A Question For Synbad

dannyboy · **Posted:** Wed May 25, 2005 11:38 pm

I reckon i've seent his film

Look it comes down this

sorry i fell asleep, what were we talking about?

BlueMark · **Posted:** Wed May 25, 2005 11:39 pm

verbs wrote:

Synbad wrote:

verbs wrote:

It's funny how Synbad says we would've picked Deledio then Franklin then Tamblin with so much authority :roll:

He must have inside info. :shock:

six months after the draft. :roll:

verbs alot of what i say is with authority cos im not you... if i were you id be saying F.A....

what makes you think i wouldnt know what order we would have taken them??

Are you trying to also say that we would have taken Russell with pick 1 of we had it???

Dude. I would be more than happy if you can uncover a post from last year where you clearly state what Carlton's order of priority was. I would be over the moon if you could do that. The way you posted what you did made you out to sound like you knew, categorically, that is the order Carlton had prioritized. Fred Flinstone could've come up with that order six months after the draft.

Everyone has the benefit of hindsight. Even Fred Flinstone. I would be very impressed if you can prove you knew that back in October.

Hee hee Synbad was very forthright last year that we were going to do big business in last years trade period and that certain players were up for trade and they were gawnnnnnn. He was half right with Whits. Someone else said we would be very quiet in the trade period and would concentrate on the draft. I to would be interested in Synbads priorty draft list from last year.

Synbad · **Posted:** Wed May 25, 2005 11:40 pm

BlueMark wrote:

You see Synbad, we have to win enough games in the H&A to make the Finals, including the shitty little ones and then win games in the finals to make the Grand Final. And that seems to be the BIG hole in your theory. The actual winning of games. You do seem to be very keen to lose an awful lot of games though.

Also find interesting you using an example of a team sneaking into the finals and winning a flag. You were pooh pooing just such a senerio a few short months ago and what was the speech on the weekend about percentage.

Ahhhhhhhhh i see youre into the old 'mathematically possible ' theory...

Everything is perfect and going to plan..... carry on old chap....

AGRO · **Posted:** Wed May 25, 2005 11:40 pm

verbs wrote:

...you may call it hair splitting, I say it SMELLS LIKE SHIT!!!

Lucky you didn't step in it. :lol:

verbs · **Posted:** Wed May 25, 2005 11:42 pm

AGRO wrote:

verbs wrote:

...you may call it hair splitting, I say it SMELLS LIKE SHIT!!!

Lucky you didn't step in it. :lol:

Believe me...I've learnt to keep a keen look out for it. :lol:

Synbad · **Posted:** Wed May 25, 2005 11:44 pm

BlueMark wrote:

verbs wrote:

Synbad wrote:

verbs wrote:

It's funny how Synbad says we would've picked Deledio then Franklin then Tamblin with so much authority :roll:

He must have inside info. :shock:

six months after the draft. :roll:

verbs alot of what i say is with authority cos im not you... if i were you id be saying F.A....

what makes you think i wouldnt know what order we would have taken them??

Are you trying to also say that we would have taken Russell with pick 1 of we had it???

Dude. I would be more than happy if you can uncover a post from last year where you clearly state what Carlton's order of priority was. I would be over the moon if you could do that. The way you posted what you did made you out to sound like you knew, categorically, that is the order Carlton had prioritized. Fred Flinstone could've come up with that order six months after the draft.

Everyone has the benefit of hindsight. Even Fred Flinstone. I would be very impressed if you can prove you knew that back in October.

Hee hee Synbad was very forthright last year that we were going to do big business in last years trade period and that certain players were up for trade and they were gawnnnnnn. He was half right with Whits. Someone else said we would be very quiet in the trade period and would concentrate on the draft. I to would be interested in Synbads priorty draft list from last year.

Yes i was half right with Lance if the only statue with brains in the whole wide world would have been wanted by anyone we would have taken someone... unfortunately theres this intellectual exercise thing in AFL footy called salary cap that threw a spanner in the works..

Oh well... the intellectual exercise for this year revolve around expired contracts.....

Thats guaranteed.

I suppose youre still saying Campo on 400k.. Lance and Fev on 350k????

Synbad · **Posted:** Wed May 25, 2005 11:45 pm

verbs wrote:

AGRO wrote:

verbs wrote:

...you may call it hair splitting, I say it SMELLS LIKE SHIT!!!

Lucky you didn't step in it. :lol:

Believe me...I've learnt to keep a keen look out for it. :lol:

Full length mirror in your bathroom????

Bluebernz · **Posted:** Wed May 25, 2005 11:46 pm

AGRO wrote:

BlueMark wrote:

AGRO wrote:

BlueMark wrote:

AGRO wrote:

Mrs Caz wrote:

BM, tripling the recruiting staff would be good, but it still doesn't give you many does it?

We are behind in this department and really need to pick that up.

