On 27/06/2015 at 20:41, thevil1 said:

To those who say most supporters wouldn't care if he left, you couldn't be more wrong in my case so don't speak on my behalf you idiots, a shittie pick in the mid 20's for a bloke our premiership couch considers a walk up best 22 player is not going to cut it for me, this is nothing like getting a Brayshaw for Frawley.

I am one of those supporters who 'wouldn't care' if he left.

For me it's a really simple equation: What are our list needs?

Let's look at our backline. Would it be fair to say and would posters agree that we've had a number of defenders at 190cm + who's strengths are one-on-one defending?

T-Mac, Dunn, Garland, Frawley, Frost. Of course Frawley is now gone as Dunn and McDonald have proven that they are just as capable in on-on-one defending. Posters were crying out at the thought of losing a 'one time AA defender' claiming that the team would 'suffer' from his loss. I'm sure they've changed their tune.

What has Garland offered in years previous that we haven't had? Versatility as a defender. He's been able to play tall and small and that was his value to the side. Frawley and McDonald taking the talls and Garland taking either the dangerous small or if the opposition went tall in their forwardline he'd take the third tall.

With the acquisition of Frost, (a key position player who is extremely competitive on-on-one with unbelievable pace and agility and a player the club see as a long term defender) and a newly found position for Jetta, (who is now playing on the dangerous smalls every week and more often than not coming out on top) I ask this:

What does Garland offer the backline that isn't already being offered? Not a whole lot is the way I see it.

The versatility argument is now non-existent as we have coverage for extra talls or dangerous smalls. What our backline needs most is another defender with elite kicking skills. Our scores against for turnovers and our inability to move the ball efficiently and effectively from the backline to forward-line (as well as having a poor midfield) are two hugely significant reasons why our on-field performances have been indeed comical at times.

Now if Garland leaving via FA nets us a second round pick, I'm not sure why 'thevil1', you think that the only option we'd have is to go to the draft with it. You do understand how trading works don't you?

If the recent trading, recruiting and developing of our club hasn't inspired some sort of confidence that we'd be netting 'something or someone' who will offer something more than what Garland offers our club then you're turning a blind eye. The same shite was being written about the potential loss of Frawley and Sylvia at the time and look how they both turned out.

Garland is similar in that he doesn't have the skills our backline needs and we have coverage for the skills that he does offer. He doesn't have any real leadership qualities that scream for continued change at the club and like Frawley and Sylvia before him, he's not someone who has the capacity to inspire change.

Supporters need to start recognising the importance of list regeneration at our club. We are completely unique in that we've had so many sub-par senior players playing terribly inconsistent footy for so long. We're trying to change the face of our club and that means letting go of some of the guys who have been NQR's for years now.

Open your eyes to what's outside the box.

We're in good hands!

  On 27/06/2015 at 10:56, Nasher said:

A second round draft pick or the like is what we're looking at. We got KOTD by turning Sylvia in to Vince and that was shrewd work by the club, but it could have just as easily turned to poo. It would almost never be my preferred option to lose a versatile, experienced, clear best 22 player for a draft pick in the second round.

I'd also be really disappointed to see Garland go on a personal level.

Many seem to share this view as though it's the only outcome. I can't understand it.

Who says, (even if we did obtain a second-rounder) that we'd be going to the draft with it?

It would give us a much higher chance of being able to trade for something great if bundled together with another player/pick.

Here's a hypothetical. What if it netted us someone like Yarran?

Frost takes Garland's place and would perform just as well and we add to our backline with running ability and elite kicking skills.

I have no hesitation in saying that I believe Roos and co would easily be able to get Yarran playing at his best in a new environment. And his best offers the team a lot more than what Garland's best does. Especially when we have a bloke who can slot straight in and take his spot in Frost.

A player like that ticks all the boxes in terms of what our team needs. And that is what this is about. Not keeping a player based on emotional attachment.

You make some good points in your two posts immediately above Steve. Thanks.

