2 minutes ago, Abe said:

Absolutely we do, but i am not sure Green is much more than a forward, which where others have pointed out we're okay for pace with Garlett, Kent and so on adding plenty in that area. 

Jetta was a forward too. I don't think every player is stuck in a specific role for their whole career.

Plus, we're not talking about someone we expect to be best 22, we're talking about a rookie spot.

And as I mentioned in another post, given Garlett's 2016, I don't think there's anything wrong with some competition for spots, especially given Kent is a completely different role and Kennedy isn't pushing hard enough.

 

If Michie is a vanilla midfielder then Green is a vanilla small forward. 

We won't be picking him up. 

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Jetta was a forward too. I don't think every player is stuck in a specific role for their whole career.

Plus, we're not talking about someone we expect to be best 22, we're talking about a rookie spot.

And as I mentioned in another post, given Garlett's 2016, I don't think there's anything wrong with some competition for spots, especially given Kent is a completely different role and Kennedy isn't pushing hard enough.

 

This is true, i will back the footy department to make the right call here.

1 minute ago, Abe said:

This is true, i will back the footy department to make the right call here.

Yep, likewise. I don't see us as a big chance of picking him up, just throwing it out there.

 

3 hours ago, mauriesy said:

So he can run fast, but can't play football.

I'd much rather give rookie list spots to speculative kids showing promise rather than a bottom of the ladder discard.

 

3 hours ago, stuie said:

"Speculative kids showing promise" will be taken in the draft.

 

Stuart, the above was your response to Mauriesy's post about taking speculative kids in the rookie draft.  You are clearly implying that as they will be picking up speculative kids in the National Draft, then we can look at the rookie draft for gambles on established players.

4 hours ago, stuie said:

Has some things that would be handy for us, mostly speed, and the whole point of the rookie list is to take a chance right? I'd rather take a gamble with someone like Green than have another vanilla footballer like Michie.

 

You then use the example of offering rookie spots for players like Green, as opposed to a Michie type.  Both of these players are existing players, not "kids", further showing your views on the rookie draft as a destination for "tried" players.

As Mauriesy said, we will take kids in the draft where we have a lot more exposed form.  I am in no doubt this will especially be for our first two picks.  Our pick 80-odd will be used for upgrading Wagner, who was a speculative pick on our rookie list.

We have a reasonable record at exposing unearthed talent through the rookie draft, yet you want to fill up those spots with Josh Green. 

7 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

 

Stuart, the above was your response to Mauriesy's post about taking speculative kids in the rookie draft.  You are clearly implying that as they will be picking up speculative kids in the National Draft, then we can look at the rookie draft for gambles on established players.

You then use the example of offering rookie spots for players like Green, as opposed to a Michie type.  Both of these players are existing players, not "kids", further showing your views on the rookie draft as a destination for "tried" players.

As Mauriesy said, we will take kids in the draft where we have a lot more exposed form.  I am in no doubt this will especially be for our first two picks.  Our pick 80-odd will be used for upgrading Wagner, who was a speculative pick on our rookie list.

We have a reasonable record at exposing unearthed talent through the rookie draft, yet you want to fill up those spots with Josh Green. 

The rookie list is clearly for players that are more of a gamble, don't you agree? Otherwise they'd be drafted right? Because they have "promise".

Jetta worked out, Michie didn't, that's how it goes.

If you think we don't have enough 18 year olds and you want more of them on the rookie list then good for you.

 

As you go through the draft and into the rookie draft, the picks become more "speculative". But for me the key qualification is "promise", no matter what the pick.

Unless you want to pick kids without any promise.

Just now, mauriesy said:

As you go through the draft and into the rookie draft, the picks become more "speculative". But for me the key qualification is "promise", no matter what the pick.

Unless you want to pick kids without any promise.

I guess I see it as different kinds of "promise".

ie - Player X is an 18 year old with talent, a great work ethic and leadership skills, highly likely to be a high draft pick. Will require physical testing before considering.

Player Y is a 24 year old with talent and speed whose work ethic has question marks given it may have been poor club culture rather than laziness on his part. Will require in depth interviewing before considering.

 

Delisted from the worst list in the comp.  That should end the discussion right there.

7 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Delisted from the worst list in the comp.  That should end the discussion right there.

Talented player who didn't perform in the worst culture in the league, has talents that would be valuable to a team building one of the best.

That's why there's a discussion. Fairly shallow analysis by your usual standards WB.

 

I've watched a few games where Green played. He has foot speed and knows where the goals are, but his decision making and delivery are slow. We need speed, but I'd much prefer the speed created by accurate, penetrating disposal (Hibbert and Lewis) to the foot speed of a guy who I watched stop-and-prop a lot and then struggle to hit a target. AND he thinks he's worth $500k!

I'll back the FD, but hope he's not in our plans.

Just now, stuie said:

Talented player who didn't perform in the worst culture in the league, has talents that would be valuable to a team building one of the best.

That's why there's a discussion. Fairly shallow analysis by your usual standards WB.

 

Really?  Talented?  Fair suck of the ol' half forward flanker there Stuie.

Look at us over the years.  Lots of supposedly talented players who didn't perform in the worst culture in the league at the time.  How many of these players went on to other clubs and got better?  Gysberts?  Blease?  Tapscott?  The list goes on.  Green falls in to this category.  He's no better than a Ben Newton, a bloke we just delisted.  Our club has no need for him.

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

Really?  Talented?  Fair suck of the ol' half forward flanker there Stuie.

