Spencer Signs On to 2017

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

1 minute ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Or see how the Kings develop. 

They're years away.

[Binmans PA 25,923]

2 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Just a comment on a poster who like others just denigrates a player for the sake of it.(Similar to a poster that calls another poster a numbskull, just because they don't like a post, don't read it) Spencer is on an AFL list. he has been given a one year contract, so the Footy Dept must think he is slightly more than a makeweight

I called the argument numbskull, not the poster.

[ManDee 7,073]

3 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

I called the argument numbskull, not the poster.

numbskull

ˈnʌmskʌl/

noun

informal

 

1. a stupid or foolish person.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

No brainer to keep him going for another year. When he was injured at the start of the year, I was petrified of Gawn going down. It would have meant playing an 18 year old King or just going in with no ruckman, both of which would have been disastrous.

Obviously he is no Gawn, but hey, not many are.

[Binmans PA 25,923]

11 minutes ago, ManDee said:

numbskull

ˈnʌmskʌl/

noun

informal

 

1. a stupid or foolish person.

Then it was a grammatical extrapolation.

[ManDee 7,073]

2 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

Then it was a grammatical extrapolation.

[Binmans PA 25,923]

The intention certainly was to denigrate the argument, not the poster. But doesn’t sound like I'll convince you.

Otherwise, I would have said "it's a numbskulls argument".

Edited May 13, 2016 by AdamFarr

[ManDee 7,073]

4 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

The intention certainly was to denigrate the argument, not the poster. But doesn’t sound like I'll convince you.

Otherwise, I would have said "it's a numbskulls argument".

Fair point, you did say, "a numbskull argument."

I dislike name calling and probably it was a poor choice of word. I prefer,  I disagree and a counter argument but we are all different. Thanks for the clarification.

[Fat Tony 4,387]

9 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Please give me your list of replacements?

The Cats managed to trade picks 49 and 53 for Zac Smith last year. B grade back up ruckmen are not worth signing before the end of the year.

[old55 21,226]

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

The Cats managed to trade picks 49 and 53 for Zac Smith last year. B grade back up ruckmen are not worth signing before the end of the year.

You mean like burning the picks we used on Mitch King and Liam Hulett?

[Fat Tony 4,387]

4 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

You mean like burning the picks we used on Mitch King and Liam Hulett?

Geelong got a bargain.

[old55 21,226]

10 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

Geelong got a bargain.

It was your example and it doesn't help your case. You're now saying someone not as good as Smith for King, Hulett and Spencer is a better plan than a cheap contract extension for Jake?

[Fat Tony 4,387]

58 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

It was your example and it doesn't help your case. You're now saying someone not as good as Smith for King, Hulett and Spencer is a better plan than a cheap contract extension for Jake?

My issue is that we shouldn't have signed Spencer before the end of the year. He might get injured and miss 2017. 

B-grade ruckman can be acquired cheaply. Smith, Currie, Giles, Leuenberger, Fitzpatrick all moved clubs last year for little in return.

The other point to make on your post is that Hulett and King could have easily slipped through to the rookie draft if we didn't take them.

[Slartibartfast 15,752]

47 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

My issue is that we shouldn't have signed Spencer before the end of the year. He might get injured and miss 2017. 

B-grade ruckman can be acquired cheaply. Smith, Currie, Giles, Leuenberger, Fitzpatrick all moved clubs last year for little in return.

The other point to make on your post is that Hulett and King could have easily slipped through to the rookie draft if we didn't take them.

Whilst I agree with Fifty-5 you should perhaps consider that the FD actually understand the process of contracting players and have many more facts than us.  Perhaps they knew that if we didn't sign Jake now he would likely look elsewhere.  They may also have looked at what else was available in the event Jake left and not been impressed.  And they may also have decided, as 55 says, that keeping Jake and not having to spend picks on replacing him (like for like) was the best option.

That's called due diligence and I'm backing them to have done it.

I like the boy and obviously so do they. Good list management I say.

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

On 13/05/2016 at 11:01 AM, AdamFarr said:

The intention certainly was to denigrate the argument, not the poster. But doesn’t sound like I'll convince you.

Otherwise, I would have said "it's a numbskulls argument".

You haven't convinced me either, but hey, I'll live, you have to denigrate an argument rather than debate it, sort of proves my point about Demonland wouldn't you think

[Binmans PA 25,923]

1 hour ago, Satyriconhome said:

You haven't convinced me either, but hey, I'll live, you have to denigrate an argument rather than debate it, sort of proves my point about Demonland wouldn't you think

Do you really want to debate your thesis? Righto.

