[News] Oilers Scratch Yakupov... Again

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'm sure that's going to sustain over the long term.

Irrelevant to the point. Right now, Yakupov is not the better choice. But he's coming back into the lineup, and it is time for him to show that he is better than those 4th line scrubs.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

Honest question, are they still doing the Oil Change series this season?

Why yes! Yes, they are!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why yes! Yes, they are!

check out the beefcake!

[Calgary4LIfe]

The only guarantee with this rebuild moving forward is not in how successful the Flames will be. It is that they will actually fire incompetent management, rather than promote them.

With that being said... I can't think of another example in the league that went through a rebuild for this long while being a team that will spend to the cap. You can make excuses for NYI, Chicago for years, Florida - the list goes on. These teams all had one common factor - they had a self-imposed team cap.

Penguins, Chicago (once their old owner passed, and they got owners committed to winning) and others who actually spent the money the Oilers did became not only a winning team, but legitimate contenders (or champions).

As for Yakupov himself - I don't blame him too much. The lack of accountability and leadership on that team stinks something putrid. I think he is a heck of a prospect, and once moved will start to really shine.

What is Eakins to do? He can only bench Yakupov so many times. The fault lies in the leadership group - having too many seasons in which they were never held accountable, and always praised for their offensive contributions. Hall, RNH and Eberle are all hot garbage in terms of two-way play, and are never seemingly accountable (and never were).

That right there is why that organization is a failure. Every other team makes their rookies earn their spots, and grow in a culture that passes on responsibility, professionalism and integrity. The Oil kids get praised for their offensive contributions, and little else it seems.

Eakins has a tough road ahead of him. Yakupov is definitely the starting point, but some time this season he is going to have to do the same to Hall, Eberle, RNH, Shultz and whomever else deserves it. Will he dare do it? Time will tell. He is basically guaranteed his job for this year and POSSIBLY next year just having a slight improvement. He may get fired if he loses the room. Tough gig for a rookie coach. He may feel he won't get another shot in the NHL if he fails. Will be interesting what transpires as the season moves along.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Bozek

Much as I relish the struggles of the Oilers, I don't think we can assume the Flames are going to do better in the win-loss column. However, we don't seem to be as likely to provide comic relief for the rest of the league.

I think that is what makes everyone relish this scenario that much more. The oilers are in their 4th year of their rebuild. By all accounts they should be contending for a playoff spot not a high lottery pick. Yes the season has a ton of games left but can you look at that team and honestly say they are a playoff team? They look like they are going to struggle just to make it out of the bottom third.

If 94 or 95 points are needed to make it to the playoffs they need to play at a .605 clip (46-20)the rest of the way, which is only 20 more losses. 19 after tonights loss to the Penguins. They are digging themselves into quite the hole.

Early on this season of theirs can only be described as a debacle of monumental proportions.

[strombad]

Sorry in advance for this epic novel, maybe HBO will turn it into a miniseries.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I provided thoughts on all of his responses.


My point was in part because of where people have chosen to focus their attention, and I think that your instance about what we ought not "care" about is quite telling in this regard. If you actually take the time to read it carefully, then you will see in his second sentence that he DID make a (half-hearted) gesture to improving away from the puck:



If you did in fact comprehend the quotation as you claim, then you would notice that the conjunction indicates an exception to the preceding clause; namely, that these are things that he WILL "maybe" change.


I agree that his response is an issue, but you are still assuming a lot from what he actually says. He says that skating, forechecking, and hitting is all HARD WORK, and that it is not part of the game he plays. He DID NOT SAY that he will not do these things, only that I finds them difficult, unpleasant, and has never paid them much heed in the past. It's entirely possible that he is just being honest, since I would imagine that virtually every professional hockey player finds it difficult to skate hard, forecheck, and to hit every shift. He has conceded the obvious here (which itself is a problem, since this is likely not something that most professional hockey players will admit to in public), but has not really said one way or the other whether he will make the necessary changes to his game. Again, yes, this looks bad, but it is entirely possible that some of his meaning or intent is indeed lost in translation.


Except he NEVER SAID THIS. You assume that this is what he meant from his statement, but it is most certainly not so clear. In the end, much of this issue rests on ASSUMPTIONS.


