haha. Three whole posters on an internet message board agree with you! Well, you must have a good argument, then.
Also, what BBO said about the reeking hypocrisy of using the judgment of Oilers management -- judgment you routinely deride and dismiss -- to support your position. Hilarious.
Quote:
ps You might want to read up on what the lineup of the glory years Oilers was. lol.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Seriously, I'd like you to exaplin yourself.
Omark being there tonight will make the game interesting anyways. All that's left to see this season is if Eberle & maybe RNH can finish >1 ppg and if RNH can win the Calder. Those two things don't always provide good enough reason to sit in front of the tube and hope they don't go on a win streak, so Omark will at least get me watching tonight.
That being said, anyone who's talking about how this being his 4th game in 4 nights along with all the accompanying travel will not be a factor in his ability to perform is either lying or completely & shockingly unaware. Same stuff, different pile.
haha. Three whole posters on an internet message board agree with you! Well, you must have a good argument, then.
Also, what BBO said about the reeking hypocrisy of using the judgment of Oilers management -- judgment you routinely deride and dismiss -- to support your position. Hilarious.
ps You might want to read up on what the lineup of the glory years Oilers was. lol.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Seriously, I'd like you to exaplin yourself.
In the whole convo I specifically referenced the 80's where teams used to play 4 games in 5 nights playoff first rounds and suggesting that I didn't know of smokers on that excellent team(the physical conditioning of which you derided) other than Semenko and you respond with well Kovalenko smoked a pack a day?
What the hell does Kovalenko have to do with that championship team?
ps you respond with suggestions of "hate" "reeking hypocricy" and the like and you want me to clarify myself?
Again like I said several posts ago, and for the last several responses, this discussion to me at this point is about sheduling and different feelings about what represents ideal scheduling.
Got it. We're now talking about something completely different because your earlier position was untenable. Shall we rename the thread then? Or maybe you should go start a new thread to really explore the fascinating subject of NHL scheduling.
Got it. We're now talking about something completely different because your earlier position was untenable. Shall we rename the thread then? Or maybe you should go start a new thread to really explore the fascinating subject of NHL scheduling.
What are the last 3 pages of this thread about. The bolded is a clue.
In the whole convo I specifically referenced the 80's where teams used to play 4 games in 5 nights playoff first rounds and suggesting that I didn't know of smokers on that excellent team(the physical conditioning of which you derided) other than Semenko and you respond with well Kovalenko smoked a pack a day?
Sigh. I just gave you the examples I had off the top of my head. I'm not writing a paper here. I have no intention of doing research. I remembered Kovalenko because I always liked him as a character. Same for Iafrate. I have no clue who smoked or didn't smoke on the Oilers team of the 80s. It doesn't matter. The smoking thing is a red herring -- a one-off quip I made that you've latched onto in order to avoid addressing the actual issues. It would be funny if it weren't so transparent.
Quote:
ps you respond with suggestions of "hate" "reeking hypocricy" and the like and you want me to clarify myself?
I don't recall writing the word 'hate'. Please find that for me. Also, when I used the word 'hypocrisy" (which I managed to spell correctly) I was pretty clear what it was in reference to. I found your comment cryptic and unclear, so I asked for clarification.
What are the last 3 pages of this thread about. The bolded is a clue.
Just because you're trying to reframe the debate doesn't mean everyone else is talking about what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure everyone else here is aware that this thread is still about Omark being called up. If you get confused again, just look at the thread title. It should help.
Gene Principe @GenePrincipe
"He's an NHL player.Would be great if he came to camp next year.Hope he contributes to our team but if not some other team."Renney on Omark
Sigh. I just gave you the examples I had off the top of my head. I'm not writing a paper here. I have no intention of doing research. I remembered Kovalenko because I always liked him as a character. Same for Iafrate. I have no clue who smoked or didn't smoke on the Oilers team of the 80s. It doesn't matter. The smoking thing is a red herring -- a one-off quip I made that you've latched onto in order to avoid addressing the actual issues. It would be funny if it weren't so transparent.
