Recalled/Assigned: Mark Jankowski recalled

[Kahvi]

Throughout his whole career he has never performed at the level of what an NHL prospect should perform at.

Simple question, how many points should NHL forward prospect score in his first professional season in AHL?

 

[Baxterman]

Simple question, how many points should NHL forward prospect score in his first professional season in AHL?

At his age? probably should be out of the AHL by then if he is going to have a meaningful career. It isn't the end of the road but most guys are putting up impressive seasons at the NHL rather than toiling in the AHL.

But I would say a PPG would be a minimum.

 

[Kahvi]

At his age? probably should be out of the AHL by then if he is going to have a meaningful career. It isn't the end of the road but most guys are putting up impressive seasons at the NHL rather than toiling in the AHL.

But I would say a PPG would be a minimum.

Well, thats it then. 8 more points in 64 games would have made Jankowski an NHL prospect, now he's just a bum.

 

[Baxterman]

Well, thats it then. 8 more points in 64 games would have made Jankowski an NHL prospect, now he's just a bum.

Nope 8 points would have made him a weak option as an NHL prospect at 23.

 

[Rangediddy]

Throughout his whole career he has never performed at the level of what an NHL prospect should perform at.

In all his games in pre-season and regular season for the Flames he has never once looked impressive. In the games I saw in college he never once looked impressive. And it isn't just offensively he doesn't do much defensively or without the puck.

He is a guy with a lot of noise around him because of Feaster and because he has become a polarizing player. I get that many fans have now felt the need to defend him based on all the deserved criticism that he and the pick got but that has turned into him being wildly overrated and expectations way too high.

If he had been named John Smith and had the same career without being a former 1st round pick he would be figuring out what his post hockey career should be right now.

I would agree with this...

if it was correct.

 

[King In The North]

Take a look at Providence's history. How many players reached 40 pts as Jankowski did in his senior year.

 

[BobColesNasalCavity]

feeling #blessed today with this divine news that our Saviour has finally arrived.

 

[Anglesmith]

At his age? probably should be out of the AHL by then if he is going to have a meaningful career. It isn't the end of the road but most guys are putting up impressive seasons at the NHL rather than toiling in the AHL.

But I would say a PPG would be a minimum.

Why do you insist on comparing him to others of the same age rather than the same stage of development? Are you of the school of thought that every player develops identically with respect to their age? If so, I'm wondering why you would cling to that notion. What advantage do you gain from such dogged stoicism? Because predictive power clearly isn't one of them considering the success that Jankowski has had relative to others of his age in the AHL this year.

This has been repeated time and time again on every forum. It was something that was talked about when he was drafted by those who had followed him as a player, scouted him, analyzed him as a prospect, etc. When Jankowski was drafted, in addition to being just about the youngest player in his draft class, he was also a further year behind his peers in terms of physical maturity, as his body was undergoing a massive growth spurt. And yet you insist on comparing him to others of his draft class who are potentially up to a year older, but also were already filled out at the time of drafting. Why would you think that would lead you to a more accurate analysis? Like, I get it if there were no factors like that. If people just said "he's a late bloomer" to make excuses for a player not developing very well, but here there were actual, tangible, obvious factors at play where you could expect a longer, slower development relative to his draft class. And experts said repeatedly that that would be the case, and that would be the expectation with this player. And yet you still feel like ignoring experts and reality is a better way to evaluate him? Even though he's now putting up numbers which make him directly comparable to guys who are very successful in the NHL? It's just mind-boggling.

Ah well. If Janko can have some success at the NHL level, I doubt anyone will be able to nay-say any longer.

 

[Mobiandi]

 

[Anglesmith]

I swear, Gulutzan and I have been totally on the same page this season.

 

[Flameshomer]

I might self harm if the lines are deployed as displayed tomorrow. Stupid Steinberg

 

[Anglesmith]

I might self harm if the lines are deployed as displayed tomorrow. Stupid Steinberg

He's got the third and fourth lines reversed, I'm pretty sure. Versteeg-Hamilton-Brouwer was the fourth line last game, and I'm pretty sure subbing in Stajan doesn't make it the third line.

That said, I think it's a reasonable expectation that we roll four lines, then see which lines are more effective than others.

 

[Calculon]

Finally.

Also, I don't mind this lineup. The third line has a chance to be a real energy/offensive depth line for a change. Gives Bennett a chance to calm down and simplify some stuff.

But is Jankowski's recall emergency based? Such that, once Jagr is taken off IR, Jankowski has to be sent down regardless of performance? Or is it a regular recall?

 

[Anglesmith]

Finally.

Also, I don't mind this lineup. The third line has a chance to be a real energy/offensive depth line for a change. Gives Bennett a chance to calm down and simplify some stuff.

But is Jankowski's recall emergency based? Such that, once Jagr is taken off IR, Jankowski has to be sent down regardless of performance? Or is it a regular recall?

I don't know if it makes a difference at this point, does it? Doesn't that distinction only apply after the trade deadline when there is unlimited roster space, but only 4 regular recalls allowed?

