FAREWELL JACK GRIMES

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, Forest Demon said:

It's amazing the number of times I see people post about overlooking Tex, not just MFC supporters.

I don't like it when people go back through drafts and pick the eyes out of it, but it frustrates me even more when people start including players we couldn't have even selected anyway.

Not only that, but supporters get annoyed when we 'overlooked' a player that was also ignored in the draft by most of the other clubs in the competition as well.  

"We could have had him" they cry... yeah, so could the rest of the competition...

[Mach5 4,767]

21 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Not only that, but supporters get annoyed when we 'overlooked' a player that was also ignored in the draft by most of the other clubs in the competition as well.  

"We could of had him" they cry... yeah, so could the rest of the competition...

EFA

[chook fowler 19,459]

I guess I'm old school but I think there is a place for sentimentality in footy. It's about emotion and belonging and good stories. As such I think the club owes Jack at least 2 games and another chance at redemption. He was thrown to the wolves early in his career and is still suffering the consequences. His attitude throughout has been exemplary and It's not as if his form has been putrid. 

[Biffen 12,943]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

Not only that, but supporters get annoyed when we 'overlooked' a player that was also ignored in the draft by most of the other clubs in the competition as well.  

"We could have had him" they cry... yeah, so could the rest of the competition...

I wish we got Tom Hawkins and Gary Ablett Jr when we had the chance.

Which was never.

[nrc73 77]

On 6/16/2016 at 1:05 PM, binman said:

Sorry H disagree. I think the club is duty bound to get him to 100 games if he is anywhere near the required AFL level (which he is) and believe there is still a place for this sort of approach in the game.

Footy will never be just business and it simply cannot be forgotten what he has given to this club. They'll get him those two games and i will be proud of the club when they do.

The club does not have a "duty" to get him to 100 games. In many ways I wish it wasn't so, but footy is a business these days. 10 years ago club presidents no longer referred supporters as "supporters", but as "customers". Game has only become more of a business since then.

[The Chazz 4,077]

1 hour ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Well said MB, but to me that is precisely why the club should gift him those 2 games.  It is not as if we are going to make finals.  Like I said earlier, there is no reason in the world for us to be mercenary in this case.  There are certain qualities which should exist within any healthy footy club, which transcend the game itself.

[edit] And who knows, his team mates might rise to the occasion around him, to celebrate his loyal service in very troubled times.

You really think the players would lift because of his "loyal service in troubled times"?

How many of the players on our list were there during this time (meaning they saw what state the club was in), and/or how many have played along side him?  I can assure you, blokes like Vince, Dawes, Viney, Petracca, Hogan, et al, they wouldn't give two hoots about Grimes' past.  Sure, they'd be happy to celebrate a teammate reaching a decent milestone, but that's where it would stop.  The only one/s that would care about the rest of Grimes' baggage would be Jones and Trengove, maybe Dunn and Garland (although the latter 3 would be more worried about their immediate careers).

I understand some love for Grimes - I have some for him too, but people are making it sound like he donated organs for the club.  He was made co-captain of an insipid club, at a time where he was the likely candidate (due mainly to his professionalism), it's just that he didn't have the talent himself or around him to lead us out of those times.  No criticism, just reality.

Edited June 30, 2016 by billy2803
Spelling

[Wiseblood 24,637]

I think the discussion is a moot point as, going by what Bernie and Roos have had to say, he'll probably play this weekend.  It's rare that they drop a player after 1 game so he'll back it up the next week and get his 100 games.  His form has been just as good as a Newton, ANB, Michie etc, so he deserves his chance.  

