Howe to gws with our third round pick for Treloar. Get it done!

Edited July 9, 20159 yr by Norm Smith's Curse

I'd give them our second rounder plus Howe. I think that's probably more realistic, but then again, GWS did apparently offer an early first rounder for Howe.

Holy smokes Kali.. remind me never to get on the wrong side of you! That's a deadset bloodbath!

Edited July 9, 20159 yr by dee-luded

I'd give them our second rounder plus Howe. I think that's probably more realistic, but then again, GWS did apparently offer an early first rounder for Howe.

I'd offer our first rounder + Howe, and that still probably wouldn't get it done

I'd give them our second rounder plus Howe. I think that's probably more realistic, but then again, GWS did apparently offer an early first rounder for Howe.

Yeah with like 3 hours to go before deadline.

I still have no idea what that was all about. They clearly knew we didn't have time to evaluate the offer. Maybe the wanted to inflate Howe's ego? Shake him loose for a trade the next season?

I dunno.

Out:

Bail

Terlich

M Jones

Jamar (retired)

Fitzpatrick

Howe (hopefully trade)

Trengove

McKenzie

Riley

Hunt

White

Grimes

Holy smokes Kali.. remind me never to get on the wrong side of you! That's a deadset bloodbath!

Actually, I think Kali might be playing the game of "Demonland, I told you so". This scattergun approach allows Kali to say, "I told you [insert player's name here] was going to be off our list at the end of the year."

White is a first year rookie showing a little promise with a deadly left foot. Why get rid of him when he costs SFA and doesn't take a spot on the main list?

I'm of the belief that both Garland and Howe will be shown the door by the club at the end of the year and I reckon Roos is comfortable knowing that it'll give us the ammunition we need to further compliment and improve our list.

To continue to bring in blokes with a fresh state of mind and willingness to compete at all times. Whether it be specialised positions we'll be targeting or mids to complement our one-paced midfield or both. Our own supporters are scared of what the unknown looks like.

Posters were scared and underwhelmed when we grabbed Bernie Vince, arguably our best mid (along with Jones).

Posters were scared when we got Garlett for nothing on the back of a poor season at a club he was uninspired to play for and look at the impact he has not only on the scoreboard but in general play. I implore you to look at some of the vision of opposition players kicking out and how something as simple as kamikaze style running at that opposition player, (providing they play on) usually results in a miss-kick and a restart for us. We've been missing those kind of pressure acts from most players on our list for the best part of a decade.

Do I even need to bring up Vandenberg again and the impact he has had in his first year as a bloke who had a shoulder op and did half a pre-season before he played.

I can't fathom the idea that some supporters of ours want to keep underperforming players in the hope that they'll come good. Or because they've been with the club for so long that there's a sense of 'sorry' felt for them.

[censored] me. First year players have shown both of these blokes up!

Not only that. If you're looking at the needs of our list, it doesn't even make sense to want to keep someone like Garland! A player who's strengths we already have covered and who's weakness/weaknesses we already have enough of.

Imagine if we'd kept Frawley like so many here were hoping we would!? It's astonishing.

We need to continue to turn over underperforming experienced players who are NQR's. Roos knows it, the rest of the club knows it.

We don't have the champion leader veterans of yesteryear like a club like St Kilda or even the Doggies have. We had to bring one of them in! Cross!

When will people wake up to the fact that keeping as many 'experienced best 22 atm players who have been on our list for 6-7 + years' is simply not an option for the MFC!?!

I will happily eat humble pie if we keep Garland and or Howe. But I honestly cannot see it happening for the sake of rebuilding and rebranding our entire list from top to bottom.

Garland

Howe

Jamar.

They'll all be gone by the end of the year.

Save this post.

Edited July 10, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

I'm of the belief that both Garland and Howe will be shown the door by the club at the end of the year and I reckon Roos is comfortable knowing that it'll give us the ammunition we need to further compliment and improve our list.

To continue to bring in blokes with a fresh state of mind and willingness to compete at all times. Whether it be specialised positions we'll be targeting or mids to complement our one-paced midfield or both. Our own supporters are scared of what the unknown looks like.

Posters were scared and underwhelmed when we grabbed Bernie Vince, arguably our best mid (along with Jones).

Posters were scared when we got Garlett for nothing on the back of a poor season at a club he was uninspired to play for and look at the impact he has not only on the scoreboard but in general play. I implore you to look at some of the vision of opposition players kicking out and how something as simple as kamikaze style running at that opposition player, (providing they play on) usually results in a miss-kick and a restart for us. We've been missing those kind of pressure acts from most players on our list for the best part of a decade.

