4 hours ago, juzzk1d said:

3 Way Trade:

Melbourne: OUT: Tmac IN: Hurley

Sydney: OUT: Mitchell, IN: T Mac

Essendon: OUT: Hurley, IN: Mitchell.

Is everyone a happy suitor here?

 

Wonderful work would do this in a heartbeat!!

3 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

 

God I hope the MFC are all over this. Would love him at the Dees

Rockliff? Really? I reckon he's a bit full of himself in an egotistical nobbish kind of way and shares some blame for some of their clubs problems. No doubt he can play but I don't think he'd fit in at Melbourne. We have leaders, and i think anything less than being king dick of a football club is what he wants, i don't think he knows humility.

Edited June 28, 20169 yr by johndemons

I cannot see us playing finals next year or even winning 10-11 games if T Mac goes but we don't replace him with a competent and experienced B+ grade defender.

We've already lost Frawley and Howe from our defence and potentially Jetta. Cannot afford to lose anything more.

Edited June 28, 20169 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

Just now, johndemons said:

Rockliff? Really? I reckon he's a bit full of himself in an egotistical nobbish kind of way and shares some blame for some of their clubs problems. No doubt he can play but I don't think he'd fit in at Melbourne. We have leaders, and i think anything less than being king dick of a football club is what he wants.

You answered your own question there, John - we have leaders.  Brisbane don't.  Rockliff wouldn't need to come in to be a leader, he can just come to the club and play football.  That's what he's good at.  To me he's never been a leader but they've not had anyone else to do it.

It's a moot point anyway as I think he will stick with Brisbane, but if we could get him, we would be crazy to say no.

3 hours ago, schmuttt said:

If he wants to be a swan, TMac and our 3rd for their 2nd and 1st.

I'm not a huge T Mac fan, but that trade is ridiculous. You're basically giving him up for pick 15-17, which could turn out to be nothing. The 2nd for 3rd round picks also doesn't add any value.

7 hours ago, juzzk1d said:

3 Way Trade:

Melbourne: OUT: Tmac IN: Hurley

Sydney: OUT: Mitchell, IN: T Mac

Essendon: OUT: Hurley, IN: Mitchell.

Is everyone a happy suitor here?

 

Melbourne: Out T Mac IN: Weitering

Sydney: Out T Mitchell In T Mac

Carlton: Out Weitering In T Mitchell

Everybody's happy (well me anyway)

15 minutes ago, Roger Mellie said:

Melbourne: Out T Mac IN: Weitering

Sydney: Out T Mitchell In T Mac

Carlton: Out Weitering In T Mitchell

Everybody's happy (well me anyway)

I can't see Carlton going for that.  They trade away their quality forwards.  The backs they just play in the reserves until they give up in disgust. 

6 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I can't see Carlton going for that.  They trade away their quality forwards.  The backs they just play in the reserves until they give up in disgust. 

I'm sure it could be sweetened if necessary, but I do see it as a pretty good win all around. Blues would be very keen to get Mitchell.

 

1 minute ago, Roger Mellie said:

I'm sure it could be sweetened if necessary, but I do see it as a pretty good win all around. Blues would be very keen to get Mitchell.

 

True, but there is zero chance they trade away a key part of their future to get him. 

I would have more chance to get Jane Seymour as a blind date as Carlton would think about trading Weitering!!

1 hour ago, picket fence said:

I would have more chance to get Jane Seymour as a blind date as Carlton would think about trading Weitering!!

You'd be punching above your weight more than any club seeking Weitering picket. So we're a chance then.

1 hour ago, picket fence said:

I would have more chance to get Jane Seymour as a blind date as Carlton would think about trading Weitering!!

Agreed, they are as much chance to trade Weitering as we are of packaging Hogan Petracca and Oliver for Dawson

2 hours ago, picket fence said:

I would have more chance to get Jane Seymour as a blind date as Carlton would think about trading Weitering!!

I'm sure Henry VIII would be disturbed by your necrophilia.

2 hours ago, Roger Mellie said:

Melbourne: Out T Mac IN: Weitering

Sydney: Out T Mitchell In T Mac

Carlton: Out Weitering In T Mitchell

Everybody's happy (well me anyway)

As much as Tom Mitchell has elevated his game, Carlton would need to have rocks in their head to trade him in for a KPP of Weitering's quality. He's worth at least two Tom Mitchells.

