Billings.
Prediction Starting Best 22 2017
- Thread starter St Pauls
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Ok then I'll buy you a house
I'll just need your internet banking details so I can put it in your name
To hard to pick imo
Ones pure class and the other is a mixed bag of lollies. Flip a coin who breaks out. Purely on draft position/cost i hope its billings.
SaintByTrade
Debutant
- Oct 14, 2016
- 127
- 235
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Derby County
Acres definitely set himself up for a breakout, after how he finished the last 5 games of last year. But why not both to breakout?
From what we are hearing about early season training and form, its Billings out of the starting box.
If its like last year, Acres will take a bit to get into it.
If its like last year, Acres will take a bit to get into it.
Acres has a little hype around which is fair, but it's funny when people rank him ahead of Billings on retrospective drafts.
JB is already a good player who is going to another level. Blake is still competing for a spot really.
Last edited:
Its hard to compare because yes they are both mids but they are completely different.
I feel like we've been watching both boys in 2nd gear, some put their foot down and get better and some dont.
Ideally they borh turn into A graders.
Put your house on Armo to play
I'm not dumb obviously he will.
He said Ben Long who cannot play round 1.
You could fooled me
He never said anything about Ben Long.
He and Brains Trust66 were having an ongoing discussion about Armo and whether he would play in round 1- hence him quoting BT66's post about Armo, in the post you think he's talking about Long in.
He edited it.
Pretty sure it will tell you at the bottom of the post if it has been edited?
Could be wrong...
If he edited it more than 5 minutes after he posted it, it would say when it was last edited at the end of the post and it says no such thing, so if he indeed edited it, it was within 5 minutes of him posting it and your response was like a day later, so I believe you're just totally wrong on this one, going by all the evidence at hand.
Here was their conversation:
and if he edited that last post later than 5 minutes after he posted it, it would say so on the desktop version of BF that I'm viewing it on. It does not.
You then got involved the following day, in response to the final post of the above 4, of their ongoing conversation.
You obviously just didn't notice that when he quotes someone he has their quote after his response (which is weird, but some do it) and assumed that he was responding to the post above him, which was about Long. It would have been a pretty easy mistake to make.
Last edited:
He did it within 5 minutes. Why would i say that otherwise?
This is the dumbest argument ever * me dead
- Oct 16, 2016
- 1,089
- 4,439
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
BRAINO with the controversial calls good s**t brainsy
Armo is going to play round 1.
Everyone happy?
Everyone happy?
It's Bee Tee to you mateeee
- Oct 16, 2016
- 1,089
- 4,439
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
are you happy that mitch marsh is playing tomorrow mate?
Prefer him over Shaun
- Oct 16, 2016
- 1,089
- 4,439
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
imo hes a glorified tail ender, id bat him at 11 the fat lump of pelican crap
* that
If someone quotes the post to which they're responding after their response, that ought to be a bannable offence.
We're not playing ******* Jeopardy here people.
Last edited:
Why? Potentially because you made a mistaken assumption. As I said, it would be an easy mistake for someone to make under those circumstances.
You mean the one you're actively involved in, where you're basically accusing someone of lying?
What you're saying might make sense if you called him out on it within that 5 minute period (by saying you'd buy him a house if he played in round 1), but you said it hours later, so the likelihood of your version of events (that "He said Long originally then changed it to Armo for the lols"- despite the fact he was having an ongoing convo with someone about whether Armo would play in round 1!) being correct is very remote, AFIC. Very remote.
Anyway, I think Armitage2Riewoldt can settle this right now, as I believe he can see if posts have been edited and what they originally said. Was this post ever edited, A2R?: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/starting-best-22-2017.1146164/page-54#post-48836423
Last edited:
- Mar 5, 2016
- 791
- 2,442
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Why? Potentially because you made a mistaken assumption. As I said, it would be an easy mistake for someone to make under those circumstances.
You mean the one you're actively involved in, where you're basically accusing someone of lying?
What you're saying might make sense if you called him out on it within that 5 minute period (by saying you'd buy him a house if he played in round 1), but you said it hours later, so the likelihood of your version of events (that "He said Long originally then changed it to Armo for the lols"- despite the fact he was having an ongoing convo with someone about whether Armo would play in round 1!) being correct is very remote, AFIC. Very remote.
Anyway, I think Armitage2Riewoldt can settle this right now, as I believe he can see if posts have been edited and what they originally said. Was this post ever edited, A2R?: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/starting-best-22-2017.1146164/page-54#post-48836423
ARR asking the all the tough questions.
Personally, I'm hoping he did edit the post, just to add another twist.
