Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board :: View topic - Anyone Sighted Keeffe or Thomas?

Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index

The Rules

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Calendar

Anyone Sighted Keeffe or Thomas?

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Boogie Knights

Joined: 18 Sep 2015

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:43 pm
Post subject:

The difference as I see it is choice.... Keefe and Thomas chose to ingest an illicit substance without any knowledge of it's background. Further, you could say this was an informed choice as they knew the risks... the other tragedies mentioned were not the choice of the victims/subjects... We all can make choices, but sometimes we can't.... Do we sympathise with bad choices, that's our choice... do we sympathise with no choice? Again, our choice, but I would wager a vast majority are more inclined to the later than the former...

RudeBoy

Joined: 28 Nov 2005

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:35 pm

Post subject:

droversdog65 wrote:

Rude the fact remains every single player is counselled from a to z regarding the substances they put in their body.

They knew they were taking a chance and it blew up in their faces.

They were both young and stupid. No-one's arguing with that. For the record, I'm a boring teetotaler, who doesn't drink, smoke or take illicit drugs. However, that doesn't prevent me from feeling some sympathy for their plight, given the extreme penalty for what, to me anyway, should have been a misdemeanor. If we reserved all our sympathy only for complete 'innocents', then it would be a pretty harsh and vicious world imo. Likewise, if we refused to have any sympathy for people who do stupid things. I have some sympathy for lots of people, even stupid ones. That's just me I guess.

jackcass Cancer

Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:48 pm

Post subject:

droversdog65 wrote:

Rude the fact remains every single player is counselled from a to z regarding the substances they put in their body.

They knew they were taking a chance and it blew up in their faces.

Just like a fairly large proportion of kids aged teens to early 20's. I'm not condoning it. Used to smoke a bit of weed myself back in the day. But let's not assume elite athletes are any more immune to the temptations of youth purely because they're elite athletes.

droversdog65

Joined: 27 Nov 2014

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:07 pm
Post subject:

No argument rude or jackass, but too much sympathy can be just as bad as cold heartedness. Treading the middle path is the best as usual.

RudeBoy

Joined: 28 Nov 2005

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:30 pm

Post subject:

droversdog65 wrote:

No argument rude or jackass, but too much sympathy can be just as bad as cold heartedness. Treading the middle path is the best as usual.

Agreed.

mooretreloar

Joined: 21 Sep 2016

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:57 pm

Post subject:

E wrote:

mooretreloar wrote:

To be complete E, the number of players that went off our list at the end of each season were as follows:
2014: 11
2015: 10
2016: 13

Total = 34.

c'mon Man!!! Keep it real. You are counting Thomas and Keefe themselves in those numbers as the were delisted and re-rookied!!!!

Others like Armstrong came on and off in the interim.

Let's not suggest that players like Hudson, Mooney, Karnezis and Armstrong need to be emphasized in the analysis (or any rookie that amounts to nothing)!!!!! Afterall, it is expected that rookies will be gone after two years except for the diamonds in the rough so using rookies to inflate your numbers just ruins the point you were tryong to make.

Forget Thomas and Keefe, EVERY SINGLE PLAYER has seen at least 12 players leave since their last game!!!

If your point is that Keefe and Thomas have been gone a long time and that we have had a high turnover, the right way to think about list turnover is how many that were ON THE LIST when they last played are still there. NOT that crazy that only a core dozen or so players would remain after three years of culling (but some of the more established teams in their prime years probably have 20).

So your point is well made, but no need to eggagerate the facts to make your point any bigger than it needs to be.

2014 - de listings

Lynch
Nick Maxwell
Luke Ball
Lumumba
Marty Clarke
Caolan Mooney
Hudson
Beams
Tony Armstrong

2015 De-listings

Sam Dwyer
Clinton Young
Nathan Freeman
J Thomas
Lachlan Keefe
P Seedsman
Kennedy
Patrick Karnezis

2016 De-Listings

Brent Macaffa
Toovey
Gault
Marley Williams
Swan
Cloke
Nath Brown
Jack Frost
Jonathan Marsh
Jarrod Witts
Goodyear

Not exaggerating anything E. My point is that a lot of posters here live in a fantasy world that Buckley inherited a dynasty list and we should have won multiple flags from 2012 onwards. As far from the truth as is possible.

2014 players removed from our list were:

Ben Johnson retired
Dale Thomas free agent
Jackson Paine traded
Heath Shaw traded
Alan Didak delisted
Corey Gault delisted, but re-rookied
Darren Jolly delisted
Andrew Krakouer delisted
Jordan Russell delisted
Michael Hartley delisted rookie
Ben Richmond delisted rookie.