[nrc73 77]

On 6/28/2016 at 7:10 PM, Je Roos Salem said:

It seems to me there's a huge supporter (and club, even) divide between Trengove and Grimes. Obviously there's correlation between the two, both ex co-captains, first round picks who showed a ton of potential in their early days and then struggled to handle the pressure. Seems the majority have sided with Trengove and can't wait for Grimes to get out the door and to me it's slightly unfair. Trengove's struggle to come back has won a lot of hearts, he probably has better potential, and he's younger, but he isn't without fault in his game. Grimes remains a handy footballer who isn't getting a chance

This is one of the few posts I agree with. Grimes really should have come in front of Trengove in terms of getting a chance, but there's already too many competing for centre positions. At year's end, don't be surprised if 3-4 of those guys are gone (including Michie).

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

1 minute ago, billy2803 said:

You really think the players would lift because of his "loyal service in troubled times"?

How many of the player on our list were there during this time (meaning they saw what state the club was in), and/or how many have played along side him?  I can assure you, blokes like Vince, Dawes, Viney, Petracca, Hogan, et al, they wouldn't give two hoots about Grimes' past.  Sure, they'd be happy to celebrate a teammate reaching a decent milestone, but that's where it would stop.  The only one/s that would care about the rest of Grimes' baggage would be Jones and Trengove, maybe Dunn and Garland (although the latter 3 would be more worried about their immediate careers).

I understand some love for Grimes - I have some for him too, but people are making it sound like he dated organs for the club.  He was made co-captain of an insipid club, at a time where he was the likely candidate (due mainly to his professionalism), it's just that he didn't have the talent himself or around him to lead us out of those times.  No criticism, just reality.

Didn't know you had such an intimate knowledge of the inner sanctum of the MFC.  As I said, we will not make finals this year and there are intangible things which exist within footy clubs, which transcend the game itself.  Such things have been missing at the MFC in recent history.  My opinion is Jack Grimes deserves to reach the 100 game milestone.

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

The MFC does not owe or "have a duty" to give Jack Grimes 2 more games. 

If his skill level was higher, if he didn't butcher every second kick or get pushed off contests so easily at senior level then he would have hit this number a long time ago. 

He is dam lucky he got 98

[The Chazz 4,077]

Just now, iv'a worn smith said:

Didn't know you had such an intimate knowledge of the inner sanctum of the MFC.  As I said, we will not make finals this year and there are intangible things which exist within footy clubs, which transcend the game itself.  Such things have been missing at the MFC in recent history.  My opinion is Jack Grimes deserves to reach the 100 game milestone.

It's not intimate knowledge, it's common sense.  What has Grimes' history got to do with how Bernie Vince would play if JG was playing his 100th?  SFA.

This thing about not playing finals - I will still think we're a chance, right up until that moment where we mathematically can't make it.  I'd imagine the players would feel that way too, and would hope Roos is getting this message across.  Sure, it's improbable that we will make it but still not impossible.  Until such time, we pick our strongest team and don't go gifting games to get a bloke to his 100th.  We have rounds 22 and 23 for that.

[nrc73 77]

4 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Personally, I thinknJack deserves more than sinply 2 farewell games, I think he really deserves the chance to play in the next couple so he can have a chance to play the back part of the season and prove if he still has worth at the elite level.

IMHO Grimes is better than others who have been given games this year such as Mitchie, who has never played a game that locks like he could make it.  Conversely, I seem to recall Grimes playing games where he was among the BOG (our underdog win against Adelaide a few years back would be one that comes to mind).  He may not be in our best players skill wise, but I think he could still play a role.  I actually thought that he should have played against Sydney, in place of somoeone like Stretch to get another mature stronger body around the contest.

Yes a good game against Adelaide, but was lucky to stay in the team for much the rest of the year. Clearly Wagner & co are much better options.

There would be 1 very good reason to play Grimes before the end of the year - to bolster his tradeability at year's end.

Edited June 30, 2016 by nrc73
add comment

[rjay 24,928]

A lot talked about gifting games, sentiment, good bloke, it's a business now, he can't adapt to the new game etc....so rather than getting bogged down in these arguments.

The simple fact is Jack has been our most consistent performer at Casey this year and has earned a recall.

