19 hours ago, rjay said:

It's fair enough to bring it up, he's been dubious about the trade from the start.

We traded picks 2, 20 & 72 for Tyson, Salem (pick 9) and Michie (pick 53)

They picked up Kelly, McCarthy (trading on pick 20 & some other deals) and passed on 72, Kelly is a win and McCarthy has disappeared but will probably give them another high draft pick.

With pick 2 we could have taken Billings, Bont, Cripps to name a few and at pick 20 Matt Crouch and Billy Hartung were available to name a couple.

Tyson has been good but Salem no matter which way you look at it has been disappointing, Viv is at the crossroads...

In hindsight we could have had Cripps and Hartung, now that's not the point I'm raising here.

The real point is for the trade to be a winner we need a lot more from Salem and at present he's way off the mark.

All the players mentioned above at other clubs have started to make their mark with the exception of McCarthy who had...Hartung is still in and out but would be a walk up and what we need at our club.

No point shooting down Barrett on this one...to date he is probably right, well part right...I'm still happy to have Tyson but we could have got him with one pick.

In your opinion, mine, no he isn't 

3 hours ago, Generation dee said:

Could have had Freeman and apeness. You're arguments really poor here. 

What argument is that?

15 hours ago, rjay said:

What argument is that?

The argument that we could have had Cripps, Crouch etc. Could easily have had these two instead. Hindsight is a waste of time.

On 20 May 2016 at 9:36 PM, rpfc said:

Salem to date has been disappointing?

His equivalents at stronger clubs would not have had to play him so much in his early couple of years. 

The beginning to his career has been solid and the fact that he has been dropped has less to do with his drop in form and more to do with the team's increase in form, and talent, and standards, and expectations.

Salem, has had a disappointing 2 months, that's it.

 

19 hours ago, Generation dee said:

Could have had Freeman and apeness. You're arguments really poor here. 

 

16 hours ago, rjay said:

What argument is that?

 

37 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

The argument that we could have had Cripps, Crouch etc. Could easily have had these two instead. Hindsight is a waste of time.

Not my argument at all...the showing of draft positions and games played was to do with 'rpfc' saying that we had to play him more in his early years than equivalents at stronger clubs. The stats show this is not true.

...and if you read my posts clearly you will see that I'm not talking in hindsight but did point out these hindsight views, I knew it was a mistake when I did it but thought that maybe people would read thoroughly and debate the points, not do what journos like Robbo get accused of and going off half cocked...

Let me see if I can make this clear...

1. Too many react to Barrett's stance on the trade...he has a view and currently it's neither right or wrong. I don't particularly rate Barrett on footy talk, I do on off field stuff, but who cares. I really wanted to make a point on the Salem part of the trade which at the moment for me is not tracking as I would like to see it. Doesn't mean it won't work and doesn't mean I can't see Salem being a gun player in the future if he gets some things right.

2. The trade was not a 2 for 1 deal as many think. We traded picks 2, 20 and a late pick and got Tyson, Salem and a late pick

3. I think we needed Tyson and not another kid (Kelly) at this time so I'm happy we picked him up, there's no bigger fan on this site than me. He's tracking to be another Joey Kennedy in my mind.

4. Salem now into his 3rd year in my view is behind in his development, there are some reasons such as illness and injury but non the less he is behind a lot (not all) of his contemporaries.

5. The fault I see in Salem's game is twofold...I think he is often caught a step behind, so doesn't read the play well enough. Related to the first he doesn't get enough of the ball. Both these can be fixed and I'm sure this is why he finds himself at Casey at the moment. Good to see he picked up 28 touches last night...but would like to see him now go back to HBF if that's where he is going to play in the senior team and rack up the touches from there before he comes back. He needs to demand the footy...

6. I think we all to often see something in a player and automatically he's going to be a champion, when someone points out weaknesses then we jump on the high horse.

7. If we're going to be a better team what we say or do will have little effect but as part of a forum like this we can have a critical look at our players without calling them spuds or without having your views being called tripe. I try to look at what a player brings to the team and what he doesn't, I guess I view things as a keyboard coach. It's how I see the game.

8. I have no problem with a different view, it's why I pressed "like" to 'Saty's' comment 'in his opinion', I know he will back Christian all the way and good for him. If you have a different view first understand the argument and don't resort to name calling or belittling someone else's view, it's only an opinion.

 

Maybe we forget recent history too quickly. For approx 5 years we only had N Jones as a hard working and effective midfielder and no-one else. We needed an in and under midfielder who could actually body-in and get the ball, and not a fresh newbie kid. We targeted Tyson and got him. Has he been a best and fairest, browlow winning gun? No, but I would take him any day over what went before him. 

As for Salem, Roos' mantra is development and earn a game, but he placed too much confidence in Salem too early. He needs about 6-8 weeks at Casey (or maybe even longer) to develop like they have done with others. I still believe Salem will be a 200game player  but he needs to get himself into the play more. Always seems that 1 metre away from being involved and effective.

And Barrett? He knows little about footy and lots about conttacts, club politics and rumour hunting. I am not one who hates this commentator or that player but there is something about Barrett's delight in mud-raking that gets right under my skin. 

59 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

 

 

Not my argument at all...the showing of draft positions and games played was to do with 'rpfc' saying that we had to play him more in his early years than equivalents at stronger clubs. The stats show this is not true.

...and if you read my posts clearly you will see that I'm not talking in hindsight but did point out these hindsight views, I knew it was a mistake when I did it but thought that maybe people would read thoroughly and debate the points, not do what journos like Robbo get accused of and going off half cocked...

Let me see if I can make this clear...

