Moved Thread Ryan Schoenmakers - is now a premiership winning forward and has a 2 year contract extension

[The Cryptkeeper]

Did okay last night. Not spectacular, but not a stinker either.

 

[maceyone]

If Clarko said that, then that is a bare faced lie.

What a friggin' spin doctor!

We never drafted him a forward, that is COMPLETE RUBBISH.

The moment after the draft had finished Pelchon was running around telling ANYONE who'd listen that we drafted Schoey with the intention of turning him into a key defender.

See: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2 ... rs.521555/

The third poster Noosa Mad Hawk has cut and pasted a Pelcho spin blurb from the Hawthorn website i.e. officially club sanctioned spin for consumption of the ignorant masses i.e. the supporters who put their hands in their pockets every year to keep this circus rolling, thus:



It is a pity for them that this site maintains web pages with copies of notions that they have spruiked in the past that have long since been removed from their own organs of disinformation e.g. www.hawthronfc.com.au

100pc correct
Not Clarkos finest hour but appeases the masses
If Shoey had of clunked that mark 15m in front he would have won over some doubters.

 

[Baz_hawk]

Schoey looks a better forward but still lacks in areas. I'll give him a couple more weeks to really find his feet before I get too critical of him as at the moment our entire forward line is a mess and no one is really performing.

 

[Slick]

Got to give him AT LEAST a month up forward before the judgement starts, most footballers (except the stars) need some level of continuity before they show what they've got. If Schoey kicks 2 every week and competes and brings the ball to ground if/when he doesn't mark it, he's doing his job.

 

[badgrill]

As I recall, that was after the club told him to put on weight for a more big bodied role...to the point where he was actually carrying a bit of pudding.

That plan was abandoned after a year, I think...

Aah so that's what happened to Bud at that time

 

[badgrill]

We've always gone the endurance athlete approach rather than the bulked up drug enhanced mutants approach of Geelong or Hird's injectables.

Tim Clarke says gday

 

[HolyRioli]

I feel like he knew / knows himself better than anyone at the club did

What sort of player are you? I’d say I’m an athletic centre half-forward. I like to cover a fair bit of ground and deliver the ball to the full-forwards.

Strengths? My biggest strengths are probably my skills and my athleticism. For a big guy, those two attributes come in handy and I’m not too bad at taking a mark overhead either.

Weaknesses? My weakness is probably at the one-on-one contests. I tend to get pushed out the way at marking contests a bit, so I need to work on my upper body strength and get better in that area.

Which AFL player do you most resemble? I suppose I’m a bit similar to Ryan O’Keefe. He runs a lot, has good skills and works up the ground a lot, as well as kicking goals, so he’s someone I watch a lot.

Who would've thought.

 

[PNess]

If Clarko said that, then that is a bare faced lie.

What a friggin' spin doctor!

We never drafted him a forward, that is COMPLETE RUBBISH.

The moment after the draft had finished Pelchon was running around telling ANYONE who'd listen that we drafted Schoey with the intention of turning him into a key defender.

See: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2 ... rs.521555/

The third poster Noosa Mad Hawk has cut and pasted a Pelcho spin blurb from the Hawthorn website i.e. officially club sanctioned spin for consumption of the ignorant masses i.e. the supporters who put their hands in their pockets every year to keep this circus rolling, thus:



It is a pity for them that this site maintains web pages with copies of notions that they have spruiked in the past that have long since been removed from their own organs of disinformation e.g. www.hawthronfc.com.au

Happy to stand corrected. Knowing he was a fwd as a junior I was always under the impression that being a defender was a second thought after it was known Croad was out at least long term.

For the record here's where he said it (4m20s) http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/video/2015-05-16/r7-postmatch-press-conference-

 

[PNess]

I feel like he knew / knows himself better than anyone at the club did

What sort of player are you? I’d say I’m an athletic centre half-forward. I like to cover a fair bit of ground and deliver the ball to the full-forwards.