I would add however, that Garlo's versatility does extend beyond the defensive half, although I acknowledge, that his moves forward are more likely to be 'stop gap' measures. He is more likely to be a reliable 'role player' than a 'weapon'.

I don't rate Garland. He has ok skills and is a decent kick, but I believe we look a much better team without him playing.

One of our biggest issues is our lack of drive off half back. Whenever there is a bit of momentum coming off half back and the ball lands in his hands, the whole game grinds to a halt. Many of our younger players turn quickly and look to move it on. Lumumba also does this (albeit, not particularly well at times), but Garland just seems to freeze, letting the opposition reorganise. It's very frustrating, especially when we start to lose our sting and begin to turn it over. This might have something to do with the "mental scarring" or however Roos wants to label it, but I think Frost or someone with a similar skill set who looks to take the game on is a better option for the team structure.

I wouldn't be disappointed if we looked to trade out. Hopefully we can nab a high second rounder.

  On 13/03/2015 at 03:25, Nasher said:

I know it's not popular to talk delistings before the season has begun, but for mine the 5 most vulnerable players on our list at this stage are Trengove, McKenzie, Fitzpatrick, Hunt and Riley.

Cross retiring (I'm not expecting this) or Jamar's end coming sooner rather than later (not expecting this either) might save someone.

I expect Gawn, Toumpas, Salem, JKH and Garland to re-sign. Howe should also belong in this group, but alas, there's the "delayed talks" thing. Pedersen and Bail decisions may come down to how many players we intend to trade in or take as free agents, but I expect they will also remain on the list.

No two-year contracted players to be delisted this year.

Will be interested to look back on this at the end of the year and see how far off the mark I was and/or how my opinion evolves over the year.

Jamar will walk at season's end.

  On 27/06/2015 at 14:19, Akum said:

From someone whose opinion is likely to carry considerably more weight:

"Colin Garland: Col’s been super consistent and arguably our most consistent player. He’s done a role every single week,

That's why Roos loves him...

  On 28/06/2015 at 01:08, jnrmac said:

Jamar will walk at season's end.

Can't imagine who'd pick him up.

I'd much rather be accept that he is now far too slow & ineffective outside stoppages, rather than he suffer the indignity of shopping himself desperately & unsuccessfully...

  On 28/06/2015 at 01:17, Machsy said:

Can't imagine who'd pick him up.

I'd much rather be accept that he is now far too slow & ineffective outside stoppages, rather than he suffer the indignity of shopping himself desperately & unsuccessfully...

It would be a shame to see him leave in that manner. I see him as a player who has carried himself with dignity, even when his closest mates at the club didn't.

That said, Bulldogs probably said that about Crossy.

  On 27/06/2015 at 23:55, stevethemanjordan said:

I am one of those supporters who 'wouldn't care' if he left.

For me it's a really simple equation: What are our list needs?

Let's look at our backline. Would it be fair to say and would posters agree that we've had a number of defenders at 190cm + who's strengths are one-on-one defending?

T-Mac, Dunn, Garland, Frawley, Frost. Of course Frawley is now gone as Dunn and McDonald have proven that they are just as capable in on-on-one defending. Posters were crying out at the thought of losing a 'one time AA defender' claiming that the team would 'suffer' from his loss. I'm sure they've changed their tune.

What has Garland offered in years previous that we haven't had? Versatility as a defender. He's been able to play tall and small and that was his value to the side. Frawley and McDonald taking the talls and Garland taking either the dangerous small or if the opposition went tall in their forwardline he'd take the third tall.

With the acquisition of Frost, (a key position player who is extremely competitive on-on-one with unbelievable pace and agility and a player the club see as a long term defender) and a newly found position for Jetta, (who is now playing on the dangerous smalls every week and more often than not coming out on top) I ask this:

What does Garland offer the backline that isn't already being offered? Not a whole lot is the way I see it.

