FAREWELL JEREMY HOWE

[KingDingAling 3,758]

We did offload him for too cheap. We could have - and should have - tried to get more. He is having a great year. He was also good value for our club. Sad to see really. I don't like watching him play quality football for another club - especially Collingwood.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Imho. Got exactly  what he was worth.Much more potential in Benken.

We've seen Jez' ceiling . 

Buckley believing in his own figjam schtick thought he could turn Howe into wonderboy.

Yeah....big success there for sure.

[Undeeterred 3,124]

9 hours ago, KingDingAling said:

We did offload him for too cheap. We could have - and should have - tried to get more. He is having a great year. He was also good value for our club. Sad to see really. I don't like watching him play quality football for another club - especially Collingwood.

This is revisionism at best. He had two awful seasons before he left us and we got exactly what he was worth. Some would say we got overs, given his only ability is marking. He's dreadful otherwise.

[Redleg 41,460]

20 hours ago, DemonAndrew said:

He's a natural defender and has arguably been a better recruit than Adam 'burn the ball' Treloar.

 

He'd suit the zone defence we are trying to implement as he reads the ball so well in the air.

You are joking, Treloar is probably the leader in their B & F.

[whatwhat say what 22,948]

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

You are joking, Treloar is probably the leader in their B & F.

irrelevant, as you've missed my point, which is that howe offers greater value for money than treloar.

 

the latter gets it 30 times and turns it over 15, puts it in a disadvantageous position a further 5 times, and if only a third of his disposals are truly dangerous, plus he's effectively on the wages of howe and tyson combined, i'd argue howe has been a 'better recruit'.

 

treloar is a very, very good player. but he's not a game-changer in my view.

[jumbo returns 6,741]

If Howe was moved on, or not negotiated with, because the FD didn't see him in their long term plans, that's good enough for me.

 

[Redleg 41,460]

4 hours ago, DemonAndrew said:

irrelevant, as you've missed my point, which is that howe offers greater value for money than treloar.

 

the latter gets it 30 times and turns it over 15, puts it in a disadvantageous position a further 5 times, and if only a third of his disposals are truly dangerous, plus he's effectively on the wages of howe and tyson combined, i'd argue howe has been a 'better recruit'.

 

treloar is a very, very good player. but he's not a game-changer in my view.

Do you think you might have exaggerated a little bit with Treloar's clangers? 

[whatwhat say what 22,948]

Poetic license, redleg

[nutbean 8,838]

9 hours ago, DemonAndrew said:

Poetic license, redleg

You are right - he does butcher the ball a fair bit. I am not sure if I notice it more because he is such a sweet mover around the field. Quick, aggressive, brave and great evasive skills and then he can just kill the ball.

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by nutbean

[nutbean 8,838]

22 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

This is revisionism at best. He had two awful seasons before he left us and we got exactly what he was worth. Some would say we got overs, given his only ability is marking. He's dreadful otherwise.

And this is revisionism as well. He did not have two awful seasons before he left us. The truth is probably somewhere in between. 

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

He went to the filth because his entire family follow them.  He thought playing in front of 60K + per week for a club he followed as a kid, was more attractive than what we offered him.  Fair enough i suppose, but in my view, he has not been missed and this will be even more evident over the next year or so.

[beelzebub 23,383]

47 minutes ago, nutbean said:

And this is revisionism as well. He did not have two awful seasons before he left us. The truth is probably somewhere in between. 

They were hardly brilliant  Nut. Some of us saw him as bog average whilst some thought he was just marvee...those speccies and all 

We did well to move him on....how he goes at the Pies I really couldnt care. Reports to date....still bog average 

Edited June 26, 2016 by beelzebub

[pitmaster 3,578]

I think the real villain in this story is Howe's manager, Ben Niall.

Niall apparently touted Howe about during the year and while at the end of the season he said the published $600,000 asking price was BS there was plenty of talk during the year that's what Niall was asking. Did he get into Howe's ear early? 

Niall has a track record of his (small number of) clients changing clubs, and the word among a group of Demons supporters who claim to know something about it  is that Howe was told he should punt for a club that would be playing finals (ha ha).

Niall also talked up Howe wanting a fixed position as a wing-half forward, not a defender (double ha ha).

Howe is paying for it and I wonder if he thinks he has been poorly advised.

[nutbean 8,838]

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

They were hardly brilliant  Nut. Some of us saw him as bog average whilst some thought he was just marvee...those speccies and all 

We did well to move him on....how he goes at the Pies I really couldnt care. Reports to date....still bog average 

Don't disagree that they weren't brilliant  - but you have one person saying " he was good value for the club" and another saying " truly awful" and as commented I think truth lies in between and I would use the term "decidedly average". Had some good games and had some not so good games. I think he is much better suited to the back line but I still see him picking and choosing at which contests he wants to impact. His attitude would be found very wanting in the heat of finals football.

I just get amused that there is no middle ground with some - there is only two categories being absolute jet or absolute spud ( hate that word) - Jeremy was neither.

