11 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

It only served to prove, to me, that he adds more to a side at the age of 38 than Dean Kent does at the age of 22.  

I hate the little fella, but he would definitely add something good to our side if he decided it's where he wanted to play next year.

What, 5 more touches a game?

Would have thought the fact we have a developing player who gets more tackles, inside 50s, goal assists and more 1 percenters and averages only 0.4 less goals would tell you we don't have this huge need for him that some are trying to make out.

For the sake of our future and our development, sure I'd bring Harvey in, but he'd be in line behind Kent, Petracca, Brayshaw, Garlett, Stretch, Salem, vB, Bugg, Kennedy, ANB, JKH and Trengove, all of whom can play the same role and are part of our future post-2017, unlike Harvey.

 

I love the Melbourne Football Club. As long as you're playing for my team and you're not a rapist or murderer, I'll support you. Harvey will be welcome and will add something.

2 minutes ago, A F said:

I love the Melbourne Football Club. As long as you're playing for my team and you're not a rapist or murderer, I'll support you. Harvey will be welcome and will add something.

He'll help us knock over Norf next year for starters.

And maybe he can explain to the boys how to win at Docklands...  

Yeah, I'll start by saying I am not emotionally blinkred about Harvey at all. I think he deserves to play on and North deserve to be made to feel the shame of seeing a perfectly capable, first-rate footballer and symbol of the club running around in another team's colours. Ideally a team they hate.

But I don't think he's a fit for us. We're in a good position when it comes to small forward/midfielders, with several options, all very young. Kent, Kennedy, Kennedy-Harris, Harmes, Bugg and Nibbler will all be hoping their chance at a game is helped by being able to spend time forward as well as around the ground.

You don't bring in a short term 'consultant' to add just a little bit to an area you are already not only solid in, but have real depth in.

2017 we need to find out which and how many of those 6 to keep for the premiership run and which to let go. Not leave it to them, with our list being shaped by which of them is the most annoyed about playing for Casey because the Demons impulse-recruited the oldest player in the game.

29 minutes ago, stuie said:

What, 5 more touches a game?

Would have thought the fact we have a developing player who gets more tackles, inside 50s, goal assists and more 1 percenters and averages only 0.4 less goals would tell you we don't have this huge need for him that some are trying to make out.

For the sake of our future and our development, sure I'd bring Harvey in, but he'd be in line behind Kent, Petracca, Brayshaw, Garlett, Stretch, Salem, vB, Bugg, Kennedy, ANB, JKH and Trengove, all of whom can play the same role and are part of our future post-2017, unlike Harvey.

 

 

Are you mad, man? Firstly, what makes you so sure that all of those players will 'make it'?  Christ, if it were that easy to draft and develop any young player into a best 22 consistent AFL level performer, this thread wouldn't even have started. 

Secondly, how is it possible that you completely ignore the following under your incredibly insular view: His level of experience, his attribute diversity, his training habits and understanding of what it takes to be able to play at the highest level for as long as he has, his level of on-field performance. etc etc.

Thirdly, positionally speaking, Harvey is so much more versatile than Kent. The fact that you've chosen to compare both of their stats over the course of a single year in which Harvey has played in different positions and has played in a better and more evenly spread side is also baffling. 

 

Look Stuart, like plenty of other sheep on this forum, you prefer to let your emotional state guide your decision making. I'll lump you in with the rest that continue to be so short-sighted and continue to have NFI.

 

Out of interest, how do you think Steve Johnson has performed this year and do you think anyone within the AFL world still questions whether or not GWS should have picked him up? His output last year was nowhere near Harvey's and he was a risk in more ways than only that. I can only imagine the tripe you'd be posting if it were us that were interested. In fact, I'm sure I could dig some of it up. 

We have two starting 22 players with more than 150 games experience to their name. 

Think for a minute Stu.

Edited September 20, 20169 yr by stevethemanjordan

40 minutes ago, ENYAW said:

Those who suggests we take Petrie and Harvey………………….. well done.

The only who has ever mentioned Petrie is you Wayne which you just did.

Well done.

It's actually going to be very interesting to see the direction we go this off season in player movement with director for Goody.

Hibb seems like a good solid pick up, good age bracket to add in. 

Will there be older players like Harvey or a Thompson be brought in to add some experience/grunt to help younger team? If yes how that turns out will be fascinating to see play out.

Will there be any interest in our older "NQR" like Dunny, Garls, Grimes etc and can we get any value for them that we can turn into a first rounder somehow? 

Just now, stevethemanjordan said:

 

Are you mad, man? Firstly, what makes you so sure that all of those players will 'make it'?  Christ, if it were that easy to draft and develop any young player into a best 22 consistent AFL level performer, this thread wouldn't even have started. 

How will we know if they're going to make it while we're obliged to play Harvey? Should we just extend all of them and wait for Harvey to finish up?

Secondly, how is it possible that you completely ignore the following under your incredibly insular view: His level of experience, his attribute diversity, his training habits and understanding of what it takes to be able to play at the highest level for as long as he has, his level of on-field performance. etc etc.

Training habits? Seriously? If we don't have good training habits by now then we should give up all together.