Mrs Caz, even your esteemed partner Cazzeman will tell you the first half dozen in the National Draft pick themselves thesedays - and no amount of extra recruiting staff will help you there - will help you in the 2nd and 3rd round where it gets a bit tricky - but the quality seems to be in the first 6 these days doesn't it. :wink:

And that is where the real recruiters skill lies picking which of the 'also rans' can be turned into the 'real goods'

Thats right our list is too good that we dont need a player from the top 6 - far better to fill our list with gems from Pick 36 and beyond. :roll:

Do you read before you start typing? So I will rewrite it so even you will understand it. As someone stated the top 6 stand out ie they pick themselves, no real skill needed, the real skill lies in figuring out which of those who come after pick 6 will turn into very good players. According to some it appears that all we need to do is pick a top 6 player, maybe a PSD and all will be hunky dory, what we also need to do however is make sure our choices after the top 6 are pretty damn good as well, otherwise picking a up PP and a PSD will mean very little. Look at the whole picture not just the glittery interesting bit in the middle.

Yep I appeared to say most of that. :wink:

Just reading everything written in all the above quote boxes... Agro and BM, you two have been disagreeing with each other but you've both actually said the same thing!

And if IIRC in another thread, both BM and Synbad agree that they want to see us play the kids... AND PLAY TO WIN. But BM called this not tanking whereas Synbad called it tanking. Maybe I'm just a tripper but it seems that the people arguing actually agree on the same thing but things are getting lost in the interpretation of what is said(?).

Might see if I can dig up that previous thread.

verbs · **Posted:** Wed May 25, 2005 11:48 pm

Bluebernz wrote:

AGRO wrote:

BlueMark wrote:

AGRO wrote:

BlueMark wrote:

AGRO wrote:

Mrs Caz wrote:

BM, tripling the recruiting staff would be good, but it still doesn't give you many does it?

We are behind in this department and really need to pick that up.

Mrs Caz, even your esteemed partner Cazzeman will tell you the first half dozen in the National Draft pick themselves thesedays - and no amount of extra recruiting staff will help you there - will help you in the 2nd and 3rd round where it gets a bit tricky - but the quality seems to be in the first 6 these days doesn't it. :wink:

And that is where the real recruiters skill lies picking which of the 'also rans' can be turned into the 'real goods'

Thats right our list is too good that we dont need a player from the top 6 - far better to fill our list with gems from Pick 36 and beyond. :roll:

Do you read before you start typing? So I will rewrite it so even you will understand it. As someone stated the top 6 stand out ie they pick themselves, no real skill needed, the real skill lies in figuring out which of those who come after pick 6 will turn into very good players. According to some it appears that all we need to do is pick a top 6 player, maybe a PSD and all will be hunky dory, what we also need to do however is make sure our choices after the top 6 are pretty damn good as well, otherwise picking a up PP and a PSD will mean very little. Look at the whole picture not just the glittery interesting bit in the middle.

Yep I appeared to say most of that. :wink:

Just reading everything written in all the above quote boxes... Agro and BM, you two have been disagreeing with each other but you've both actually said the same thing!

And if IIRC in another thread, both BM and Synbad agree that they want to see us play the kids... AND PLAY TO WIN. But BM called this not tanking whereas Synbad called it tanking. Maybe I'm just a tripper but it seems that the people arguing actually agree on the same thing but things are getting lost in the interpretation of what is said(?).

Might see if I can dig up that previous thread.

Ah...nice Bernz. Maybe my school dance comparison was too obscure.

Bluebernz · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2005 12:00 am

Yep... must admit i didn't understand the analogy verbs... but it makes sense to me now.

Bluebernz · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2005 12:05 am

OK after some digging this is what I've come up with.

These are bits I've pulled out from the "Clarification on Tanking" thread posted by Jarusa.

http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB2/vi ... php?t=2229

Jarusa wrote:

I think that we have two sides debating one topic where there are several points of view which are muddying the waters of the debate. One person's tanking is another person's developing the team, which is which or are they the same.

The idea of 'tanking' seems to be much like a snowflake each idea is different. What is your idea of tanking?

Is it?

1) Playing as many kids as possible with deliberate match day coaching tactics designed to sabotage games.
2) Playing as many kids as possible but 100% effort from coaching staff and see what happens.
3) Playing a couple of kids at a time, with deliberate match day coaching tactics designed to sabotage games.
4) Playing a couple of kids at a time but 100% effort from coaching staff and see what happens.
5) Playing the kids as a group in the 2's and rotating the more senior players through the senior games to assess who is staying with deliberate match day coaching tactics designed to sabotage games.

Which one are you? Or is there something else you have in mind?

This is what BM posted:

BlueMark wrote:

2 and 4 are not tanking, you are developing youth but still trying to get the best from your team, an acceptable practice once your season is shot, so long as it is stated policy. The rest is tanking.

And this is what Synbad posted:

Synbad wrote:

BlueMark wrote:

2 and 4 are not tanking, you are developing youth but still trying to get the best from your team, an acceptable practice once your season is shot, so long as it is stated policy. The rest is tanking.

Theyre both tanking youre not going in to win the game..
Thats what most people are advocating... youre a bit slow BM....

Noone said we lose by not trying.. who wouldnt try when they might be cut????