Do I even need to bring up Vandenberg again and the impact he has had in his first year as a bloke who had a shoulder op and did half a pre-season before he played.

I can't fathom the idea that some supporters of ours want to keep underperforming players in the hope that they'll come good. Or because they've been with the club for so long that there's a sense of 'sorry' felt for them.

[censored] me. First year players have shown both of these blokes up!

Not only that. If you're looking at the needs of our list, it doesn't even make sense to want to keep someone like Garland! A player who's strengths we already have covered and who's weakness/weaknesses we already have enough of.

Imagine if we'd kept Frawley like so many here were hoping we would!? It's astonishing.

We need to continue to turn over underperforming experienced players who are NQR's. Roos knows it, the rest of the club knows it.

We don't have the champion leader veterans of yesteryear like a club like St Kilda or even the Doggies have. We had to bring one of them in! Cross!

When will people wake up to the fact that keeping as many 'experienced best 22 atm players who have been on our list for 6-7 + years' is simply not an option for the MFC!?!

I will happily eat humble pie if we keep Garland and or Howe. But I honestly cannot see it happening for the sake of rebuilding and rebranding our entire list from top to bottom.

Garland

Howe

Jamar.

They'll all be gone by the end of the year.

Save this post.

Garland I think will stay, if he wants to. I don't think the club will push him. He is very versatile and is in our best 22 every week, no doubt.

Garland I think will stay, if he wants to. I don't think the club will push him. He is very versatile and is in our best 22 every week, no doubt.

I'd like to see Garland stay and despite the torturous years he has endured, he still shows the willingness to compete and hunger to win.

Howe and Jamar will go, hopefully with some decent compensation for the former.

Interesting that apparently garland - a free agent - hasn't spoken to the club or had the club speak to him about his moves in 2015.

For mine, we have too many third tall type defenders - garland, Howe, Lumumba and Grimes all essentially can play the same role of being able to play tall and small. Potentially White and you could argue Dunn also fall into that category.

Something needs to give, and with Howe and Garland both out of contract it makes sense that one is likely to go.

I think Roos rates Garland, as do I, so I would surprised to see him go.

Interesting that apparently garland - a free agent - hasn't spoken to the club or had the club speak to him about his moves in 2015.

For mine, we have too many third tall type defenders - garland, Howe, Lumumba and Grimes all essentially can play the same role of being able to play tall and small. Potentially White and you could argue Dunn also fall into that category.

Something needs to give, and with Howe and Garland both out of contract it makes sense that one is likely to go.

The longer the delay the more likely that one or both are goneski especially if Howe was offered big money from GWS. Shame about Howe is that he is one of the few on our list who the kids like to follow.

I'm of the belief that both Garland and Howe will be shown the door by the club at the end of the year and I reckon Roos is comfortable knowing that it'll give us the ammunition we need to further compliment and improve our list.

To continue to bring in blokes with a fresh state of mind and willingness to compete at all times. Whether it be specialised positions we'll be targeting or mids to complement our one-paced midfield or both. Our own supporters are scared of what the unknown looks like.

Posters were scared and underwhelmed when we grabbed Bernie Vince, arguably our best mid (along with Jones).

Posters were scared when we got Garlett for nothing on the back of a poor season at a club he was uninspired to play for and look at the impact he has not only on the scoreboard but in general play. I implore you to look at some of the vision of opposition players kicking out and how something as simple as kamikaze style running at that opposition player, (providing they play on) usually results in a miss-kick and a restart for us. We've been missing those kind of pressure acts from most players on our list for the best part of a decade.

Do I even need to bring up Vandenberg again and the impact he has had in his first year as a bloke who had a shoulder op and did half a pre-season before he played.

I can't fathom the idea that some supporters of ours want to keep underperforming players in the hope that they'll come good. Or because they've been with the club for so long that there's a sense of 'sorry' felt for them.

[censored] me. First year players have shown both of these blokes up!

Not only that. If you're looking at the needs of our list, it doesn't even make sense to want to keep someone like Garland! A player who's strengths we already have covered and who's weakness/weaknesses we already have enough of.

Imagine if we'd kept Frawley like so many here were hoping we would!? It's astonishing.

We need to continue to turn over underperforming experienced players who are NQR's. Roos knows it, the rest of the club knows it.

We don't have the champion leader veterans of yesteryear like a club like St Kilda or even the Doggies have. We had to bring one of them in! Cross!

When will people wake up to the fact that keeping as many 'experienced best 22 atm players who have been on our list for 6-7 + years' is simply not an option for the MFC!?!

I will happily eat humble pie if we keep Garland and or Howe. But I honestly cannot see it happening for the sake of rebuilding and rebranding our entire list from top to bottom.

Garland

Howe

Jamar.

