Nail Yakupov - How did the scouts get it wrong too?

[Rafters]

Nobody survives this.

(that whole class has been very underwhelming)

Goal scorer needs confidence...someone thought it would be a great idea to tear him down and build him back up.but had no idea how to do it right...lack of vets...injuries....did not help

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

I think the major factors are:

-Poor hockey IQ....Yak still makes poor decisions with the puck and constantly turns its over in the neutral zone...there's a reason he rarely bring the puck up ice. He could get away with it in junior on raw talent alone but it hasn't translated to the NHL

-Poor development...Krueger was great for him cause he was a players coach....then MacT brings in a tire-fire coach in Eakins and completely shatters his confidence...healthy scratches him early on, then his complaining to the media that he isn't getting enough minutes...Eakins plays a big part in this

-2012 was a poor draft class...look at the top 5 picked with Reilly being the best of the bunch...heck, Lindholm or Trouba or Reilly probably go #1 in a re-draft

poor year to win the lottery unfortunately

 

[Cloned]

Cloned, you're better than this. This is wild hyperbole.

I've never been the biggest Yak fan but he led rookies in goals and tied for most points. He also had a good stretch under Nelson to end last season and with McDavid this season so to say that he's approaching total bust status to an even higher level than Daigle is absurd.

You can't blame the Oilers for taking him either. He was the clear BPA, broke Stamkos rookie records and was widely regarded as a can't miss elite goal scorer.
The problem is twofold, botched development from the Oilers for too many reasons to add and he lacks the hockey sense to be the player that a lot of scouts thought he would be.

I'd classify him as a disappointment, not a bust. He still has the very real chance to be a 20 goal 50 point type of complimentary winger, a Samsonov level player. could be more than that in the right environment.

A couple of things.

Daigle ended up scoring 327 career NHL regular season points and broke 50 points three times. He also played over 600 games. It's quite conceivable that Yakupov does not achieve any of those feats. Granted Yakupov was not hyped to the same degree Daigle was, but Daigle was also in an era of scouting where they didn't really do their homework on a prospect. It's rare for a prospect like Yakupov to get misprojected so badly in the modern scouting era.

As for your second paragraph, I acknowledged all of that. My question is why did the scouts regard him as such and why didn't they recognize the lack of hockey sense?

It's puzzling.

 

[oobga]

Yak is going to take a long time to finally figure out what works and what doesn't in the NHL. I still think he can become a 30 goal guy. I hope we keep paying him 2-3M per season until, he gets there. He is a good kid.

 

[Shathar]

That's not a conspiracy theory. It's human nature. I don't think for a second that someone is purposely trying to derail the Oilers' rebuild by lying to them about Yakupov.

I dunno, all of the plausible answers so far don't seem to explain away the huge discrepancy between what the scouts saw and what the reality was/is. I get that scouts get some things wrong, I get that development impacts prospect performance - but really, at the end of the day, it is super rare for scouts to get a #1 overall this dead wrong, and it is exceedingly rare for a #1 overall to be affected so adversely by development that he ends up way off the projections. So for those reasons I don't buy those answers.

Not that my way of thinking is the only right way, but it boggles the mind how they could misread him so badly.

But he does does have all the skills the scouts raved about. He just doesn't seem to know how to play hockey very well. I hope he figures it out. However, as far as his strength, speed, shiftiness, shot, hand/eye... every time that dude has the puck I sit up a little straighter. Then, of course, he does something boneheaded with it.

 

[McDraekke]

You realize, of course, that this is the topic of the thread? About why the scouts all projected him to be as good (if not better) than Hall and RNH? They were name dropping Bure and Ovechkin in the scouting reports, for crying out loud.

Then I think you should change your opening post. You say bust multiple times, and give suggestions that he won't be as good as some pretty dramatic busts. One of the only ways that people who disagree with your opinion can give evidence that you're wrong about him being a bust is by showing that everyone in his draft class is doing as good or worse than him, as it's rather unfair to compare him to older players, or players who were developed the classic way (keeping them in the juniors longer).

