Wiseby's rankings [Archive]

theorangeapple

26 Nov 2005, 17:07

I'm guessing he'll have Thomas and Pendlebury conveniently ranked 1 and 2.

But isn't he paid for his reports these days?

Is that comment based on anything bar your stupidity???

I really hate people who knock Colin for no apparant reason. He doesnt make anyone read his stuff and he is merely putting his opinion out there. I for one love his stuff and find it very insightful.

And for the record, he rated the pies #2 Thomas at 17.

vinnie_vegas69

26 Nov 2005, 18:04

Wisbey's rankings are on a completely different level than other peoples. He admitted before the draft that he had several players in his top 10 that probably wouldn't get drafted, and freely admits that his rankings are not an indication of where they should be drafted.

coasting

26 Nov 2005, 18:07

All we know about his rankings so far are...

1. Shannon Hurn
17. Dale Thomas

YAKUZA

26 Nov 2005, 18:09

Is that comment based on anything bar your stupidity???

I really hate people who knock Colin for no apparant reason. He doesnt make anyone read his stuff and he is merely putting his opinion out there. I for one love his stuff and find it very insightful.

And for the record, he rated the pies #2 Thomas at 17.

Well said and by the way since when did the Collingwood recruiting staff become experts?

theorangeapple

26 Nov 2005, 18:11

All we know about his rankings so far are...

1. Shannon Hurn
17. Dale Thomas

Hurn was ranked #1. We dont if he still is. Either way, he is around the mark.

Tigger

26 Nov 2005, 18:37

YAKUZA

26 Nov 2005, 18:48

Wisbey is a ********

Writes 5000 word essays without stating a definitive point and giving a bit each way so not to proved right or wrong

Why anybody gives him any credibility is baffling. Know for a fact some AFL clubs reckon he is just an uninformed w@nker

I can tell you my friend he has a lot of similar likeminded people in the recruiting sphere, lets face it it's not exactly rocket science!

theorangeapple

26 Nov 2005, 19:01

Wisbey is a ********

Writes 5000 word essays without stating a definitive point and giving a bit each way so not to proved right or wrong

Why anybody gives him any credibility is baffling. Know for a fact some AFL clubs reckon he is just an uninformed w@nker

You see, I dont understand this. Alright you might not rate him, I can understand that. However, why do people insist on slagging him off? Its not like he is charging people to read his stuff, he doesnt force people to read, its just his opinion. Why would clubs care about him?? If they dont rate him, they dont have to bother considering him. Why would they call him a ********er?

Lockyer24

26 Nov 2005, 19:08

I'm guessing he'll have Thomas and Pendlebury conveniently ranked 1 and 2.

But isn't he paid for his reports these days?

Please post your "I'm a pinhead who hasn't seen any of the players play more than one game" Top 50 rankings

Sylvia Saint

26 Nov 2005, 19:34

Please post your "I'm a pinhead who hasn't seen any of the players play more than one game" Top 50 rankings
I don't claim to be a "Wiz".

Maybe I'm the only one who finds it odd that he rates every single player Collingwood drafts extremely highly.

Borgsta

26 Nov 2005, 19:51

I don't claim to be a "Wiz".

Maybe I'm the only one who finds it odd that he rates every single player Collingwood drafts extremely highly.

Please give examples? Note that you have already been proven wrong on this theory once in this thread.

Sylvia Saint

26 Nov 2005, 20:04

Please give examples? Note that you have already been proven wrong on this theory once in this thread.

Comparing McGough, J.Cloke and Morrison to Voss/Carey, Jakovich and Jonathan Brown would be a start.

Then claiming Iacobucci (whoever the ******** that is) should have been a first round pick.

Crow-mosone

26 Nov 2005, 20:10

Have they been put up yet?
What is the link?

he's busy writing them ;)

theorangeapple

26 Nov 2005, 20:31

Comparing McGough, J.Cloke and Morrison to Voss/Carey, Jakovich and Jonathan Brown would be a start.