Some here can read pretty well, but I don't believe that you are one of them. My point was to show that while there are legitimate concerns about Yakupov's response to being a healthy scratch, there are also a lot of assumptions being made about his personal feelings and intentions. In short, you need to read more carefully.

Great, speaking of wild assumptions, let's look at a few you just made while being wildly hypocritical:

- "He says skating, forechecking, and hitting are all HARD WORK...only that I finds them difficult, unpleasant, and has never paid them much heed in the past." - except he never says that. He says he doesn't like them and that they aren't part of his game, here's the quote - Y: "I really don’t like skating all the time, and forechecking, and hitting somebody every shift. I don’t think it’s my game.” - notice no mention of "difficult", "hard work", or "never paid them much heed". All assumptions on your part, and as baseless as any other assumption you feel comfortable attacking.

- "the conjunction indicates an exception to the preceding clause; namely, that these are things that he WILL "maybe" change." - except it doesn't, conclusively. You can argue with absolute validity that he suggests things he MIGHT do, but at no point does he suggest he WILL do them. That's an assumption that you make and then justify based on your understanding of the conjunction, but in no way does that make you correct, you're simply assuming you're right based on the assumption you made over his meaning. Again, the actual quote - Y: “I’m going to play my game,” he said. “I’m not going to change but maybe play better without the puck, or forecheck more, but I love playing with the puck." - notice no definitive "will" or "will not" but rather a simple suggestions of what he MIGHT do. If you weren't aware, "WILL" and "MIGHT" are different things, and "WILL MAYBE" is flawed speech, it's a redundant impossibility. You will or you might. If you are attempting to argue he might, it would be "MAYBE will" and in that case, anyone could argue "MAYBE will not", because maybe is not definitive and by definition could go either way.

- "but has not really said one way or the other whether he will make the necessary changes to his game" ... "these are things that he WILL "maybe" change." - oh, so he hasn't said whether or not he WILL change, but you felt it necessary to capitalise that he WILL maybe change for effect? So part of your defence is that he's thinking about changing? Or humming and hawing? Oh, wait - Y: “I’m not going to change" - and here I though you said he hadn't said whether or was going to change or not, even though he said he wouldn't, but then you said "oh he said maybe he'll change!" but then you go back to saying he hasn't said whether he'll change. Interesting.

- "Except he NEVER SAID THIS" - true, he didn't, but you've claimed he said plenty of things he never said, so I'll explain why I believe, in short, he believes he shouldn't have to - Y: “I’m going to play my game ... I’m not going to change ... I love playing with the puck. I really don’t like skating all the time, and forechecking, and hitting somebody every shift. I don’t think it’s my game.” - So no, never said it. He did say he didn't like those things and wasn't going to change, and that they weren't part of his game, which is why I made the logical assumption. This is different from your ILLOGICAL assumptions, which argue things that you've not inferred from speech, but rather created entirely from your imagination. Yakupov suggests things aren't a part of his game and he won't change, thus you can infer he believes he shouldn't have to do them. Where can you infer that he believes they are hard work? No where.

- "Some here can read pretty well, but I don't believe that you are one of them. My point was to show that while there are legitimate concerns about Yakupov's response to being a healthy scratch, there are also a lot of assumptions being made about his personal feelings and intentions. In short, you need to read more carefully." - quoted for humour. After a post thick in assumptions of what Yakupov actually said, I fully believe you're an expert in the assumptions department. You said several things he never said, so either your post is thick with assumptions, or you can't read. Either way, you're a hypocrite and your opinion is about as valid at this point as the people who say "He refuses to work hard", an assumption, much like the ones you made throughout your failed argument.

I get that you obviously don't like assumptions, but I'd suggest you try making fewer if you're attempting to make a point against them. That, or I suggest you read more carefully. I can read just fine, but it appears based on all your assumptions about what Yakupov said that you couldn't even get through two sentences. In short, that was one of the most delightfully hypocritical posts I've read in a while. Thanks!