So you implied that because CBDees hadn't played the game at the highest level, he/she couldn't comment or that his/her opinion was of less value as a result. I've debated this argument with you before, but you continue to sprout the same rubbish. It's a bullocks argument, mate. Demonland, half the footballing media and most discussions about football would not take place if this were the case. It would also mean your opinions amount to nothing too.

As for posters denigrating an opinion instead of debating it, take a look at your own post to CBDees. You're a hypocrite, mate. I'm not usually drawn in to arguments like this, but I can't help but feed the troll in this instance.

In order to actually add something to the discussion rather than mere digression, the one year signing of Spencer (whom I rate) is a smart move by the club. He's a good back up and may end up playing a role in the best 22, but more likely, he's a good insurance policy for Max.

Edited May 14, 2016 by AdamFarr

[Binmans PA 25,923]

1 hour ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Whilst I agree with Fifty-5 you should perhaps consider that the FD actually understand the process of contracting players and have many more facts than us.  Perhaps they knew that if we didn't sign Jake now he would likely look elsewhere.  They may also have looked at what else was available in the event Jake left and not been impressed.  And they may also have decided, as 55 says, that keeping Jake and not having to spend picks on replacing him (like for like) was the best option.

That's called due diligence and I'm backing them to have done it.

I like the boy and obviously so do they. Good list management I say.

It's also a one year contract. It's not like we've signed Jake for three years...

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

1 minute ago, AdamFarr said:

Do you really want to debate your thesis? Righto.

So you implied that because CBDees hadn't played the game at the highest level, he/she couldn't comment or that his/her opinion was of less value as a result. I've debated this argument with you before, but you continue to sprout the same rubbish. It's a bullocks argument, mate. Demonland, half the footballing media and most discussions about football would not take place if this were the case. It would also mean your opinions amount to nothing too.

As for posters denigrating an opinion instead of debating it, take a look at your own post to CBDees. You're a hypocrite, mate. I'm not usually drawn in to arguments like this, but I can't help but feed the troll in this instance.

I believe that if you haven't played the game at the highest level, your opinion doesn't count for much, I haven't played the game at the highest level, but Spencer has so therefore he is an AFL standard player, not VFL. I never comment on a players ability, if they are picked in an AFL team then that means they are an AFL standard player. I understand some players are less skilled than others, especially between the ears, but I would never denigrate them for it

In the media the opinions I listen to are the ex players, Carey, Mathews, Darcy, Watson, Newman,  the rest pffftttt they have no idea

This is a public forum, so therefore I am allowed to spout the same rubbish ad infinitum, don't read it if you don't like it, but can't help yourself again?

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

I believe that if you haven't played the game at the highest level, your opinion doesn't count for much, I haven't played the game at the highest level, but Spencer has so therefore he is an AFL standard player, not VFL. I never comment on a players ability, if they are picked in an AFL team then that means they are an AFL standard player. I understand some players are less skilled than others, especially between the ears, but I would never denigrate them for it

In the media the opinions I listen to are the ex players, Carey, Mathews, Darcy, Watson, Newman,  the rest pffftttt they have no idea

This is a public forum, so therefore I am allowed to spout the same rubbish ad infinitum, don't read it if you don't like it, but can't help yourself again?

You never comment on a player's ability, yet you've commented on Spencer's, saying he is AFL standard.

You can't have it both ways, chap.

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

25 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

You never comment on a player's ability, yet you've commented on Spencer's, saying he is AFL standard.

You can't have it both ways, chap.

I didn't comment, if a player is in an AFL squad, then he is an AFL standard player, otherwise he wouldn't be there, if he falls below that standard, in the opinion of the Footy Dept, or they find a higher standard of AFL player, they are delisted, Spencer has just been given a new 1 year contract, so therefore for another 18months he is an AFL standard player

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

I didn't comment, if a player is in an AFL squad, then he is an AFL standard player, otherwise he wouldn't be there, if he falls below that standard, in the opinion of the Footy Dept, or they find a higher standard of AFL player, they are delisted, Spencer has just been given a new 1 year contract, so therefore for another 18months he is an AFL standard player

You said that, because he is on an AFL list, then he must be an 'AFL standard player'.  That's commenting on his ability.  

And, just for the record, you give your opinions to the players all the time - you didn't play AFL at the highest standard, so why do you bother, seeing as it means your opinion means very little?  

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

Just now, Wiseblood said:

You said that, because he is on an AFL list, then he must be an 'AFL standard player'.  That's commenting on his ability.  

And, just for the record, you give your opinions to the players all the time - you didn't play AFL at the highest standard, so why do you bother, seeing as it means your opinion means very little?  

