHL in his draft year. His draft+1 year was in the NCAA at the age of 18, just like Jankowski's.

The major difference between the two in terms of leagues is that USHL is the top developmental league (for minors) in the US, whereas Jankowski was playing in a Canadian prep school that was completely unknown (and thus likely a third-tier league in terms of quality of competition). The jump in quality from USHL to NCAA would not be nearly as great as a prep school to NCAA.

There's also the physical aspect of it: both had physical challenges (Gaudreau because of straight-up size), but Jankwoski underwent a 6-8 inch growth spurt during his draft year. As a tall guy myself, I can tell you those growth spurts absolutely destroy your physical coordination for an extended period.

Avatar
#17 Ryan Lambert
July 23 2013, 09:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
3
props

the reason kreider, knight, frattin and hagelin didn't get big point totals at boston college, north dakota, north dakota and michigan, respectively, is that these are high-end programs in which freshmen aren't given huge opportunities to produce very often.

for example, kreider scored 15 goals his freshman year, and not a single one of them was on the power play; he wasn't getting time there. he still scored 15.

i'm going to discount your contentions that prep kids like greening, knight, frattin and hagelin struggled, because none of them played prep; they all played junior. greening in the BC, knight and frattin in the AJ, hagelin in sweden.

Avatar
#18 McRib
July 23 2013, 09:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Ryan Lambert

Hahaha, Colin Greening absolutely did play prep!!! He was drafted out of a Canadian Prep School where he was playing for Upper Canada College!!! He literally is the closest comparison you will find to Mark Jankowski and you guys "conveniently" missed him!! Like you mentioned Greening also had another year of Junior to prepare for NCAA and still put up medicore points before having success at the NHL.

"i'm going to discount your contentions that prep kids like greening, knight, frattin and hagelin struggled".

Not once did say these three played prep (Greening did), I said Kreider played Prep and found it interesting that zero prep kids were included considering they are the most direct comparison!! If I had time I could go through the dozens that you missed. Not to mention other cases like Max Pacioretty how many points would he have put up as a true freshman if he didn't go to Sioux City out of Avon Olds?!?!?

Avatar
#19 Jeff Lebowski
July 23 2013, 09:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The numbers don't lie. When I watched him at camp, there was an assertiveness missing from hs game. I remember writing some guys when they want the puck the entire arena hears but with Jankowski he seemed...kind of meek. It carried into his play too.

Having said that, when you watch him you see the skills. I really think he's going to adjust to his still growing (height) body and smooth out, look more athletic in his movement. He still looks a little gawky with his feet but his hands are better.

Once that happens, he'll start making more things happen on the ice which leads to improving confidence. Subsequently he'll be more take charge.

The fact that he is doing all the right things (training) is a good sign.

The proof is in the pudding so until he does it, it's fair to call his performance underwhelming thus far.

Avatar
#20 McRib
July 23 2013, 10:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Ryan Lambert

Matt Frattin, Corban Knight & Carl Hagelin all got second/third line ice time (as did Mark) on much deeper and higher scoring teams than Jankowski!! If anything your point makes Jankowski's numbers seem much stronger.

Avatar
#21 McRib
July 23 2013, 10:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Jeff Lebowski

'The numbers don't lie. When I watched him at camp, there was an assertiveness missing from hs game. I remember writing some guys when they want the puck the entire arena hears but with Jankowski he seemed...kind of meek. It carried into his play too. "

We clearly didn't watch the same game?!?!? Go back and watch the highlights of the second scrimmage you'll see a kid wearing number 77 Black beat Gillies twice and both times he just hit the post.... Bazaar!!! Both games he put himself into position for prime chances three or four times a game that is assertiveness in your eyes.

Avatar
#22 Ryan Lambert
July 23 2013, 10:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
3
props
McRib wrote:

Matt Frattin, Corban Knight & Carl Hagelin all got second/third line ice time (as did Mark) on much deeper and higher scoring teams than Jankowski!! If anything your point makes Jankowski's numbers seem much stronger.