We expected Yakupov to walk in and take over games like Ovechkin. Unfortunately that didn't happen. But he still has an amazing shot, is very tenacious when he's on his game, and is extremely passionate about playing hockey. Plus, he's still extremely young. Let's wait a few more years before we call him a bust, or a player who will jump around many teams before finding himself out of an NHL job.

There is plenty of evidence to show that he has the right stuff to be a top line player, and also evidence to show why he has struggled (as shown in this thread succinctly by Pablo Aimar).

 

[CupofOil]

A couple of things.

Daigle ended up scoring 327 career NHL regular season points and broke 50 points three times. He also played over 600 games. It's quite conceivable that Yakupov does not achieve any of those feats. Granted Yakupov was not hyped to the same degree Daigle was, but Daigle was also in an era of scouting where they didn't really do their homework on a prospect. It's rare for a prospect like Yakupov to get misprojected so badly in the modern scouting era.

As for your second paragraph, I acknowledged all of that. My question is why did the scouts regard him as such and why didn't they recognize the lack of hockey sense?

It's puzzling.

Yeah but keep in mind that scoring was a lot higher back then so breaking 50 points 3 times wasn't much of an accmplishment. Plus a lot of Daigle's issues stemmed from lack of motivation moreso than on ice skills.
With that said, I guess I just take issue with the "total bust" comment. Paajarvi is a total bust. Yak is a disappointment considering draft status.

As far as the scouts are concerned, your guess is as good as mine, but I think he was consensus #1 because the competition faded out for a multitude of reasons. If it was any other draft year, he likely drops out of that #1 slot as scouts were starting to find faults in his game as the draft approached.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. If he can be a solid complimentary winger for the Oilers alongside McDavid, I think any of us would take that at this point. Disappointing expectation for a former #1 pick but it is what it is, no use looking back at the past now.

 

[Ninety7]

a mix of poor hockey IQ and terrible terrible handling and development.

Which is a shame, because the guy is a class act who loves hockey. Hands down the best personality on the team. Wish him nothing but the best and hoping he can eventually turn it around.

 

[Aerrol]

I'm pleasantly surprised at the level of discussion in this thread. I saw the title and expected a lot of unsubstantiated "YAK SUCKS", "NO YAK NEVER GOT A FAIR CHANCE" and other yelling. Instead there's a lot of interesting points being raised. Good work guys!

As my favourite player on the team and an undeniable disappointment as a first overall, I've thought about this a lot. I think most of the points I'd add have been covered, so I just want to share a few things.

First, as every time Yak's disappearing scoring ability comes up, I want to share this article:
http://www.theplayerstribune.com/james-neal-predators-sniper/
Best piece I've ever read about scoring in the NHL, and really insightful. Goes to show how important confidence is, and Yak's confidence clearly was totally undone by Eakins and remains very, very shaky.

Second, this has been responded to but I want to address this quote as well because I think it's a great breakdown of what the best shooters do.

I'd probably have to disagree with the bolded.

World class shooters generally:

a) are in a good shooting position finding open ice
b) have great hand-eye and one-timing ability
c) have quick/deceptive releases
d) have good shot placement and/or heavy velocity shots

Honestly Yakupov doesn't have a single one of the above characteristics.

Most of his one-timer goals are actually fluky because he flubs on them and creates a changeup shot that the goalie wasn't expecting.

I'd say Yakupov has:
B) and C) as well as a very high velocity shot, so D is covered. His problems post rookie year have been largely A) and shot accuracy (which is, again, covered by that James Neal article). The past few games Yak's been looking quite dangerous again as a shooter - lots of posts or killer saves made on him.

