Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
He was a twenty-two goal scorer without Johnny in his D+1 year. It is unlikely that that was his peak.
Player Discussion Mark Jankowski
- Thread starter Mazatt
- Start date
He was a twenty-two goal scorer without Johnny in his D+1 year. It is unlikely that that was his peak.
Baxterman
Registered User
- Aug 27, 2017
- 6,939
- 1,499
CamPopplestone
Registered User
- Sep 27, 2017
- 2,515
- 2,896
My biggest concern with Jankowski is what his next deal looks like. He's fine getting around 2 per year. But his shorthanded play and goals/points are just enough I feel he's going to be looking for that 3-3.5 a season range, which I just don't think he's worth. Ryan is more than capable of playing the 3rd line C, and Quine showed he could handle 4th. And you could get a decent one year depth centre that can handle 4th line if you need. We just can't afford to give Jankowski a raise. So I'd like to package him for Kadri if it were possible.
If not, keep him, it's fine. But I wouldn't be upset moving him, because I don't really see him being here past 19-20 anyway.
If not, keep him, it's fine. But I wouldn't be upset moving him, because I don't really see him being here past 19-20 anyway.
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,316
- 6,567
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,316
- 6,567
I think he regressed. Do you see any part of his game improved? Other than waiting for feed from Johnny?
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
I think you're confused about what regression means. Regression is a statistical phenomenon. And Monahan's statistics decidedly haven't regressed from that campaign. Players don't, themselves, regress. The term is used correctly to refer to a player whose statistics have gone from outliers towards expectation.
So essentially you're trying to say is that he's a worse player now than he was a few years ago. I think you should ask yourself why you might be seeing things that way instead of being so quick to believe yourself. Recency bias is a real thing, as is what I call "counterhomerism," where fans sometimes only see flaws in their own team's players and assume equivalent players around the league are flawless. Maybe look there? We're discussing a centre who just finished up an 82-point season but slumped hard down the stretch.
My own opinion of Monahan is that he has a high level of play in him, but he's still developing in his ability to play at that level consistently. I think his best is yet to come.
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,316
- 6,567
I am not going to argue the English technicality but
If anyone being biased it's you not me. Here is what I know
1)At the draft, Monahan scouting report stated he is a character player who is well rounded in all aspect of the game. Full of leadership and tangibles. Today, we see a soft player with no tangibles except his shot. Even then only with a perfect pass from Johnny. He created little chances on his own.I know some people argued Johnny struggled too but that IMO is a different problem. The Flames need to manage Johnny's playing time properly. See what the Raptors did with Kawhi and learn please. What's the point of sending him out there to get 100 pts in meaningless games. Is his legacy going to be because he is a 99 pt player vs 100 pt or he quit during the playoff because he has no energy left?
2)The only leadership he has demonstrated is he sucks in the second half when the going gets tough. Yes, I am aware of his injuries last year but still what is his excuse this year? Even when he was scoring points, you can see his sorry play on the defensive end and against tougher competition he was done like dinner.
These showed me that Monahan is not developing into a player he could be. He has settled in as a sidekick to Johnny. No more, no less
Last edited:
Flamesfan62
Registered User
Baxterman
Registered User
- Aug 27, 2017
- 6,939
- 1,499
Yes you are likely more knowledgable watching him from a far with a clear grudge to measure his leadership skills rather than the coaches, players and management that have him wearing a letter and constantly seem to praise his character.
Also, pretty amazing that he is the first player that played one way in juniors and then changed their game when they got to the NHL. I know every single player that came in to the league before and after him match-up perfectly to their scouting report. I mean there is zero chance that those scouting reports could have been overly general or flat out wrong.
Much like your expertise when it comes to the dynamics of the Flames lockerroom I am sure you are also correct that if we had the 18 year old OHL Monahan he would be a better player than the current 82 point NHL Monahan.
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,316
- 6,567
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,316
- 6,567
It's just my opinion. Monahan lack of sand paper in his game AND choosing to be a spectator on his line most of the time is problematic.
