Whipping boys tracker thread 2018

[Mike Smyth]

If he can't perform against Essendon then that's a concern. That's going to be a quick game, both teams trying to capatalize on turnovers, it's the sort of game he should thrive in.

He will be fine against essendon. He’ll wait until finals comes around before he completely goes missing

 

[Thetrader15]

What, I can't have 2?

 

[FR0GGY]

What, I can't have 2?

You can whip 2 boys, by all means.

 

[Thetrader15]

You can whip 2 boys, by all means.

This is quickly going somewhere I don't want it to

 

[1970crow]

Any player that holds our club to ransom over his contract while also using the media to put pressure on the club to overpay his sorry ass is my whipping boy. Come on down josh jenkins.

I'll never understand that point of view. The club is in complete control of who they contract and for what value and duration. Yes, it's distasteful that players like Thommo go to the media about their desire to be re-contracted, but that should automatically exclude that option. And yet our club bends over. That's on the club, they'll piss on a Lyons and we're meant to blame the JJs and Thommos when they even the ledger. It's on the club, 100%,

 

[1970crow]

Players I'm worried about this year, or who I think have a chance to fall off quickly.

Dmac (will play 15+ games)
Douglas (hope the game hasn't gone passed him)
Milera (still inconsistent and I'm not convinced yet)
Sauce (needs to be valuable around the ground)
JJ (we all know why)
Keath (not convinced in defense)
Gibson (Treacle, maybe thommo mk2. Maybe play him against Geelong)
Otten (honey mixed with treacle, really like the guy but sanfl please, he got to an AFL grand final, his comeback story is over)

Dmac - perpetual slug apart from the odd good game every 6 weeks.
Douglas - he'll be fine, still does his best work in and around the contest, still nimble and hard.
Milera - gets as much of the ball as near 200 game slug Mackay. Uses it better and has upside. Can't run the patterns though, so is easily dropped. Needs a good year though.
Sauce - largely one dimensional that works 100% of the ground for 90% of game time. Self-assessed thriver on workload though. Lack of imagination of rucking system hampers his influence.
JJ - i remain conflicted. Play a runner and he can exploit that deep, play a tall and he can exploit that up and back. But he's got to compete and be prepared to just be a body in a contest. Gut feel is that he might have been worked out. It's like tagging Sloane, it's not important if you concede the win and don't value tagging in terms of development. Must win game, development be damned.
Keath - still building. Would have liked him a bit more muscley, might need to go forward as mobility seems his strength. Often, defence is more about strength for KPDs. But has a knack, reckon he might still end up a genuine best 22.
Otten - never again. Back him in for 15 games, but I hope he's on a Thommo gold watch contract. Deserved, but for different reasons.

 

[jaytex]

You write words but say absolutely nothing.

Tell me how I'm wrong. Or do you prefer to play the man, not the ball?

Mark Twain disagrees

How are you wrong?
For quoting a post that gave an insight into 'what sayings and words mean now', and then calling it a rubbish post for not focusing on 'what sayings and words mean now'.
Fairly self-explanatory I would have thought mate.

 

[CrowsFlag2018]

Mark Twain disagrees

How are you wrong?
For quoting a post that gave an insight into 'what sayings and words mean now', and then calling it a rubbish post for not focusing on 'what sayings and words mean now'.
Fairly self-explanatory I would have thought mate.

That post was having a crack at the thread for little reason other than to try and be the smartest guy in the room.

Everyone knows what the thread is about- job done!

You still haven't told me how what i said is wrong. You didnt dispute anything i said. You just dont like what i said. You should have said you don't like my post, not disputing the content.

Play again soon.

 

[jaytex]

He speaks absolute sense to me (CrowsFlag2018). It doesn't matter what "whipping boy" originally meant. The fact it's being used and understood today in plain words, is what it means today. People understand what it means, hence the voting.
If you think you understand the word "whipping boy" in its true original essence, and others don't follow, well good for you. But you need to find that special group of friends who apply the same language as you.

I'm willing to bet anyone who has a dig at Sanders speaks absolute sense to you.

Seems you missed the point of the original post too, which was merely pointing out that the term "whipping boy" used to apply to situations when the person in question categorically didn't deserve the punishment, however nowadays it can also be used by lazy linguists who don't like it when a player they rate is criticised.
Ergo, when there's a legitimate debate about the credentials or 'deservedness' of the player in question, it cannot truly be a "whipping boy" situation.

 

[jaytex]

That post was having a crack at the thread for little reason other than to try and be the smartest guy in the room.

Everyone knows what the thread is about- job done!

You still haven't told me how what i said is wrong. You didnt dispute anything i said. You just dont like what i said. You should have said you don't like my post, not disputing the content.

Play again soon.

Sometimes otherwise known around here as cherry picking

Yes everyone might know what the thread is about, but that doesn't mean they have to agree that the premise is correct. Two totally different things dude.

Yeah I dislike what you said, but mainly because you attacked a post that you entirely missed the point of.
Here I'll spell it out for you:

1. A player that probably doesn't deserve the criticism he receives is a "whipping boy".

2. A player where there is legitimate debate about their contribution is not a "whipping boy", it's a player with legitimate debate about their contribution.

It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

 

[CrowsFlag2018]

Sometimes otherwise known around here as cherry picking

Yes everyone might know what the thread is about, but that doesn't mean they have to agree that the premise is correct. Two totally different things dude.

