Jump to content

Jesse Hogan Injury Update?

Featured Replies

This is the trade I really wish didn't happen.

Was against it at the time and am livid now.

Wines and Grundy, along with Toumpas and Viney- would have been a much better result for the 2013 season surely, might have even saved Neeld's job.

And in 2014, the next big thing, the reason why we chose not to draft Wines and Grundy: appears to be out of action for the season and is also extremely reluctant on signing any contract extensions.

It was a colossal gamble at a time where gambles of that nature weren't overly favourable, as an MFC member and supporter I really hope it does pay off but I just can't see it happening.

 

Hogan's back in Melbourne this weekend. Do you think the club can get him up and running within 3 months?

I have absolutely no idea, nor I suspect do you

 

Wines and Grundy, along with Toumpas and Viney- would have been a much better result for the 2013 season surely, might have even saved Neeld's job.

That on its own is all the reason i need to know we made the right choice.


This is the trade I really wish didn't happen.

Was against it at the time and am livid now.

Wines and Grundy, along with Toumpas and Viney- would have been a much better result for the 2013 season surely, might have even saved Neeld's job.

And in 2014, the next big thing, the reason why we chose not to draft Wines and Grundy: appears to be out of action for the season and is also extremely reluctant on signing any contract extensions.

It was a colossal gamble at a time where gambles of that nature weren't overly favourable, as an MFC member and supporter I really hope it does pay off but I just can't see it happening.

Careful Carlos the "give it a rest" posters will be after u!

I'm struggling to find where in that thread that you warned us that he'd suffer a season threatening back injury in his first season on the senior list.

Were you expecting Nostradamus predictions of back injures? Dates and times too?

Giving up top picks "ready-to-go in 2013 (and beyond)" for a "highly risky prospect in 2014" is what I was obviously against.

Were you expecting Nostradamus predictions of back injures? Dates and times too?

Giving up top picks "ready-to-go in 2013 (and beyond)" for a "highly risky prospect in 2014" is what I was obviously against.

you warned us that Mitch Clark was feeling a bit blue also didn't you

 

Back on topic re his injury can I again remind everyone that a young Nick Riewoldt injured his knee pre season in his first year. He debuted in round 16 and played 6 games of the remaining 8 in his debut season. If his back comes good and he can get some games and experience under his belt I would hope that he is not put out to pasture this year. Oh and Riewoldt was constantly linked to a return to Qld which never happened so lets give the kid a chance

Wines and Grundy, along with Toumpas and Viney- would have been a much better result for the 2013 season

You're labouring under a serious delusion.

It's an impossibility that we could have had those 4 in the same draft. Yet alone then trading pick 20 (or similar) for Chris Dawes. Been thrashed out here before, but you seem to be one of the few who still doesn't get it.

Under your scenario, our original picks 3, 4 and 14 might have got us Viney, Wines or Toumpas and then Grundy … but then pick 26 was never going to be enough to get us Dawes. We could have used pick 26 on … I don't know, how about the player who went one pick before our 26, at pick 25 - Spencer White, KPF. Name ring a bell? Taken by St Kilda. Yet to play a game. Or pick 27? James Stewart. One match last year for GWS, 2 disposals.

So, in the real world, instead of:

Viney, Toumpas, Hogan, Dawes plus Dom Barry

we could have had

Viney, Toumpas, Grundy …. then … someone else.


Were you expecting Nostradamus predictions of back injures? Dates and times too?

Giving up top picks "ready-to-go in 2013 (and beyond)" for a "highly risky prospect in 2014" is what I was obviously against.

FMD please tell me again how good and injury free was Nick Reiwoldt in his first year, Dangerfield, Goodes, Hanneberry and more recently Talia.

I think you lost credibility when you mentioned "Neeld could have kept his job"

By the way have you actually seen Hogan play live

Were you expecting Nostradamus predictions of back injures? Dates and times too?

Giving up top picks "ready-to-go in 2013 (and beyond)" for a "highly risky prospect in 2014" is what I was obviously against.

This is the trade I really wish didn't happen.

Was against it at the time and am livid now.

Wines and Grundy, along with Toumpas and Viney- would have been a much better result for the 2013 season surely, might have even saved Neeld's job.

And in 2014, the next big thing, the reason why we chose not to draft Wines and Grundy: appears to be out of action for the season and is also extremely reluctant on signing any contract extensions.

It was a colossal gamble at a time where gambles of that nature weren't overly favourable, as an MFC member and supporter I really hope it does pay off but I just can't see it happening.

Have you not seen the flaw in your argument ??

You have just picked up names that you would like to have drafted in hindsight - like Wines.

Please show me anywhere - any commentator, expert, talent spotter who rated Wines higher than O'Rourke and Plowman. On ratings alone one of these two would have been drafted by us with pick 3 before Wines. And so the question is - have either of these two set the world on fire ?

As to pick 13 given up - Lonergan, Corr, Garner, Thurlow and Simpson went before Grundy - if we had picked up one these and not Grundy ? What would your view been.

It never ceases to amaze how everyone becomes experts AFTER the draft, two years down the track.

On Jesse Hogans extension - I get antsy when a player comes into his last season with no contract extension. Hogan is not in his last season and he hasn't played a game yet !

Edit - I have no problem with the opinion that it is a risk taking a 17 year old - one year less development than other TAC footballers - I have problems with rewriting how history may have turned out differently and inserting footballers we may have got but in all likelyhood and on existing ratings at the time would not have taken.