 

Edited June 27, 2016 by nutbean

[CBDees 3,167]

On 26 June 2016 at 4:29 AM, beelzebub said:

Imho. Got exactly  what he was worth.Much more potential in Benken.

We've seen Jez' ceiling . 

Buckley believing in his own figjam schtick thought he could turn Howe into wonderboy.

Yeah....big success there for sure.

Bb I fear it is not as simple as Howe for Benken. We moved Toumpas (a number 4 pick) to the Power in the same round-robin of picks so what was the advantage of that (except to Collingwood)? I cannot recall what else we got for Toumpas if somebody could enlighten me?

[beelzebub 23,383]

Just now, CBDees said:

Bb I fear it is not as simple as Howe for Benken. We moved Toumpas (a number 4 pick) to the Power in the same round-robin of picks so what was the advantage of that (except to Collingwood)? I cannot recall what else we got for Toumpas if somebody could enlighten me?

that argument still doesnt dilute our benefit !! 

[CBDees 3,167]

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

that argument still doesnt dilute our benefit !! 

It was not trying to dilute our benefit, I was just wondering why we had to get rid of Toumpas for zilch to a team that was genuinely interested in him? Collingwood would have done a straight swap for Howe (even in hindsight)!

[nutbean 8,838]

On 6/26/2016 at 8:59 AM, beelzebub said:

Imho. Got exactly  what he was worth.Much more potential in Benken.

We've seen Jez' ceiling . 

Buckley believing in his own figjam schtick thought he could turn Howe into wonderboy.

Yeah....big success there for sure.

I was amused when Buckley said they are getting their own version of Jack Gunston. Howe is a better mark, Gunston is a better kick and they both have similar pace and other skills. The difference ( and it is a doozy)  - Gunston works his butt off up and down the field  - never stops presenting and will be taking marks in the back pocket and then 2 minutes later be lining up for goal. Howe is lazy lazy lazy. That is exactly why he lasted all of a few games in the forward line. Even in the backline he is still picky about which contests he runs to. 

[Nasher 33,617]

2 hours ago, CBDees said:

It was not trying to dilute our benefit, I was just wondering why we had to get rid of Toumpas for zilch to a team that was genuinely interested in him? Collingwood would have done a straight swap for Howe (even in hindsight)!

Because Toumpas was a potato? 

Anyway, the final trade was
EDIT I stuffed this up, see posts below

We got rid of two players who were borderline, a pick that doesn't even exist until next year and a decent player for a ready made mid, the next big inside midfielder, and two young key forwards with plenty to work with.  Even in hindsight it's hard to fault this trade I think.

[Gorgoroth 13,023]

Hulett at 43 is looking like a great get.

[Nasher 33,617]

I've actually stuffed that up anyway - we got Weideman and Bugg with that pick 10 and pick 43 went with it to GWS- I think Hulett arrived as part of that deal, not the Gold Coast one.  The trade was more complex than the Saturn rocket - glad it's Mahoney, Viney and Taylor orchestrating that stuff and not me.

[Undeeterred 3,124]

3 hours ago, nutbean said:

And this is revisionism as well. He did not have two awful seasons before he left us. The truth is probably somewhere in between. 

His play might have been in the middle somewhere, but maybe let me say that the value he provided as against what he should have been providing was awful.

[Nasher 33,617]

28 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I've actually stuffed that up anyway - we got Weideman and Bugg with that pick 10 and pick 43 went with it to GWS- I think Hulett arrived as part of that deal, not the Gold Coast one.  The trade was more complex than the Saturn rocket - glad it's Mahoney, Viney and Taylor orchestrating that stuff and not me.

REVISION (I'm sure nobody cares, but it was bugging me):

With PA and Collingwood:
Out: Howe, Toumpas
In: Kennedy, 29, 50

Which enabled the GC trade:
Out: 6, 29, R1 2016
In: 3, 10

Which enabled the GWS trade:
Out: 10, 43, 64
In: Bugg, 7

Netting off the final results, also excluding the zero-value pick we traded out [64], I think it was this:
Out: Howe, Toumpas, 6 [Ah Chee], R1 2016
In: Kennedy, Bugg, 3 [Oliver], 7 [Weideman], 50 [Hulett].

[chook fowler 19,551]

9 minutes ago, Nasher said:

REVISION (I'm sure nobody cares, but it was bugging me):

With PA and Collingwood:
Out: Howe, Toumpas
In: Kennedy, 29, 50

Which enabled the GC trade:
Out: 6, 29, R1 2016
In: 3, 10

Which enabled the GWS trade:
Out: 10, 43, 64
In: Bugg, 7

Netting off the final results, also excluding the zero-value pick we traded out [64], I think it was this:
Out: Howe, Toumpas, 6 [Ah Chee], R1 2016
In: Kennedy, Bugg, 3 [Oliver], 7 [Weideman], 50 [Hulett].

Hulett could be a real bargain - doesn't seem too far off a debut.

[nutbean 8,838]

38 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

His play might have been in the middle somewhere, but maybe let me say that the value he provided as against what he should have been providing was awful.

The only rider I would put on this is that I am not sure that he will ever reach the value he should be providing. He is lazy with a capital "L".