To answer the original question, then, I'd say it was a mix of a terrible draft year for forwards and terrible development by the Oilers/Dallas Eakins ruining him completely. I agree that Yakupov is ultimately around an average 4th Overall Pick in quality, one who was a very, very rough talent. He was all physical ability and instinct, and very little systems play/hockey IQ. Ideally, your first overall should be dripping in hockey IQ which Yakupov undeniably lacks. This was made worse by Eakins consistently telling him not to trust his instincts and instead follow his ridiculously terrible system, which had the effect of ruining what little Yak had to go on in terms of how to play offense. No, I don't have hard evidence of this, but it's so evident in watching him play. When you see Yak calm down and let his instincts handle the offensive zone, you see why he was taken 1st overall. When he starts to clam up, you see him revert to the timid, clueless player that Dallas Eakins made. He looked like that 90% of the time under Eakins, and still looks like it around 50% right now.

I don't think he's totally unsalvageable yet, and I think McLellan + McDavid can still turn him into a fairly consistent 20-30 goal scorer, which I'd be more than satisfied with.

Again, I just want to reiterate how impressed I am at the level of discussion in this thread. Yakupov discussions are usually a terrible flame-war.

 

[Shathar]

a mix of poor hockey IQ and terrible terrible handling and development.

Which is a shame, because the guy is a class act who loves hockey. Hands down the best personality on the team. Wish him nothing but the best and hoping he can eventually turn it around.

Many people might laugh at this, but I think he's got all the important, unteachable things. You can teach defense, and with a good system and consistent linemates you can teach a guy where to hang out in the offensive zone. I really hope the organization doesn't give up on him like some of us have. I would like to see what a couple of years under McLellan with consistent linemates would do for Yaks game.

 

[Cloned]

But he does does have all the skills the scouts raved about. He just doesn't seem to know how to play hockey very well. I hope he figures it out. However, as far as his strength, speed, shiftiness, shot, hand/eye... every time that dude has the puck I sit up a little straighter. Then, of course, he does something boneheaded with it.

Does he have all those skills though? He's not particularly strong on the puck, not particularly fast, doesn't display a great first burst to get to loose pucks, isn't particularly agile, has questionable shooting and hand/eye abilities.

I mean there are examples of players that DID have those skills combined with poor hockey sense, and they were generally noticeable on the ice. Afinogenov, Berezin, even Hemsky. Yakupov IMO doesn't necessarily even have the pure physical skills that were noted in his scouting reports.

Then I think you should change your opening post. You say bust multiple times, and give suggestions that he won't be as good as some pretty dramatic busts. One of the only ways that people who disagree with your opinion can give evidence that you're wrong about him being a bust is by showing that everyone in his draft class is doing as good or worse than him, as it's rather unfair to compare him to older players, or players who were developed the classic way (keeping them in the juniors longer).

We expected Yakupov to walk in and take over games like Ovechkin. Unfortunately that didn't happen. But he still has an amazing shot, is very tenacious when he's on his game, and is extremely passionate about playing hockey. Plus, he's still extremely young. Let's wait a few more years before we call him a bust, or a player who will jump around many teams before finding himself out of an NHL job.

There is plenty of evidence to show that he has the right stuff to be a top line player, and also evidence to show why he has struggled (as shown in this thread succinctly by Pablo Aimar).

I suppose I did make the thread with the underlying assumption that it is almost fact that Yakupov is approaching bust status. That assumption is probably angering some people, and I can understand that. I acknowledge it may be premature. But my intent wasn't to focus on where he is on the "bust scale" of #1s. It was to discuss why the scouts were so wrong on their evaluation of this player. This isn't a 6th round pick who is only scouted by some teams and for a few games here and there. This is a player scouts focused on for years, logging a huge sample size of games. And there were never question marks (at least as far as I can tell) raised about his hockey sense or questionable physical attributes, when they are quite apparent now. As I said, normally scouts don't misread a potential #1 this badly. What makes Yakupov so unique that they did in his case?

 

[missinthejets]

They didn't get it wrong.
He's a great athlete with great offensive upside and he's a great guy.