Strengths? My biggest strengths are probably my skills and my athleticism. For a big guy, those two attributes come in handy and I’m not too bad at taking a mark overhead either.

Weaknesses? My weakness is probably at the one-on-one contests. I tend to get pushed out the way at marking contests a bit, so I need to work on my upper body strength and get better in that area.

Which AFL player do you most resemble? I suppose I’m a bit similar to Ryan O’Keefe. He runs a lot, has good skills and works up the ground a lot, as well as kicking goals, so he’s someone I watch a lot.

Who would've thought.

Doesn't get much more accurate than that. Gotta feel for the lad.

 

[Suntory Boss Coffee]

While it's been good to see Schoey snag a few, overall I have been bitterly disappointed with his performance over the past 3-4 weeks. With his career on the line, I really wanted to him to stand up and grab the opportunity to cement himself in the best 22 - which he hasn't done.

Played his role. All you can ask.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

Happy to stand corrected. Knowing he was a fwd as a junior I was always under the impression that being a defender was a second thought after it was known Croad was out at least long term.

For the record here's where he said it (4m20s) http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/video/2015-05-16/r7-postmatch-press-conference-

I actually heard that presser and interpreted what Clarko said a bit differently. I thought he was saying that he was a forward when they recruited him, not that they recruited him to be a forward. So I don't think Clarko is rewriting history, just re-iterating that they have tried to turn Schoey into a defender when he was originally a forward.

 

[PNess]

I actually heard that presser and interpreted what Clarko said a bit differently. I thought he was saying that he was a forward when they recruited him, not that they recruited him to be a forward. So I don't think Clarko is rewriting history, just re-iterating that they have tried to turn Schoey into a defender when he was originally a forward.

"We recruited Frawley into our club so that we could perhaps get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where we recruited him in the first instance and that was as a forward but due to a whole heap of mishaps for a long period of time at our club...we've required him down back."

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

"We recruited Frawley into our club so that we could perhaps get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where we recruited him in the first instance and that was as a forward but due to a whole heap of mishaps for a long period of time at our club...we've required him down back."

Yep that's what I heard. Recruited as a forward, then turned into a defender. I believe that they felt he had the necessary attributes to become a defender when they recruited him.

 

[Davo23]

If Clarko said that, then that is a bare faced lie.

What a friggin' spin doctor!

We never drafted him a forward, that is COMPLETE RUBBISH.

The moment after the draft had finished Pelchon was running around telling ANYONE who'd listen that we drafted Schoey with the intention of turning him into a key defender.

See: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2 ... rs.521555/

The third poster Noosa Mad Hawk has cut and pasted a Pelcho spin blurb from the Hawthorn website i.e. officially club sanctioned spin for consumption of the ignorant masses i.e. the supporters who put their hands in their pockets every year to keep this circus rolling, thus:



It is a pity for them that this site maintains web pages with copies of notions that they have spruiked in the past that have long since been removed from their own organs of disinformation e.g. www.hawthronfc.com.au

Well, that post didn't work out so well ...

 

[tommyk72]

Well, that post didn't work out so well ...

Wouldn't have been the first time Clarko had Pelchin disagreed. I think we know the winner of the overall war. Unfortunately it appears that Clarko may have lost that battle.

 

[Bedi]

Played his role. All you can ask.

If he wants to get a game come Sept (or play 2016 for that matter) he needs to do more.

 

[Ordovician]

Wouldn't have been the first time Clarko had Pelchin disagreed. I think we know the winner of the overall war. Unfortunately it appears that Clarko may have lost that battle.

Clarko does not lose battles within the club in the domain of football or recruiting e.g. Dew, Hallahan.

The club is professional enough in spin doctoring and PR to make sure every one is on message especially in a club sanctioned organ of disinformation and feed for the chooks like our website.

If Pelchen goes around saying we are going to turn Schoey into a defender in the media then that means both that this is the message for public consumption and that was their true intent at the time.