Then claiming Iacobucci (whoever the ******** that is) should have been a first round pick.

Colin always stresses that he refering to style NOT ability. For example, cloke zones off like Jakovich did and plays an attacking role of half back. Which is true.

Bloodz

26 Nov 2005, 20:34

I'm guessing he'll have Thomas and Pendlebury conveniently ranked 1 and 2.

Hurn at 1... and if that is accurate my penis is called the ultimate pleasure tool by most supermodels

Crow-mosone

26 Nov 2005, 20:49

You see, I dont understand this. Alright you might not rate him, I can understand that. However, why do people insist on slagging him off? Its not like he is charging people to read his stuff, he doesnt force people to read, its just his opinion. Why would clubs care about him?? If they dont rate him, they dont have to bother considering him. Why would they call him a ********er?

TOA,

don't pretend for a second you don't know the answers to all of these questions. whether you agree or not, you know why people think what they do.

missionpossible

26 Nov 2005, 22:31

2- McEntee
3- Muston
4- Clark

missionpossible

27 Nov 2005, 10:02

5 - Oakley-Nicholls
6 - Nathan Jones
7 - Patrick Ryder

Weaver

27 Nov 2005, 10:05

I'm guessing he'll have Thomas and Pendlebury conveniently ranked 1 and 2.

It might be fun this year. Wiz likes his big-bodied blokes who get their hands on the ball first at the stoppages. He might be squirming a little at the way the Pies have gone. Probably likes Stanley but might be a bit sheepish about Thomas and Pendlebury.

Eagle87

27 Nov 2005, 10:11

5 - Oakley-Nicholls
6 - Nathan Jones
7 - Patrick Ryder

Do you have a link?

Cheers

FIGJAM

27 Nov 2005, 10:15

Yeah, where are you getting that from missionimpossible??

missionpossible

27 Nov 2005, 10:36

Yeah, where are you getting that from missionimpossible??

on the grape vine.

vinnie_vegas69

27 Nov 2005, 11:04

Comments from The Wiz about his rankings:

"eg I've got a kid ranked #8 who I dont even expect to get picked up and a kid who will go very early but who I've ranked at 23. At least a dozen who will go tomorrow are not even in my rankings. I wouldn't be suprised if 11 in my top 49 missed out.

The players I've ranked 8,10,11 15, 16, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29,31, 32, 34, 38, 42, 43, 47 are all likely to go way later than I have them, if at all in many cases. The player I have at 35 (among others) will presumably go much earlier.

The only reason I'm not saying this now is to head off anyone (there's always a few) who can tell me straight after thae draft that I assessed the AFL potential of these guys badly because my rankings in very many cases were nothing like how the actual draft picks panned out.

Just a reminder that my rankings denote approximately how highly I rate a kid. They do not even try to reflect the draft pick I would use, let alone whichever club takes the kid.

eg. The kid I rank at 8 will probably not even get drafted. If I was in the chair, I wouldn't use anything like pick 8 on him because I would punt on him still being available for a much later pick.

I have ranked players 1-49. Then I have a group of players all with a generic rank of 50. I quite like a few in the 50 group (mainly as Rookies) and would definitely take one in particular (who happens to be a pasionate Pies fan) but all either have major queries or are kids who I would consider but who are a bit too NQR at this stage."

FIGJAM

27 Nov 2005, 11:22

"eg I've got a kid ranked #8 who I dont even expect to get picked up and a kid who will go very early but who I've ranked at 23.
I'd suggest the 23 ranked kid is Ellis.

theorangeapple

27 Nov 2005, 11:26

I'd suggest the 23 ranked kid is Ellis.

I would hazard a guess as the #8 being Brad Kelleher.

coasting

27 Nov 2005, 11:32

I'd be really interested to know where he rated Pendlebury. Hopefully the Collingwood fans won't lynch him too much :)

missionpossible

27 Nov 2005, 12:44

I would hazard a guess as the #8 being Brad Kelleher.

