Changes for next week

[relapse]

Try Footywire, the 2002 Rookie Draft (end of 2002) and 2005 Pre-Season Draft (end of 2005).

I can't find any official source stating whether he was delisted at the close of 2003 or 2004 though, just lots of circular references.

I was searching through bigfooty threads and found this for 2004, so while it isnt official it is probable confirmation that Porps was originally delisted at the end of 2003.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2352916&postcount=1

Adelaide

Delistings/Retirements:

Wayne Carey
Nigel Smart
Ronnie Burns
James Gallagher
Aidan Parker (rookie)
Tim Hazell (rookie)
Brad Dabrowski (rookie)

Trades:

Tyson Stenglein for Scott Thompson and pick 28

National Draft selections:

8,24,28,40
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
edit I just found this on the Adelaide board from 2003

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1480136&postcount=1

confirms that Porplyzia was delisted at the end of 2003

 

[marvin]

For those of you who are wikipedia fans, squad lists for every season are on there.

For 2004 and 2005 Porps was not on the list, confirming he was delisted as a rookie at the end of 2003.

(It also gives a very clear picture of the squad Craig inherited).

 

[Allefgib]

ah look, whilst they are fielding a much younger side you're right that is certainly comparable which was the standard I put out there.

fair play

Nicely played Gilly - walk when you know you're out

 

[Allefgib]

I imagine by accepting it and moving on to other points in dispute. It is the done thing.

Exactly.

I can't for the life of me understand why people just don't put some effort into their strongly held opinions. They can either find out they were wrong and hubmly, happily admit it and move onto the next debate OR reinforce they were probably right and feel justified in their original opinion. Where's the bad???

 

[Allefgib]

The thing that blows my mind is that CM uses Wikipedia as a definitive source of information!

Definitive is a little strong I would suggest.

Also - at least it's something ffs. So many of you who argue with him just twist and change your stories all the time. Actually bring a reasonably thought out case to him, as opposed to opinion, and you'll find you have a healthy debate and hopefully all end up a little wiser/more knowledegeable at the end of it.

PS all of my recruitment data came from wikipedia for my argument against his points. its convenient and 'good enough' in this instance.

 

[WALL-e]

I think our problem has been the forced list turnover we;ve had to do recently.

We should have 5+ players in the 26-29 bracket.....what do we have...2? and we traded to get Thommo.

 

[craig crowing]

Wall E how dare you talk some sense amongst this rubbish ramblings .
I thought riggy was ordinary for not admitting that he was wrong about Burtons dropping until those 2 started.
Yes Wall -E that I guess would highlight a problem this and next year but without doing numbers should have a lot coming into that key age bracket from there on .
Stuffing up all those 1st rnd picks from late 90s was major in that issue .

 

[Wood_Duck]

Definitive is a little strong I would suggest.

Also - at least it's something ffs. So many of you who argue with him just twist and change your stories all the time. Actually bring a reasonably thought out case to him, as opposed to opinion, and you'll find you have a healthy debate and hopefully all end up a little wiser/more knowledegeable at the end of it.

PS all of my recruitment data came from wikipedia for my argument against his points. its convenient and 'good enough' in this instance.

Yep, definately rather an arguement based on wikipedia than a motherly instinct.

 

[ltdamn]

Read on. It gets worse.

Solid shyte.

I just did. I thought it had reached it's peak.

I was wrong.

I pity the people who come in here just looking for some information on who's in or out this week, or if Tex is playing and have to skim through the last 4-5 pages of crap.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Jaensch what role is he playing for the side?

Will he be able to hold his spot once Burton, Mackay, Knights ect return.

 

[marvin]

Jaensch what role is he playing for the side?

Will he be able to hold his spot once Burton, Mackay, Knights ect return.

Suggest you either read through the rest of the thread, or take it to the dream team thread if that's what you are asking for.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Suggest you either read through the rest of the thread, or take it to the dream team thread if that's what you are asking for.

Could you suggest some page numbers on him?

Im talking about his future chances?

 

[jenny61_99]

Definitive is a little strong I would suggest.

Also - at least it's something ffs. So many of you who argue with him just twist and change your stories all the time. Actually bring a reasonably thought out case to him, as opposed to opinion, and you'll find you have a healthy debate and hopefully all end up a little wiser/more knowledegeable at the end of it.

PS all of my recruitment data came from wikipedia for my argument against his points. its convenient and 'good enough' in this instance.

You do realise that wiki can be edited by anyone?

One can try to discuss things with crow-mo but once he has a mind set he spends more time belittling the writer than providing a valid argument. In his mind he is right, and nothing you can say/do will change that. It's basically a pointless exercise.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Oh man, this thread is non-stop GOLD!

Loved all the arguments, the (thinly) veiled insults and the liberal use of emoticons. This is what BF is all about! If only the Crows players could display this sort of passion and fire out on the field...

Great entertainment all, well played

We'll need more threads like this if we're to get through the season. Maybe something on potential delistees is in order?

