1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I'd love to see Essendon get pillaged this off season.

I'm surprised no club has pushed the breach of contact line harder yet. Similarly, why Geelong didn't simply take Dangerfield as a FA.  Guessing that these clubs still want to retain some relationship credits for any future trades, but I do wonder if that is really worth it when they could get more immediate returns by playing hard ball.

Surely it would be up to the players (Hibberd & Hurley) "to push the breach of contract line harder" as they are the party in contract with Essedrug. We would just be third party beneficiaries if they settle to avoid the precedent that the AFL wishes to avoid.

I want Hibberd to walk to us for nothing.

No more four year deals for Joe Average rejects.

Two is plenty for Dasher Hibbert.

On 8/3/2016 at 7:46 AM, Clint Bizkit said:

I want Hibberd to walk to us for nothing.

I think if we want to be a ruthless club we need to make these sorts of decisions, why give up a pick when we don't have to?

15 hours ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

I thought about Kent, but his kicking, for mine, is just far too inconsistent.

 

15 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Not sure if it helps or hinders his case but that kick was a decision problem not a poor skill execution.

 

14 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

 

This. He is a great kick, just sometimes makes the wrong decision. One poor decision doesn't make him a bad kick. 

 

13 hours ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

Disagree.

 

He is not a bad kick, better than average, but far from a great kick IMO.

 

13 hours ago, Fork 'em said:

Not sure he's better than average.
Maybe average.

 

 

12 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

It's semantics, but I disagree, I think Kent's kicking is actually great. The issue is almost always decision-making - at his worst he is dumb and lazy and that manifests itself in kicks like the one on Sunday.

At his best, though, his kicking is an asset to the side and when he is working hard through the middle of the ground, he is one of the players I want delivering the ball inside 50 (Petracca is another).

 

12 hours ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

He has the propensity to kick absolute floaters at times, so he's certainly not a great kick.

I agree with 'Adam' on Kent's kicking.

He's not a great kick, too inconsistent and misses too many easy shots on goal. He could be a great kick but he's not.

Nothing wrong with the mechanics of his kicking and no I don't think it's so much decision making, if you're having a set shot there's no decision to be made.

I think he gets a bit lazy/loses concentration at times.

19 hours ago, ProDee said:

What an inane comment.

By that logic Flower was a dud and Gold Coast's Tom Lynch wouldn't improve us.  Judge a player on their merits.

Hibberd is a very good player.  Melksham less so.

On top of that, Essendon was a good team for long patches until the drug saga reeled its head. They were building towards something in 2012, 2013 when it all came crumbling down. Don't blame players for wanting to leave.

14 hours ago, Cards13 said:

I felt like it was a skill he leaned way to far back in his action, it floated short. 

One thing I clearly recall from earlier in the year, coaches are challenging the players to be bold, to take risks. It was a bold call but I felt the skill was poorly executed.

It was a 50-60m kick and he hit watts on the chest not too bad skill. Unfortunatly there was a man there to spoil it.. all things considered if watts was actually alone then that kick would have completely opened them up with their entire defence out of position thats wh. Still there is being bold and there is being stupid and i think that was drifting more towards the stupid. 

 

15 hours ago, Biffen said:

That was the dumbest option available, and the hardest.

Absolutely the worst turn over of the year- in a strong field of idiotic kicks.

No way its the worst I'd take that 100 times before bernie's or harmes'  turnovers. Even Stretch's was worse because he had blatantly obvious options, at the very least Kent had nothing and tried to create something from nothing.

2 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

It was a 50-60m kick and he hit watts on the chest not too bad skill. Unfortunatly there was a man there to spoil it.. all things considered if watts was actually alone then that kick would have completely opened them up with their entire defence out of position thats wh. Still there is being bold and there is being stupid and i think that was drifting more towards the stupid. 

 

No way its the worst I'd take that 100 times before bernie's or harmes'  turnovers. Even Stretch's was worse because he had blatantly obvious options, at the very least Kent had nothing and tried to create something from nothing.

There was something very "Travis" about that high risk audacious kick that made me howl in frustration. I'd prefer he has a ping at the goal, than 50 out in the corridor where an error will almost certainly cost us a goal.

3 hours ago, Biffen said:

No more four year deals for Joe Average rejects.

Two is plenty for Dasher Hibbert.

You need to offer a little more to get a player to leave a club 

3 hours ago, Abe said:

I think if we want to be a ruthless club we need to make these sorts of decisions, why give up a pick when we don't have to?

Because has been pointed out a number of times it's not our call. Yes we can low ball them or flat out refuse to offer a trade. But hibberd would then have to go through the process of challenging that and arguing for a breach of contract. And really he is unlikely to want to do that, if for no other reason than i'm sure he has had enough legal drama and stress to last a lifetime. 

3 hours ago, rjay said:

 

Agree with 'Adam' on Kent's kicking.

He's not a great kick, too inconsistent and misses too many easy shots on goal. He could be a great kick but he's not.

