10 untouchables

[Trisul 664]

Warnock

Garland

Frawley

Grimes

Morton

Davey

Sylvia

Wona

Jurrah

Watts

[jacey 333]

Rivers and Warnock are both born in 1984 so age isn't really a consideration IMO.

I'm also not sure that Rivers has much more of an attacking side to his game than Warnock and I also don't think Jared can play the same or similar role to Warnock.

Maybe Rivers just needs to get back to something approaching full fitness, but I think Warnock's a better player atm.

That's it in a nutshell. Rivers can't play the same role as Warnock as he isn't strong and fast enough to stay with strong KPP.

Riv's attacking game isn't much better then Warnock's.

Garland

Frawley

Warnock

Morton

Watts

Jurrah

Grimes

Mclean

Bate

Wonaemirri

[Carlos Danger 380]

- Jack Grimes

- Aaron Davey

- Liam Jurrah

- Matthew Bate

- Colin Garland

- Brock McLean

- Nathan Jones

- Stefan Martin

- Jack Watts

- Cale Morton

[jabberwocky 2,301]

There are no real untouchables except maybe Grimes and Watts. In reality these are the only 2 we wouldn't swap a number 1 pick for.

In some sort of order

Jack Grimes

Colin Sylvia

Nathan Jones (under-rated and a big part of our future)

Aaron Davey

Liam Jurrah

Colin Garland

Matthew Warnock

James Frawley

Jamie Bennell

Jack Watts

[Geddy Lee 582]

Can't believe people rate Petterd and Bate higher than Warnock!

[Hannabal 4]

My top 10 'untouchables'. Bearing in mind that we hold pick 1, and won't give it up, it's reasonable to refer to them as 'untouchables' .

In particular order:

1. Watts

2. Morton

3. Grimes

4. Frawley

5. Blease

6. Sylvia

7. Jurrah

8. Garland

9. Strauss

10. Bennell

My top six are all first round draft picks. History tells me that first rounders are the key to building a premiership side. I've seen enough of Blease and Strauss to firmly believe that they'll be key components of our next premiership tilt.

Jurrah is the equivalent of a first rounder on talent alone.

Garland is the prototype attacking backman that can play on talls and smalls. Premiership teams always have strong backlines. He and Frawley provide solid structure to any defensive set-up.

I've put Bennell in on a hunch. His pace, skills, attacking nature should hold him in good stead. With physical development his upside is enormous. He was line-ball with a couple of others for my pick 10.

As you can see, my top 10 is very youth oriented, but our class is our youth. Our class is a first round draft picks. Just about every one of those players is an exceptional kick also. With Scully and Trengove it provides a strong core dozen players that can surge to flag contention in the years 2013 onwards.

I think it's different to every other top 10, which comforts me.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Hannibal

[Jaded No More 68,858]

My top 10 'untouchables'. Bearing in mind that we hold pick 1, and won't give it up, it's reasonable to refer to them as 'untouchables' .

In particular order:

1. Watts

2. Morton

3. Grimes

4. Frawley

5. Blease

6. Sylvia

7. Jurrah

8. Garland

9. Strauss

10. Bennell

The perfect list.

I would have exactly those players in exactly that order, with the small exception of I'd take out Sylvia, move everyone up one and chuck in Davey at 10.

[Gooner 9]

Watts

Morton

Grimes

Garland

Jurrah

McLean

Sylvia

Frawley

Strauss/Blease

Jones

[Hannabal 4]

The perfect list.

I would have exactly those players in exactly that order, with the small exception of I'd take out Sylvia, move everyone up one and chuck in Davey at 10.

I prefer to argue, so I will.

I'd prefer Sylvia in a Final than Davey due to his physicality. Finals matches go up in tempo and I'm yet to see Davey stand up in a big game. And as you can see by my sig, it's all about Finals intensity that defines a player. And yes, Sylvia is also an unknown quantity in Finals, but he's shown enough this year that he could be the type of strong finisher that Finals teams need.

Plus, given the window of opportunity that I'm forecasting for a tilt at a flag is 2013 onwards, Sylvia's age becomes significant. In 2013 Davey will be 29 and Sylvia 27. Yes Davey will still have pace, but I rate Sylvia's capacity to influence a Final greater than Davey's. Especially when the latter may well be 30+ by the time we get there.

I win.

[Jaded No More 68,858]

I win.

I just had flashbacks to grade 5

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said, but two things work against Sylvia, one is his body and the fact that he is injury prone. The second, is that mentally he is still not 100%. It wouldn't surprise me if he lost his [censored] a week out of the finals and got suspended for 3 weeks, or was found doing something silly during the season. I want to believe that he is beyond that stuff, but to be honest there is really not enough evidence to suggest that he is. TJ had a couple of brilliant seasons too...

Also it is harsh to judge Davey's ability to play finals, when he hasn't played those in 3 seasons. He is a lot more mature now, plays a completely different game and IMO could be the x-factor that we need during finals.

And if we're talking about untouchables in general, trading Davey would be a marketing disaster for the MFC.

[Gooner 9]

There's also the issue that whilst Davey has improved his kicking, he's now 26 and probably hit the peak of his career.

He showed he's a great kick, but struggled with a tag.

Sylvia is a little more injury prone, but he's really come on this year with a full season.