I think, theoretically, there is a certain level that Jankowski could play at that would require him to be kept up with the big club.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

I swear, Gulutzan and I have been totally on the same page this season.

 

[Baxterman]

Why do you insist on comparing him to others of the same age rather than the same stage of development? Are you of the school of thought that every player develops identically with respect to their age? If so, I'm wondering why you would cling to that notion. What advantage do you gain from such dogged stoicism? Because predictive power clearly isn't one of them considering the success that Jankowski has had relative to others of his age in the AHL this year.

This has been repeated time and time again on every forum. It was something that was talked about when he was drafted by those who had followed him as a player, scouted him, analyzed him as a prospect, etc. When Jankowski was drafted, in addition to being just about the youngest player in his draft class, he was also a further year behind his peers in terms of physical maturity, as his body was undergoing a massive growth spurt. And yet you insist on comparing him to others of his draft class who are potentially up to a year older, but also were already filled out at the time of drafting. Why would you think that would lead you to a more accurate analysis? Like, I get it if there were no factors like that. If people just said "he's a late bloomer" to make excuses for a player not developing very well, but here there were actual, tangible, obvious factors at play where you could expect a longer, slower development relative to his draft class. And experts said repeatedly that that would be the case, and that would be the expectation with this player. And yet you still feel like ignoring experts and reality is a better way to evaluate him? Even though he's now putting up numbers which make him directly comparable to guys who are very successful in the NHL? It's just mind-boggling.

Ah well. If Janko can have some success at the NHL level, I doubt anyone will be able to nay-say any longer.

Because I don't see them as legitimate factors but as excuses for why he has sucked at every step along his career (in terms of an NHL prospect).

And I don't think much of the so-called experts who are making those excuses for him.

 

[Skobel24]

Finally.

Also, I don't mind this lineup. The third line has a chance to be a real energy/offensive depth line for a change. Gives Bennett a chance to calm down and simplify some stuff.

But is Jankowski's recall emergency based? Such that, once Jagr is taken off IR, Jankowski has to be sent down regardless of performance? Or is it a regular recall?

I'd be willing to bet that if both Jankowski and Bennett do well together, we'll see someone else waived when Jagr returns. Probably Glass or Hamilton.

 

[Anglesmith]

Because I don't see them as legitimate factors but as excuses for why he has sucked at every step along his career (in terms of an NHL prospect).

And I don't think much of the so-called experts who are making those excuses for him.

So you really, truly believe that every person should develop at identical rates, no matter what?

 

[Kahvi]

Because I don't see them as legitimate factors but as excuses for why he has sucked at every step along his career (in terms of an NHL prospect).

And I don't think much of the so-called experts who are making those excuses for him.

No he has not, and you are simply wrong.

 

[Kahvi]

This is just like your opinions on McGrattan. You say the same thing over and over again using different words, but never support your opinion with anything concrete, like comparing stats, or describing some play that happened on ice.

 

[Baxterman]

So you really, truly believe that every person should develop at identical rates, no matter what?

No I don't think I ever said that.

I do think if guys don't look better than their peers as they rise through the ranks then it is unlikely they turn into a good NHL player.

At some point there has to be more than "he is a long term prospect do we have to ignore what he is showing us."

 

[Rubi]

Janko is finally here and Bennett is on the wing! Thank God, Lord Almighty!

 

[Mobiandi]

I'd be willing to bet that if both Jankowski and Bennett do well together, we'll see someone else waived when Jagr returns. Probably Glass or Hamilton.

Honestly I still don't know why we signed Glass. Yes he had a good preseason and adds some toughness to the team. But the resulting numbers game we have now isn't worth it for players like Janko and Lazar

 

[Anglesmith]

No I don't think I ever said that.

I do think if guys don't look better than their peers as they rise through the ranks then it is unlikely they turn into a good NHL player.

At some point there has to be more than "he is a long term prospect do we have to ignore what he is showing us."

Sure. The major criticism of your whole point isn't that he should be better than his peers. Of course he should. The fact is, though, that you are choosing a group of players to compare him to that don't actually represent 'peers' in the spirit of that term.

A player who was nearly 19, and just about fully developed physically at the time of the 2012 draft, did not represent a peer for Jankowski as a freshman. And that, honestly, accounts for most of the freshmen in the NCAA, which is why he was initially expecting to spend a year in the USHL. These are tangible factors, not excuses. If you adjust your definition of 'peer' to account for these factors (which is essentially all that 'experts' were doing in projecting him as a long-term prospect), then yes, he's dominated his peers at every level so far.

I mean, current success is more important than anything else, really. People who may have been looked at as Jankowski apologists before can now hang their hat on the fact that he is having success right now as a pro which is comparable to other late-bloomers who turn into impact NHL players. We don't really need to convince you of anything, because it's now reality.

 

[Skobel24]

Honestly I still don't know why we signed Glass. Yes he had a good preseason and adds some toughness to the team. But the resulting numbers game we have now isn't worth it for players like Janko and Lazar

I think it was more due to the fact that the Flames lost Engelland and Bouma, and Calgary wanted someone who could step in if need be. The signing made sense in that case.