Whereas Clarko stating this:

"We recruited Frawley into our club so that we could perhaps get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where we recruited him in the first instance and that was as a forward but due to a whole heap of mishaps for a long period of time at our club...we've required him down back."

is either merely rewriting history to suit his owns ends, suffering a genuine lapse of memory, or even making a true malaprop.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Clarko does not lose battles within the club in the domain of football or recruiting e.g. Dew, Hallahan.

The club is professional enough in spin doctoring and PR to make sure every one is on message especially in a club sanctioned organ of disinformation and feed for the chooks like our website.

If Pelchen goes around saying we are going to turn Schoey into a defender in the media then that means both that this is the message for public consumption and that was their true intent at the time.

Whereas Clarko stating this:



is either merely rewriting history to suit his owns ends, suffering a genuine lapse of memory, or even making a true malaprop.

Where he was recruited, not WHY we recruited him

Those are 2 very different things

It says he was a forward, not that we recruited him to play there, and that we've never had the chance to play him there

 

[Big Hotdog]

Reading through this thread only reinforces the respect that I have for Schoey.

 

[Ordovician]

Where he was recruited, not WHY we recruited him

Those are 2 very different things

It says he was a forward, not that we recruited him to play there, and that we've never had the chance to play him there

Clarko comments do NOT answer or address the question posed by the adverbial clause "where he was recruited" at all.

So "Where was he recruited?"

In the national draft, from SA etc. are semantically valid responses to that question.

However the phrase "as a forward" does not answer that question at all.

Hence that part of the sentence:

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where we recruited him in the first instance and that was as a forward"

does not make sense because the adverb "where" is not modifying the verb "recruit" in the adverbial clause, in a semantically valid manner given the phrases around it.

If you insert the implied verb "to play" then the one can make some syntactically valid and semantically coherent constructions.

Thus:

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where we recruited him to play in the first instance and that was as a forward"

that makes the use of where valid in the clause because where is referring to a situation i.e. where we will play him

or

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where he played when we recruited him in the first instance and that was as a forward"

which is a bit more of a stretch because one has to create a new adverbial clause "where he played" and then immediately modify this with another adverbial clause "when we recruited him" a whole new adverbial clause.

You have chosen the latter modification to make sense of the comment, whereas I have chosen the former.

The first interpretation and has strong connotation of causation, it implies that is what we recruited to do.

The second interpretation quite convoluted indeed. If Clarko meant to say then why did not he make the far shorter statement:

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where he played before being drafted and that was as a forward"

Your interpretation requires Clarko to verbally stumble around a bit, easy enough to do when one is extemporising, but your version has far less logical content and poses the question why do we want to do this at all?.

Anyway the point is moot because the statement is ambiguous.

 

[Suntory Boss Coffee]

Clarko comments do NOT answer or address the question posed by the adverbial clause "where he was recruited" at all.

So "Where was he recruited?"

In the national draft, from SA etc. are semantically valid responses to that question.

However the phrase "as a forward" does not answer that question at all.

Hence that part of the sentence:

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where we recruited him in the first instance and that was as a forward"

does not make sense because the adverb "where" is not modifying the verb "recruit" in the adverbial clause, in a semantically valid manner given the phrases around it.

If you insert the implied verb "to play" then the one can make some syntactically valid and semantically coherent constructions.

Thus:

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where we recruited him to play in the first instance and that was as a forward"

that makes the use of where valid in the clause because where is referring to a situation i.e. where we will play him

or

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where he played when we recruited him in the first instance and that was as a forward"

which is a bit more of a stretch because one has to create a new adverbial clause "where he played" and then immediately modify this with another adverbial clause "when we recruited him" a whole new adverbial clause.

You have chosen the latter modification to make sense of the comment, whereas I have chosen the former.

The first interpretation and has strong connotation of causation, it implies that is what we recruited to do.

The second interpretation quite convoluted indeed. If Clarko meant to say then why did not he make the far shorter statement:

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where he played before being drafted and that was as a forward"

Your interpretation requires Clarko to verbally stumble around a bit, easy enough to do when one is extemporising, but your version has far less logical content and poses the question why do we want to do this at all?.