Yeah I dislike what you said, but mainly because you attacked a post that you entirely missed the point of.
Here I'll spell it out for you:

1. A player that probably doesn't deserve the criticism he receives is a "whipping boy".

2. A player where there is legitimate debate about their contribution is not a "whipping boy", it's a player with legitimate debate about their contribution.

It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

It isnt difficult and was grasped by everyone.

Its my point that seems to be missed here. It was a worthless contribution to the thread.

Everyone knows what the thread was intended to be about. The accuracy of the use of the phrase is irrelevant.

End of story.

 

[Sanders]

Some people do that. Others treat some of those players listed above very much like whipping boys, holding them to a seemingly higher set of standards than other players.

Fair.

There is plenty of the latter too

 

[Sanders]

Language is a vehicle to communicate. If you communicate an idea from one person to another you have in fact successfully applied language.

Bringing up what sayings and words originally meant is useful on trivia nights but hardly anywhere else.

It's what they mean now that matters and that is that.

Rubbish post.

Good to know

 

[Sanders]

He speaks absolute sense to me (CrowsFlag2018). It doesn't matter what "whipping boy" originally meant.

Now there’s an endorsement to be proud of!

 

[Sanders]

It isnt difficult and was grasped by everyone.

Its my point that seems to be missed here. It was a worthless contribution to the thread.

Everyone knows what the thread was intended to be about. The accuracy of the use of the phrase is irrelevant.

End of story.

Don’t say I’m not willing to help

 

[jackster83]

Atkins belongs on this list. While he's improved each year on the list, he's got downhill skier written all over him.

 

[John Who]

It isnt difficult and was grasped by everyone.

Its my point that seems to be missed here. It was a worthless contribution to the thread.

Everyone knows what the thread was intended to be about. The accuracy of the use of the phrase is irrelevant.

End of story.

It's good to see new members standing up for themselves, and ones that actually make sense! It's part of BigFooty mate, people who jump on threads, criticize and nitpick word by word the title. No need to argue the point further, it'd be just dancing in a circle!

I'm surprised noone's picked on the obvious word in the title - "boys". I mean technically, boys are under 20 years of age. It should really be "whipping men", not "whipping boys"! How silly of me!

 

[Sanders]

It's good to see new members standing up for themselves, and ones that actually make sense! It's part of BigFooty mate, people who jump on threads, criticize and nitpick word by word the title. No need to argue the point further, it'd be just dancing in a circle!

I'm surprised noone's picked on the obvious word in the title - "boys". I mean technically, boys are under 20 years of age. It should really be "whipping men", not "whipping boys"! How silly of me!

Not back to your old tricks again are you John?

Starting to look a little like self praise

 

[Shaz2012]

Can we pick St Kilda players and do 2019? If so, put me down for Rory Sloane

 

[Donkey Magoo]

Hoping to see some constructive criticisms along with the poll voting. Personally, I don't have it in me to vote as I don't really have a whipping boy. Andy Otten is probably the player I can see that looks likely to go backwards as his pace looks a step behind most AFL players. The others all have faults so hoping they can improve on this season.

You’re a very nice man John. Otten started turning in the 3rd qtr at Alberton on Saturday and he’s just over halfway done.

 

[Ozzie]

It's good to see new members standing up for themselves, and ones that actually make sense! It's part of BigFooty mate, people who jump on threads, criticize and nitpick word by word the title. No need to argue the point further, it'd be just dancing in a circle!

I'm surprised noone's picked on the obvious word in the title - "boys". I mean technically, boys are under 20 years of age. It should really be "whipping men", not "whipping boys"! How silly of me!

Actually in today's world, it should be "whipping person."

 

[ams4crows]

In my mind a whipping boy is a player i like, that i want to succeed because if they do it'd benefit the team, that i know can play well but doesn't try hard enough or takes the easy route and that perfectly described Jenkins for me

I get so excited when i see him crash a pack or take a strong grab or chase and tackle im all yes JJ that's great keep it up only to be let down 3 minutes later when he turns into this soft marshmallow man

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Fair.

There is plenty of the latter too

Hey now Sanders, don’t start holding some moderate and reasonable opinions now. There’s no place for that on the internet!

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Language is a vehicle to communicate. If you communicate an idea from one person to another you have in fact successfully applied language.

Bringing up what sayings and words originally meant is useful on trivia nights but hardly anywhere else.

It's what they mean now that matters and that is that.

Rubbish post.

Except in this case I think several people don’t get what the term whipping boy is. If their understanding is not corrected we end in stupid situations like the dictionary meaning of “literally” being amended so that it can also mean “figuratively” solely because too many people were using it incorrectly.

It’s like 2+2=4 being changed to 2+2=5 because a heap of people were getting their addition wrong. That makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Truck25]

Sometimes otherwise known around here as cherry picking

Yes everyone might know what the thread is about, but that doesn't mean they have to agree that the premise is correct. Two totally different things dude.

Yeah I dislike what you said, but mainly because you attacked a post that you entirely missed the point of.
Here I'll spell it out for you:

1. A player that probably doesn't deserve the criticism he receives is a "whipping boy".

2. A player where there is legitimate debate about their contribution is not a "whipping boy", it's a player with legitimate debate about their contribution.

It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

How do you define "legitimate debate", when from one point of view you question his contribution. But from others his contribution is fine he is playing a role.
So what you claim is Legitimate debate, others claim is short sighted criticism and is your whipping boy.