I'm curious how many times you saw Mark Jankowski play this season. I'm not saying there's no way he makes the NHL but your attempts to spin his dismal numbers into positives are baffling and wrongheaded.

Avatar
#23 everton fc
July 23 2013, 10:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

What's unfortunate is he's playing wing. Not centre. Which is what we drafted him for.

Hopefully he plays pivot this season. It's the best way to evaluate him, me thinks.

Avatar
#24 SmellOfVictory
July 23 2013, 10:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Ryan Lambert wrote:

the reason kreider, knight, frattin and hagelin didn't get big point totals at boston college, north dakota, north dakota and michigan, respectively, is that these are high-end programs in which freshmen aren't given huge opportunities to produce very often.

for example, kreider scored 15 goals his freshman year, and not a single one of them was on the power play; he wasn't getting time there. he still scored 15.

i'm going to discount your contentions that prep kids like greening, knight, frattin and hagelin struggled, because none of them played prep; they all played junior. greening in the BC, knight and frattin in the AJ, hagelin in sweden.

BC and AJ are 2nd tier junior, though; it's still a bigger leap in competition from there to NCAA than from the USHL, which is roughly on par with the CHL.

@everton fc: Jankowski is slated to play C this season, according to interviews.

Avatar
#25 Jeff Lebowski
July 23 2013, 10:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@McRib

That's fair, I wasn't at second scrimmage. I think he's going to improve and I feel the org knows what they have and the amount of patience required for him to fully develop.

Benchmarking him might be a tad unfair but you have to track somehow. So far the data is left a little wanting. That's not to say he won't meet or outpace ever, he just hasn't done it yet.

I think this will be a great year for him.

Avatar
#26 McRib
July 23 2013, 10:36AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
0
props

@Ryan Lambert

Hahahaha, Read every single game sheet of Providences and watched four games online. Providence like most very inexperienced teams rolled three lines all season. Jankowski was easily second/third line every night playing out of position on the wing. Also unlike Corban Knight/Matt Frattin playing on a stacked team PCs thrid/fourth line wasn't filled with NHL Drafted players (David Toews, Mike Cichy, Brad Miller).

Everyone in the Hockey World loves Mark Jankowski except FN, Corey Pronman and NHLCSS. So maybe I should paint a picture for you.... After recently attending the NHL Draft in NJ. I ask multitude of NHL Scouts (Boston, Nashville, St. Louis, Calgary, etc) about Corey Pronman.....

You guys at FN are aware that he lives in FLORIDA and "claims" to watch games online, but attends less than ten games in person a year!!! The only person he is a draft insider for is FN, his own made up scouting company & Idiots on Twitter!! Oh Ya and very occasionally on ESPN, lol. The network that completely ignores that Hockey even exists.

Mark Jankowski is going to make you guys look foolish!!! I'm curious as to why FN continues to allow you to write for them as your hockey knowledge is nonexistent.... People just disregard your articles as filler... DON'T YOU LIVE IN BOSTON ANYWAY!?!?!? Why do you even care about writing for FN!!!! You and Corey Pronman should get together and start some uber insider make believe blog.

Corey Pronman can continue to rank the Gabriel Landeskogs of the world 12th and you can't say how awful they are going to be!!!

Avatar
#27 McRib
July 23 2013, 10:41AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

@Jeff Lebowski

Ya, he had a couple prime scoring oppotunities that second game, highlight show them on flames.com. I do as well, unlike FN I prefer to look at the positives! He has been moved to a regular position at centre, added 15-20 Lbs and his coach Nate Leaman(one of the best in NCAA) says he had three or four missed opportunities a game last year and is going to breakout. Frankly I would be surprised if he doesn't hit a point a game from what I have seen.

Avatar
#28 Ryan Lambert
July 23 2013, 10:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

well i mean if you looked at the game sheets and watched four games online i guess you do indeed know more than me about the quality of jankowski's performances. i only saw him in person six or seven times :(

Avatar
#29 McRib
July 23 2013, 10:49AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
0
props

@Ryan Lambert

Hahaha, Once again why do you write for a Calgary Flames Site?!?!? It doesn't seem like your a fan considering you talk about our prospects that everyone else in hockey has ranked in the Top. 10 developmental crops, like they are the worst in the NHL. I've also seen him in person six or seven times and am very good friends with NE scouts for Boston & St. Louis that absolutly love him. So I'm going to take their opinion over yours thanks!!!