They'll all be gone by the end of the year.

Save this post.

Your being to harsh on Garland. Atleast he still plays with desperation and heart and unlike all the other players you mentioned.

Infact Garland has been pretty good this year and i hope he stays. If he doesn't he will be a big loss.

Edited July 10, 20159 yr by dazzledavey36

Garland I think will stay, if he wants to. I don't think the club will push him. He is very versatile and is in our best 22 every week, no doubt.

i think the bar for senior players has to be lower than just best 22

best 22 in a good side usually includes 4-6 players who could be replaced by depth players. that's where we need to be.

i'm not saying garland isn't best 16 just the bar needs to be lower for senior players (esp those under fa who may have good compo value)

I'd like to see Garland stay and despite the torturous years he has endured, he still shows the willingness to compete and hunger to win.

Howe and Jamar will go, hopefully with some decent compensation for the former.

Garland is the past Not the future Is a big part of our problems in lack of run from the back half

Garland is the past Not the future Is a big part of our problems in lack of run from the back half

Garland has been part of the only area of our side that can hold its head high over the last 5-6 years: the backline. He's having a good year, apart from some injuries, and is a keeper IMO.

Garland is the past Not the future Is a big part of our problems in lack of run from the back half

What happened last time we threw out the past and bought in the future?

Garland is the past Not the future Is a big part of our problems in lack of run from the back half

So by that reasoning, lets throw out N. Jones, Viney, McDonald and every other player that was on the list when Neeld was still coach.

Edited July 10, 20159 yr by Django

Your being to harsh on Garland. Atleast he still plays with desperation and heart and unlike all the other players you mentioned.

Infact Garland has been pretty good this year and i hope he stays. If he doesn't he will be a big loss.

In your view.

Whilst I agree that this year he has been more consistent in his effort, I've seen enough to know that:

A) We've won plenty without him as we have coverage for his position and over the past few of years I have never thought 'Gee, we missed Garland today'.

B) Our backline needs to be more dynamic. We have far too many players who cannot kick. Garland is another.

C) Our recruiting and trading over the past couple of years has been exceptional. To think he'd be a loss simply doesn't make sense when looking at the wins our club has had via trading/drafting.

D) Even if we somehow managed to lose out on the trade/draft pick, there has been nothing to suggest that his position can't be filled and played just as well. As that has already occurred this year.

What happened last time we threw out the past and bought in the future?

Seriously. Did you just appear out of a cave?

Have the last two drafts, recruiting and development done absolutely nothing to quash that view?

Have you been following the club since the Bailey days?

Edited July 10, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

What happened last time we threw out the past and bought in the future?

frawley?

So by that reasoning, lets throw out N. Jones, Viney, McDonald and every other player that was on the list when Neeld was still coach.

That's ridiculous.

Garland still makes all the same mistakes he has over the journey has learned nothing

Others have. Simple really.

So by that reasoning, lets throw out N. Jones, Viney, McDonald and every other player that was on the list when Neeld was still coach.

No.

Why jump to a silly ultimatum when it's easy to see what the post is referring too?

We are talking about blokes who have been here since the Bailey days and some from before.

The blokes who are insignificant players at our club but who should really be the leaders.

Nathan Jones isn't in that bracket and neither is Viney both for different reasons.

Why is it so hard to understand?

Edited July 10, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

I wonder if any noticed it shown on AFL360 (or possibly the telecast itself) after the Geelong win, when Roosy came into the rooms seconds after the win, Garland in his civvies with a big grin on his face, giving Roosy a big hug.

I think they have a strong enough relationship & I don't think Garland will be going anywhere.

We'll see.

Seriously. Did you just appear out of a cave?

Have the last two drafts, recruiting and development done absolutely nothing to quash that view?

Have you been following the club since the Bailey days?

No I didn't just appear out of a cave, Yes we have drafted and recruited well, I have been following the club since Carl Ditterich was the Coach.

Going with youth alone does not work, you need to keep experience around the club. Three examples, us after we sacked the captain and all the other experience and went with youth (worked wonders), Gold Coast, went with youth with very little experience around, really struggle when the littel experience they do have is missing, and lastly, GWS, have bought in experience with their youth and have leap frogged GC by a country mile.

If you think we need only focus on the future and get rid of anyone from the past then we are rid of N. Jones, Vince, Cross, Dunn, Garland, Howe, Watts, Lamumba, Dawes, Trengove, Grimes, Pederson, Garlett, and a bunch that will either retire or probably delisted (at best provide a little depth).

Remove these players (which is the extension of your argument to go with the future) and our club would sink straight back into the mire it finally seems to be extricating itself from. But I suppose that's OK, we have some players for the future, again.