Vintage Bay Go ahead and kick a bag on Ryan Schoenmakers

[Lunchlady Doris]

Mackie played well that game, no doubt, however he had very little to do with you winning in the end.

We were wasteful in front of goal and your midfield, In particular Selwood got on top and won a majority of the clearances. The ball barely went into our forward line in the last quarter.

I would argue FIGJAM barely had a touch. Congrats should be given to Selwood who won the game off his own boot, your forward line who trapped the ball in your forward 50 with Bartel obviously kicking when it counted.

Mackie has 6 years more development in him and has had the luxury of playing a bit part in a dominant backline. My point is that I believe that Shoenmakers will be a more dominant KP defender than will Mackie when playing in the same postion.

You have to admit that the future of your currently great backline is a major concern.

What a self-serving load of cobblers. Did he play well, or did he barely get a touch? I'm pretty sure he stopped Buddy from getting any touches also.

 

[2Sewell4School]

What a self-serving load of cobblers. Did he play well, or did he barely get a touch? I'm pretty sure he stopped Buddy from getting any touches also.

Buddy kicked 5 that day - leading goal kicker on the day. Rooke 3, Mooney and Hawkins 2 each. We had more scoring shots though I pointed out earlier, we were wasteful, we should have won that game. Statistically our backline performed better than yours. Your midfield, not our "poor" backline or Mackie won the game that day.

Mackie played well as I stated earlier, however my response related to the presumtion that Mackie's performance while your backline was undermanned was a key part of your victory. His performance had little bearing in the final quarter when the game was won.

The ball barely went into our forwardline.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Buddy kicked 5 that day - leading goal kicker on the day. Rooke 3, Mooney and Hawkins 2 each. We had more scoring shoots though I pointed out earlier, we were wasteful, we should have won that game. Statistically our backline performed better than yours. Your midfield, not our "poor" backline or Mackie won the game that day.

Mackie played well as I stated earlier, however my response related to the presumtion that Mackie's performance while your backline was undermanned was a key part of your victory. His performance had little bearing.

Keeping a bloke that was on fire for most of the day very quiet in the last quarter while we came back from 5 goals down was certainly a help.

 

[carlton 4ever]

No, I just picked a bad one for Scarlett. He conceded 3 less than Zac Dawson though, that's gotta be a plus.

Report doesn't say at which stage Scarlett went onto Hale. In any case, Scarlett has been pantsed many a time.

Schoenmakers hasn't

so your saying that dawson and shoenmakers are better fullbacks than scarlett.

oh podgey i am astounded how little you know about football, i mean you obviously watch enough of it and yet know so little.

sometimes i hope you are shit stiring because you sir are a fool

 

[Hodgepodge]

so your saying that dawson and shoenmakers are better fullbacks than scarlett.

Schoenmakers is a centre half back.

When did I saw that Scarlett is a lesser full back to Zac Dawson? Remember, conceding 5 goals is better than conceding 8.

The things I have to explain on this forum . . .

 

[carlton 4ever]

Schoenmakers is a centre half back.

When did I saw that Scarlett is a lesser full back to Zac Dawson? Remember, conceding 5 goals is better than conceding 8.

The things I have to explain on this forum . . .

i'm not even going to bother with you

 

[winty]

Mackie played well that game, no doubt, however he had very little to do with you winning in the end.

We were wasteful in front of goal and your midfield, In particular Selwood got on top and won a majority of the clearances. The ball barely went into our forward line in the last quarter.

Dying stages of the game. Scores level. Kennedy gets the ball and handballs to Buddy streaming into an open goal, only to be brought down by a brilliant tackle. Who laid the tackle again? Oh, that's right, it was Mackie. But no, he had very little to do with Geelong winning the game.

 

[OneEyedHawk]

Can't blame people for knocking him, threads like these just beg for it...but Schoey WILL be a very, very good player.

 

[kellykellykelly]

Shoenmakers was shown up in Round 17 for the spud that he is.

Like a dear in the headlights.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Shiels is already harder than most players in the AFL, let alone Carlton.

[youtube]Ua31qV0V_0c[/youtube]

Shiels, harder than a cat's head.