Way off track TOA.

8 certainly didn't get drafted, and has never been mentioned on this site as a draft prospect.

Correct 23 was Ellis

36 - Pendlebury

TheGeneral

27 Nov 2005, 12:55

I want to hear if he compares Kennedy to Jonathon Brown!;) :D

But I'll be interested to hear his view on Marc Murphy, Kennedy and Bower.

theorangeapple

27 Nov 2005, 13:18

But I'll be interested to hear his view on Marc Murphy, Kennedy and Bower.

I can see the Bower one in my head. Something along the lines of an outside KPP, who lacks intensity but provides drive from defence. Disapointing draft camp but bottom-age with good upside.

LukeHodge15

27 Nov 2005, 13:20

Way off track TOA.

8 certainly didn't get drafted, and has never been mentioned on this site as a draft prospect.

Correct 23 was Ellis

36 - Pendlebury

do u think wiseby will be posting any of his rankings and detailed analysis after the rookie draft.????????????

theorangeapple

27 Nov 2005, 13:21

2- McEntee
3- Muston
4- Clark

Prior to the u18 champs I think he had Hurn at 1, Clarke at 2 and Varcoe at 3And also Dowler top 5. . Must have changed his tune abit.

Jex

27 Nov 2005, 13:22

Comments from The Wiz about his rankings:
"eg I've got a kid ranked #8 who I dont even expect to get picked up..."

Wisbey is an amateur hobby scout. His rankings are insignificant. If a kid he ranks 8th best is overlooked by the recruiters of all 16 clubs, it’s quite possible Wisbey has drastically overrated that kid (just like he did Billy Morrison and Mark McGough). For Wisbey’s rankings to have any relevance, that kid needs to get rookied and go on to be a good player like M Johnson, C Fletcher, A Davey, D Cox, A Lovett etc. The 8th ranked player in this draft is Jarrod Oakley-Nicholls, end of story. Lets look back in 5 years time and then decide how well or how badly clubs performed at this draft.

Wisbey, Footyman, Weaver etc are casual observers of underage footy, they’re not experts. Their opinions help footy junkies get through the off-season. Good on ‘em.

FIGJAM

27 Nov 2005, 13:25

Way off track TOA.

8 certainly didn't get drafted, and has never been mentioned on this site as a draft prospect.

Correct 23 was Ellis

36 - Pendlebury
Where on earth are you getting this from? He hasn't even told us at Hotrod's!

LukeHodge15

27 Nov 2005, 13:32

Wisbey is an amateur hobby scout. His rankings are insignificant. If a kid he ranks 8th best is overlooked by the recruiters of all 16 clubs, it’s quite possible Wisbey has drastically overrated that kid (just like he did Billy Morrison and Mark McGough). For Wisbey’s rankings to have any relevance, that kid needs to get rookied and go on to be a good player like M Johnson, C Fletcher, A Davey, D Cox, A Lovett etc. The 8th ranked player in this draft is Jarrod Oakley-Nicholls, end of story. Lets look back in 5 years time and then decide how well or how badly clubs performed at this draft.

Wisbey, Footyman, Weaver etc are casual observers of underage footy, they’re not experts. Their opinions help footy junkies get through the off-season. Good on ‘em.

wrong again!!!!!!!!

working with a club(s) as far as i last heard...........far from a hobby scout

footyman

27 Nov 2005, 13:43

Wisbey, Footyman, Weaver etc are casual observers of underage footy, they’re not experts. Their opinions help footy junkies get through the off-season. Good on ‘em.
Very true. Nobody is an expert and everyone have different rankings, clubs included.

Given some of the top 10 flops in the past few years, or indeed players around 20-30 who have been success stories, you can argue that clubs even get it wrong with how they rank players.

LukeHodge15

27 Nov 2005, 13:45

Very true. Nobody is an expert and everyone have different rankings, clubs included.