I don't recall writing the word 'hate'. Please find that for me. Also, when I used the word 'hypocrisy" (which I managed to spell correctly) I was pretty clear what it was in reference to. I found your comment cryptic and unclear, so I asked for clarification.
You clearly derided the conditioning of the 1980's glory years championship Oilers. you specifically stated that they could play 4 games in 5nights because the level of play was slow, the players poorly conditioned and that they were probably smokers.
What did I get wrong about your bs inference? Other than it was bs.
ps you call me out on the internet for spelling a word wrong and then clarify you are "not writing a paper here" in the same post.. Try reconciling that.
pps Assuming that you won't come clean on your ridiculous statement I'll include it for posterity:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAF
And anyway, to answer your question: yes, it is much harder to play hockey now. The pace of the game today is insane. If a player gets caught out for more than a 60-second shift he looks like he's going to have a heart attack. Back in the glory days you refer to, players would take regular 2-3 minute shifts and then take a smoke break between periods.
Last edited by Replacement: 03-05-2012 at 02:38 PM.
Seems like the smart thing to do might be to sit Omark for tonight's game if Hall is ready to go. Might as well dress a fresh lineup. Though I am curious to see Omark.
Gene Principe @GenePrincipe
"He's an NHL player.Would be great if he came to camp next year.Hope he contributes to our team but if not some other team."Renney on Omark
Says pretty much what we can assume, hes on the market if they got a decent return for him (2 round pick)
The question is, if tambo and renney is still here in october?
Just because you're trying to reframe the debate doesn't mean everyone else is talking about what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure everyone else here is aware that this thread is still about Omark being called up. If you get confused again, just look at the thread title. It should help.
Go back as far as post 102 to see what I've been discussing. I've made general comments on scheduling. You've been replying to the general comments.
Can't just be general comments about scheduling I guess..
says pretty much what we can assume, hes on the market if they got a decent return for him (2 round pick)
The question is, if tambo and renney is still here in october?
They don't need to be here until October. I'm sure the draft could see Linus dealt.
You clearly derided the conditioning of the 1980's glory years championship Oilers. you specifically stated that they could play 4 games in 5nights because the level of play was slow, the players poorly conditioned and that they were probably smokers.
What did I get wrong about your bs inference? Other than it was bs.
pps Assuming that you won't come clean on your ridiculous statement I'll include it for posterity:
Actually, it's you who are making the inference here, though I will grant that your inference is indeed BS. When I wrote "back in the glory days you refer to" I was not specifically referring to any team or era. I was making a reference to the vague, uncertain past time when 4 games in 4 nights was the norm for playoff series that you yourself had been referencing. I might just as well have said 'back in the salad days" or 'days of yore that you refer to'. I had no clue what specific time period you were talking about. Were we talking about the '50s? '70s? Who knows. In the past, anyways. And the way you were waxing nostalgic about them, they clearly constituted glory days to you. Hence my choice of words.
Regardless, I stand by my general claim that the game is faster and the players are fitter today than they were in the past. I'd be happy to debate that with you in a dedicated thread.
Quote:
ps you call me out on the internet for spelling a word wrong and then clarify you are "not writing a paper here" in the same post.. Try reconciling that.
Haha. Okay. Fair enough. As a former newspaper editor and English teacher, I acknowledge that I'm often an ******* about that sort of thing, almost always to my own detriment.
7 pages for a 25 year old with 56 career games and 27 career points. I'm sorry, but Oilers fans seem to have way too much time on their hands considering a lot of the thread that I read isn't even about Omark.
7 pages for a 25 year old with 56 career games and 27 career points. I'm sorry, but Oilers fans seem to have way too much time on their hands considering a lot of the thread that I read isn't even about Omark.
We Oilers fans are a frustrated, cantankerous lot. Some of the bluest balls in the league, happy for any excuse to let off some ... er ... steam.
I would just like to apologize to everyone for that metaphor.