I would be surprised if Jack didn't line up against Adelaide this weekend.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

14 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

It's not intimate knowledge, it's common sense.  What has Grimes' history got to do with how Bernie Vince would play if JG was playing his 100th?  SFA.

This thing about not playing finals - I will still think we're a chance, right up until that moment where we mathematically can't make it.  I'd imagine the players would feel that way too, and would hope Roos is getting this message across.  Sure, it's improbable that we will make it but still not impossible.  Until such time, we pick our strongest team and don't go gifting games to get a bloke to his 100th.  We have rounds 22 and 23 for that.

Your brand of common sense may not be common Billy.  By the way, did I indicate a round in which I thought he should play?  Looks like we have to agree to disagree, but as I keep saying, some things in footy clubs are greater than the game itself.  When he does play, I, like I suspect like most others, I will be cheering him loudly.

 

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

1 minute ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Your brand of common sense may not be common Billy.  By the way, did I indicate a round in which I thought he should play?  Looks like we have to agree to disagree, but as I keep saying, some things in footy clubs are greater than the game itself.  When he does play, I, like I suspect like most others, I will be cheering him loudly.

 

Anybody reading this thread would think we all madly support a charity organization. 

Jack is an average player who tries real hard. 

The whole 31/Captain Scenario really just showed how clueless Schwab was. 

[drdrake 3,163]

I have always seen Jack as one of our most reliable defenders, hard at it, turns it over a bit but all in all held his own.  He goes from our first choice HBF a couple of years ago to being behind Jetta, H, Salem, Wagner, Hunt even Mitchie has played down back. I really can't understand why  the coaches don't rate him.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Anybody reading this thread would think we all madly support a charity organization. 

Jack is an average player who tries real hard. 

The whole 31/Captain Scenario really just showed how clueless Schwab was. 

I have never said that and JG can't be blamed for previous ineptitude.

While not trying to pump up my own tyres, I did play footy at a reasonably high level.  We had a bloke at our club who found it very difficult to crack a senior game.  He was a very consistent reserve grade player and was universally loved and respected around the club.  Back in the days when you had 19th and 20th men sitting on the bench, the coach saw fit to pick him in the 1st 18 in a game where we were playing the top side.  In the previous 4 games, that side had won by an aggregate of 350 points.  The boys were rapt that our team mate was elevated for his first senior game of the year.  We knocked off the top side that week.

At least half of our team had only known the bloke I speak of for 2 years tops; many knew him for less time.  But everyone at the club knew what he stood for and that he was part of the heart and soul of the club.  Again, some things in footy clubs transcend the game itself at times - not always, but at times.

[Bossdog 2,002]

12 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Anybody reading this thread would think we all madly support a charity organization. 

Jack is an average player who tries real hard. 

The whole 31/Captain Scenario really just showed how clueless Schwab was. 

So....You're at it again SWYL.......Schwab was also responsible for the Gulf War 9/11 and the terrorist bombing in Turkey.

It's been 4 years since he had any involvment with the club.....LET IT GO.     You may as well blame Dr Don Duffy for sacking Norm

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

2 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I have never said that and JG can't be blamed for previous ineptitude.

While not trying to pump up my own tyres, I did play footy at a reasonably high level.  We had a bloke at our club who found it very difficult to crack a senior game.  He was a very consistent reserve grade player and was universally loved and respected around the club.  Back in the days when you had 19th and 20th men sitting on the bench, the coach saw fit to pick him in the 1st 18 in a game where we were playing the top side.  In the previous 4 games, that side had won by an aggregate of 350 points.  The boys were rapt that our team mate was elevated for his first senior game of the year.  We knocked off the top side that week.

At least half of our team had only known the bloke I speak of for 2 years tops; many knew him for less time.  But everyone at the club knew what he stood for and that he was part of the heart and soul of the club.  Again, some things in footy clubs transcend the game itself at times - not always, but at times.