Given some of the top 10 flops in the past few years, or indeed players around 20-30 who have been success stories, you can argue that clubs even get it wrong with how they rank players.

thats the thing, everybody sees different things in different players. people have there own opinions and thus the difference in their own personal boards.

gotta love ur own opinion, some recruiters live and die by thiers

Murray

27 Nov 2005, 13:48

I would hazard a guess as the #8 being Brad Kelleher.

You could also hazed a guess as well, its a lot less of a risk

Jex

27 Nov 2005, 14:29

wrong again!!!!!!!!

working with a club(s) as far as i last heard...........far from a hobby scout

Wrong again? When was i wrong the first time? For the record Wisbey said he isn't working for an AFL club.

FIGJAM

27 Nov 2005, 14:32

Wrong again? When was i wrong the first time? For the record Wisbey said he isn't working for an AFL club.
That is incorrect. He is paid money by some clubs for his assessments.

coasting

27 Nov 2005, 14:36

36 - Pendlebury

No wonder he isn't posting anymore profiles. He is probably scared about what will happen when he tells them he rated their #5 pick at #36.

FIGJAM

27 Nov 2005, 14:47

No wonder he isn't posting anymore profiles. He is probably scared about what will happen when he tells them he rated their #5 pick at #36.
He ranked our pick 2 at 17 and we didn't say boo about it.

His opinions are just his educated opinions. He's been wrong before. At least he's got the guts to form his own opinion, rather than cut and copy phantom drafts and make one or two changes.

coasting

27 Nov 2005, 14:51

His opinions are just his educated opinions. He's been wrong before. At least he's got the guts to form his own opinion, rather than cut and copy phantom drafts and make one or two changes.

Oh, I absolutely agree. It was more a comment on how Collingwood fans turn on their own team so quickly. ;)

superstar

27 Nov 2005, 14:53

He ranked our pick 2 at 17 and we didn't say boo about it.

His opinions are just his educated opinions. He's been wrong before. At least he's got the guts to form his own opinion, rather than cut and copy phantom drafts and make one or two changes.
That's true. Nothing more annoying than all these people who know nothing posting phantom drafts based on other punter's phantom drafts. Just a waste of time.

I've been a bit cynical about Wisbey in the past given he's given some truly crap Collingwood draftees rave reviews but he seems to be doing the opposite this year. Good and interesting profiles, but I rate GOALden Hawk's opinion more highly.

Murray

27 Nov 2005, 15:09

FIGJAM

27 Nov 2005, 15:25

That's true. Nothing more annoying than all these people who know nothing posting phantom drafts based on other punter's phantom drafts. Just a waste of time.

I've been a bit cynical about Wisbey in the past given he's given some truly crap Collingwood draftees rave reviews but he seems to be doing the opposite this year. Good and interesting profiles, but I rate GOALden Hawk's opinion more highly.
In 2002 he said all of our draftees were ********house and none of them are playing anymore (excpt Cam Cloke).

He did overrate McGough, who has polled plenty of Brownlow votes and won an ANZAC Day medal, so it's not like it's the world's worst error. And he had rated him very highly well before the draft even took place. He also overrated Billy Morrison, but Billy turned out to be a complete headcase and no-one can factor that in.

Other than that, there aren't many examples, so your opinion is not really based on facts, but more what you want to believe. And if it is true that he ranked Pendles at 35, it's further proof that he does his assessments independant of whether we draft them or not.

theorangeapple

27 Nov 2005, 15:46

He seems abit sluggish getting his profiles out this year. Last year he had the pies ones out within hours (or minutes)

Bloodz

27 Nov 2005, 15:47

Can someone tell me why Wisbey does it?
Is he a recruiter at some level or is it an intellectual hobby?

gandaal

27 Nov 2005, 15:59

Can someone tell me why Wisbey does it?
Is he a recruiter at some level or is it an intellectual hobby?
Bit of both I think. I for one am glad he does, all of his work is a very interesting read even if you might at times hope that he's wrong.

