The Bully and the Devil in the blue suit

[rodgerfox]

I don't understand what the above means.

Due to the above we received Goddard, Roo, Kosi, Ball, and X Clarke.

Goddard was a child.

Roo a star. Although in 06 was severely hampered with injury.

Kosi barely played.

Ball had one good year until crippled with injury. And even in that good year was injured at the most important part.



X Clarke - hardly a factor in any form of 'success' we may have had.

If you had read the WHOLE paragraph..you would understand that I have CLEARLY written that we also gained GTrain, Hamill, Voss and others..

You might also understand that by finishing low on the ladder that we gained Powell in the PSD.

You said that was skill. You referred to pure luck as a big component of our performance, and used draft picks as examples of this. Draft picks that as I posted above, had incredibly little influece on-field.

Injury predicament???

You go on and on about this one point in many of your posts Rodge.....

But many of our injuries were PREVENTABLE....and GT's abject failure in this regard had the Saints having a truly dismal record with soft tissue injuries.

Now a season may be bad luck...but a sustained period means bad mangement, incompetance or both.

This one point continually highlighted by you is reason enough of why GT who had demanded full responsibility and accountability for player fitness and conditioning had to go...


You canot have your cake and eat it too Rodge.

Huh??

WTF?

What cake do I want?? What does GT's sacking have to do with this?

I was referring to your idiotic statement that high draft picks resulted in our 'success'.

An idiotic comment because any of the draft picks we received due to 'pure luck' had very little influence on-field.

If you want to have it that injuries were our only reason for not winning two flags.....you cannot also have it that the man responsible and accountable for our player fitness and conditioning record was not therefore responsible for not winning those two flags.

Since when I have ever argued anything along these lines???

You're delusional.

I'm responding to your foolish and ignorant comment, straight from the outer at the SCG, that the reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks'.

It's incredibly stupid and really disappointing to hear coming fro the mouths of Saints supporters.

[barks4eva]

Grant Thomas is gone, MOVE ON

[ben_fff]

did someone hack B4E's account?

[saintsRrising]

You said that was skill. You referred to pure luck as a big component of our performance, and used draft picks as examples of this. Draft picks that as I posted above, had incredibly little influece on-field.

You really do have trouble quoting people don't you Rodge....and activlely misquote...

Waldron, RB, GT and others like Kellet put the building blocks in place and deserve credit and recognition for this....some by skill and vision and some by pure luck (ieThe AFL bringing in the Priority pick rule, Watson's poor coaching and the Blues cheating and penalty where all about GT being in the right spot and the right time). Skill in that they convinced several star players and several other capable players to join the Saints on the back of luring Blight.

[saintsRrising]

You're delusional.

I'm responding to your foolish and ignorant comment, straight from the outer at the SCG, that the reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks'.
It's incredibly stupid and really disappointing to hear coming fro the mouths of Saints supporters.

And Rodge of the Misquote when did I ever EVER say that that the only reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks'


You really do like making things up about what I have posted.

[rodgerfox]

And Rodge of the Misquote when did I ever EVER say that that the only reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks'


You really do like making things up about what I have posted.

Where did I say that you said it was the 'only' reason?

Funny that you'd misquote someone when whinging about them misquoting you.

[barks4eva]

C'mon guys, Grant Thomas is gone, let it go, MOVE ON

[stinger]

C'mon guys, Grant Thomas is gone, let it go, MOVE ON

follow your own advice and change your signature, then why don't you

[saintsRrising]

And Rodge of the Misquote when did I ever EVER say that that the only reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks'


You really do like making things up about what I have posted.

Where did I say that you said it was the 'only' reason?
Funny that you'd misquote someone when whinging about them misquoting you.

"That the reason"....is singular Rodge...hence my use of the word only is appropriate and accurate.

As opposed to say ...one of the reasons

You stated that I said it was the reason....singular Rodge....

I have never said that it was the reason Rodge.


Indeed when I have posted on the issue I have always stated that there were a number of reasons.

[rodgerfox]

And Rodge of the Misquote when did I ever EVER say that that the only reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks'


You really do like making things up about what I have posted.

Where did I say that you said it was the 'only' reason?
Funny that you'd misquote someone when whinging about them misquoting you.

"That the reason"....is singular Rodge...

As opposed to say ...one of the reasons

You stated that I said it was the reason....singular Rodge....

I have never said that it was the reason Rodge.

So as per my question, where did I say it was 'the only reason'?

[saintsRrising]

Rodge;

Define the difference between..

"the only reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks' "


and

"the reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks' "



I inserted only as I have always stated that there werea number of reasons.....and so hence to address your "misquote" I have quite appropriately said,

"And Rodge of the Misquote when did I ever EVER say that that the only reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks' "

The use of the word only signifies that there were other reasons.