The versatility argument is now non-existent as we have coverage for extra talls or dangerous smalls. What our backline needs most is another defender with elite kicking skills. Our scores against for turnovers and our inability to move the ball efficiently and effectively from the backline to forward-line (as well as having a poor midfield) are two hugely significant reasons why our on-field performances have been indeed comical at times.

Now if Garland leaving via FA nets us a second round pick, I'm not sure why 'thevil1', you think that the only option we'd have is to go to the draft with it. You do understand how trading works don't you?

If the recent trading, recruiting and developing of our club hasn't inspired some sort of confidence that we'd be netting 'something or someone' who will offer something more than what Garland offers our club then you're turning a blind eye. The same shite was being written about the potential loss of Frawley and Sylvia at the time and look how they both turned out.

Garland is similar in that he doesn't have the skills our backline needs and we have coverage for the skills that he does offer. He doesn't have any real leadership qualities that scream for continued change at the club and like Frawley and Sylvia before him, he's not someone who has the capacity to inspire change.

Supporters need to look start recognising the importance of list regeneration at our club. We are completely unique in that we've had so many sub-par senior players playing terribly inconsistent footy for so long. We're trying to change the face of our club and that means letting go of some of the guys who have been NQR's for years now.

Open your eyes to what's outside the box.

We're in good hands!

He's probably depth if Frost comes on, but we don't know if Frost will. I guess it's a case of durability too.

  On 28/06/2015 at 00:20, stevethemanjordan said:

Many seem to share this view as though it's the only outcome. I can't understand it.

Who says, (even if we did obtain a second-rounder) that we'd be going to the draft with it?

It would give us a much higher chance of being able to trade for something great if bundled together with another player/pick.

Here's a hypothetical. What if it netted us someone like Yarran?

Frost takes Garland's place and would perform just as well and we add to our backline with running ability and elite kicking skills.

I have no hesitation in saying that I believe Roos and co would easily be able to get Yarran playing at his best in a new environment. And his best offers the team a lot more than what Garland's best does. Especially when we have a bloke who can slot straight in and take his spot in Frost.

A player like that ticks all the boxes in terms of what our team needs. And that is what this is about. Not keeping a player based on emotional attachment.

We already have a second round pick available to use to do this trade if that's what we want to get done, so either way dumping Garland still only grants us use of a second pick - either the one we get or the one we already had. We've proved over the last few years that we can improve our side without needing to give up best 22 players who want to stay, so let's do that again. I don't share your view that he is expendable, if that were the case he'd be at Casey more often than he is (ie never). If our team didn't need Garland he wouldn't be such a feature in the side.

I'd be honestly stunned if the club dumps Garland. The only way I can see him going is if he doesn't want to stay.

The term depth player is being thrown around a fair bit. Many could argue a case that Dawes could be depth for Pedo, Garland depth for Frost on top of Grimes who is not best 22. Allowing that their respective contracts aren't front loaded we could be looking at 1.5 million worth of depth. I could think of a number of players I would like to target for a 4-5 year contract worth 800k a year starting with Luke Parker.

Garland will walk for more $50s and less i50s if they're on offer - the poor guy looks semi-perma shell-shocked and who could possibly blame him? And we'll let him do so if it means some flexible trade currency through an additional second-rounder. It's been speculated that he's in our current upper-tier cap-bracket - is he in our top eleven players going forward? Would he be happy with the potential pay-cut?

And before anyone chimes in, please note that I’m not basing this assessment on Colin’s general mien, which has admittedly changed little since his arrival. For all I know, Addam Maric was the happiest he’s ever been while at the Dees, and I’d be perfectly content if Hoges never once got caught in public cracking a smile. But it’s meaningless to discuss Garland’s relative merits without reference to a bottom-dollar framework, and if we want to keep Col at the club we must pay at least what others are willing to do so while also factoring in that the equivalent of his likely compo bought us a Frost last year for probably a lot less coin. The current admin has clear form on the matter of free agency and contract fishing; expect Colin to be low-balled by us and amicably walk in favour of ‘greener’ pastures in a win for all parties.