Total players removed = 11

2015 players removed from our list were:

Luke Ball retired
Dayne Beams traded
Marty Clarke retired
Ben Hudson retired
Heritier Lumumba traded
Quinten Lynch retired
Kyle Martin retired
Nick Maxwell retired
Caolan Mooney delisted rookie
Peter Yagmoor delisted rookie

Total players removed = 10

2016 list changes were:

Brent Macaffer retired
Dane Swan retired
Alan Toovey retired
Jonathan Marsh retired
Corey Gault retired
Matthew Goodyear delisted
Tim Golds delisted rookie
Darrean Wyatt delisted rookie
Nathan Brown free agent
Jarrod Witts traded
Jack Frost traded
Travis Cloke traded
Marley Williams traded

Total players removed from our list = 13

Therefore, total players removed from our list from 2014 to 2016 equals 34.

So, no Keefe and Thomas were not counted. The only one that could be argued is double counted is Gault in 2014, delisted, then re-rookied. However, this is offset by Karnezis who retired after the official list changes were reported.

Not sure what your problem is, but I suspect that the above detracts from your argument that it is all Buckley's fault.

My point is that we have undertaken an extensive rebuild and yes some clubs may have had as many list changes as us, but it would only be 1 or 2 at most.
We have a young and exciting list that for mine we can look forward to achieving sustained success in the years to come, as these players come through together.

Joined: 05 May 2010

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:34 am

Post subject:

mooretreloar wrote:

E wrote:

mooretreloar wrote:

To be complete E, the number of players that went off our list at the end of each season were as follows:
2014: 11
2015: 10
2016: 13

Total = 34.

dude, i think in your desire to exaggerate your otherwise good point, you have forgotten who you are talking to. I post a lot on this site (maybe too prolific, but it is what it is). You will have to work really hard to find even one post where i have been even critical of Buckley (much less blaming him for anything).

When i turn on Nathan, then the writing will really be on the wall ....

So to sum up, about 80% of what you say makes sense and is valid. The rest is Trump like! This last post is a perfect example.

PS: Any coach would be reeling from the fact that guys of the supreme quality of Richmond, Wyatt, Yagmoor, Golds, Goodyear, Gault, Mooney, Martin, Hartley, Russell and Hudson were delisted, so exaggerating your point from being real turnover of 23 players to 34 makes perfect sense to me......
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk .......

think positive Libra

Side By Side

Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:02 am

Post subject:

RudeBoy wrote:

think positive wrote:

BucksIsFutureCoach wrote:

think positive wrote:

PyreneesPie wrote:

Interesting that the club has already elevated Keeffe to the Seniors list, but not Thomas. I reckon that's where they should be, going on the last time they were part of the team two years ago.

Not to mention the fact that we really really desperately need tall defenders that can actually defend! -and we have since this silly sod wanted a cheap thrill! He's gunna have to stop a lot of opposition goals before I forgive him.
Thomas? We have plenty of his type, Keefe is the one we need. And have bloody needed.

Keeffe's situation has been done to death. He's not Ben Cousins. He made a one off mistake in the off season and paid a disproportionate penalty to the offence he committed. We all make mistakes. We should all be feeling sorry for him.

What!

Feel sorry for a kid who nearly threw away his lucrative career playing a sport he enjoys because he took a bad pill!i don't think so! I never believed he meant to cheat, but he still chose to take the chance. Gambled and lost. I'll save my sympathy for someone who gets on a theme park ride and never makes it off, or the kid who passed away a week ago after suffering from cancer for most of her life.

Saw him at training this morning, and he looks as though he really wants to earn his second chance, good on him, and as I did with Marley, I'll applaud him if he sees it through. But he will never get any sympathy from me over this.

I reckon that's unnecessarily harsh TP. I also think that around half, if not more, of all AFL players, have 'gambled' by taking an illicit substance at one time or another. We know after all, that 23 Hawthorn players alone, tested positive from hair samples over the last pre-season, but these tests were purely for research purposes, so none of them were found guilty.

The difference is that our 2 boys tested positive for performance enhancing substances, apparently unknowingly mixed in with some coke. Were they stupid for taking the stuff? Of course they were. Do I feel sympathy for the ridiculously harsh penalty handed out to them, by people who are probably regular pissheads (ie, they take more socially acceptable drugs)? Of course I do. I'm not sure what any of this has got to do with the deaths at Dreamworld, or the slaughter in Aleppo, or refugees drowning at sea. For me, sympathy is not an exhaustible resource. I may give more of it in one instance, but this doesn't prevent me from also giving some in another, less dramatic, instance.