Fair enough. But i don't think Jack is AFL standard. I was never a huge fan only because he was always pushed off the ball and rushed when he kicked. Opposition teams knew it. 

Jack Grimes showed promise in his warly games and never got any higher on field. The Captaincy  Ball & Chain sucked out any spirit. Those responsible should be ashamed. They are the ones who owe Jack something. Not 2016 MFC

He gets a game coz he earns it otherwise itstays on 98

[Redleg 40,925]

48 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The MFC does not owe or "have a duty" to give Jack Grimes 2 more games. 

If his skill level was higher, if he didn't butcher every second kick or get pushed off contests so easily at senior level then he would have hit this number a long time ago. 

He is dam lucky he got 98

That is just plain wrong.

[Gator 17,354]

If there isn't a spate of injuries and Grimes doesn't make it to 100 games we'll know that the club has taken the attitude of some on this thread.

If he does make it to 100 without a spate of injuries we'll know that the club values Grimes' contribution and the fabric of rewarding relationships, because if he hasn't been chosen by now there's no real reason to pick him.  He's been as good or better than Newton, Neal-Bullen or Michie (playing back, but so could Grimes), who have been given games without getting the nod himself.

It will be interesting to see how the club rolls...

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Deserves to get to 100 and be chaired off imho.

Surely we can find a spot for 2 games.

You're right WYL, this isn't charity organisation. It's a football club, and football clubs have a lot of emotion in them.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

9 minutes ago, Bossdog said:

So....You're at it again SWYL.......Schwab was also responsible for the Gulf War 9/11 and the terrorist bombing in Turkey.

It's been 4 years since he had any involvment with the club.....LET IT GO.     You may as well blame Dr Don Duffy for sacking Norm

Context Bossdog......... Context.  I agree with SWYL, in so far as the scarring it had on certain players, who remain on the list today.  Another example is Jack Watts.  Dean Bailey did not want to play him in his first QB game, but "others" interfered.  We all know that it has taken until this year for Jack to finally display the talent we all believed he possessed.

[edit] and I do blame Dr. Fluffy for the sacking of Norm Smith ......... he and the rest of his old school tie ilk, for which we are forever stereotyped.

Edited June 30, 2016 by iv'a worn smith

[Redleg 40,925]

4 minutes ago, Choke said:

It's a football club, and football clubs have a lot of emotion in them.

Correct. That is the very thing that coaches have employed for 100 years, to get players to give of their best. You need to be emotionally invested to give everything, otherwise you just coast.

Didn't come to play". Have we heard that before?

Edited June 30, 2016 by Redleg

[The Chazz 4,077]

9 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Your brand of common sense may not be common Billy.  By the way, did I indicate a round in which I thought he should play?  Looks like we have to agree to disagree, but as I keep saying, some things in footy clubs are greater than the game itself.  When he does play, I, like I suspect like most others, I will be cheering him loudly.

Grimes has been on our list for 8 years, was a co-captain at a time where we had very little else, and was only a good player in a team that wasn't AFL standard.  His durability and reliability has been regular concern since he started - his reliability even more so now that we are a better team.  He's stranded on 98 games - 98.  Not 198 or 298, it's 98.  What we are hoping to build for the future is something that doesn't see Grimes in it.  He knows that.  And while we're still a chance of making finals (we should be in with a big chance of winning our next 3), we will be picking a team that gives us the best opportunity.

It's credit to the type of guy he is (something I have never questioned), that he keeps backing up at Casey and performing to the best he can.  But, we all know the step up to the big league is substantial, and better players on our list than Grimes have struggled.

I have this feeling that Roos will play him when he (PR) thinks our season is shot.  It will give Jack the best opportunity to find a new home next year.  I also feel that Roos will not let him anywhere near our backline, knowing that there's other blokes in that team that will be there next year that will use games to practice how we want to play, like he did when playing Frawley up forward in his last year.