Thirdly, positionally speaking, Harvey is so much more versatile than Kent. The fact that you've chosen to compare both of their stats over the course of a single year in which Harvey has played in different positions and has played in a better and more evenly spread side is also baffling. 

Why wouldn't we compare the current year? That's what's relevant, not how Harvey was in the past. We're getting 2017 Harvey, not 2009. My stats illustrated Kent provides us with more pressure and quality delivery inside 50, which currently is a bigger need than a front running finisher like Harvey.

Look Stuart, like plenty of other sheep on this forum, you prefer to let your emotional state guide your decision making. I'll lump you in with the rest that continue to be so short-sighted and continue to have NFI.

Right, unlike you who goes for personal insults because someone disagrees with you. Righto then.

Out of interest, how do you think Steve Johnson has performed this year and do you think anyone within the AFL world still questions whether or not GWS should have picked him up? His output last year was nowhere near Harvey's and I can only imagine the tripe you'd be posting if it were us that were interested. In fact, I'm sure I could dig some of it up. 

Steve Johnson is not Brett Harvey. We are not GWS. Irrelevant.

We have two starting 22 players with more than 150 games experience to their name. 

Yeah, so it would be great to add some 24-28 year olds to bolster that, not try and get our average experience up with one player.

Think for a minute Stu.

See above mate.

1 minute ago, stuie said:

See above mate.

For the sake of keeping the thread on the straight and narrow, I'm throwing in the towel.

But to reiterate, I think you're genuinely missing a much broader picture in regards to what Harvey would add to a club like ours. And it goes far beyond the singular comparison of 'stats' from two players over the course of a year. The fact that you chose to use a stat comparison between Harvey and Kent to back your view is fairly absurd and I guarantee if you took that to Goody, he'd laugh in your face.

That's just the truth bro.

 

 

 

Just now, stevethemanjordan said:

For the sake of keeping the thread on the straight and narrow, I'm throwing in the towel.

But to reiterate, I think you're genuinely missing a much broader picture in regards to what Harvey would add to a club like ours. And it goes far beyond the singular comparison of 'stats' from two players over the course of a year. The fact that you chose to use a stat comparison between Harvey and Kent to back your view is fairly absurd and I guarantee if you took that to Goody, he'd laugh in your face.

That's just the truth bro.

No. It's not. You've just got your head so far up yourself that you think you know what "Goody" thinks.

You don't.

Because you clearly missed it when I explained the first time, the stat comparison was for those who think Harvey will supply onfield things we don't currently have. I also don't rate him currently as a leader, neither does his coach or his peers. But hey, you and "Goody" can have a good chuckle about that hey?... SMH.

 

I don't understand how anyone could oppose recruiting a player with Boomer's pace and skill. When you add in the 400+ games experience and obvious elite preparation, I am praying we can get him for a year or two. Would provide so much more with the footy than Barlow, Thompson or Dal Santo etc.

The "he keeps a young player out" is bullsh!t. Goodwin will ensure the elite kids keep getting games. He knows it's about getting the young core to 80+ games together asap. Boomer will play ahead of a fringe player like Bugg, vandenBerg, Kennedy or Harmes. I'm all for making those ordinary players work harder at Casey while Boomer helps create a winning culture at senior level.

On 8/24/2016 at 8:17 PM, spirit of norm smith said:

Voting split 50/50 right now!!

FMD we aren't a Retirement Home! An emphatic NOOOO 

10 minutes ago, stuie said:

No. It's not. You've just got your head so far up yourself that you think you know what "Goody" thinks.

You don't.

Because you clearly missed it when I explained the first time, the stat comparison was for those who think Harvey will supply onfield things we don't currently have. I also don't rate him currently as a leader, neither does his coach or his peers. But hey, you and "Goody" can have a good chuckle about that hey?... SMH.

 

Oh we'll chuckle alright.

Those suggesting yes to Boomer, should have a look at his last game.  Selfish and indulgent football, the sort of culture we've worked hard to eradicate, not invite back in.

2 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Oh we'll chuckle alright.

Just now, grazman said:

Those suggesting yes to Boomer, should have a look at his last game.  Selfish and indulgent football, the sort of culture we've worked hard to eradicate, not invite back in.

Let's [censored] Hogan off then.

And you may as well throw in Tyson from certain games this year as well as half a dozen others.

 

2 minutes ago, grazman said:

Those suggesting yes to Boomer, should have a look at his last game.  Selfish and indulgent football, the sort of culture we've worked hard to eradicate, not invite back in.

Hasn't been in North's leadership group since 2013, but yeah apparently he's a real "leader"....

 

1 minute ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Let's [censored] Hogan off then.

And you may as well throw in Tyson from certain games this year as well as half a dozen others.

 

1 minute ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Let's [censored] Hogan off then.

And you may as well throw in Tyson from certain games this year as well as half a dozen others.

 

If you love him so much why don't you marry him?

1 minute ago, grazman said:

If you love him so much why don't you marry him?

He's gotta wait for the plebiscite Grazman.

 

Just now, grazman said:

If you love him so much why don't you marry him?

Genuinely laughed out loud.

 

1 minute ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Genuinely laughed out loud.

 

Along with your imaginary friend Goody?

 

Absolutely not.

Peace and love ya'll.