Fair point,
I'm just still angry we lost Keefe when we really needed him, and I'm a long way off forgiveness!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!

mooretreloar

Joined: 21 Sep 2016

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:46 am

Post subject:

E wrote:

mooretreloar wrote:

E wrote:

mooretreloar wrote:

To be complete E, the number of players that went off our list at the end of each season were as follows:
2014: 11
2015: 10
2016: 13

Total = 34.

I have no desire to exaggerate anything. You called it exaggerating because it doesn't fit in with what you want to argue and because you called it exaggerating and I proved it wasn't.

The facts are 34 players, not 23, were removed from our list from 2014 to 2016. This is basic maths, not sure why you don't like the maths, but I suspect my first paragraph is the reason.

Nowhere did I say that any of the players (mostly rookies) that you listed were good AFL standard players. However, they can't just be dismissed as irrelevant, when in fact they may have been the problem. That is, we did not have enough good AFL standard players on our list, hence the need for the rebuild. Our selection of rookies in this period was not very good, as the majority of them have now left the club.

Nick Maxwell, Tarkyn Lockyer, Harry O'Brien, Liam Picken, Sam Mitchell, Dean Cox to name just a few were all rookies. By your argument they are irrelevant.

I have not had any interaction with you on this site, nor can I recall any of your posts, so apologies for referring to you as being in the critical of Buckley camp. However, given the general tenor of the posts on this site, it was a fair assumption.

Joined: 05 May 2010

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:28 pm

Post subject:

mooretreloar wrote:

E wrote:

mooretreloar wrote:

E wrote:

mooretreloar wrote:

To be complete E, the number of players that went off our list at the end of each season were as follows:
2014: 11
2015: 10
2016: 13

Total = 34.

you don't even remember your own point (very Trump like). Your original post was actually a mis-read of something you tried to steal from an article and claim as your own. you said there were only 10 players still on our list from the day of Keefe's last game. the article you stole that quote from actually said only 10 players that ran out with him were still at the club.

Everything else that flowed from that moment was your way of trying to overcome that mistake.

This is why the US is where the US is (with Trump) and why we are where we are with this pointless thread.

PS: you should read more of E. Its good shit!!!!!

PPS: I am in a footy tipping comp and my entry is called MooreTreloar so i love your name.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk .......

mooretreloar

Joined: 21 Sep 2016

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:35 pm
Post subject:

^^ I know what my point was, I didn't misread the quote, nor did I steal from the article to try to claim it as my own. The article I read indicated that there were only 10 players remaining on the list when Thomas and Keefe, not just Keefe, last played. Yes Josh Thomas did play in round 23 2014. Yes my original post did say there were only 10 players remaining on the list from when they last played, which was based on the what the article said, but when you questioned it I looked into it it was actually 16. My original post also said that there were around 35 list changes between 2014 to 2016. The reason the subsequent posts have gone away from the original post is that you were trying to be a smart alec. All I was doing was making the point that had been a lot of changes to the list since they last played. You wanted to call it exaggerating, was adamant that were only 23 list changes and that rookies don't count. Thus, you are the one that made a number of mistakes: 1) that I was exaggerating, 2) that there was only 23 list changes, 3) that rookies don't count, 4) that I counted Keefe and Thomas twice in the 34 list changes, 5) that I stole something from an article and claimed it as my own, 6) that I was referring to only when Keefe played last when in fact it was both Thomas and Keefe. I showed you that there was 34 list changes and you still want to argue that this is incorrect. If your last few posts are anything to go by I won't be paying much attention to anything that E writes.

Joined: 05 May 2010

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:03 pm

Post subject:

mooretreloar wrote:

^^

I know what my point was, I didn't misread the quote, nor did I steal from the article to try to claim it as my own. The reason the posts have gone away from the original post is that you were trying to be a smart alec.

All I was doing was making the point that had been a lot of changes to the list since they last played. You wanted to call it exaggerating, was adamant that were only 23 list changes and that rookies don't count.

Thus, you are the one that made a number of mistakes:
1) that I was exaggerating,
2) that there was only 23 list changes,
3) that rookies don't count,
4) that I counted Keefe and Thomas twice in the 34 list changes,
5) that I stole something from an article and claimed it as my own.

I showed you that it there were 34 list changes and you still want to argue that I am wrong.

If your last few posts are anything to go by I won't be paying much attention to anything that E writes.

You should. You would learn a lot (like saying things that are factually accurate. what i said, if you were paying any attention is that stating the delistings in the last three years doesnt make your incorrect statement correct. And since you are such a bonehead, i also pointed out that citing 34 list changes doesnt help make your incorrect statement correct.