Macca19

27 Nov 2005, 16:27

His opinions are just that. Opinions. He gets some wrong. So what? Club scouts that get paid 50 times what Wisbey may or may not get also get plenty wrong. It happens.

His ratings/reviews are simply just a harmless read of someones opinion on some players that he has seen a lot more times than 90% of people on this board. They are harmless, they are just an opinion. He doesnt parade them around for everyone to see. He posts them on one football forum which is basically a Collingwood only forum and has a limited (compared to other football boards) viewing.

Some people rate them as gospel....other people cant stand them. Same with footydraft and Weaver etc. they are all just harmless opinions from people that watch a lot more underage football than I do. They give a better detailed idea of what players my club and other clubs have recieved, rather than the stock standard one line description in the papers.

Harmless. I dont know why people hate his and other peoples reviews/opinions so much.

Weaver

27 Nov 2005, 16:38

Harmless. I dont know why people hate his and other peoples reviews/opinions so much.

I think that people have a completely unrealistic view about the draft and the draft process.

Of course people get stuff wrong. To get things right you'd have to able to read the minds of 16 sets of recruiters. You'd have to be able to predict the future and you'd have to know which kids are going to knuckle down and which are going to hit the night clubs.

I'll take criticism of pre-draft opnions seriously when the critics are able to consistanly pick the ladder order of the AFL pre-season, or get 8 winners most weeks. A lot more information available, a lot more evidence to go on.

There are plenty of people out there who have seen their own team play 50+ times in the last 3 years who can't agree on what their best 22 is, yet somehow people expect to have an abolute certainty over whether the player picked at 12 will be better than the player at 30.:thumbsd:

Separating the top-15 or so from the rest, and the drafted from the undrafted is plenty good enough for me.

evo

27 Nov 2005, 17:02

I always really enjoy reading Wisbey's assessments.I'm particularly looking forward to what he has to say about our pick #40 Casserly.He didn't get much of a gig in the u/18s championships so I haven't got much to go on but I've heard good things about his games in the W.A subsequently.

Bloodz

27 Nov 2005, 17:08

It's a lottery, there was an article recently about us that did the percentage chances based on draft history so far, first 3 picks 90% chance to play 150 games, top 10 about 66% next few rounds 33% then drops off dramatically... not exactly inspiring numbers

philhawk

27 Nov 2005, 17:12

What a coincidence you both follow Whoreforn too.

What a coincidence that your 7000 odd posts are usually comprised of crap

Jex

27 Nov 2005, 17:30

...yet somehow people expect to have an abolute certainty over whether the player picked at 12 will be better than the player at 30.:thumbsd:

You don't want your opinion criticized because you don't own a crystal ball, fair enough. However, you posted your ratings on each club’s performance in the draft – a post which indirectly criticized the recruiters of several clubs. For example, you shared your opinion that Jay Neagle is “a waste of a pick”. Sounds rather critical of Essendon’s recruiting staff to me. Unlike Essendon’s recruiters, you probably didn’t interview Jay to find out about his character and you may not have been aware that he didn’t have a full-pre-season. He’s bottom-aged and most likely still growing. In a rather even draft, Neagle may be well worth pick 39.

I also think people have a somewhat unrealistic view of the draft. They see a kid for what they are now, rather than what they might become. They say Patrick Ryder is too short to be an AFL ruckman…yet he’s only 17 and already taller than Brownlow winning ruckman Adam Goodes. Goodes by the way shot to prominence playing at FF in his U18 days – a position he has rarely played at the highest level.

17/18 year old kids have lots of development ahead of them, both physically and as football players.

Weaver

27 Nov 2005, 18:58

You don't want your opinion criticized because you don't own a crystal ball, fair enough.

No problem with criticism at all. Just like it to be informed and reasonable and include some sort of argument or evidence.

When people who haven't seen the guys play, or haven't an understanding of the draft process decide they have to defend their club at all costs it gets a bit tedious.