6 minutes ago, mo64 said:

I'm sure Henry VIII would be disturbed by your necrophilia.

Maybe he was referring to Dr. Quinn, medicine woman?

3 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

You answered your own question there, John - we have leaders.  Brisbane don't.  Rockliff wouldn't need to come in to be a leader, he can just come to the club and play football.  That's what he's good at.  To me he's never been a leader but they've not had anyone else to do it.

It's a moot point anyway as I think he will stick with Brisbane, but if we could get him, we would be crazy to say no.

As an astute fella it surprises me you rate Rockliff. I think he averaged 5 metres gained per possession in his last game. It was something ridiculous like that.

He is the absolute king of the cheap, nothing possession. Good for SuperCoach points and that's pretty much it. It's little wonder Lewis Taylor is a crab when he has Rockliff as a mentor. Plus there are the question marks over his leadership which you allude to.

We need damaging outside players. Not Rockliff.

5 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Maybe he was referring to Dr. Quinn, medicine woman?

Nah, I think Picket's into older women.

Just now, P-man said:

As an astute fella it surprises me you rate Rockliff. I think he averaged 5 metres gained per possession in his last game. It was something ridiculous like that.

He is the absolute king of the cheap, nothing possession. Good for SuperCoach points and that's pretty much it. It's little wonder Lewis Taylor is a crab when he has Rockliff as a mentor. Plus there are the question marks over his leadership which you allude to.

We need damaging outside players. Not Rockliff.

Fair points there mate, I can't argue that.  I agree that he is certainly not the damaging player he once was, say, 2-3 years ago.  

I guess I'm rating him based on that past - I feel as though he would slot very nicely into our current midfield and, for example, rotate with someone like Petracca through the middle and a forward pocket.  However, as you mentioned, we probably need players who are more damaging on the outside than Rockliff.  Plus the Lions would want far too much in a trade and I doubt Rockliff wants out anyway.

Ok I was at the game and counted 6 Turnovers at least of which 3 cost us goals . Add to the fact that Walker was his direct opponent and contributed another 3 Means he effectively cost us 6 goals! 

1 He still STILL refuses to man up

2 He still STILL refuses to acknowledge much less do anything about his prime directive! To stop goals

3 He will take some contested marks but he still hasn't worked out that he needs to take some acountability for when to punch and when to mark. One such example was in the first q when he could have taken an easy Mark but elected to Punch instead! Result Crows Goal

4 Loves to be unacountable and opportunistic across Half Back , poblem is when he gets it tries to be cute and be becomes Laksadaisical ( have In spelt that right)? and more often than not thinks he has more time than he actually has and then ....... Duds a handball or Kick which puts the reciever under pressure!

AND he's been doing it for years! His 10 Marks today are a facade to the impact he has when he gifts goals!! 

Let him go ,trade for a better option!

And Oh, take ur brother with you, dropping chest marks in front of goal and wandering around like a new born giraffe is no longer tolerable at the MFC!

Walker's turnovers resulted in two MFC goals, so that alters the stat sheet somewhat!

picket fence, your recent posts indicate a lack of knowledge of game plans post 1967. Backlines do not play man on man anymore. There is constant change related to zones and team defence. Yes, McDonald has flaws in disposal, and it costs us at times, but he will be snapped up by any of the top eight teams if they are presented with the opportunity. Now, what does that tell you about your overall appraisal?

I'm still waiting for the day when a bloke who's almost played 100 games eradicates stupid, dumb decisions from his game. I know KPPs take longer, but I reckon we go too easy on Tom.

He's certainly not an A grader with his unreliability with ball in hand. 

Take Frost for example. Makes some silly errors, but his decision-making is improving each week. Is Tom's? It's almost as if he hasn't learnt anything in his 80+ games.

T-mac had a pretty good game today.

7 hours ago, Ricky P said:

T-mac had a pretty good game today.

You obviously did not watch the game 

Just now, Viscount Cardwell said:

You obviously did not watch the game 

He butchered the ball.  That's the worst game I have seen him play