Avatar
#30 Kenta
July 23 2013, 11:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
4
props

@McRib

Could somebody please disconnect this kid's buzzer and, please, no more hahaha!!!!

Avatar
#31 schevvy
July 23 2013, 11:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

I think everyone here can agree that Jankowski had a mediocre season. Yes, he had a low scoring team, but that doesn't mean his shot rate had to be so low. The fact is, unless Jankowski is the second coming of Alex Tanguay, his shooting percentage will most likely drop. So, unless he improves his shot rate, he is going to score less goals. For me, I want to see Jankowski score 0.8 PPG, average 2.5 shot per game. If he does that, then maybe he's got a decent shot at becoming something. Because right now he has a better chance at becoming Kris Chucko 2.0 than an impact player

Avatar
#32 BitGeek
July 23 2013, 11:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
3
props

Jankowski might have the potential, but at some point he has to start producing numbers. Flames management are not going to add him to the line up based on how often he gets into position or how many cross bars he can hit.

Feaster himself said that Jankowski needs to step up next year and show them something. No more getting comfortable, he has to be more confident and start producing.

It's like a ball player that can hit the ball really well, except it's always right to a glove. Until he starts getting on base, then he's not very useful.

Jankowski might have some skills, but they need to produce some numbers.

Like Justin and Ryan are suggesting, he hasn't shown enough where it counts but there's still hope.

Time is slowly becoming Jankowski's enemy.

Avatar
#33 Scary Gary
July 23 2013, 11:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
4
props

I think it's way too early to determine boom or bust based on the relatively small sample size.

I believe we need to give our prospects every opportunity to succeed. Jankowski is physically a late bloomer, he needs time and patience from us.

Avatar
#34 They're $hittie
July 23 2013, 12:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

This kid sucks!

Avatar
#35 Bean-counting cowboy
July 23 2013, 12:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
6
props
McRib wrote:

Hahaha, Once again why do you write for a Calgary Flames Site?!?!? It doesn't seem like your a fan considering you talk about our prospects that everyone else in hockey has ranked in the Top. 10 developmental crops, like they are the worst in the NHL. I've also seen him in person six or seven times and am very good friends with NE scouts for Boston & St. Louis that absolutly love him. So I'm going to take their opinion over yours thanks!!!

Settle down now Riblet. While FN can seem pessimistic to some, I find the analysis tries to take an unbiased view of our team/prospects. Most fan sites tend to be over-value our own team/prospects and take a homer approach.

One might argue that you can take optimism a bit too far as well (which I find most of your posts to be). If all of these picks will work out perfectly as you seem to always suggest, then the Flames will have done something no team has ever done.... ever. What are the stats for 1st rounders turning into NHLers.. something like 50%, then 25% for 2nd round, 10 - 15% for 3rd, etc. etc.

FN simply breaks down the numbers and tries to add other factors to explain. The analysis presented in this article was exactly that. Jankowski hasn't shown anything yet. Sure he's got skill, goal posts and chances, but the same can be said for the guys who actually scored goals too.

All that's being said by this article is that he really needs to show us something next year to remain a legit prospect. You're almost guaranteeing he will... and if so, great... but don't act like you know the future more than anybody else. It can get tiring reading some of your over-jubilant, homer posts.

Avatar
#36 ThatGuy
July 23 2013, 12:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I heard on the radio that MJ had a weak start to the season trying to adjust from High School to College hockey in just one summer. His point totals were increasing toward the end of the season, so I'm hoping he picks up where he left off. I'm not ready to write this 18(!) year old kid off like many of you already have.

Avatar
#37 NHL93
July 23 2013, 12:50PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

I don't remember a player picked by Calgary creating this much passion and dividing the fans. We may as well be arguing if Pearl Jam was better than Alice in Chains (HINT, it's Alice in Chains by a mile).