Nothing wrong with the mechanics of his kicking and no I don't think it's so much decision making, if you're having a set shot there's no decision to be made.

I think he gets a bit lazy/loses concentration at times.

Kent is a terrific kick usually and i love the fact that he has great penetration when he connects. I was sitting in line with the set shot he kicked to the city end and it went gun barrel straight and that kick to Petracca was a gem.

My issue with Kent's kicking is when shooting for goals he often rushes the kick and is not balanced as a result, leading to some shocking shanks. 

11 minutes ago, binman said:

Kent is a terrific kick usually and i love the fact that he has great penetration when he connects. I was sitting in line with the set shot he kicked to the city end and it went gun barrel straight and that kick to Petracca was a gem.

My issue with Kent's kicking is when shooting for goals he often rushes the kick and is not balanced as a result, leading to some shocking shanks. 

His kicking will improve, just needs some work.. Sometimes you can see he rushes his field kicking a bit and like most players who kick off one or two steps- he doesn't hit the target. Another one who needs some good education and a better understanding of when to try the impossible kicks or when to keep it simple.

 

3 minutes ago, SPC said:

His kicking will improve, just needs some work.. Sometimes you can see he rushes his field kicking a bit and like most players who kick off one or two steps- he doesn't hit the target. Another one who needs some good education and a better understanding of when to try the impossible kicks or when to keep it simple.

 

15 minutes ago, binman said:

Kent is a terrific kick usually and i love the fact that he has great penetration when he connects. I was sitting in line with the set shot he kicked to the city end and it went gun barrel straight and that kick to Petracca was a gem.

My issue with Kent's kicking is when shooting for goals he often rushes the kick and is not balanced as a result, leading to some shocking shanks. 

I think Kent's issue is that too often he doesn't look or won't pass it....in the last quarter of the Eagles game he was steaming in from 55m and instead of lowering the eyes and hitting a target (he had two he could have hit) he bombed for goal and kicked a point.  He's a bit too goal hungry at times and like a few of our players, needs to assess options inside the 50m alot better than he does now.

14 hours ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

That was a great bump. I didn't see who it was, but I had the impression that it was Frost, but that would be more a lot more surprising than Jones ... 

Not sure which bump you are talking about.  I was talking about the bump in the Cale Morton  video Clink Bizkit posted.

15 hours ago, DemonAndrew said:

Bombers high-ups very confident we will give up our 2017 first round pick for him.

 

 

Not from the Melbourne Officials of today, that would be insanity.

19 hours ago, Biffen said:

That was the dumbest option available, and the hardest.

Absolutely the worst turn over of the year- in a strong field of idiotic kicks.

If you are talking about timing in a game, it was the worst.

If you are talking about the actual kick, it was far from the worst. 

He kicked it to Matt Jones on the boundary, about 50 out and that was the position to go.

The problem was that he failed to see the best player for the Suns, near enough to cut it off. Matt Jones should have run in to try and spoil, but just stood there.

However it was Bernie's fault basically, not Matt's.

15 hours ago, DemonAndrew said:

Bombers high-ups very confident we will give up our 2017 first round pick for him.

 

 

If that happened, I would have to assume that the Bombers have some ASADA dirt on Goodwin and are blackmailing him

Not a chance in hell we are giving a first rounder for Hibberd.  ZERO!!!!!

He will go for this years 2nd rounder.

21 minutes ago, Redleg said:

If you are talking about timing in a game, it was the worst.

If you are talking about the actual kick, it was far from the worst. 

He kicked it to Matt Jones on the boundary, about 50 out and that was the position to go.

The problem was that he failed to see the best player for the Suns, near enough to cut it off. Matt Jones should have run in to try and spoil, but just stood there.

However it was Bernie's fault basically, not Matt's.

also lynch's opponent should have dragged him further centre-wards opening it up more for jones

46 minutes ago, Glenn Molloy said:

I think Kent's issue is that too often he doesn't look or won't pass it....in the last quarter of the Eagles game he was steaming in from 55m and instead of lowering the eyes and hitting a target (he had two he could have hit) he bombed for goal and kicked a point.  He's a bit too goal hungry at times and like a few of our players, needs to assess options inside the 50m alot better than he does now.

Interesting i have felt a few of our forwards arn't greedy enough. Many of our players seem to look for a handball or pass before looking for the shot. This is shown by our high goal accuracy but low score efficency per i50. Players only shoot when they have heaps of time and space. Exceptions are Vanders and Bernie who seem shoot whenever they touch the ball in the forward 50.  

I'd like to see some more rushed snaps and kicks on the run. Yeah they might miss but the chain of handballs to others in the hope of more space is not working especially on repeat entrys. Very rarely do scores from repeat entrys (which we are developing more and more of) come from an open player. There was a number of times against the Eagles I saw chances for shots that were given as handballs that were immediately shut down when what we needed was a quick snap even if we had 6 more quick snaps and kicked 1.5 that would have been enough. A little over 1 extra shot per qtr.. with 70 odd inside 50s it shouldnt have been hard.