It also doesnt in any way support your point that buckley has had it tougher because a whole bunch of c4rap players were delisted.

The better point is that most established sides had slightly less turnover than Collingwood during the same period.

The counterpoint of course is that by bringing in players like Howe, treloar, Varcoe, Aish, Moore, De Goey, Dunn, Wells, Hoskin-Elliot, Mayne to name only 10, Buckley actually has better cattle at his disposal since the last time Keefe played a game (which means we should be better) and we only lost 2 players who could command a senior game today (Shaw and Beams).

At the end of the day, citing the departure of about 20 senior players and a whole lot of chaff does not change the fact that the current list contains many more than 10 players from the list we had when Keefe played his last game.

but hey, just like Trump, if you scream loudly enough and long enough, people might forget that you are full of sh$t (and were wrong). also like Trump, rather than just say "oops, i misread the article" you yell and scream at the person who fact checked you.

by the way, our list is 39 players and you even acknowledged that you have now realized that there are 16 players still on the list. Any chance you can figure out where the 23 number came from........
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk .......

mooretreloar

Joined: 21 Sep 2016

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:41 pm

Post subject:

E wrote:

mooretreloar wrote:

Not sure why you are calling me a bonehead, as I would expect that from seeing how I write that I am not. However, it is a known fact that people get personal when they know they are unable to support their arguments.

I very rarely rely on things that I read in an article, as I like to do the research myself and verify what is written. On this occasion, due to a lack of time (I run my own business, accounting business by the way, so apparently 39 - 16 = 23), I chose to rely on the article, which is an error on my part. It won't happen again, as I don't want E on my case.

I am not Trump, nor anything like him, nor did I criticise you for pointing out the error. I took your point on board, did the research and posted that it was not 10 players, but 16 and also said the article said 10 because it did. I then also indicated that this meant there was around 30 players removed from the list, not 35. You then tried to be a smart alec and say it was 23, so I again went and did the research and posted it was 34.

You again then tried to be a smart alec by saying it was only 23 and only posting some of the players removed from the list, so I posted all the players removed from the list, 34 in total.

So, don't rewrite history E or refer to me as Trump.

Our list is 39 + rookies (again you know the ones if they are good get upgraded to the senior list), so depending on the year we generally have 4 to 6 rookies on our list, so our list is actually 43 to 45 players. You may have heard that the rookie list is likely to be culled and that going forward all players will be on the one list. That is, the total list size is likely to be increased, so stop arguing that rookies don't count or are irrelevant with respect to list changes.

Four of the blokes that you list haven't played a game yet for Collingwood, so not sure how they have helped Buckley in 2015 and 2016. 3 are third year players and the other 3 are experienced AFL players.

I didn't say anywhere that Buckley had it tougher because we delisted average players. I said the list wasn't good enough, thus we needed to rebuild.

We have done the rebuild by bringing in mostly young players, with a few experienced players and my point in the original post was that we could look forward to sustained success, injuries permitting, as this young list came through together. This was my point and was always my point, but you decided to try and be a smart alec and make out my point was something different.

Joined: 05 May 2010

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:03 am

Post subject:

mooretreloar wrote:

E wrote:

mooretreloar wrote:

my last post on this. please show the post where i said that only 23 people were delisted? can't find it? shocking?

What i actually said was the following:

"If your point is that Keefe and Thomas have been gone a long time and that we have had a high turnover, the right way to think about list turnover is how many that were ON THE LIST when they last played are still there. NOT that crazy that only a core dozen or so players would remain after three years of culling (but some of the more established teams in their prime years probably have 20).

So your point is well made, but no need to exaggerate the facts to make your point any bigger than it needs to be."

And by the way, the article wasn't wrong ....
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk .......

mooretreloar

Joined: 21 Sep 2016

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:25 am
Post subject:

^^ Suggest that you refer to the 3rd page of this thread, 7th post down. I think you will find it was written by E and the number 23 was mentioned. The point is and always has been from my first post on this topic that our list was not good enough and we needed to rebuild. I did not exaggerate, nor did I have a desire to, nor did I attempt to. However, for some reason you decided that your exalted opinion trumped all and you knew exactly what was going on inside my head. The article that I read indicated that 10 players remained on the list, but the number is actually irrelevant and I don't particularly care how many players were removed from our list in that period because the fact is the list wasn't good enough. The numbers were posted because you chose to be a smart alec.

Display posts from previous:

	Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion	All times are GMT + 11 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum