Its not his pace thats the issue. Sylvia and Rivers have strengths in other areas but at times there futures were in a cloud due to OP.

Its not a matter of who goes first off the list. The decision on Bucks will be mutually exclusive to the future of the senior players (Robbo Wheels Junior and Wheats). They will all go by my reckoning.

And offering a 1 year contract is akin to saying good bye to a player. Most players will probably get better money interstate for a couple of years in the lesser leagues.

Bucks would be unlucky to get delisted this year. We have many older players who are nearing the end who may be pushed. His injury can be managed and handled and there should be no reason he can't be up and about next year.

Also in his favour is that he brings something to our game that few other listed players do. Up by 10 goals or down by 10 he wants to take the game on and try to create. His kicking is OK, decision making needs improvement but I believe with better players around him he will prosper. Plus, he wouldnt cost us much. Keep him.

Bucks would be unlucky to get delisted this year. We have many older players who are nearing the end who may be pushed. His injury can be managed and handled and there should be no reason he can't be up and about next year.

Also in his favour is that he brings something to our game that few other listed players do. Up by 10 goals or down by 10 he wants to take the game on and try to create. His kicking is OK, decision making needs improvement but I believe with better players around him he will prosper. Plus, he wouldnt cost us much. Keep him.

Bucks is not competing against any of the older players. His inability to hit targets and make good decisions under pressure negate any desire to take the game in. If he doesnt cost much why didnt we keep Jace Bode and Isaac Weetra?

Have you done a medical examination of Bucks? Does he have OP? Your comments on his injury are at best wishful thinking and uninformed.

Considering he is about 20 and only played a handful of games I would be giving him more of a chance. The draft isn't very deep so I wouldn't be delisting him for a pick 50 in the draft.

I dont think your criteria for giving a player another contract is valid. He has been on the list for 3 years. The Footy dept have seen him at close quarter. If there is a concern about his kicking and decision making then they would be best looking at other options even pick 50.

Bucks is not competing against any of the older players. His inability to hit targets and make good decisions under pressure negate any desire to take the game in. If he doesnt cost much why didnt we keep Jace Bode and Isaac Weetra?

Oh but he is competing with the older players. By virtue of the fact that we can only delist so many in any given season. I would think the coaching panel would try to mold a player like Buckley into something more useful than giving an older player another 'go round'. He does possess many qualities that you look for in modern day player. I would rather see Bartram, Johnson, Bell, Newton, Wheatley and Whelan go before him.

Comparing his exploits with those you mentioned is just flat out insulting to Buckley. He has played some pretty good footy for us where as Bode and Weetra gave us nothing.

Have you done a medical examination of Bucks? Does he have OP? Your comments on his injury are at best wishful thinking and uninformed.

I am working on the assumption that his injury is OP as he has told numerous people. It is an injury that can be managed and allow him to play at a high level. His ability to break lines when healthy shouldnt be ignored in a team of plodders.

Bucks is not competing against any of the older players. His inability to hit targets and make good decisions under pressure negate any desire to take the game in. If he doesnt cost much why didnt we keep Jace Bode and Isaac Weetra?

Ridiculous post.

His inability to hit targets and make good decisions under pressure...? I'm pretty sure 80% of our list have that inability Rhino.

To single out Buckley on that shows very little knowledge about the players we have in our team.

And comparing him to Bode and Weetra is even more laughable.

Glad you aren't in Bailey's position big guy !

Oh but he is competing with the older players. By virtue of the fact that we can only delist so many in any given season. I would think the coaching panel would try to mold a player like Buckley into something more useful than giving an older player another 'go round'.

I completely agree. There are only so many spots on a list up for grabs and I reckon the FD will err with a younger player such as Buckley, especially considering his upside.

I've waxed and waned on Buckley. One minute I've ruled a line through him due to decision making and costly turnovers and then I picture him kicking a 60metre goal into the wind at Kardinia Park and recognise that dreaded word 'potential'. I have this nagging feeling that something could be moulded from a guy with some of his talents.

The bottom line is, there's more I'd presently like to delist than him.

Is he definately out of contract? I wouldn't know. Considering he is about 20 and only played a handful of games I would be giving him more of a chance. Pick 2 ATS will be Butcher who is a forward. The draft isn't very deep so I wouldn't be delisting him for a pick 50 in the draft.