 

[Crow-mo]

For those of you who are wikipedia fans, squad lists for every season are on there.

For 2004 and 2005 Porps was not on the list, confirming he was delisted as a rookie at the end of 2003.

wow. what a great find

(It also gives a very clear picture of the squad Craig inherited).

doesn't it just

 

[Crow-mo]

You do realise that wiki can be edited by anyone?

and? do you know who edits the content for afl.com, footywire, all the stats etc

One can try to discuss things with crow-mo but once he has a mind set he spends more time belittling the writer than providing a valid argument. In his mind he is right, and nothing you can say/do will change that. It's basically a pointless exercise.

the problem is you Jenny, there I said it. you want to participate and hold arguments above your knowledge and ability, and then decry oh its my opinion it can't be wrong. between your laziness and your attitude, you bring a very unique perspective to any discussion.

 

[Allefgib]

You do realise that wiki can be edited by anyone?

One can try to discuss things with crow-mo but once he has a mind set he spends more time belittling the writer than providing a valid argument. In his mind he is right, and nothing you can say/do will change that. It's basically a pointless exercise.

Really?? Shit I never knew. Thanks for the tip!

Actually I take that back... that being the rude intention to be sarcastic. I am very aware of how easy it is to edit wikipedia. Not sure that is entirely relevant as I bet you'd be one of the first to agree probably more accurate than a biassed media...

Anyway. I totally disagree with your opinion on discussing things with Crow-Mo. I just believe you've never tried to approach things from his point of view. But each to their own. Personally I've never had an issue with discussing points with him and having him admit he is wrong, or explain what he means in details I can understand.

Your fine self on the other hand...

 

[smoovy]

Oh man, this thread is non-stop GOLD!

Loved all the arguments, the (thinly) veiled insults and the liberal use of emoticons. This is what BF is all about! If only the Crows players could display this sort of passion and fire out on the field...

Great entertainment all, well played

We'll need more threads like this if we're to get through the season. Maybe something on potential delistees is in order?

Been fun to sit back and watch a Crow-mo argument that I'm not involved in.

He has an argumentative technique unlike no other I have ever met. I'm impressed by his commitment to the argument even when he is wrong, would make a good politician.

 

[jenny61_99]

and? do you know who edits the content for afl.com, footywire, all the stats etc





the problem is you Jenny, there I said it. you want to participate and hold arguments above your knowledge and ability, and then decry oh its my opinion it can't be wrong. between your laziness and your attitude, you bring a very unique perspective to any discussion.

That is unfair and incorrect. I've done a fair bit of research and analysis in many of the topics I get involved in. I may not have the "in-depth" knowledge of some in here, and have never played the game competitively, but I believe I have enough knowledge and understanding of the game to have (and be entitled to) an opinion. I've watched and loved the game for over 40 years and have had a much deeper involvement at a Club/Admin level for the last 15 years. I can google and wikipedia and Footywire statistics with the best of you.

Your holier than thou attitude sucks. Essentially excluding and belittling (yes I said it again) anyone who disagrees with you. How about allowing for the differences in people - in knowledge, education, understanding? How about letting those of us that DON'T understand the game as well as you seem to think you do, participate without fear of being ridiculed? This is the Big Footy Forum - for ALL fans of the Club and the sport. It's not an exclusive forum for you to big note yourself at the expense of others.

End rant.

 

[arrowman]

and? do you know who edits the content for afl.com, footywire, all the stats etc..

You're seriously comparing wiki "any anonymous person, anywhere in the world, can edit the content" pedia with sites where editing access is restricted to ... oh, forget it.

Yes, Wikipedia is just as reliable as a source for footy stats, as afl.com. Of course.

 

[jackster83]

the problem is you Jenny, there I said it. you want to participate and hold arguments above your knowledge and ability, and then decry oh its my opinion it can't be wrong. between your laziness and your attitude, you bring a very unique perspective to any discussion.

You were winning the argument until you went and sprouted this offensive waste of on-screen pixels.

Back to the topic of the thread, how different does our side look this week with Thompson, Burton and more importantly Johncock out. Over 510 games of experience between them is a pretty significant loss. On the plus side, we gain a bit of talent and flair this week.

Should be exciting viewing

 

[Southerntakeover]

You do realise that wiki can be edited by anyone?

Actually aside from the obvious humourous edits, it tends not to be.

Some studies have demonstrated that it has a comparable accuracy to the Encyclopedia Britannica for example.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

 

[Crow-mo]

You were winning the argument until you went and sprouted this offensive waste of on-screen pixels.

fwiw there is no "the" argument its a long running theme, that repeats each and every time in the same manner.

its a fair and accurate comment on style.

 

[jenny61_99]

fwiw there is no "the" argument its a long running theme, that repeats each and every time in the same manner.

its a fair and accurate comment on style.

Yes, that justifies it perfectly.

 

[kulak]

fwiw there is no "the" argument its a long running theme, that repeats each and every time in the same manner.

its a fair and accurate comment on style.

So basically, you're a married couple.