However, you posted your ratings on each club’s performance in the draft – a post which indirectly criticized the recruiters of several clubs.

Just gave an opinion. Gave opinions before the draft, gave them after. If I get more than half my predictions right then I am happy.

For example, you shared your opinion that Jay Neagle is “a waste of a pick”. Sounds rather critical of Essendon’s recruiting staff to me. Unlike Essendon’s recruiters, you probably didn’t interview Jay to find out about his character and you may not have been aware that he didn’t have a full-pre-season. He’s bottom-aged and most likely still growing. In a rather even draft, Neagle may be well worth pick 39.

Yes he may. But I based my opinion on

1. Watching him play.
2. Watching how his team played and the opportunites he was given.
3. The fact that he is bottom age so Essendon could have waited for a year.
4. The fact that as a FF even if he does improve greatly he has Lloyd blocking his path.

I also think people have a somewhat unrealistic view of the draft. They see a kid for what they are now, rather than what they might become. They say Patrick Ryder is too short to be an AFL ruckman…yet he’s only 17 and already taller than Brownlow winning ruckman Adam Goodes. Goodes by the way shot to prominence playing at FF in his U18 days – a position he has rarely played at the highest level.

That is true. But most of us have used that exact Goodes comparison. Made the point that Ryder is that type and if a club is looking for a Jeff White style ruckman then he is a good choice. Not if you are looking for a tap ruckman though.

17/18 year old kids have lots of development ahead of them, both physically and as football players.

But that is true of all the guys in the draft mix. Have to offer an opinion on what you see.

inferno66

27 Nov 2005, 19:10

You don't want your opinion criticized because you don't own a crystal ball, fair enough. However, you posted your ratings on each club’s performance in the draft – a post which indirectly criticized the recruiters of several clubs. For example, you shared your opinion that Jay Neagle is “a waste of a pick”. Sounds rather critical of Essendon’s recruiting staff to me. Unlike Essendon’s recruiters, you probably didn’t interview Jay to find out about his character and you may not have been aware that he didn’t have a full-pre-season. He’s bottom-aged and most likely still growing. In a rather even draft, Neagle may be well worth pick 39.

I also think people have a somewhat unrealistic view of the draft. They see a kid for what they are now, rather than what they might become. They say Patrick Ryder is too short to be an AFL ruckman…yet he’s only 17 and already taller than Brownlow winning ruckman Adam Goodes. Goodes by the way shot to prominence playing at FF in his U18 days – a position he has rarely played at the highest level.

17/18 year old kids have lots of development ahead of them, both physically and as football players.

great post mate :thumbsu:

Murray

27 Nov 2005, 19:11

What a coincidence that your 7000 odd posts are usually comprised of crap

And you have read every single one of them

Hodge_is_God

27 Nov 2005, 19:15

I'm in the ever-diminishing group of people who respect Wisbey's opinion. I don't think he's a great judge of where a player will end up down the track, but i do think he gets their attributes more or less spot on.

His guides are comprehensive and generally accurate, but I reckon he tends to focus on the wrong things to pick on. (ie. outside players are generally rated far lower by the Wiz)

The one thing that irks me about him is that he waltzes back and forth on Hotrods promising he'll post profiles, then people don't see him for weeks on end, and when he returns he doesn't post the profiles anyway. If you claim you're gonna do something, do it and stop being a cocktease.

Having said that, I certainly rate him above Weaver and TOA, who might have good intentions, but are more often than not hopelessly wrong.

Post dem profiles dammit, Wiz...

philhawk

27 Nov 2005, 19:15

No - it just seems to be the general consensus , the 'vibe' - if you get my drift :thumbsu:

theorangeapple

27 Nov 2005, 19:21

Having said that, I certainly rate him above Weaver and TOA, who might have good intentions, but are more often than not hopelessly wrong.

I am flattered you even considered me but I am by no means an expert on young players. I barely see any of them play and as a result, I try not to pass judgment on their abilities. I am more of a collaborative source of info :p

F/D

27 Nov 2005, 19:44

So where did you get that from mission?