Agree. But for me that's not the reason to keep him (re:draft pick, etc), As Hannabal has pointed out, there are others I would say goodbye to before Buckley at the end of this season. I also are of the opinion that he is young, as you point out - 20yo, and has only got about 20 or so games next to his name. He does break lines, can carry the ball and can penetrate with his kicks. They're a necessity in today's game.

However, he does need to work hard and fine tune his game on his return. And as RR pointed out briefly, needs to find his targets.

Oh but he is competing with the older players. By virtue of the fact that we can only delist so many in any given season. I would think the coaching panel would try to mold a player like Buckley into something more useful than giving an older player another 'go round'. He does possess many qualities that you look for in modern day player. I would rather see Bartram, Johnson, Bell, Newton, Wheatley and Whelan go before him.

Once again it is not a choice with the older players. None of Wheels, Junior, Robbo or Wheatley plays Bucks role. And it wont be a choice because most if not all of those players will be going.

And its not a choice with the others you put forward as Bartram (possibly contracted?), Newton (contracted and a FF) and PJ (a 200cm small man in a big mans body). PJ should go as well.

If the footy department dont believe his decision making and disposal are sub par and not easily corrected then he should go.

Comparing his exploits with those you mentioned is just flat out insulting to Buckley. He has played some pretty good footy for us where as Bode and Weetra gave us nothing.

But there all cheap and borderline players.

I dont think his performances to date are overly noteworthy.

I am working on the assumption that his injury is OP as he has told numerous people. It is an injury that can be managed and allow him to play at a high level. His ability to break lines when healthy shouldnt be ignored in a team of plodders.

The experience with Sylvia, Moloney and Rivers would suggest otherwise. He could easily be out for years with the infliction.

His ability to break lines is useless if he cannot use the ball properly. Its the football departments decision on that.

am quite happy to "manage" our injuries with long convalescences all round

Once again it is not a choice with the older players. None of Wheels, Junior, Robbo or Wheatley plays Bucks role. And it wont be a choice because most if not all of those players will be going.

Wheatley and Buckley are the same height, they both have good pace, they're both penetrating kicks, and both have most recently played off half back. I'm not sure why you don't think they're competing.

Buckley is a gun, won't be delisted.

He's a lot of things - quick, strong, a long kick and creative - but 'gun' isn't one of them.

FWIW, I think we might retain him for a year to see what he can do when he's not cruelled by injury. Pace is a valuable asset in today's game and I think there will be sufficient turnover of the list without dropping Bucks as well. Junior, Wheats, Robbo, Whelan, Bell and perhaps PJ (trade for picks or delist) are ahead of him in the queue.

As a side note, those who say the draft isn't deep are right; there's a whole host of bottom-aged kids ineligible due to Gold Coast's draft concessions. However, this year's draft is far less compromised than the 2010 and 2011 drafts, so expect most clubs to cull their lists hard at the end of 2009, regardless of the draft's perceived depth.

Wheatley and Buckley are the same height, they both have good pace, they're both penetrating kicks, and both have most recently played off half back. I'm not sure why you don't think they're competing.

I dont think the decision on either players future is necessarily dependent on the other.

Neither are best 22. Since returning from injury, Wheatley's performances at VFL level had been so so. I dont expect him to be going around next year or seriously pushing for an AFL spot this year. Bucks opportunity could be cruelled by footy department assessment and if he has lingering OP at year end. Forget it. He's gone.

He's a lot of things - quick, strong, a long kick and creative - but 'gun' isn't one of them.

FWIW, I think we might retain him for a year to see what he can do when he's not cruelled by injury. Pace is a valuable asset in today's game and I think there will be sufficient turnover of the list without dropping Bucks as well. Junior, Wheats, Robbo, Whelan, Bell and perhaps PJ (trade for picks or delist) are ahead of him in the queue.

As a side note, those who say the draft isn't deep are right; there's a whole host of bottom-aged kids ineligible due to Gold Coast's draft concessions. However, this year's draft is far less compromised than the 2010 and 2011 drafts, so expect most clubs to cull their lists hard at the end of 2009, regardless of the draft's perceived depth.

I hear what youre saying however I cant see how clus can cull too much if the replacements in the form of draftees arent available .I would suggest the counter in that there may well be more than a handful of current go-rounders that will get a little extra life simple for the fact they cant be readily swapped out.