Eakins happened.
Same with Schultz.
Schultz still has dumb habits he learned from Eakins.

This should be brought up more. Yakupov and Schultz only had half a season before Eakins got to them. At least Hall and RNH and Eberle had other coaches prior to give them some proper guidance. Yak and Schultz were babies when Eakins tried to teach them how to play hockey. They were broken more than anyone else because they didn't have that foundation from previous coaches to get back into.

 

[Shathar]

Does he have all those skills though? He's not particularly strong on the puck, not particularly fast, doesn't display a great first burst to get to loose pucks, isn't particularly agile, has questionable shooting and hand/eye abilities.

I mean there are examples of players that DID have those skills combined with poor hockey sense, and they were generally noticeable on the ice. Afinogenov, Berezin, even Hemsky. Yakupov IMO doesn't necessarily even have the pure physical skills that were noted in his scouting reports.

I guess I don't see that when I watch him. Maybe my expectations are getting in the way, but I see all those physical tools you don't see in abundance. He can make 10 moves--9 of them unnecessary--and still (sometimes) manage not to get caught. To me, his problem is that he plays hockey like a squirrel on acid.

 

[Aerrol]

Does he have all those skills though? He's not particularly strong on the puck, not particularly fast, doesn't display a great first burst to get to loose pucks, isn't particularly agile, has questionable shooting and hand/eye abilities.

I mean there are examples of players that DID have those skills combined with poor hockey sense, and they were generally noticeable on the ice. Afinogenov, Berezin, even Hemsky. Yakupov IMO doesn't necessarily even have the pure physical skills that were noted in his scouting reports.

I disagree. He clearly has those skills to my eye (except puckhandling, which surprised me. That's clearly gone down the drain). I mean, I see him make really impressive passes, and he's got the third fastest acceleration on the team after McDavid and Hall. His top-end speed isn't more than above-average, but he consistently impresses me with his bursts of speed. Even last game, he was out for a while and people thought he re-injured the ankle, and then he comes out with a burst of speed and the GDT thread a bunch of "HOLY CRAP YAK!!" posts.

You don't score goals like this without amazing hand-eye:



I've seen him bat pucks mid air every few games too, they just don't usually go in the net and this is the most easily-found and memorable one. I believe he scored another mid-air goal this season too.

The deterioration of his skills I feel must come from what he's doing at practice - I expect his post-Krueger coaches, especially Eakins, have made him do defensive drills all game long. If you don't practice every day, your accuracy goes down, your stickhandling goes down. Just happens.

I guess I don't see that when I watch him. Maybe my expectations are getting in the way, but I see all those physical tools you don't see in abundance. He can make 10 moves--9 of them unnecessary--and still (sometimes) manage not to get caught. To me, his problem is that he plays hockey like a squirrel on acid.

EDIT: this is a great quote that I agree with

[snip] This is a player scouts focused on for years, logging a huge sample size of games. And there were never question marks (at least as far as I can tell) raised about his hockey sense or questionable physical attributes, when they are quite apparent now. As I said, normally scouts don't misread a potential #1 this badly. What makes Yakupov so unique that they did in his case?

As for why the scouts slipped up - he put up huge numbers, Galchenyuk (imo the only real contender for 1 OA) got hurt and was out all season, and projecting forwards is so much easier than projecting defensemen that they almost always get picked after the top forwards. Murray, frankly, just wasn't stand-out enough to be considered over all-world natural talent Nail Yakupov. Even Seth Jones dropped and I thought (and still think) he was worthy of going ahead of awesome talents Barkov, Drouin, and MacKinnon. The hockey IQ thing got brushed to the side because people were drooling at how much raw talent he had. Even if you go back to the old reports, it was always marvelling at his shot, his skating, his passing. Very little on positioning etc.

 

[Young Lions*]

That's not a conspiracy theory. It's human nature. I don't think for a second that someone is purposely trying to derail the Oilers' rebuild by lying to them about Yakupov.