Because I am like everybody else, I am entitled to an opinion, although it is in this case, not an opinion, but more a statement of fact but I also know that my opinion means very little, as I am not in the Footy Dept.

Not sure which bit you are not getting, Josh Mahoney (Footy Manager MFC, remember him) said in the article, that Spencer was capable of playing AFL football, hence AFL standard player.

I don't denigrate players, that could be the main point of difference between myself and other posters on Demonland.

I like a player who comes out and gives 100% all the time, each time Spencer has pulled on the jumper in the AFL he gives it his all and competes

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

Because I am like everybody else, I am entitled to an opinion, although it is in this case, not an opinion, but more a statement of fact but I also know that my opinion means very little, as I am not in the Footy Dept.

Not sure which bit you are not getting, Josh Mahoney (Footy Manager MFC, remember him) said in the article, that Spencer was capable of playing AFL football, hence AFL standard player.

I don't denigrate players, that could be the main point of difference between myself and other posters on Demonland.

I like a player who comes out and gives 100% all the time, each time Spencer has pulled on the jumper in the AFL he gives it his all and competes

Of course you are.  You bring that up all the time.  It just get's tiring for people because you constantly have a crack at theirs - by claiming they never played AFL so their opinion means little is just one example of this.  But if your opinion means little to the players, why give it?  Why should they care about what you have to say?  They should simply be worried about what the FD says, so your opinion is nothing but wasted words that they don't care about because, as you put it, you've never played AFL.

95% of posters here don't denigrate, they just have differing opinions.  If they see a player more negatively than you do then they are welcome to do so.  They aren't getting personal, they just believe that Spencer, for example, is not up to scratch.  That's alright.  They aren't having a crack, they are just commenting on what they've seen.

And please, Saty, don't play the 'not commenting on ability' card.  Over the years you've commented on most player's ability from your training reports.  Don't dress it up as anything else, because it isn't.  You're welcome to comment, by the way - you just need to remember that others are welcome to do it too.

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

10 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Of course you are.  You bring that up all the time.  It just get's tiring for people because you constantly have a crack at theirs - by claiming they never played AFL so their opinion means little is just one example of this.  But if your opinion means little to the players, why give it?  Why should they care about what you have to say?  They should simply be worried about what the FD says, so your opinion is nothing but wasted words that they don't care about because, as you put it, you've never played AFL.

95% of posters here don't denigrate, they just have differing opinions.  If they see a player more negatively than you do then they are welcome to do so.  They aren't getting personal, they just believe that Spencer, for example, is not up to scratch.  That's alright.  They aren't having a crack, they are just commenting on what they've seen.

And please, Saty, don't play the 'not commenting on ability' card.  Over the years you've commented on most player's ability from your training reports.  Don't dress it up as anything else, because it isn't.  You're welcome to comment, by the way - you just need to remember that others are welcome to do it too.

Oh so the last poster who called a player a spud was not getting personal

I really don't give a toss if it becomes tiring to people, I get tired of the endless negativity on this site

As for talking to the players, I ask about tactics, gameplans, or may have a joke about a cockup they made in the game.

 

all players have the ability to improve their skillset, it has nothing to do with whether they are AFL standard, with my comment on their ability, all AFL players should be able to kick, handball etc, some better than others, from my training reports I said Matt Jones had improved in this area, and was laughed out of court, until I was proved right in the game........again all players who run out for an AFL team, in an AFL game are AFL standard otherwise they wouldn't be there.........most of Essendon's top up players show this, the didn't go for untried, they went for players who had played AFL, so they had the base standard to work with

Edited May 14, 2016 by Satyriconhome

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

Oh so the last poster who called a player a spud was not getting personal

I really don't give a toss if it becomes tiring to people, I get tired of the endless negativity on this site

As for talking to the players, I ask about tactics, gameplans, or may have a joke about a cockup they made in the game.

I said 95%.  Not all.  However, I don't believe commenting on his footballing ability is getting personal.  

But again, Saty, you contradict yourself.  How can you talk to the players about gameplans and tactics, when you've never played the game at AFL level?  Your thoughts or questions should matter little as you wouldn't know what's going on, based on your belief that if you've never played at the highest level then your opinion means little.

As for Spencer, while I understand why he has been given another year, I understand why others don't agree as well.  Spencer is nothing more than insurance for Gawn, and with the King boys still a few years away in terms of development, he was our last ruckman left outside of Gawn.  He hasn't, however, shown much at AFL level and all supporters would be hoping that he stays as insurance and nothing more.