If we win 8 games or more, we are heading upwards. Col will sign and be a part of our MFC future. He will sign on for 3 years at $400k a year.

  On 28/06/2015 at 00:47, AllMyTeamsAreWank said:

I don't rate Garland. He has ok skills and is a decent kick, but I believe we look a much better team without him playing.

One of our biggest issues is our lack of drive off half back. Whenever there is a bit of momentum coming off half back and the ball lands in his hands, the whole game grinds to a halt. Many of our younger players turn quickly and look to move it on. Lumumba also does this (albeit, not particularly well at times), but Garland just seems to freeze, letting the opposition reorganise. It's very frustrating, especially when we start to lose our sting and begin to turn it over. This might have something to do with the "mental scarring" or however Roos wants to label it, but I think Frost or someone with a similar skill set who looks to take the game on is a better option for the team structure.

I wouldn't be disappointed if we looked to trade out. Hopefully we can nab a high second rounder.

In terms of Garland, I completely agree with you 100% and have done for years!

  On 28/06/2015 at 00:20, stevethemanjordan said:

Many seem to share this view as though it's the only outcome. I can't understand it.

Who says, (even if we did obtain a second-rounder) that we'd be going to the draft with it?

It would give us a much higher chance of being able to trade for something great if bundled together with another player/pick.

Here's a hypothetical. What if it netted us someone like Yarran?

Frost takes Garland's place and would perform just as well and we add to our backline with running ability and elite kicking skills.

I have no hesitation in saying that I believe Roos and co would easily be able to get Yarran playing at his best in a new environment. And his best offers the team a lot more than what Garland's best does. Especially when we have a bloke who can slot straight in and take his spot in Frost.

A player like that ticks all the boxes in terms of what our team needs. And that is what this is about. Not keeping a player based on emotional attachment.

I completely agree with your opinions and appreciate your honest summary of Garlands importance to the team. Completely replacable...

  On 28/06/2015 at 12:00, spirit of norm smith said:

If we win 8 games or more, we are heading upwards. Col will sign and be a part of our MFC future. He will sign on for 3 years at $400k a year.

But is it time to let Garland go and move on...he wont be that good at another club.?

  On 28/06/2015 at 10:47, Skuit said:

And before anyone chimes in, please note that I’m not basing this assessment on Colin’s general mien, which has admittedly changed little since his arrival. For all I know, Addam Maric was the happiest he’s ever been while at the Dees, and I’d be perfectly content if Hoges never once got caught in public cracking a smile. But it’s meaningless to discuss Garland’s relative merits without reference to a bottom-dollar framework, and if we want to keep Col at the club we must pay at least what others are willing to do so while also factoring in that the equivalent of his likely compo bought us a Frost last year for probably a lot less coin. The current admin has clear form on the matter of free agency and contract fishing; expect Colin to be low-balled by us and amicably walk in favour of ‘greener’ pastures in a win for all parties.

your logic is quite logical

  On 28/06/2015 at 01:11, jnrmac said:

That's why Roos loves him...

Garland must be in the 'mentally scarred' he was rambling on about though

How about this logic - build a list by keeping your better and most consistent players and discard those not up to it and who haven't performed regularly and who don't want to be at the club.

That is Roos' guiding star - not some half baked idea of 'value with FA' or tea-leave abusing 'moving on from 'mentally scarred' players' meme that has cropped up with every player who is down for a few weeks.

Rivers, Frawley, fit Mitch, Moloney and Sylvia were our better and/or most consistent players - at least all first 22. My argument is that Garland wont want to be at the club for the dosh he'll be offered and may or may not deserve. And besides, the argument of consistency is rather ambiguous. McKenzie is certainly consistent.