Anyway the point is moot because the statement is ambiguous.

Clarkson isn't an English major and isn't known to have the greatest English.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

Clarko comments do NOT answer or address the question posed by the adverbial clause "where he was recruited" at all.

So "Where was he recruited?"

In the national draft, from SA etc. are semantically valid responses to that question.

However the phrase "as a forward" does not answer that question at all.

Hence that part of the sentence:

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where we recruited him in the first instance and that was as a forward"

does not make sense because the adverb "where" is not modifying the verb "recruit" in the adverbial clause, in a semantically valid manner given the phrases around it.

If you insert the implied verb "to play" then the one can make some syntactically valid and semantically coherent constructions.

Thus:

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where we recruited him to play in the first instance and that was as a forward"

that makes the use of where valid in the clause because where is referring to a situation i.e. where we will play him

or

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where he played when we recruited him in the first instance and that was as a forward"

which is a bit more of a stretch because one has to create a new adverbial clause "where he played" and then immediately modify this with another adverbial clause "when we recruited him" a whole new adverbial clause.

You have chosen the latter modification to make sense of the comment, whereas I have chosen the former.

The first interpretation and has strong connotation of causation, it implies that is what we recruited to do.

The second interpretation quite convoluted indeed. If Clarko meant to say then why did not he make the far shorter statement:

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where he played before being drafted and that was as a forward"

Your interpretation requires Clarko to verbally stumble around a bit, easy enough to do when one is extemporising, but your version has far less logical content and poses the question why do we want to do this at all?.

Anyway the point is moot because the statement is ambiguous.

What a load of rubbish. It was an offhand comment in a presser, people don't always articulate things as well as they want to in those circumstances, least of all people involved in the world of football who are not generally known for their eloquence.

Believe your conspiracy theories if you like but as far as I'm concerned you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Dinner Plate]

Grammar, mother******s.

 

[Brant]

Clarko comments do NOT answer or address the question posed by the adverbial clause "where he was recruited" at all.

So "Where was he recruited?"

In the national draft, from SA etc. are semantically valid responses to that question.

However the phrase "as a forward" does not answer that question at all.

Hence that part of the sentence:

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where we recruited him in the first instance and that was as a forward"

does not make sense because the adverb "where" is not modifying the verb "recruit" in the adverbial clause, in a semantically valid manner given the phrases around it.

If you insert the implied verb "to play" then the one can make some syntactically valid and semantically coherent constructions.

Thus:

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where we recruited him to play in the first instance and that was as a forward"

that makes the use of where valid in the clause because where is referring to a situation i.e. where we will play him

or

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where he played when we recruited him in the first instance and that was as a forward"

which is a bit more of a stretch because one has to create a new adverbial clause "where he played" and then immediately modify this with another adverbial clause "when we recruited him" a whole new adverbial clause.

You have chosen the latter modification to make sense of the comment, whereas I have chosen the former.

The first interpretation and has strong connotation of causation, it implies that is what we recruited to do.

The second interpretation quite convoluted indeed. If Clarko meant to say then why did not he make the far shorter statement:

"get Schoenmakers into the position on the ground where he played before being drafted and that was as a forward"

Your interpretation requires Clarko to verbally stumble around a bit, easy enough to do when one is extemporising, but your version has far less logical content and poses the question why do we want to do this at all?.

Anyway the point is moot because the statement is ambiguous.

That I barely understand a thing you wrote is reason enough for me to flick you a 'like' & stay the f*** out of your posting way

 

[maceyone]

http://afldraftinfo.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/ryan-schoenmakers-norwoodsa-draft.html

Here's someone else who knows their stuff on Ryan.
Nothing's changed.
The club didnt want pure back in Frawely due to he's poor disposal, but rather try and make a prototype Key Back with precision kicking skills..enter Shoey. Now they understand you can't have it all.