You play the kids.. bodies cant match it.. so you lose!!!!

See you want to 'tank ' and you call it 'acceptable practice'

I need a 2nd opinion here... are BM and Synbad agreeing on the same thing but something's gone wrong with the interpretation somewhere?

JK · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:19 pm **Posts:** 2187

The difference between the two is the assorted feelings after a match..
You get the feeling Synbad will be upset after a win, whereas BM probably wouldnt.

Synbad · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2005 12:39 am

BM, is agreeing with me that we are shit and we need to play the kids ... and my thinggy is youre not playing to win by playing the kids.(which is true).... so in fact BM wants to lose..., because iof he wanted to win he wouldnt be interested in playing the kids and "seeing what they can do" as he put it....
Obviously by playing more kids youre not playing to win the game but to win the future....
Then the queation must be asked.. if BM wants us to throw games this year why isnt he interested in picking up the best kids in the draft???...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......*shrugs*.....
Bernzy its an intellectual exercise..... :wink:

Synbad · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2005 12:42 am

Josh Kaplan wrote:

The difference between the two is the assorted feelings after a match..
You get the feeling Synbad will be upset after a win, whereas BM probably wouldnt.

But Joshe why would BM want more kids in the side (which means we will lose) if he doesnt want to lose???

If BM was fair dinkum he would say we need to win every game.. so stuff the kids!!!!
See its a wank !!!!

Everyone wants us to play kids and get the picks... but some people arent open about it.. and they use words like "pride".... "trenches"... and "coward".... when in fact its the 'Hitchhikers Guide To Your Bathroom'...

verbs · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2005 12:43 am

Synbad wrote:

BM, is agreeing with me that we are shit and we need to play the kids ... and my thinggy is youre not playing to win by playing the kids.(which is true).... so in fact BM wants to lose..., because iof he wanted to win he wouldnt be interested in playing the kids and "seeing what they can do" as he put it....
Obviously by playing more kids youre not playing to win the game but to win the future....
Then the queation must be asked.. if BM wants us to throw games this year why isnt he interested in picking up the best kids in the draft???...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......*shrugs*.....
Bernzy its an intellectual exercise..... :wink:

Is that meant to be logic? or delusional?

Synbad · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2005 12:47 am

verbs wrote:

Synbad wrote:

BM, is agreeing with me that we are shit and we need to play the kids ... and my thinggy is youre not playing to win by playing the kids.(which is true).... so in fact BM wants to lose..., because iof he wanted to win he wouldnt be interested in playing the kids and "seeing what they can do" as he put it....
Obviously by playing more kids youre not playing to win the game but to win the future....
Then the queation must be asked.. if BM wants us to throw games this year why isnt he interested in picking up the best kids in the draft???...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......*shrugs*.....
Bernzy its an intellectual exercise..... :wink:

Is that meant to be logic? or delusional?

is that one question or two???

If its either why are you posting it a thread titled "Question for Synbad"???and not 'Questions to synbad'??
verbs = supporting cast .....

Youre nothing without me verbs!!!!! :lol:

...but seriously!!!!

You really arent...

NOTHING!!!!!!!

Hang off every word i say..... :wink:

verbs · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2005 12:52 am

Synbad wrote:

...but seriously!!!!

You really arent...

NOTHING!!!!!!!

Hang off every word i say..... :wink:

I'm glad I'm not nothing. :lol:

But seriously, that last post...WTF???

It makes no sense at all.

Synbad · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2005 1:03 am

verbs wrote:

Synbad wrote:

...but seriously!!!!

You really arent...

NOTHING!!!!!!!

Hang off every word i say..... :wink:

I'm glad I'm not nothing. :lol:

But seriously, that last post...WTF???

It makes no sense at all.

see???????

Look verbs .. i know youre clinggy towards me and stuff.. but im going to let you go now ok???... try and get some sleep...

... and stop singing placebos "without you im nothing"........

Strange infatuation seems to grace the evening tide.
I'll take it by your side.
Such imagination seems to help the feeling slide.
I'll take it by your side.
Instant correlation sucks and breeds a pack of lies.
I'll take it by your side.
Oversaturation curls the skin and tans the hide.
I'll take it by your side.

tick - tock {x3}
tick - tick - tick - tick - tick - tock

I'm unclean, a libertine
And every time you vent your spleen,
I seem to lose the power of speech,
You're slipping slowly from my reach.
You grow me like an evergreen,
You never see the lonely me at all

I...
Take the plan, spin it sideways.
I...
Fall.
Without you, I'm nothing.
Without you, I'm nothing.
Without you, I'm nothing.
Take the plan, spin it sideways.
Without you, I'm nothing at all.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, youre scaring me.....

i hate the tick tock x 3 bit.....

verbs · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2005 1:07 am

looks like "delusional" was the winner. no logic, nor understanding of what is being argued.

now i'm the broken record: "comprehension is not your stong point, is it?"

Synbad · **Posted:** Thu May 26, 2005 1:11 am

*runs abit faster*

A Question For Synbad

Who is online