He was young in his first year, he looked kind of out of place at times in the scrimmages.. then it seemed he stopped thinking and started to just play and you'd see him sneak into the slot with his stick on the ice. I like him. If he pans out, it'll be great, if he turns out to be the next Hugh Jessiman, well them the breaks. I can't fault Feaster for swinging for the fences. Janko is a lot more intriguing than any of Daryl's swings and misses.

Avatar
#39 SmellOfVictory
July 23 2013, 12:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
NHL93 wrote:

I don't remember a player picked by Calgary creating this much passion and dividing the fans. We may as well be arguing if Pearl Jam was better than Alice in Chains (HINT, it's Alice in Chains by a mile).

He was young in his first year, he looked kind of out of place at times in the scrimmages.. then it seemed he stopped thinking and started to just play and you'd see him sneak into the slot with his stick on the ice. I like him. If he pans out, it'll be great, if he turns out to be the next Hugh Jessiman, well them the breaks. I can't fault Feaster for swinging for the fences. Janko is a lot more intriguing than any of Daryl's swings and misses.

YOUR HINT IS WRONG. PEARL JAM FOR LIFE.

Avatar
#41 seve927
July 23 2013, 12:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Justin Azevedo wrote:

they didn't increase towards the end of the season. 3 goals and 5 assists in his last half-season (17 games). that's actually a decrease from the first half.

where in the article did I write him off? he's not performing where nhlers should be. that's all.

1 ppg over his last 2 games!

Avatar
#43 the-wolf
July 23 2013, 01:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Bean-counting cowboy wrote:

Settle down now Riblet. While FN can seem pessimistic to some, I find the analysis tries to take an unbiased view of our team/prospects. Most fan sites tend to be over-value our own team/prospects and take a homer approach.

One might argue that you can take optimism a bit too far as well (which I find most of your posts to be). If all of these picks will work out perfectly as you seem to always suggest, then the Flames will have done something no team has ever done.... ever. What are the stats for 1st rounders turning into NHLers.. something like 50%, then 25% for 2nd round, 10 - 15% for 3rd, etc. etc.

FN simply breaks down the numbers and tries to add other factors to explain. The analysis presented in this article was exactly that. Jankowski hasn't shown anything yet. Sure he's got skill, goal posts and chances, but the same can be said for the guys who actually scored goals too.

All that's being said by this article is that he really needs to show us something next year to remain a legit prospect. You're almost guaranteeing he will... and if so, great... but don't act like you know the future more than anybody else. It can get tiring reading some of your over-jubilant, homer posts.

Exactly.

I've stated several times in the past that I'll give him the 2013/14 season due to growth, age, etc., but it's now put up or shut up time.

One can only hear about 'potential' for so long. Results are now needed.

Which, in the end, is all the article really says anyways.

Avatar
#45 Michael
July 23 2013, 01:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

If Jankowski had been a little older, i wonder how he would have faired in this years draft? The draft was clearly deeper this year, but given his underwhelming year(s), its likely he would have dropped into the second round and maybe beyond.

Feaster simply oversold the kid, few '20 ish' overall draft picks make the NHL, and fewer still make an impact. If you set realistic expectations for the kid, he has something like a sub 20% chance of making the NHL, and an even smaller a chance of developing into a first liner.

Jankowski may work out, or he might not, but we need to be realistic about what we have. He could be great, or he could simply fade away into the misery that normally accompanies Flames first round picks.

Avatar
#47 the-wolf
July 23 2013, 01:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props
NHL93 wrote:

I don't remember a player picked by Calgary creating this much passion and dividing the fans. We may as well be arguing if Pearl Jam was better than Alice in Chains (HINT, it's Alice in Chains by a mile).

He was young in his first year, he looked kind of out of place at times in the scrimmages.. then it seemed he stopped thinking and started to just play and you'd see him sneak into the slot with his stick on the ice. I like him. If he pans out, it'll be great, if he turns out to be the next Hugh Jessiman, well them the breaks. I can't fault Feaster for swinging for the fences. Janko is a lot more intriguing than any of Daryl's swings and misses.