[Bill Bumface]

^

[EM11]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I think that is what makes everyone relish this scenario that much more. The oilers are in their 4th year of their rebuild. By all accounts they should be contending for a playoff spot not a high lottery pick. Yes the season has a ton of games left but can you look at that team and honestly say they are a playoff team? They look like they are going to struggle just to make it out of the bottom third.

If 94 or 95 points are needed to make it to the playoffs they need to play at a .605 clip (46-20)the rest of the way, which is only 20 more losses. 19 after tonights loss to the Penguins. They are digging themselves into quite the hole.

Early on this season of theirs can only be described as a debacle of monumental proportions.

It is shocking just how soon a season can be washed down the drain. Or more accurately, how much work it would take to reverse a bad start.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

^

Tapatalk adds the line spaces for you, IM MAD SPOILED YO.

[OzSome]

Am I the only one here wondering if this is another case of Head Coach Greg Gilbert vs C Marc Savard case? So, Head Coach Dallas Eakins will force GM Craig McTavish to trade Nail Yakupov for just anyone. Then Yakupov scores more goals and points while the Edmonton Oilers struggled and McTavish ended up firing Eakins. Hmmm..

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by OzSome

Am I the only one here wondering if this is another case of Head Coach Greg Gilbert vs C Marc Savard case? So, Head Coach Dallas Eakins will force GM Craig McTavish to trade Nail Yakupov for just anyone. Then Yakupov scores more goals and points while the Edmonton Oilers struggled and McTavish ended up firing Eakins. Hmmm..

Not really the same to me because at least Savard was putting up points at the time when Gilbert was scratching him and playing him on the 4th line.

I would say that Yakupov also has some better physical attributes so it's probably less of a stretch to expect him to play up to them.

[Bill Bumface]

Dammit he fixed his post before I had enough time to get "thanks" out of the enter key picture. I hate losing out on cheap "thanks".

[CSharp]

The whole frickin Oilers team is a Nail Yakupov. Skillful, yet small and everyone doing their own thing. They need size, some grit, and a starting goalie. How many more years do they need to rebuild on boys? Their first line look like ringette players!

[Soliak]

Yakupov and Nuge are already -1 hahaha

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

Honest question, are they still doing the Oil Change series this season?

It's now called "Diaper Change", to more accurately reflect the on-ice product.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why yes! Yes, they are!

I think they cut MacTavish's line too soon: "Talk is cheap, but our payroll is not."

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The state of the Oilers franchise has become genuinely sad. While I don't take a backseat to anyone in my hatred for Edmonton, I do hope that at some point the circus up there ends so the Battle of Alberta can become a marquee match-up again. It's almost embarrassing to have a rival that's such a disaster.

I agree, except for one thing:

I think tanking on purpose (or at the very least, not making any effort to be better) is disgusting.

I want this Oiler rebuild to fail and fail miserably because it has been an abomination and a slap in he face to the hockey gods and to the game in general.

I hope it completely collapses and Klown is ridden out of town in the cloud of disgrace that he deserves.

Then they can right the franchise and we can get back to a rivalry that we can all be proud of and enjoy

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I think that is what makes everyone relish this scenario that much more. The oilers are in their 4th year of their rebuild. By all accounts they should be contending for a playoff spot not a high lottery pick. Yes the season has a ton of games left but can you look at that team and honestly say they are a playoff team? They look like they are going to struggle just to make it out of the bottom third.

If 94 or 95 points are needed to make it to the playoffs they need to play at a .605 clip (46-20)the rest of the way, which is only 20 more losses. 19 after tonights loss to the Penguins. They are digging themselves into quite the hole.

Early on this season of theirs can only be described as a debacle of monumental proportions.

I wish this were true, but 46-30 would be the 76 games they have left to get to 82. 46-20 only gets then to 72 games. I know their kids play like they're in the Dub, but the NHL has 82 games...

[bluck]

-1, 1 shot in over 17 mins of ice time and over 2 mins of pp time. Atta boy Yaks

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I wish this were true, but 46-30 would be the 76 games they have left to get to 82. 46-20 only gets then to 72 games. I know their kids play like they're in the Dub, but the NHL has 82 games...

Wow that was atrocious math...I guess this was a couple weeks early.

The games were off but the % still stands in that they need to play above .600 the rest of the way.