This means that early draft picks was one of my reasons.


If I left the word only out......it could mean that I did not think it to be a reason at all....but I do believe it was one of the reasons and so hence use of the word "only".

[rodgerfox]

Rodge;

Define the difference between..

"the only reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks' "


and

"the reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks' "

Define the difference??

One is a different quote to the other. Simple.

If someone says one of them, and you quote them as saying the other - you've misquoted them.

Someone who whinges so much about misquoted should surely know what.

[saintsRrising]

Here is another example of GT goods luck for you Rodge,,,and a big contributor to our 2004/2005 succes...along with early draft picks in the National Draft


He was lucky that we finished last that year....as it meant that we had the "gun to the head" of the Blues and Weagles to enable us to gain Hamill and GTrain in trades where we got them very cheaply.


If GT had had the misfortune for the Saints to have finished higher and therefore not havehad the Saints having the benefit of first pick in the PSD....he would not have not have had inherited a list with both players gotten for the price that was paid....as the Saints could not bluff that they would go into the PSD.


Lucky timing.....

[rodgerfox]

Here is another example of GT goods luck for you Rodge,,,and a big contributor to our 2004/2005 succes...along with early draft picks in the National Draft


He was lucky that we finished last that year....as it meant that we had the "gun to the head" of the Blues and Weagles to enable us to gain Hamill and GTrain in trades where we got them very cheaply.


If GT had had the misfortune for the Saints to have finished higher and therefore not havehad the Saints having the benefit of first pick in the PSD....he would not have not have had inherited a list with both players gotten for the price that was paid....as the Saints could not bluff that they would go into the PSD.


Lucky timing.....

GT's gone. Move on!

[saintsRrising]

Ok..Rodge even assuming that you don't agree with my use of the word only..

The fact reamins that you staed this:

I'm responding to your foolish and ignorant comment, straight from the outer at the SCG, that the reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks'.

.

...where did I ever say this?

Time to put up or shut up since you want to make a point of it.

Can you actually back up your statement?

Or do you believe that it is your right to fabricate things?

[bozza1980]

He was lucky that we finished last that year....as it meant that we had the "gun to the head" of the Blues and Weagles to enable us to gain Hamill and GTrain in trades where we got them very cheaply.

Us getting Hamill cheaply is a myth, we traded draft pick number 4 and a player. It's not our fault that neither worked out for them.

As for holding a gun to the head of the eagles, we reached agreement with them on the Monday when Fraser still wanted to go to Collingwood!! So they obviously were quite happy with what we offered, either that did not want to deal with Collingwood in any way shape or form. Either way they had 4 more days to try and gain a better deal but jumped at our offer.

If we held a gun at anyone's head it was G-Train, he was faced with the decision of accepting that he be traded to us or be picked up in the pre-season draft. That said the Eagles were equally culpable in this case.

Our 2000 team was one of the worst AFL teams to take to the park in recent memory. We weren't lucky to finish last, we were lucky that we won two games.

[saintsRrising]

Rodge;

Define the difference between..

"the only reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks' "


and

"the reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks' "

Define the difference??

One is a different quote to the other. Simple.

If someone says one of them, and you quote them as saying the other - you've misquoted them.

Someone who whinges so much about misquoted should surely know what.

There was nothing incorrect about what I have said.

In the post I used the quotation box which had your quote in full. It is there for all and sundry to read.

You have instead written falsely about what I have posted in the past and when asked to back up your statement on what you have said that I have written you have not been able to produce anything to support your claim.


Where a poster such as you writes falsely about what I have posted in the past I reserve my right to post a correction as I have done.

[rodgerfox]

Ok..Rodge even assuming that you don't agree with my use of the word only..

The fact reamins that you staed this:

I'm responding to your foolish and ignorant comment, straight from the outer at the SCG, that the reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks'.

.

...where did I ever say this?

Time to put up or shut up since you want to make a point of it.

Can you actually back up your statement?

Or do you believe that it is your right to fabricate things?

You directly stated, in reference to the the job that GT, RB and BW did in getting our club in good shape, was due to pure luck and skill.

You used the specific example of 'pure luck' in reference to our drafting.

Now unless drafting relates to off-field success, then it's safe to assume that you were referring to our on-field 'success' during that time.

Therefore, you are saying that the 'pure luck' of getting high draft picks was a significant factor in our on-field performance.

The reason I use the word significant, is that it's only the aspect you chose to mention relating to on-field.

It's moronic to claim the draft helped us in any way out of the ordinary - considering as I pointed out, the kids we picked up due to our 'pure luck' had incredibly little influence on our performance.