Whilst not convinced we wil have entirely what we need after this years delistings and drafting /trading we are in a better position to spring back than anyone bottoming out over the next 5

Buckley is a gun, won't be delisted.

Is he as good as that other gun Valenti?

I dont think the decision on either players future is necessarily dependent on the other.

When there's limited spots on a list it all gets intertwined - especially for like type players.

Is he as good as that other gun Valenti?

When Bailey keeps his word and gives him more games I'll let you know.

I hear what youre saying however I cant see how clus can cull too much if the replacements in the form of draftees arent available .I would suggest the counter in that there may well be more than a handful of current go-rounders that will get a little extra life simple for the fact they cant be readily swapped out.

For teams that believe they're a chance of contending in the next three years, I agree.

But for clubs that are down the bottom and looking to rebuild, I suspect they'll be willing to roll the dice and draft youngsters or recycle players from other clubs. Either way, they're going to cull their lists harder than they might otherwise choose to.

Whilst not convinced we wil have entirely what we need after this years delistings and drafting /trading we are in a better position to spring back than anyone bottoming out over the next 5

I agree. West Coast is the only other side that could be deemed better off, given the presence of A-graders in Kerr, Cox and Glass.

Tom McNamara not on the list? Was a surprise non-starter in the VFL last week, and didn't play today... Heard whispers he was injured, any idea whats wrong there?

I'm quite frustrated at the clubs 'half-arsed' attempts to update injury lists this year. There always seems to be at least one or two players unaccounted for, and in some weeks more. Are the club trying to trick people into believing we have a full squad or what? Is there any reason to keep us in the dark regarding our injuries, considering we are bottom of the ladder? Just doesn't make sense not to list ALL the injuries on a weekly basis.

When Bailey keeps his word and gives him more games I'll let you know.

You already had him previously in front of McLean/Beamer and Jones in your rankings. Surprising.

You already had him previously in front of McLean/Beamer and Jones in your rankings. Surprising.

I had him ahead of Jones, I still do and on current form I have him ahead of McLean but not Moloney.

He has shown as much from ten games with limited game time as just about anyone I've seen.

He is the ideal replacement for McDonald when he moves on at the end of the year.

On what I saw yesterday, Wheatley is a definite delist.

As for Buckley, I don't know where he would fit into our side.

Let's assume for a minute that he makes a full recovery, and his speed is not hampered by the injury. Lets also assume that by some miracle he learns to kick. He is still going to be competing with the likes of Bennell, Grimes and Strauss for a position, possibly even Bail. All four are better players defensively and the first three mentioned are much much better offensively. Add Blease and Scully (yes, I went there ) as finishers, plus Sylvia and Davey now playing as midfielders, and there is little room for him anyway.

Whoever it was that called him a gun needs to step back and look at what he has delivered at the top level. It's easy to get sucked in by his foot speed, but that does not cover his many other deficiencies including disposal, decision making and accountability.

At best I'd delist him and maybe pick him up as a rookie.

Blease's status should be known with a lot more certainty by now. I know it was a particularly bad break in that it was very close to the ankle joint, but you would have expected him to have resumed training by now. Not that I particularly want to see him up and going as a year off at this point of his young career when he is still at school is not such a bad thing; it is just that I think the club should actually tell us what is going on with him.

I think you'll find that the club tried to put a more positive spin on Bleases ankle fracture than is actually the case. The most unstable or worst isolated fibular fracture (ie no other bone involved) that he could have sustained from the mechanism of injury described in the papers would result in about 6 weeks (maximum 8) of immobilization after fixation with a metal plate (if all went to plan). That would have had Blease back into training by the end of June and with a couple of months of footy remaining. For the club to come straight out and say that his seaon is over most likely means the fracture involved the tibia as well. This by no means implies worse consequences for the future, but rather that a longer period of recovery is required.

I had him ahead of Jones, I still do and on current form I have him ahead of McLean but not Moloney.

He has shown as much from ten games with limited game time as just about anyone I've seen.

He is the ideal replacement for McDonald when he moves on at the end of the year.

You are kidding me?

You are kidding me?

Sadly he kids you not.

I had him ahead of Jones, I still do and on current form I have him ahead of McLean but not Moloney.

He has shown as much from ten games with limited game time as just about anyone I've seen.

He is the ideal replacement for McDonald when he moves on at the end of the year.

I dont think Valenti will make it