They are talking about it on a Bombers message board.

I nearly fell off my chair.

A few Bombers fans rate him very highly obviously.

Would anyone here do it? It would be hard to say no , as much as I love Garland.

I guess the question is would you rather Colin Garland or Michael Hurley?

he is not going anywhere just signed 2 year deal

a 10 year player for us , can't wait for real trade week to begin all this speculation is giving me the s hits

They are talking about it on a Bombers message board.

I nearly fell off my chair.

A few Bombers fans rate him very highly obviously.

Would anyone here do it? It would be hard to say no , as much as I love Garland.

I guess the question is would you rather Colin Garland or Michael Hurley?

Garland has proven he can cut it at AFL level. Its a stupid idea.

They are talking about it on a Bombers message board.

I nearly fell off my chair.

A few Bombers fans rate him very highly obviously.

Would anyone here do it? It would be hard to say no , as much as I love Garland.

I guess the question is would you rather Colin Garland or Michael Hurley?

Yes. I would! Even though I like the kid.

That would give us Vickery and Watts I would think. I only say Watts because everybody wants him.

And I would prefer to keep Garland than Hurley. But I would'nt think we would take Hurley if we had Pick 5.

Garland kept franklin quiet (once) and made massive progress last year. He is a tall who is quick and can play tall or small. He is gutsy, flexible and young. Pick 5 is a twinkle in the football gods eyes at this point. A player that has developed as well and shows as much is much more important to keep, I'd reckon.

maybe...depends what was still there at pick 5

maybe...depends what was still there at pick 5

You either do or you dont! You cant give them back there pick after your already traded for it.

Some people..

U wanna give up our best key back prospect in 50 years and risk it on a pick? a lottery?

Seriously, you people amaze me!

Colin Garland is a star, and could be a true great, bomber fans have it right, why trade a player we KNOW can handle the level, to get a kid who might not, hes 20 for gods sake! unreal!

Possibily the stupedest thing i have EVER seen a demon supporter want, pick 5?? wow, damn fools..

Its a tough one.

But at the end of the day. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

They are talking about it on a Bombers message board.

I nearly fell off my chair.

A few Bombers fans rate him very highly obviously.

Would anyone here do it? It would be hard to say no , as much as I love Garland.

I guess the question is would you rather Colin Garland or Michael Hurley?

No, no, no. We've got him, his ours. We don't know how good he can be.

He might be anything.

Look for trades with the players that we,ve seen their promise, & can trade comfortably knowing their not the next Hird or Voss.

no

Yes. I would! Even though I like the kid.

That would give us Vickery and Watts I would think. I only say Watts because everybody wants him.

And I would prefer to keep Garland than Hurley. But I would'nt think we would take Hurley if we had Pick 5.

Then again! I would prefer to keep Garland and take Vickery with Pick 1. No thanks Mr. Watts! I think he is the most risky of all three. Just ask his cuz Fergus!

They are talking about it on a Bombers message board.

I nearly fell off my chair.

A few Bombers fans rate him very highly obviously.

Would anyone here do it? It would be hard to say no , as much as I love Garland.

I guess the question is would you rather Colin Garland or Michael Hurley?

Link?

I want to read their drivel.

Anyway no i wouldn't do it. Garland > Hurley

They are talking about it on a Bombers message board.

I nearly fell off my chair.

A few Bombers fans rate him very highly obviously.

Would anyone here do it? It would be hard to say no , as much as I love Garland.

I guess the question is would you rather Colin Garland or Michael Hurley?

What message board is this supposedly on?

I think Nudge put it best...

The backline is a cause for real optimism, and that's largely because of Garland. This time last year it looked the complete opposite.

With Rivers, Frawley, Warnock and Garland, we have the foundations of something special. Why would we risk that?

What message board is this supposedly on?

I found it, its on their bigfooty messageboard.

Starts 2nd last post on that page

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.p...184&page=64

Oh, how the wheel has turned! Garland has gone from the most maligned player on this forum after playing 4 games, to the best thing since Robbie was a boy.

Just goes to show that most on here know jackshit about talent identification.

yep- can't believe people wrote him off after 4 games. didn't even do that badly

dont trade- absolute gem

keep!

I think Nudge put it best...

The backline is a cause for real optimism, and that's largely because of Garland. This time last year it looked the complete opposite.

With Rivers, Frawley, Warnock and Garland, we have the foundations of something special. Why would we risk that?

AHEM- and stef martin

hang on a sec:

everyone thaught he was crap after those games

he looked like a headless chook

and when the ball was kicked too him twice in two minutes

he didnt attack it and both times, oppositon players swooped in front of him to take the mark

after the freo game when he restricted farmer (unless im corrected, his fifth game) a lot of people started to get more and more optomistic even though he made a couple of critical errors in that match

everyone had reason to think he was a worry after his first couple of games

dont go acting as if you thought he was gods gift to earth back then

he was crap in his first couple of matches hodgie...

and unless mo64 u can show me evidence from demonland that you thaught otherwise, i think you are just using the gift of hindsight yourself

Oh, how the wheel has turned! Garland has gone from the most maligned player on this forum after playing 4 games, to the best thing since Robbie was a boy.

Just goes to show that most on here know jackshit about talent identification.

Oh yeah, is that right? I've been on the Garland bandwagon since the start of his Sandy career, not to mention, Wannaemirri, & (Valenti, Steph Martin, Matthew Warnock) before they were picked up.

hang on a sec:

everyone thaught he was crap after those games

he looked like a headless chook

and when the ball was kicked too him twice in two minutes

he didnt attack it and both times, oppositon players swooped in front of him to take the mark

after the freo game when he restricted farmer (unless im corrected, his third game) a lot of people started to get more and more optomistic even though he made a couple of critical errors in that match

everyone had reason to think he was a worry after his first couple of games

dont go acting as if you thought he was gods gift to earth back then

he was crap in his first couple of matches hodgie...

and unless mo64 u can show me evidence from demonland that you thaught otherwise, i think you are just using the gift of hindsight yourself

yencks mate- you know as well as i, the games i saw of him at Sandy, he was terrific. AFL is a hard to adjust to, and he wasn't 'shocking' as some have labelled him on this site, such as yourself in his first few games- Isaac Weetra is the definition of shocking and i don't know how he ever got a game- he played the season in sandy reserves- thats the difference between garland and weetra

mate

he was SHOCKING!

im not trying to argue with you cos i agree with you on most things but he played horribly in his first two games

i had not seen him play at sandy and i didnt know until now that you had but i saw those first two games with my own two eyes and these threads are evidence that MOST people thought badly about his first two games

http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?show...&hl=garland

and mo64, in this thread...i dont see you really sticking up for garland after his first couple of games

http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?show...&hl=garland

yencks you were at my house watching a game early on his career- 2nd or maybe debut, when ricky p had a ripper- garland wasn't that bad- we got smashed by 10 goals! hard to play well when you lose by that much, we got killed that night, ricky was about our best!

You guys are pretty gullible if you think wat a bunch of people post is something thats likely to happen.

p.s garlands a gun but i must admit i was one of thoose guys who thort he was a dud pretty much cus he took troy broadbridges number so i had big expectations. pretty silly to expect in 1 game. (wich was against sydney)