I dunno, all of the plausible answers so far don't seem to explain away the huge discrepancy between what the scouts saw and what the reality was/is. I get that scouts get some things wrong, I get that development impacts prospect performance - but really, at the end of the day, it is super rare for scouts to get a #1 overall this dead wrong, and it is exceedingly rare for a #1 overall to be affected so adversely by development that he ends up way off the projections. So for those reasons I don't buy those answers.

Not that my way of thinking is the only right way, but it boggles the mind how they could misread him so badly.

"Rare" does not mean "never." It's not a science and I'm willing to bet if some other players don't miss large chunks of their draft year, this thread is replaced by one talking about how Galchenyuk needs to be traded for a d-man.

Here's another theory: your argument is premised on your own assessment of Yakupov's skill/talent/hockey sense, which may not itself be accurate. Just saying.

 

[McDraekke]

Does he have all those skills though? He's not particularly strong on the puck, not particularly fast, doesn't display a great first burst to get to loose pucks, isn't particularly agile, has questionable shooting and hand/eye abilities.

I mean there are examples of players that DID have those skills combined with poor hockey sense, and they were generally noticeable on the ice. Afinogenov, Berezin, even Hemsky. Yakupov IMO doesn't necessarily even have the pure physical skills that were noted in his scouting reports.

I disagree. I think he has a hell of a shot, and he can be quite fast - but only seems to display it when he believes he has a scoring chance (never backchecking or forechecking usually).

I suppose I did make the thread with the underlying assumption that it is almost fact that Yakupov is approaching bust status. That assumption is probably angering some people, and I can understand that. I acknowledge it may be premature. But my intent wasn't to focus on where he is on the "bust scale" of #1s. It was to discuss why the scouts were so wrong on their evaluation of this player. This isn't a 6th round pick who is only scouted by some teams and for a few games here and there. This is a player scouts focused on for years, logging a huge sample size of games. And there were never question marks (at least as far as I can tell) raised about his hockey sense or questionable physical attributes, when they are quite apparent now. As I said, normally scouts don't misread a potential #1 this badly. What makes Yakupov so unique that they did in his case?

If your purpose in this thread was to determine the validity and accuracy (or lack thereof) of the scouting reports on Yak, then I would like to respectfully suggest that you did so in the wrong way. When I read the OP, it rang of frustration and bitterness towards Yak, not confusion and disappointment towards the scouts. Even the title, adding "too" to it makes it seem like we are all on the same page, when clearly that's not true ("too" adds a sense of group mentality - while maybe not literally, that's how it comes off in a question like that).

Every year there's players that surprise and disappoint. Unfortunately for Yakupov, the Oilers and the fans, Nail has been a disappointment. The fact that he is such a likeable person (at least to us in Edmonton), makes us want to still believe that things will turn around. I hope they will. I think he has a chance to, still.

In all honesty, feelings and team loyalty aside, your proposed topic of scouting failure would be a very interesting research topic (I'm sure there's plenty out there already, but focusing on the few #1's who disappoint could be an intriguing story).

 

[Cloned]

I disagree. He clearly has those skills to my eye (except puckhandling, which surprised me. That's clearly gone down the drain). I mean, I see him make really impressive passes, and he's got the third fastest acceleration on the team after McDavid and Hall. His top-end speed isn't great, but he consistently impresses me with his bursts of speed. Even last game, he was out for a while and people thought he re-injured the ankle, and then he comes out with a burst of speed and the GDT thread a bunch of "HOLY CRAP YAK!!" posts.

You don't score goals like this without amazing hand-eye:



I've seen him bat pucks mid air every few games too, they just don't usually go in the net and this is the most easily-found and memorable one. I believe he scored another mid-air goal this season too.