Embers

27 Nov 2005, 20:05

So far the only confirmed ones are:

1: Shannon Hurn
17 : Dale Thomas

theorangeapple

27 Nov 2005, 20:28

So far the only confirmed ones are:

1: Shannon Hurn
17 : Dale Thomas

Hurn isnt confirmed, Colin might have changed his view after the u18 champs.

Crow-mosone

27 Nov 2005, 21:19

That is incorrect. He is paid money by some clubs for his assessments.

has that changed since he last stated that this wasn't true?

missionpossible

27 Nov 2005, 23:59

White Czar

28 Nov 2005, 00:08

5 - Oakley-Nicholls

I'll sleep better tonight...

F/D

28 Nov 2005, 00:11

9 - Murphy
10 - Mills
11 - Anthony

Rex you are very critical of wisbey because he gets some wrong. Well when predicting talent we all get it wrong and some of his top 50 dont get picked.
well I reckon you could grab any clubs list and only 35 of their top 50 have been drafted.

TOA - trust me hurn is no1.
Where are you getting this?

coasting

28 Nov 2005, 00:31

So according to mission, so far we have

1 - Shannon Hurn
2 - Luke McEntee
3 - Beau Muston
4 - Mitchell Clark
5 - Jarred Oakley-Nicholls
6 - Nathan Jones
7 - Patrick Ryder
8 - ?
9 - Marc Murphy
10 - Wayde Mills?
11 - John Anthony
17 - Dale Thomas
23 - Xavier Ellis
36 - Scott Pendlebury

FIGJAM

28 Nov 2005, 07:36

has that changed since he last stated that this wasn't true?
the last time he said that he wasn't getting paid for his advice, would have been in 2001 or 2002. Since that time he has been.

Murray

28 Nov 2005, 07:51

No - it just seems to be the general consensus , the 'vibe' - if you get my drift :thumbsu:

From you and the other n00b's.
But hey, I like the fact you follow me around and read my posts - carry on

Ragingbull

28 Nov 2005, 10:38

the last time he said that he wasn't getting paid for his advice, would have been in 2001 or 2002. Since that time he has been.

He is working at Collingwood F.C.

nonchalance

28 Nov 2005, 10:45

3. The fact that he is bottom age so Essendon could have waited for a year.

The problem with that is that we have another probable F/S pick next year with Foulds's son, who's pretty highly rated.
That means that we had three choices with Neagle -
1: spend a third rounder on him this year
2: spend a second-rounder on him next year
3: hope that he slipped through to 50 (or 66!).

Criticism of his selection should be made with that in mind.

mick ryan

28 Nov 2005, 10:47

He is working at Collingwood F.C.

Well if I were he I wouldn't be advertising that too widely given some of the gumby's they employ.

Murray

28 Nov 2005, 10:51

Well if I were he I wouldn't be advertising that too widely given some of the gumby's they employ.

Such as?

theorangeapple

28 Nov 2005, 10:53

mjr_42

28 Nov 2005, 10:56

You could also hazed a guess as well, its a lot less of a risk

Murray, I hope this was some sort of in-joke that I don't get, because TOA used 'hazard' in a perfectly correct manner.

Your sentence makes no sense, because 'hazed' is not a word.

Murray

28 Nov 2005, 11:05

Murray, I hope this was some sort of in-joke that I don't get, because TOA used 'hazard' in a perfectly correct manner.

Your sentence makes no sense, because 'hazed' is not a word.

You're kidding me right?

Do just a little research, then come back and apologise to me

mjr_42

28 Nov 2005, 11:09

No, I'm not kidding you.

To 'hazard a guess' is the correct use of the English language. Promise.

If the research you're referring to means searching BigFooty posts to find a grammar feud you and TOA are having, I'm not interested.

Can you please explain to me what 'hazed a guess' means?

mjr_42

28 Nov 2005, 11:11

Actually, here's some interesting figures from Google.