Define "swing for the fences" though. I've brought this point up before. It's great to say you'd rather the team draft players that are high risk/high reward vs 'safe' players with a low upside, but to what degree?

Everything has a line in the sand to it. If there are other high reward player who also have a greater degree of safety or certainty to them and they are left on the table, than the strategy starts to lose merit pretty quick.

In other words, the boom or bust theory only makes sense to a point. And beyond that point it becomes reaching to an irrational degree. For example:

Jankowski or Teravainen?

Monahan or Nichushkin?

Which player in each case has more 'potential' and which player is the 'safer' pick? All of them are skilled, but, some have higher upsides, but there's more to the story than just skill per se.

I'm tired and babbling, but there's more to it, IMO, than just swinging for the fences based on a projected high-end potential upside for a player IF everything goes right. Risk vs reward vs a sure bet to play all have to be weighed against each other.

Not trying to knock your comment btw, and the whole argument Jankowski aside, I just think it's an interesting debate as to how such generalized terms should be or need to be defined.

Avatar
#48 chillout
July 23 2013, 01:27PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@Ryan Lambert

Says the guy who's idea of research consists of reading blog posts and who's projections are based solely on how much he hates feaster.

Avatar
#49 Kevin R
July 23 2013, 01:28PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props
Bean-counting cowboy wrote:

Settle down now Riblet. While FN can seem pessimistic to some, I find the analysis tries to take an unbiased view of our team/prospects. Most fan sites tend to be over-value our own team/prospects and take a homer approach.

One might argue that you can take optimism a bit too far as well (which I find most of your posts to be). If all of these picks will work out perfectly as you seem to always suggest, then the Flames will have done something no team has ever done.... ever. What are the stats for 1st rounders turning into NHLers.. something like 50%, then 25% for 2nd round, 10 - 15% for 3rd, etc. etc.

FN simply breaks down the numbers and tries to add other factors to explain. The analysis presented in this article was exactly that. Jankowski hasn't shown anything yet. Sure he's got skill, goal posts and chances, but the same can be said for the guys who actually scored goals too.

All that's being said by this article is that he really needs to show us something next year to remain a legit prospect. You're almost guaranteeing he will... and if so, great... but don't act like you know the future more than anybody else. It can get tiring reading some of your over-jubilant, homer posts.

Good points, problem is that sometimes these stats breed negativity on our very young prospects. Jankowski is only 18 years old & I'm reading that next year is a make or break it year for Janko & Feaster. Holy smokes. Stats are stats but individuals are exactly that, individuals. People get it at different rates. There is no statistical time line that says a prospect should be at X level or they should be discarded. Heaven help you if you are a late bloomer. My reaction isn't as extreme as Ribby, but I was getting a little annoyed of how the judgement/perception on this kid was going. If he has a similar year next year, so what? What if he crushes it the year after? Suddenly you have to be more careful what you read & how you react to the stats. I was pumped when I listened to Sven talk about Janko on the Fan 960 & how big he got from last years camp & the skills he has. Then here its like people want to run him out of town like Backlund a few years ago. Lets not react & just look forward to how he progresses next year. Shall we?

Avatar
#50 piscera.infada
July 23 2013, 01:38PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
0
props

I understand the general sentiment re: the Jankowski pick. I also agree with the overall point of this article - that he NEEDS to show something this year.

I often think the Seiloff element to the move is overlooked. I'm sure everyone here has it in the back of their minds. But for me Teravainen and Gilles is as (if not more) underwhelming as a flier on Jankowski, Seiloff, and Gilles. Obviously this assumes that they would have picked Gilles if they hadn't picked in the 2nd round. So I'm not so sure we can look at this move in a vaccuum and essentially say "if Jankowski doesn't pan out, this is on the Feaster/Weisbrod system".

Oh, and @NHL93 and @SmellOfVictory: I think we can all agree both Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains were/are light years ahead of Nirvana.

Comments are closed for this article.