  On 28/06/2015 at 12:38, Je Roos Salem said:

Garland must be in the 'mentally scarred' he was rambling on about though

Excuse or not, Roosy must have at least been referring to someone or someones on the list to have so blatantly brought that up in public, and it's safe then to presume he actually believes it whether intended as a forewarning or challenge. Some simple deduction and process of elimination suggests only a handful left of the older heads who've copped consistent drubbings and not since lifted their game as potential candidates: Garland, Grimes, Jamar, Trengove, McKenzie and maybe Howe. Get used to most of those guys not being here next year.

  On 28/06/2015 at 04:54, Nasher said:

We already have a second round pick available to use to do this trade if that's what we want to get done, so either way dumping Garland still only grants us use of a second pick - either the one we get or the one we already had. We've proved over the last few years that we can improve our side without needing to give up best 22 players who want to stay, so let's do that again. I don't share your view that he is expendable, if that were the case he'd be at Casey more often than he is (ie never). If our team didn't need Garland he wouldn't be such a feature in the side.

I'd be honestly stunned if the club dumps Garland. The only way I can see him going is if he doesn't want to stay.

  On 28/06/2015 at 12:38, rpfc said:

How about this logic - build a list by keeping your better and most consistent players and discard those not up to it and who haven't performed regularly and who don't want to be at the club.

That is Roos' guiding star - not some half baked idea of 'value with FA' or tea-leave abusing 'moving on from 'mentally scarred' players' meme that has cropped up with every player who is down for a few weeks.

I don't remember Frawley playing a single game for Casey last year and I'm sure you'll agree that we haven't missed him this year? Our team seems to be doing better with him gone in fact.. But he was considered best 22 every week last year wasn't he? So really, it's a non-argument.

As for the 'logic'. I can see that it makes sense to you. You regard Colin as one of our 'better' players and I'm pretty sure you held Frawley in that category too. I'm not so sure everyone working at the MFC would agree with you and your definition of better.

Your logic seems simple enough RPFC, but what yourself and Nasher and plenty of others seem to be missing is the magnitude of failure the club has been subject to. We are talking about a failed football club trying to completely rebuild itself.

It's not as if we made the finals a couple of years ago and we're bottoming out a bit. We have been sub-standard within every inch of the club and the list has suffered hugely because of it. Leadership, development of players, elite environment, drafting of players and personalities etc . These things have been completely non-existent at our club.

Do supporters consistently miss this?

We are unique. No club has been through what we have. And therefore the list has suffered immeasurably! Which is why we've broken all sorts of losing records over the past 6-7 years.

Colin Garland is absolutely without a doubt a player who's form, (like others previous) has been all over the place. You say he's had a consistent season to date, and I agree. Roos says so too. He is playing a role and has played it well.

Given he's one of the longest serving MFC players on our list, you'd think he'd be offering some sort of leadership. But he hasn't. He's not even in the leadership group and that speaks volumes to me.

Why do you think we've brought in players like Cross and Vince? And why is it that they're two players who have had the biggest impact on our list and not players like Garland?

Frawley was consistent in his form last year. So far as to say he 'played his role'. (..*Shudders*..).

There's a process the MFC are taking and need to continue to take. Rejuvenation and Regeneration. Players like Garland play a role yes. But they are not going to change the face of the club. They are merely passengers now and I have a feeling that him, Howe and Jamar will all be gone by the end of the season.

Oh, yeah, I have no idea about the magnitude of how bad we have been over the last few years...

FMD.

I have seen it - don't patronise me because I can see the merits in keeping Colin Garland in the backline.

That's what we are talking about here. Nathan Jones will be next on your list wouldn't he?

He was here during our Valyrian Doom?

Lose the chaff, keep the heart. Rinse, repeat.

  On 28/06/2015 at 01:17, Machsy said:

Can't imagine who'd pick him up.

I'd much rather be accept that he is now far too slow & ineffective outside stoppages, rather than he suffer the indignity of shopping himself desperately & unsuccessfully...

There are a few clubs looking for a ruckman. Carlton don't have much besides Kreuzer and he's always injured. Geelongs rucks are always injured and there really isn't anyone backing up Goldstein/Jacobs either.