Type "hazed a guess" into Google and you get 37 responses.

Type "hazard a guess" into Google and you get 389,000 responses.

I'll apologise for saying "hazed" is not a word -- that is inaccurate. "The sky hazed over" for example. But your use of it was completely incorrect.

Blues_Man

28 Nov 2005, 11:13

You're kidding me right?

Do just a little research, then come back and apologise to me
"Hazard a guess" is the correct terminology..I have never heard of "hazed a guess"

Murray

28 Nov 2005, 11:13

coasting

28 Nov 2005, 11:15

haze-d a guess... taking a guess in a fog? Must be a Melbourne thing. Never heard of it.

mjr_42

28 Nov 2005, 11:16

Yeah, you tried, you got it wrong and you made yourself look like an absolute fool.

How about my apology after you've obviously done a little research?

Murray

28 Nov 2005, 11:21

Yeah, you tried, you got it wrong and you made yourself look like an absolute fool.

How about my apology after you've obviously done a little research?

Hazad
Def: Vague obscuring factor.
Something that is vague and serves to obscure something

Hazard
Def: Danger, Risk, Peril, Exsposure

No go away arese clown, I think the school lunch bell is about to go.

LukeHodge15

28 Nov 2005, 11:25

Yeah, you tried, you got it wrong and you made yourself look like an absolute fool.

How about my apology after you've obviously done a little research?

its not worth ur typing buddy.

murray tries pretty hard to be the most hated tool on big footy, let him have his title.:D

coasting

28 Nov 2005, 11:27

No go away arese clown, I think the school lunch bell is about to go.

LOL, why don't you go to Google and do a search for "hazard a guess" and see what comes up.

Squeak

28 Nov 2005, 11:27

Murray

28 Nov 2005, 11:31

You originally said hazed, not hazad.

Thanks Squeak, a typo on my part.

coasting

28 Nov 2005, 11:36

Thanks Squeak, a typo on my part.

LOL, when was that school bell going again?

missionpossible

28 Nov 2005, 11:55

lets get this back on track

12 - Varcoe
13 - Hughes
14 - Kennedy (likens to colbert :eek: )

mjr_42

28 Nov 2005, 11:56

Hazad
Def: Vague obscuring factor.
Something that is vague and serves to obscure something

Hazard
Def: Danger, Risk, Peril, Exsposure

No go away arese clown, I think the school lunch bell is about to go.

As others have pointed out, you didn't type hazad. Hazad also makes no sense in terms of the phrase "hazard a guess". I'll obscure a guess? No. But I'll risk a guess? Yes.

Not surprisingly, the Collins Australian dictionary doesn't contain the word 'hazad'.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself Murray, it doesn't make you any more right.

Done a Google search yet? Nah, didn't think so.

mjr_42

28 Nov 2005, 11:57

Sorry missionpossible, just had to put a misguided bully with an inflated sense of his own importance back in his place.

Carry on :)

coasting

28 Nov 2005, 11:58

lets get this back on track

12 - Varcoe
13 - Hughes
14 - Kennedy (likens to colbert :eek: )

You missed #8

Murray

28 Nov 2005, 12:04

Sorry missionpossible, just had to put a misguided bully with an inflated sense of his own importance back in his place.

Carry on :)

When you grow up to be a big boy you might get it.

Until then just drift along

Off you go and play now

missionpossible

28 Nov 2005, 12:08

You missed #8

Not going to list 8, I might after the rookie draft but other than McEntee I wont list anyone not drafted............

mjr_42

28 Nov 2005, 12:14

Get what?

That you think you've got a god-given right to be rude, obnoxious and arrogant to other posters who have done nothing more than contest your opinions on (shock, horror) an internet discussion board?

That you can't admit you're wrong in any situation?

That you need to resort to putting others down with incorrect and ill-founded attempts to belittle them in order to make yourself feel better?

If that's what I'm meant to 'get' and appreciate, then I'll happily pass, thanks.