 

[Ron The Bear]

4+ goals v Hawthorn w/Schoenmakers:

R2 Hall 4, Goodes 4
R12 Brown 5
R13 LeCras 4
R18 Gray 4
R20 Hentschel 4
R22 Hurley 4

All Hawthorn losses. 4 goals v Hawthorn is a bag.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

4+ goals v Hawthorn w/Schoenmakers:

R2 Hall 4, Goodes 4
R12 Brown 5
R13 LeCras 4
R18 Gray 4
R20 Hentschel 4
R22 Hurley 4

All Hawthorn losses. 4 goals v Hawthorn is a bag.

No no no, unless you can prove the bloke played on these guys, he will remain undefeated.

 

[suban]

Read up to "Go ahead and kick a bag on" and thought the thread was going to be about Fatboi Tayte Pears.

He's shit.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Read up to "Go ahead and kick a bag on" and thought the thread was going to be about Fatboi Tayte Pears.

He's shit.

how long till fremantle pick him up then

 

[Hodgepodge]

4+ goals v Hawthorn w/Schoenmakers:

R2 Hall 4, Goodes 4
R12 Brown 5
R13 LeCras 4
R18 Gray 4
R20 Hentschel 4
R22 Hurley 4

All Hawthorn losses. 4 goals v Hawthorn is a bag.

Rd22 Schoen played on Lloyd
Rd20 Don't remember who Schoen was playing on. Even then, 4 isn't quite a bag.
Rd18 Gray is a small forward . . .
Rd13 See above
Rd12 Midfield
Rd 2 Midfield and I don't think even Schoen's going to be playing on Hall AND Goodes at the same time.

 

[Brick Tamland]

so your saying that dawson and shoenmakers are better fullbacks than scarlett.

Please explain how you came to this conclusion?

HP said that Scarlett had LESS goals kicked on him than Dawson... I suppose that carlton, who define sucess by draft picks, are proud as punch when their defenders get a bag kicked on them?

 

[mess]

No no no, unless you can prove the bloke played on these guys, he will remain undefeated.

It's pretty apparent that he didn't play on most of them at first glance.

Many of them are the second to third top goalscorers on their team. Can you make sense of that?

Pretty satisfying that so few gambits are available though.

 

[TeamHurley]

poor mans pears.

 

[mess]

Pears is decent. We'll see who's better this season.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Please explain how you came to this conclusion?

HP said that Scarlett had LESS goals kicked on him than Dawson... I suppose that carlton, who define sucess by draft picks, are proud as punch when their defenders get a bag kicked on them?

I don't think he's going to bother with explaining it to us lowly nimrods.

i'm not even going to bother with you

See?

 

[Brick Tamland]

I don't think he's going to bother with explaining it to us lowly nimrods.

Fair enough, probably wouldn't understand the complex formula in which he worked 8 < 5.

 

[The Donners]

Schoenmakers is a hack, zero vision and awareness.

 

[mess]

Schoenmakers is a hack, zero vision and awareness.

Whatever you say, Tom Wills...

 

[demon48]

It's yet to be done.
Hale has kicked 8 on Scarlett, Jack Riewoldt's kicked 6 on Pears, Lloyd kicked 8 on Warnock.
Yet nobody has kicked a decent swag against Cobbler.
In his most recent outing, he restricted Lloyd to 0 goals and ended up running forward and scoring himself.
The real No.1 of the 2008 draft needs a challenge to further his development, so in that vein, I plead with all the forwards in the AFL to do their utmost again in 2010 to try to get the better of Ryan Schoenmakers.
Small or tall, Ryan will take all comers.

Lloyd was past it by the time Schoenmakers played on him. And Schoenmakers hasn't played on Jack Watts or Liam Jurrah as yet. Jurrah will give him a towelling in Round 1, 2010.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

It's pretty apparent that he didn't play on most of them at first glance.

Many of them are the second to third top goalscorers on their team. Can you make sense of that?

Either this guy plays on the number one goalscorer, or the 4th+?

I'm not going to spend time on another podgey thread disproving an assertion that hasn't been proven in the first place. If anyone actually knows who this blokes opponents were in the first season of his career, in either the midfield, backline, or Box Hill - please step forward now.