[saintsRrising]

He was lucky that we finished last that year....as it meant that we had the "gun to the head" of the Blues and Weagles to enable us to gain Hamill and GTrain in trades where we got them very cheaply.

Us getting Hamill cheaply is a myth, we traded draft pick number 4 and a player. It's not our fault that neither worked out for them.

And if we had not finished low on the ladder...we could not have offered Pick 4.....lucky eh??? (Cranage was a dud...not really sure why the Blues wanted him....)

As for holding a gun to the head of the eagles, we reached agreement with them on the Monday when Fraser still wanted to go to Collingwood!! So they obviously were quite happy with what we offered, either that did not want to deal with Collingwood in any way shape or form. Either way they had 4 more days to try and gain a better deal but jumped at our offer.

If we held a gun at anyone's head it was G-Train, he was faced with the decision of accepting that he be traded to us or be picked up in the pre-season draft.

...by the saints who had first pick....

Lucky eh...was it not that we finished low enough to force his hand......

also lucky that we could use the one "bullet" of the first pick in the PSD to aim at all of the Blues, Weagles and Hamill.

That said the Eagles were equally culpable in this case.

Our 2000 team was one of the worst AFL teams to take to the park in recent memory. We weren't lucky to finish last, we were lucky that we won two games.

No we were not lucky to finish last....but we were lucky to be able use finishing last to such advantage.


What good luck to finish last in the season prior to GTrain wanting to return to Melbourne and in Elliot ruling hamill so much that he was avaiable to betempted.

[n1ck]

This continual bickering back and forth is just a little bit* boring.


* a little bit = alot.

[rodgerfox]

This continual bickering back and forth is just a little bit* boring.


* a little bit = alot.

Clearly.

Couldn't agree more.

SR, if you still won't concede your wrong and made an idiotic satement - PM me with your whinging.

Don't bore everyone else with this garbage.

[spert]

Yawn..come on 2008 season

[yipper]

Yawn..come on 2008 season

Absolutely - aah, only another 73 days until the NAB cup game!! Or - 66 days probably until the intra-club praccy match!!

[saintsRrising]

Ok..Rodge even assuming that you don't agree with my use of the word only..

The fact remains that you stated this:

I'm responding to your foolish and ignorant comment, straight from the outer at the SCG, that the reason we were awesome on-field up until last year, was our luck in getting 'high draft picks'.

.

...where did I ever say this?

Time to put up or shut up since you want to make a point of it.

Can you actually back up your statement?

Or do you believe that it is your right to fabricate things?

You directly stated, in reference to the the job that GT, RB and BW did in getting our club in good shape, was due to pure luck and skill.

You used the specific example of 'pure luck' in reference to our drafting.

Now unless drafting relates to off-field success, then it's safe to assume that you were referring to our on-field 'success' during that time.

Therefore, you are saying that the 'pure luck' of getting high draft picks was a significant factor in our on-field performance.

The reason I use the word significant, is that it's only the aspect you chose to mention relating to on-field.

It's moronic to claim the draft helped us in any way out of the ordinary - considering as I pointed out, the kids we picked up due to our 'pure luck' had incredibly little influence on our performance

There you go again Rodge rewriting and distorting what I wrote..and I also note that you have softened "the reason" to "was a significant factor in our' ie from one to implying that there are many which is totally different take on things.



What I wrote is below....and this by the way was a reply to Bigcarl to remind people about Waldron.

Don't forget Waldron....

Waldron, RB, GT and others like Kellet put the building blocks in place and deserve credit and recognition for this....some by skill and vision and some by pure luck (ieThe AFL bringing in the Priority pick rule, Watson's poor coaching and the Blues cheating and penalty where all about GT being in the right spot and the right time). Skill in that they convinced several star players and several other capable players to join the Saints on the back of luring Blight.

.

It also refers to players traded for and not just players taken with high draft picks.

I also said "Waldron, RB, GT and others like Kellet put the building blocks in place and deserve credit and recognition for this"

Kellet for example as I understand it was not active in selecting high draft picks.


My reply to Bigcarl was referring that there was a number of people who changed the fortunes of the Saints...and that both luck and skill played a part.

No where do I state that the reason for this was high draft picks.

[saintsRrising]

This continual bickering back and forth is just a little bit* boring.


* a little bit = alot.

Clearly.

Couldn't agree more.

SR, if you still won't concede your wrong and made an idiotic satement - PM me with your whinging.

Don't bore everyone else with this garbage.

N1ck....perhaps I should just ignore Rodger deliberate debating??????


Rodge...there is simple solution.....don't post incorrect statements about what I have written.