[godees 858]

We Have lived on the Bottom of the Ladder for three years.

To me that says nobody on our list is untouchable, because i doubt any of our players AT THIS Moment would make the 22 of a TOP SIDE.

The next three weeks are critical to our ongoing list.

Twisted logic

I hate it when people say this because it is absolute bull. Aaron Davey would be one of the first players selected in every club in the league. Bruce, Sylvia, Green, Rivers and Garland would all get a game at EVERY side (they just wouldn't have as crucial a role), and several more would get a game at every club except the saints.

Plus every team would want grimes, morton, frawley, jurrah, morton, petterd, watts etc on their list. We have a lot of players who are developing and have shown very good signs, who it would be a disaster to lose = untouchable.

And just because we on the bottom of the ladder, doesn't mean ALL of our players are rubbish, it just means we have more rubbish players, less good ones, and even fewer awesome ones.

[godees 858]

My my, how quickly people forget!

Garland >>> Frawley

....and that is by no means a reflection on how i rate Frawley (who i am very pleased with). The only way this isn't true is if Garland isn't able to recover fully from his stress fractures.

Oh, and Rivers > Warnock IMO. But it's all semantics...we have a really good set of tall defenders. Just need the rest of the team to catch up!

[Hannabal 4]

I just had flashbacks to grade 5

Or Parliament House.

It's my list, it's the correct list and Sylvia stays.

[Guest]

Jurrah

Grimes

Watts

Morton

Petterd

Frawley

Garland

Warnock

Davey

Sylvia

[titan_uranus 24,970]

In other news, Richmond trails Collingwood by 70 at half time. Do Richmond have 10 untouchables? Cotchin. That's it.

[Jaded No More 68,858]

It's my list, it's the correct list and Sylvia stays.

Thrilling discussion that was!

[Rogue 585]

In other news, Richmond trails Collingwood by 70 at half time. Do Richmond have 10 untouchables? Cotchin. That's it.

I reckon there's more than 10 at Richmond that you just couldn't touch - does that count?

[Sir Why You Little 36,958]

Twisted logic

I hate it when people say this because it is absolute bull. Aaron Davey would be one of the first players selected in every club in the league. Bruce, Sylvia, Green, Rivers and Garland would all get a game at EVERY side (they just wouldn't have as crucial a role), and several more would get a game at every club except the saints.

Plus every team would want grimes, morton, frawley, jurrah, morton, petterd, watts etc on their list. We have a lot of players who are developing and have shown very good signs, who it would be a disaster to lose = untouchable.

And just because we on the bottom of the ladder, doesn't mean ALL of our players are rubbish, it just means we have more rubbish players, less good ones, and even fewer awesome ones.

You are Joking!! Haha. Watch the St.Kilda Geelong game from earlier this year.

None of our list is ready for that pressure. Cam Bruce's kicks are way too eratic to be an automatic selection for any side.

Once again remove the Rose Coloured Glasses.

Your logic is the reason we have accepted mediocraty for close on 50 years.

We have wonn 11 Games in 3 years.....

[45HG 1,539]

Brad Green just called to say hi to you all, he's sitting with Jack Grimes.

[Jaded No More 68,858]

Brad Green just called to say hi to you all, he's sitting with Jack Grimes.

Tell him that as much as we love him, for a good trade he'll be out the door.

At his age, Green may not be part of our next premiership (or will be in serious decline by then) and if we could get a first round pick for him, especially a top 10 pick (not saying we could), I doubt we wouldn't trade him.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

There might be valid concerns about his disposal, pace and where he's going to find his niche.

Might, being the operative word. As far as I can see he's one of our better disposers... There's certainly no more concern with him than with any of the other youngies, like Morton. Pace, perhaps depending on what position he'll be playing. As far as I'm concerned the only REALLY valid cause for concern is the niche problem. The more I think about it, the more I think it's the biggest threat to his long-term career.

[45HG 1,539]

Brad Green called me to tell Jaded that's she's been smoking something chronic and that no team would trade a top 10 pick for a 30 year old.

Furthermore, he is an invaluable player on our list as he is our only true senior leader.

[Rogue 585]

Might, being the operative word. As far as I can see he's one of our better disposers...

I certainly don't think he's one of our best users of the footy, but each to his own.

Pace, perhaps depending on what position he'll be playing. As far as I'm concerned the only REALLY valid cause for concern is the niche problem. The more I think about it, the more I think it's the biggest threat to his long-term career.

It's odd that you assert that pace might be an issue for him depending on what position he'll play but then claim that it's not really a valid cause for concern, while going on to say the only valid concern is finding a position for him!

If you think that his pace limits the roles he can fill and that the valid cause for concern is finding a role for him then surely it is a valid concern *shrug

[Jaded No More 68,858]

Brad Green called me to tell Jaded that's she's been smoking something chronic and that no team would trade a top 10 pick for a 30 year old.

Which doesn't mean he is untouchable, just means that he's not all that good and is therefore not untouchable (most players being rated as untouchable would command a top 10 pick, and even then the club will probably not take that deal).

If we had the opportunity to trade Green and pick 18 for pick 10, IMO we'd do it.

As much as I love Brad Green, if he doesn't become captain, he will never be an untouchable because we can win a flag without him, and realistically probably will anyway.