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,316
- 6,567
Mazatt
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2019
- 2,819
- 2,085
We don't know when he was injured but since his play dropped off around the all-star break it's probably safe to assume that's when the injury happened.
An injury to hand would understandably hurt his scoring and whatnot. But his skating and effort levels? How does that work?
If he was honestly that badly injured that he couldn't skate or pass or do anything of value, then he should have sat out until healthy. Especially if he was injured around the all star break when there's still months before the playoffs. The notion of playing through injuries in the regular season when you're not actually contributing anything of note is bizarre.
But he wasn't that badly injured. He simply had a broken finger or thumb or something and a subsequent decline in offensive output. But when his scoring drops off the rest of his qualities, or rather the lack thereof, just become fairly obvious too.
If he was honestly that badly injured that he couldn't skate or pass or do anything of value, then he should have sat out until healthy. Especially if he was injured around the all star break when there's still months before the playoffs. The notion of playing through injuries in the regular season when you're not actually contributing anything of note is bizarre.
But he wasn't that badly injured. He simply had a broken finger or thumb or something and a subsequent decline in offensive output. But when his scoring drops off the rest of his qualities, or rather the lack thereof, just become fairly obvious too.
Deen
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 12,591
- 4,941
I think trading Janks would be a bad move. I still think he is growing in to and getting use to his frame. He was a lanky kid for a long time and only put on muscles in the last couple years. I would wait a few more years on him, I don't think he's a finished product yet.
Baxterman
Registered User
- Aug 27, 2017
- 6,939
- 1,499
That is quite a bit different from saying he hasn't progressed and that he is pathetic center.
I mean it is BS but quite different.
Kranix
Deranged Homer
- Jun 27, 2012
- 18,246
- 16,290
Nanuuk
Registered User
Janks will be a Jordan Staal type of player. Maybe not as much offensively, but not far off. Deen is quite right that once he muscles up and put on a few pounds he'll be a load.
Flames Fanatic
Mediocre
Janks is so much closer to a Joe Colborne than a Jordan Staal its not even funny.
Nanuuk
Registered User
You think so? I'm not so sure. If you look at his playing career at every level he has improved in each succeeding year. College, AHL and NHL. He skates better than Colborne, he's a better defensive player than Colborne, he's a better PK'er than Colborne, and in his two year career shown an upside that I didn't see with Big Joe. And I liked Big Joe. Colborne was a victim of being bounced around too much at wing and never could settle in a centre (hmmm, sound like Bennett).
Jankowski has played two effective seasons at centre so far. If he continues to progress He won't be far off from Staal, size and points wise.
Jankowski has played two effective seasons at centre so far. If he continues to progress He won't be far off from Staal, size and points wise.
Flames Fanatic
Mediocre
Jordan Staal was doing more in the NHL as an 18 year old than Jankowski has done at 25.
Jankowski rode an abnormal conversion rate shorthanded that will likely regress next year. He's not a two way guy really, he's a defensive guy who has a decent/good shot, but otherwise is an offensive blackhole for his line. Seriously. Jankowski being a one trick pony offensively is a big part of why the the third line struggled this year.
He's also softer than butter, and was completely useless in the playoffs.
He's still okay to have as a depth guy. But to compare him to a guy who when healthy has been a consistent half point per game guy with Selke level defense ability since he was 18 in the NHL vs a 25 year old sophomore is a huuuuuge stretch.
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
What does height have to do with this?
Jankowski needs bulk to go with his height. I actually compare his development path to Joe Thornton (NOT SKILL CALM DOWN FAM) in that he needs a few years of being a pro before he's effective. Sadly, he's doing that out of university not out of junior.
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,316
- 6,567
What does height have to do with this?
Jankowski needs bulk to go with his height. I actually compare his development path to Joe Thornton (NOT SKILL CALM DOWN FAM) in that he needs a few years of being a pro before he's effective. Sadly, he's doing that out of university not out of junior.
Sure Joe was already a 100 pt scorer by 24
but you are right, like Jankowski, Joe was declared the best player at his draft