In the first qtr against the Suns Dawes had the ball 35 out almost straight infront and could have taken 2 steps and kicked on his right but instead gave it to Vandenberg who was forced to kick with his left... thats just not greedy enough! Dawes had the space, take the shot dont risk the chance going by. Too many times we get a mark inside 50 there are players looking to give it off, yeah there are times if a player is miles on his own but not often enough do players look to take the responsibility.

Watts looked to give off before settling and missing both the shots from the pocket early in the game but when he got that one in the last he had a quick glance then went back and slotted it. Yeah they arnt going to kick those every time but risking a turnover when you have a guaranteed shot should be a non-option. Just think back to round 3, thank god he hadn't tried that again! Even Kents kick to Tracc in the last I wasn't a fan of.. what if suns players had actually been switched on? Then it would have been a turn over. 

1 hour ago, AzzKikA said:

Not sure which bump you are talking about.  I was talking about the bump in the Cale Morton  video Clink Bizkit posted.

Not that one. There was one on Sunday that was audible from the stands where I was sitting, and didn't seem to make it into the highlights. It was in the last quarter, I think, and was one of those moments where many in the crowd take a breath at the same time and say "Oh!".

5 hours ago, praha said:

On top of that, Essendon was a good team for long patches until the drug saga reeled its head. They were building towards something in 2012, 2013 when it all came crumbling down. Don't blame players for wanting to leave.

I'm sick of comments like these. Drugs aren't taken in a vacuum, they effect performance. Their 2012 performance at the beginning of the year and the subsequent confidence they got from knowing they could beat everyone was a direct result of their performance being enhanced by drugs.

This idea that they were building into a side that could challenge for a premiership without the asterix, that it was all wonderful jimmy hirds recruiting and coaching, is an illusion - It can never be seperated from the drug use and can never be attributed to their list.

As you saw above, the 'subsequent confidence' is the important factor. If they hadn't of taken the drugs, they might not have gone on a winning streak in 12 and they might not have gone anywhere near the 8 in 13 or 14. Knowing you can beat everyone would do wonders for the confidence for years to come, and that's exactly how they cheated. 

If they hadn't of taken drugs, maybe they'd be on the bottom for 2 or 3 years and most of their list would be delisted players without any collateral.

Edited August 3, 20169 yr by johndemons

On 8/3/2016 at 1:46 PM, Petraccattack said:

If that happened, I would have to assume that the Bombers have some ASADA dirt on Goodwin and are blackmailing him

Not a chance in hell we are giving a first rounder for Hibberd.  ZERO!!!!!

He will go for this years 2nd rounder.

I would even offer only a third rounder, the bloke is 27 and has been out of the AFL system entirely for 12 months.. that's gotta lower value surely.

2 minutes ago, Abe said:

I would even offer only a third rounder, the bloke is 27 and has been out of the AFL system entirely for 12 months.. that's gotta lower value surely.

actually not 27 until early next year. so yes, by the start of next season he certainly would be 27, so a 4 year contract represents 27,28,20,30

what the effects of being out for 12 months and the diminished after-effects of peds means to his future form is anyone's guess. same goes for all the 34

2 hours ago, Glenn Molloy said:

 

 

I think Kent's issue is that too often he doesn't look or won't pass it....in the last quarter of the Eagles game he was steaming in from 55m and instead of lowering the eyes and hitting a target (he had two he could have hit) he bombed for goal and kicked a point.  He's a bit too goal hungry at times and like a few of our players, needs to assess options inside the 50m alot better than he does now.

He did a very nice short pass to Petracca that resulted in a goal....

12 minutes ago, johndemons said:

I'm sick of comments like these. Drugs aren't taken in a vacuum, they effect performance. Their 2012 performance at the beginning of the year and the subsequent confidence they got from knowing they could beat everyone was a direct result of their performance being enhanced by drugs.

This idea that they were building into a side that could challenge for a premiership without the asterix, that it was all wonderful jimmy hirds recruiting and coaching, is an illusion - It can never be seperated from the drug use and can never be attributed to their list.

As you saw above, the 'subsequent confidence' is the important factor. If they hadn't of taken the drugs, they might not have gone on a winning streak in 12 and they might not have gone anywhere near the 8 in 13 or 14. Knowing you can beat everyone would do wonders for the confidence for years to come, and that's exactly how they cheated. 

I realise this is probably the wrong thread, but just building on what you're saying here - without knowing exactly what drugs were taken and what ongoing benefits these playersmay still experience, I find it unacceptable that any of the players are allowed to remain at that club. It would appear that after 1, perhaps 2, years of onfield pain they will reap the benefits of their drug program, as well as picking up the cream of this years draft crop, and potentially be able to fiddle with contracts (via compensation payouts) to cheat the salary cap. WTF didn't we think of this ten years ago, rather than going down the not-tanking path?