1. Too many react to Barrett's stance on the trade...he has a view and currently it's neither right or wrong. I don't particularly rate Barrett on footy talk, I do on off field stuff, but who cares. I really wanted to make a point on the Salem part of the trade which at the moment for me is not tracking as I would like to see it. Doesn't mean it won't work and doesn't mean I can't see Salem being a gun player in the future if he gets some things right.

2. The trade was not a 2 for 1 deal as many think. We traded picks 2, 20 and a late pick and got Tyson, Salem and a late pick

3. I think we needed Tyson and not another kid (Kelly) at this time so I'm happy we picked him up, there's no bigger fan on this site than me. He's tracking to be another Joey Kennedy in my mind.

4. Salem now into his 3rd year in my view is behind in his development, there are some reasons such as illness and injury but non the less he is behind a lot (not all) of his contemporaries.

5. The fault I see in Salem's game is twofold...I think he is often caught a step behind, so doesn't read the play well enough. Related to the first he doesn't get enough of the ball. Both these can be fixed and I'm sure this is why he finds himself at Casey at the moment. Good to see he picked up 28 touches last night...but would like to see him now go back to HBF if that's where he is going to play in the senior team and rack up the touches from there before he comes back. He needs to demand the footy...

6. I think we all to often see something in a player and automatically he's going to be a champion, when someone points out weaknesses then we jump on the high horse.

7. If we're going to be a better team what we say or do will have little effect but as part of a forum like this we can have a critical look at our players without calling them spuds or without having your views being called tripe. I try to look at what a player brings to the team and what he doesn't, I guess I view things as a keyboard coach. It's how I see the game.

8. I have no problem with a different view, it's why I pressed "like" to 'Saty's' comment 'in his opinion', I know he will back Christian all the way and good for him. If you have a different view first understand the argument and don't resort to name calling or belittling someone else's view, it's only an opinion.

 

Look rjay, if you are going to keep up this type of reasoned approach to discussions and disagreements we're going to have to ask you to leave Demonland. It just isn't on. 

Just to add to this discussion. As part of draft night the top ten players needed to be in attendance to show off to the media. We nominated Salem and Lewis Taylor as back up.

I think it would be fair to say we rated him near the top ten and would have selected him at 20 as he would have been available.

Also, there is no point discussing Kelly as Roos said we wouldn't have picked him. With all the talk at the time of tall mids I think Bont would have been on our radar.

There are not too many strong clubs in that list, rjay. But I guess that is common with high picks.

My point, however poorly worded, is that we have had to ask more of Salem than what stronger clubs ask of their kids. We put him on the HBF as our primary ball user, we even get him to take the kick outs most of the time.

His third year has been down, but I reiterate - Salem has not been a disappointment.

Edited May 22, 20169 yr by rpfc

Calm the farm regarding Salem. Had a good first year in terms of showing his potential. Last year was a bit of a write off due to injury, and this year he's had a few whacks. 

We are a competitive footy team now and it doesn't hurt any of our list to learn that consistent competitiveness is a non-negotiable. He'll be a better player for it. 

I'd still have him in our top 5 ball users and he's played less than 30 games.

1 hour ago, Night Crawler said:

Just to add to this discussion. As part of draft night the top ten players needed to be in attendance to show off to the media. We nominated Salem and Lewis Taylor as back up.

I think it would be fair to say we rated him near the top ten and would have selected him at 20 as he would have been available.

Also, there is no point discussing Kelly as Roos said we wouldn't have picked him. With all the talk at the time of tall mids I think Bont would have been on our radar.

I don't think it was Bont, there was a press conference at one stage where Roos aludded to him being rated outside the top 10 players in the draft.

On 22/05/2016 at 11:56 AM, The heart beats true said:

Calm the farm regarding Salem. Had a good first year in terms of showing his potential. Last year was a bit of a write off due to injury, and this year he's had a few whacks. 

We are a competitive footy team now and it doesn't hurt any of our list to learn that consistent competitiveness is a non-negotiable. He'll be a better player for it. 

I'd still have him in our top 5 ball users and he's played less than 30 games.

 

Hes a gun and no doubt the thyroid issue which has unfortunately come back has affected his footy

And in other news Damian Barrett is still a parasite

 

Edited May 23, 20169 yr by Petraccattack

Do you reckon that peanut Barrett feels bad in any way about heaping sh i t on a kid with an illness?

Course he doesn't.

Bottom feeding, muck raking scumbag.

5 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

Do you reckon that peanut Barrett feels bad in any way about heaping sh i t on a kid with an illness?

Course he doesn't.

Bottom feeding, muck raking scumbag.

Uncalled for.

He has stated an opinion, which you disagree with. Get over it. At this stage it has not been proven right or wrong and if you can't see both sides of the argument, you need to open your eyes.

Edited May 25, 20169 yr by Watts the matter

Two Doors threads at the same time but not the same guy. Demonland is really unhinged.

17 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

Uncalled for.

He has stated an opinion, which you disagree with. Get over it. At this stage it has not been proven right or wrong and if you can't see both sides of the argument, you need to open your eyes.

Making some pretty big assumptions there.

One, that I don't agree with him. I think the jury is still out, but we'll be proven right in the end. Two, that I can't see his argument. I can.

But I stand by my assessment. 

So much time devoted to Barrett's opinion, he is the male version of Caroline Wilson.

They both no nothing about football and as journalists should stick to what they know something about, board room politics, innuendo and rumour.

2 hours ago, JAG007 said:

So much time devoted to Barrett's opinion, he is the male version of Caroline Wilson.

They both no nothing about football and as journalists should stick to what they know something about, board room politics, innuendo and rumour.

The first line in this post puts Demonland at risk of being sued by Caroline Wilson for defamation.

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The first line in this post puts Demonland at risk of being sued by Caroline Wilson for defamation.

lol - not a chance. keep your day time job