You're labouring under a serious delusion.

It's an impossibility that we could have had those 4 in the same draft. Yet alone then trading pick 20 (or similar) for Chris Dawes. Been thrashed out here before, but you seem to be one of the few who still doesn't get it.

Under your scenario, our original picks 3, 4 and 14 might have got us Viney, Wines or Toumpas and then Grundy … but then pick 26 was never going to be enough to get us Dawes. We could have used pick 26 on … I don't know, how about the player who went one pick before our 26, at pick 25 - Spencer White, KPF. Name ring a bell? Taken by St Kilda. Yet to play a game. Or pick 27? James Stewart. One match last year for GWS, 2 disposals.

So, in the real world, instead of:

Viney, Toumpas, Hogan, Dawes plus Dom Barry

we could have had

Viney, Toumpas, Grundy …. then … someone else.

the thing is i reckon not bidding on Viney and Jimmy Toumpas slipping to 4 were the handshake deals that lead to us paying what looked like overs for Hogan at the time

we had to include pick 13 to get pick 20 back as pick 13 was probably too much for Dawes

And I will throw this spanner in the works - we were playing a game of chicken with GC and GWS over the Viney bidding.

They could have made us use Pick 3 on him. Our involvement in the Hogan deal allowed us to use Pick 26.

And to those who still say that 'he wasn't top 3 in that draft class' - it doesn't matter.

The entire footy world knew we were taking him wherever - GC or GWS could have forced our hand, they didn't because of the deal we made with them for Hogan.


And I will throw this spanner in the works - we were playing a game of chicken with GC and GWS over the Viney bidding.

They could have made us use Pick 3 on him. Our involvement in the Hogan deal allowed us to use Pick 26.

And to those who still say that 'he wasn't top 3 in that draft class' - it doesn't matter.

The entire footy world knew we were taking him wherever - GC or GWS could have forced our hand, they didn't because of the deal we made with them for Hogan.

Unofficially. Otherwise could be seen as draft tampering, which we would never do.

And I will throw this spanner in the works - we were playing a game of chicken with GC and GWS over the Viney bidding.

They could have made us use Pick 3 on him. Our involvement in the Hogan deal allowed us to use Pick 26.

And to those who still say that 'he wasn't top 3 in that draft class' - it doesn't matter.

The entire footy world knew we were taking him wherever - GC or GWS could have forced our hand, they didn't because of the deal we made with them for Hogan.

We're going back a couple of years now RP, so my memory isn't my greatest friend, but can you remind me in what way the GC were involved in either the deal that saw us get Hogan, or any other deal/sweetener between the MFC and GC that meant they wouldn't force us to take Viney with 3?

We're going back a couple of years now RP, so my memory isn't my greatest friend, but can you remind me in what way the GC were involved in either the deal that saw us get Hogan, or any other deal/sweetener between the MFC and GC that meant they wouldn't force us to take Viney with 3?

They got Martin in the same Mini-draft that we got Hogan. With the Pick 2 that they didn't bid for Viney with.

Grundy will be one of the dominant Rucknan in the comp for the next 10 years


They got Martin in the same Mini-draft that we got Hogan. With the Pick 2 that they didn't bid for Viney with.

So, they had to decide to potentially take Viney at pick 2, force our hand to take Viney at pick 3 then still trade their pick 2 for Martin, or just choose to cut out any crap and just trade pick 2 directly to GWS. Is it possible they asked themselves who they preferred most - Viney or Martin?

I know you have your theory, and I will never change your view on that. And it'll be another thing that you and I disagree on that neither of us will ever have proof that one is right and the other wrong.

Grundy will be one of the dominant Rucknan in the comp for the next 10 years

On what basis?

I'm not discounting the possibility, but other than size, second effort and aggression (oft-misplaced) what does he bring to the table? He can't take a mark, doesn't have a football brain and gives away too many unnecessary free kicks. As I've stated in other posts, he is statistically the worst first ruckman in the competition, so please enlighten as to what he brings to the table?

So, they had to decide to potentially take Viney at pick 2, force our hand to take Viney at pick 3 then still trade their pick 2 for Martin, or just choose to cut out any crap and just trade pick 2 directly to GWS. Is it possible they asked themselves who they preferred most - Viney or Martin?

I know you have your theory, and I will never change your view on that. And it'll be another thing that you and I disagree on that neither of us will ever have proof that one is right and the other wrong.

You were the one having a go at me for having this view in the days leading up that event weren't you?

As soon as that Mini-Draft process began - the deal was done. Which means it was pre-agreed. And considering that if GC forced us to use Pick 3 GWS would not have got it, I find it entirely plausible that GWS told GC to not bid for Viney for it would either cost them Pick 3 from us or cost their deal for Martin with Pick 2.

You won't find people saying this was how it played out but clubs don't give other clubs an even break - without dealing for Hogan I am sure that the two clubs below us who have nothing to lose by bidding for Viney - would have bidded for Viney.

 

Ruckman usually take 5-6 years to perform consistantly and develop physically, he walked in and is ready to go, great physical attributes, good around the ground and is only going to get better, to write him off after already locking down a spot in the pies side who look close to top 4 within one year shows he is doing something right

Grundy will be one of the dominant Rucknan in the comp for the next 10 years

they said that about kreuzer after he had a couple of good games.

all players are a waiting game until theyve played 70 games.


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Featured Content

  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

    • 0 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Clap
      • Love
      • Like
    • 222 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Like
    • 47 replies