The deterioration of his skills I feel must come from what he's doing at practice - I expect his post-Krueger coaches, especially Eakins, have made him do defensive drills all game long. If you don't practice every day, your accuracy goes down, your stickhandling goes down. Just happens.

EDIT: this is a great quote that I agree with




As for why the scouts slipped up - he put up huge numbers, Galchenyuk (imo the only real contender for 1 OA) got hurt and was out all season, and projecting forwards is so much easier than projecting defensemen that they almost always get picked after the top forwards. Murray, frankly, just wasn't stand-out enough to be considered over all-world natural talent Nail Yakupov. Even Seth Jones dropped and I thought (and still think) he was worthy of going ahead of awesome talents Barkov, Drouin, and MacKinnon. The hockey IQ thing got brushed to the side because people were drooling at how much raw talent he had. Even if you go back to the old reports, it was always marvelling at his shot, his skating, his passing. Very little on positioning etc.

He does pass pretty well. Only problem was his projection was elite scorer, and his shooting and hand-eye leave so much to be desired on that front. How many times does he have a great look only to either shoot it wide, into the goalie's chest, or flub a one-time opportunity and miss it? It's alarming for a supposed elite offensive talent to miss like that so often. I also question how good his agility and skating actually is. He's not elusive at all. You watch Hall or RNH or Eberle, those guys are elusive and show agility. Yakupov churns his legs a lot but doesn't actually elude the defender.

I dunno, IMO what the other players in his draft class did that year should have no bearing on the type of descriptions found in Yakupov's scouting reports. Re-reading some of that stuff is quite shocking, because the type of player they describe and the type of player that actually exists is very different IMO.

 

[Aerrol]

He does pass pretty well. Only problem was his projection was elite scorer, and his shooting and hand-eye leave so much to be desired on that front. How many times does he have a great look only to either shoot it wide, into the goalie's chest, or flub a one-time opportunity and miss it? It's alarming for a supposed elite offensive talent to miss like that so often. I also question how good his agility and skating actually is. He's not elusive at all. You watch Hall or RNH or Eberle, those guys are elusive and show agility. Yakupov churns his legs a lot but doesn't actually elude the defender.

I dunno, IMO what the other players in his draft class did that year should have no bearing on the type of descriptions found in Yakupov's scouting reports. Re-reading some of that stuff is quite shocking, because the type of player they describe and the type of player that actually exists is very different IMO.

Did you read the Neal article I linked? I know I just threw two giant walls of text at you, but it really, really addresses your continuing questions about his shot accuracy, which is what I think is the most confusing disjoint between the reports and the player we see today.

 

[rickysusedsht]

i think yak will be fine flank him with a top center and he will fill the net.let todd work with him he will come around. im a little more concerned with the Reinhart trade than selecting yak #1. i thought Reinhart looked alright with the big club but since being sent down he has not blown away the AHL .hope that wasnt a waist of assets

 

[voxel]

2102 is terribad. It's one draft where trading the No.1 pick for a roster player or three future picks might have been better.

 

[Cloned]

"Rare" does not mean "never." It's not a science and I'm willing to bet if some other players don't miss large chunks of their draft year, this thread is replaced by one talking about how Galchenyuk needs to be traded for a d-man.

Here's another theory: your argument is premised on your own assessment of Yakupov's skill/talent/hockey sense, which may not itself be accurate. Just saying.

I think you misunderstand my intent. It's not to rail on Nail (yes I wanted to use that for a long while now ). I don't make any points in this thread about if the Oilers should have taken a d-man instead, or if they need to trade Yakupov. It's simply to ask why the scouts got it wrong.

To your second point: Yakupov's performance, both in terms of raw numbers and the "saw him good" method, would seem to indicate that his talent is not commiserate with the descriptions found in his pre-draft scouting reports. I don't know how that's disputable at this point.

I ask you then: do you have a theory on why Yakupov was different for the scouts? What makes him the "rare" case that got misread so badly?

 

[Beerfish]

My response copied from the main forum thread.

