i stand corrected

mo64 was correct and did say that he thought garland had potential

my apologies

as to Baileys Babies, i honestly cant remember you having big wraps on him after the hawks and dogs matches

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Exactly what I thought.

I originally thought the Colin this was referring to was Sylvia - we can only dream.

After reading this thread I can't wait till trade week is over.

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

Those ppl are idiots..

They are the same ppl who cant see what Cale is capable of, and that say Meeson should be delisted and that Watts is like his cousin.. pfftt..

garland just needed to find his feet, and now taht he has, he has the whole league talking, 1 senior coach going as far as to say he is one of the best prospects down back since Scarlett..

There are also a number ofg journalists who are talking him up as an All-Australian next year..

We are on a HUGE talent here, and I know for a fact that some clubs would consider him worthy of the No.1 pick, even this year, if it wasnt for the amount of criticism they would cop from their members in the short term..

He can play small, tall, Fb, CHB, wing, even up forward, he has poise way beyond his years, does not trun the ball over, and is known to be extremely level headed on & off the field..

He is UNTOUCHABLE, the most so in our side..

Col Garland is here to stay, and I say, THANK GOD!

Hypothetically.

No.

Not a chance.

Does not turn 20 till 28 April next year, 192cms, athletic, marks and spoils well, good below his knees, flexibility to play on smalls and talls, played well on Franklin amongst others. Could go into midfield or up forward as he develops.

With Warnock, Martin, Frawley and hopefully Rivers gives us the best tall defensive depth in my 38 years.

In summary.

No.

[censored] trading with Essendon! Garland is a talent, why trade him for a kid who may not cut it against the big boys.

I have watched the dees for as long as i can remember, and never have we had such a strong young core of defenders. This suggest to me that good defenders are harder to come by than perhaps a strong forward.

Keep Garland.

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

Can't you read. Here's a quote of what I said in the link you provided:

"Whilst I agree that Garland's performances this year have been mediocre, he like many others are not playing on instinct, but seem to have too many thoughts going through their head.

It worries me when after a game, players come out and say that we didn't follow the coach's instructions. It suggests that the "team rules" are too complex.

If Garland was allowed to play instinctively in his rightful position up forward, I think he has got a future at AFL level."

I was one of the very few who thought he had a future at AFL level, and still believe that he could be a very good key forward. I liked what I saw of him when playing for Sandy last year.

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!

In defence of Fergus his short career was dogged by injury. Could have been a very good player. Also Fergus was never rated as highly, he was never in contention for pick 1, he was taken at pick 14 if my memory serves me correct. I still think Watts at 1 and for a ruckman Roughead at say 19.

Just like to say this garland played forward alot in his early career he kiked nine goals once cant remeber wat game.

He kinda reminds me of someone.....David neitze started his career as a back man who they thort could also play forward. i think he has huge potential.

I think you guys are missing the point of drafting.

It's not how high your pick is, it's the player you get.

Now we have a really good young player, and you want to trade him for a pick?

Some of you need to be put out to pasture.

The poster on BigFooty was using Garland as an example to prove a point.

In defence of Fergus his short career was dogged by injury. Could have been a very good player. Also Fergus was never rated as highly, he was never in contention for pick 1, he was taken at pick 14 if my memory serves me correct. I still think Watts at 1 and for a ruckman Roughead at say 19.

Yes. If we did'nt pick Vickery. I could live with Watts and Roughead at Pick 19. Sensible!

Jack and Fergus = no relation

Jack and Fergus = no relation

I thought they were cousins? Are you sure? They look similiar like a related couple would.

Keep him ! one of the few bright stars we have in the sky .

Fool.

1/The bummers will not give up Pick 5

2/More importantly the mfc will not give up one of Melbourne's best players who is still 20yo.

Ridiculous.

Jack and Fergus = no relation

Just to confuse things, there is another Jack Watts who is the brother of Fergus Watts who played for Adelaide and St. Kilda.

The other Jack Watts is also 194cm tall but plays mainly in the ruck and he's just won the b & f playing in A Grade in the VAFA.

Can't you read.

-there is nothing i hate more than people harping on when one has already apologised and amitted that they are wrong and the other person is right

-im not saying you deliberately did that but if you bothered to scroll down you will have noticed that i had already done my research and apologised as soon as i realised (almost one hour before you attacked my ability to read)

-again, you were right and i was wrong but next time, scroll down before you incorectly have a go at what someone has said

i stand corrected

mo64 was correct and did say that he thought garland had potential

my apologies

as to Baileys Babies, i honestly cant remember you having big wraps on him after the hawks and dogs matches

I think you guys are missing the point of drafting.

It's not how high your pick is, it's the player you get.

Now we have a really good young player, and you want to trade him for a pick?

Some of you need to be put out to pasture.

The poster on BigFooty was using Garland as an example to prove a point.

Well said mate!

We got lucky with Col, lets no just give it away in the hope of drafting only a similiar p[layer, its pointless and down right dangerous! Garland is the future, he is ours, lets embrace it!

Well said mate!

We got lucky with Col, lets no just give it away in the hope of drafting only a similiar p[layer, its pointless and down right dangerous! Garland is the future, he is ours, lets embrace it!

is there anyone in the draft right now that you would trade for garland?

ie) would you trade garland for a number 1 pick?

is there anyone in the draft right now that you would trade for garland?

ie) would you trade garland for a number 1 pick?

nup. quality key defenders are just to hard to find.

who gives a rats' what they're talking about on a bummers message board?

talk about multiple degrees of separation...this is irrelevant by even your usual standards YM.

I hate myself for wasting five minutes reading through it to get to the big footy link AAAAGH...now going to get my life back

Most people keep saying Garland is a straight up defender, but I think he could be even more valuable as a forward. I am pretty sure his brother said as much when he spoke about Garland on these boards. IF Rivers can stand up, Martin continues to improve after what can only be described as an awesome start to footy, Warnock continues to learn and develop and Frawley turns into what some people think he can, why does Garland need to stay a backman? How many tall backmen do you need?

A backline consisting of Rivers, Martin, Frawley, Warnock and 2 smalls seems strong and well balanced and frees Garland to play in a area of much greater need (the forwardline).

Most people keep saying Garland is a straight up defender, but I think he could be even more valuable as a forward. I am pretty sure his brother said as much when he spoke about Garland on these boards. IF Rivers can stand up, Martin continues to improve after what can only be described as an awesome start to footy, Warnock continues to learn and develop and Frawley turns into what some people think he can, why does Garland need to stay a backman? How many tall backmen do you need?

A backline consisting of Rivers, Martin, Frawley, Warnock and 2 smalls seems strong and well balanced and frees Garland to play in a area of much greater need (the forwardline).

But we've seen him play strongly as a defender.. i've not seen him kick 4 goals & dominate in the forward line yet.

Definitely not saying he can't or that its not worth a try - but don't count your chickens before they hatch.

nah he can kik goals im pretty sure i herd dennis commeti say he kiked 9 goals once in an under 18s match.

Be good if he could play both down back and forward. were ever hes needed most depending on match ups and game situations.

Most people keep saying Garland is a straight up defender, but I think he could be even more valuable as a forward. I am pretty sure his brother said as much when he spoke about Garland on these boards.

Garland said as much pre-season - forward/wingman.