The oilers are good at beating offensive creativity out of their players. There is a long list of players that looked excellent in their rookie years that got worse and worse, imo in part to horrible coaching and an over emphasis on defense.

Cogliano 18 goals each of his 1st two years, then downward until he was given to the Ducks.

Gagner 49 points in his rookie year, looked great, then a downward spiral.

Magnus Paajarvi 15 goals his rookie year, looked fast and dangerous, totally went into the tank after that.

Yakupov 17 goals in his rookie year, looked as if he was just scratching the surface, looked every bit a high pick in camp and early in the year, downward spiral.

RNH 52 points in his rookie year, a creative pp dyanmo. He's still a very good player but his creativity has been beaten out of him.

The oilers front office, coaching philosophy and development has been just as heinous as their rebuilding. They have never once put a priority on protecting young stars.

Not all players are going to work out but the Oilers have ruined many.

 

[Aerrol]

My response copied from the main forum thread.

The oilers are good at beating offensive creativity out of their players. There is a long list of players that looked excellent in their rookie years that got worse and worse, imo in part to horrible coaching and an over emphasis on defense.

Cogliano 18 goals each of his 1st two years, then downward until he was given to the Ducks.

Gagner 49 points in his rookie year, looked great, then a downward spiral.

Magnus Paajarvi 15 goals his rookie year, looked fast and dangerous, totally went into the tank after that.

Yakupov 17 goals in his rookie year, looked as if he was just scratching the surface, looked every bit a high pick in camp and early in the year, downward spiral.

RNH 52 points in his rookie year, a creative pp dyanmo. He's still a very good player but his creativity has been beaten out of him.

The oilers front office, coaching philosophy and development has been just as heinous as their rebuilding. They have never once put a priority on protecting young stars.

Not all players are going to work out but the Oilers have ruined many.

Ding ding ding ding. Hopefully McLellan and Chiarelli mean we've finally moved past this depressing and embarrassing track record.

 

[Cloned]

I disagree. I think he has a hell of a shot, and he can be quite fast - but only seems to display it when he believes he has a scoring chance (never backchecking or forechecking usually).



If your purpose in this thread was to determine the validity and accuracy (or lack thereof) of the scouting reports on Yak, then I would like to respectfully suggest that you did so in the wrong way. When I read the OP, it rang of frustration and bitterness towards Yak, not confusion and disappointment towards the scouts. Even the title, adding "too" to it makes it seem like we are all on the same page, when clearly that's not true ("too" adds a sense of group mentality - while maybe not literally, that's how it comes off in a question like that).

Every year there's players that surprise and disappoint. Unfortunately for Yakupov, the Oilers and the fans, Nail has been a disappointment. The fact that he is such a likeable person (at least to us in Edmonton), makes us want to still believe that things will turn around. I hope they will. I think he has a chance to, still.

In all honesty, feelings and team loyalty aside, your proposed topic of scouting failure would be a very interesting research topic (I'm sure there's plenty out there already, but focusing on the few #1's who disappoint could be an intriguing story).

Can't agree with you about his shot. It's simply not there IMO. You want a player whose shot was probably overrated by the scouts a bit but is still effective at the NHL level? Taylor Hall. Yakupov has a long way to go to reach that. As for his speed, I don't see it either. He doesn't have the speed or agility to breakaway from or elude defenders. How often does he go wide successfully? Hall does it several times a game, even Eberle and RNH do it. Yakupov rarely.

As for the thread itself - I can assure you my intent wasn't frustration towards the player. I thought I did a good job of presenting the information coldly and clinically. I posted links to scouting reports right before I asked the question, which IMO should have been a clear indication that my intent was to question the scouts. My inclusion of the word "too" was with respect to the rest of the scouting world "too" in addition to the Oilers scouts/organization.

 

[Mashed Potatoes]

I think he can turn it around and become a 35-40 goals a season with 70-80 points playing with McDavid.