Look at us over the years.  Lots of supposedly talented players who didn't perform in the worst culture in the league at the time.  How many of these players went on to other clubs and got better?  Gysberts?  Blease?  Tapscott?  The list goes on.  Green falls in to this category.  He's no better than a Ben Newton, a bloke we just delisted.  Our club has no need for him.

There's no argument about his talent surely. 2nd round pick, captain of his state team and lead the Lions goalkicking 2 years ago.

Gysberts, Blease and Tapscott were all talented too.

Talent isn't the question mark over him, and wasn't the problem with the players you listed either.

So you're comparing him to completely unrelated players? Come on mate, you're usually better than that.

 

5 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

I've watched a few games where Green played. He has foot speed and knows where the goals are, but his decision making and delivery are slow. We need speed, but I'd much prefer the speed created by accurate, penetrating disposal (Hibbert and Lewis) to the foot speed of a guy who I watched stop-and-prop a lot and then struggle to hit a target. AND he thinks he's worth $500k!

I'll back the FD, but hope he's not in our plans.

Didn't realize Hibberd and Lewis were fighting with Green for a rookie list spot...

Righto then.

 

Just now, stuie said:

There's no argument about his talent surely. 2nd round pick, captain of his state team and lead the Lions goalkicking 2 years ago.

Gysberts, Blease and Tapscott were all talented too.

Talent isn't the question mark over him, and wasn't the problem with the players you listed either.

So you're comparing him to completely unrelated players? Come on mate, you're usually better than that.

 

How are they unrelated?  All supposedly had talent, all of them didn't get anywhere with it and didn't kick on when they were delisted.  It's a fair comparison.  Green falls in to that category as well.  He isn't worth our time.

For a player you are just 'throwing out there' for discussion, you seem to be defending him quite strongly.  

Just now, stuie said:

Didn't realize Hibberd and Lewis were fighting with Green for a rookie list spot...

Righto then.

 

Didn't say they were Stu. Putting words into other's mouths, as usual. 

I used their strengths as an example of effective speed as opposed to a guy with leg speed and slow decision making speed.

You "throw it out there" and then shout down anyone whose view differs from yours.

Righto then.

Please put me back on ignore and resist stalking.

5 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

How are they unrelated?  All supposedly had talent, all of them didn't get anywhere with it and didn't kick on when they were delisted.  It's a fair comparison.  Green falls in to that category as well.  He isn't worth our time.

For a player you are just 'throwing out there' for discussion, you seem to be defending him quite strongly.  

Gysberts is not Green.

Tapscott is not Green.

Blease is not Green,

That's how they're unrelated.

I'm not defending him, I don't know him, for all I know he could fail miserably in the interview stage (if he was even given that opportunity) but as I've said, he has some talents that would be handy for us, would cost us basically nothing and is coming from a team with horrible culture, which means either he was part of it or he was held back by it. Worth asking him right?

 

Just now, stuie said:

Gysberts is not Green.

Tapscott is not Green.

Blease is not Green,

That's how they're unrelated.

I'm not defending him, I don't know him, for all I know he could fail miserably in the interview stage (if he was even given that opportunity) but as I've said, he has some talents that would be handy for us, would cost us basically nothing and is coming from a team with horrible culture, which means either he was part of it or he was held back by it. Worth asking him right?

 

So therefore I can't make comparisons between any player that's ever played the game because it isn't the same player?  Unbelievable logic.

There are clear similarities between those players that make a strong case as to why pursuing Green isn't worth our time.  That's enough from me.

5 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

So therefore I can't make comparisons between any player that's ever played the game because it isn't the same player?  Unbelievable logic.

There are clear similarities between those players that make a strong case as to why pursuing Green isn't worth our time.  That's enough from me.

You're saying the outcomes would be the same. That's the unbelievable logic.

So because all those players are classed as "talented" they will all have the same type of career? All those players came from the same team at about the same time. Green does not.

Should we get rid of Viney too because he's "comparable" to Moloney?

 

Edited October 25, 20168 yr by stuie

9 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Didn't say they were Stu. Putting words into other's mouths, as usual.

 

24 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

I'd much prefer the speed created by accurate, penetrating disposal (Hibbert and Lewis)

Righto then champ.

Maybe start reading your own posts instead of all of mine.

 

20 minutes ago, stuie said:

There's no argument about his talent surely. 2nd round pick, captain of his state team and lead the Lions goalkicking 2 years ago.

Gysberts, Blease and Tapscott were all talented too.

Talent isn't the question mark over him, and wasn't the problem with the players you listed either.

So you're comparing him to completely unrelated players? Come on mate, you're usually better than that.

 

There seems to be a bit of an argument going on here 'stuie' ....

...maybe that no argument surely thing is off the mark.

1 minute ago, rjay said:

There seems to be a bit of an argument going on here 'stuie' ....

...maybe that no argument surely thing is off the mark.

Again, 2nd round pick, U18 state captain, leading goalkicker. You don't get any of those without talent, let alone all 3.

Don't miss my point when I'm saying the question isn't his talent. Clearly the question is his work ethic and commitment to development.

 

30 minutes ago, stuie said:

 

Righto then champ.

Maybe start reading your own posts instead of all of mine.

 

Selective quoting is bad form Stu. You're better than that, surely? 

Where did I say Hibbert and Lewis were competing for a rookie spot with Green? You are making crapp up once again in a straw man arguement.

Once again just for you, and read slowly now, I said I preferred the speed traits they had to the speed traits of a player who has foot speed but slow decision making speed. 

Geezus! Gotta laugh at a guy who nonchalantly "throws it out there" for discussion then shouts down anyone who doesn't agree with him. Kind of sad, but not unexpected.

Keep going if you like. I CBF

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Selective quoting is bad form Stu. You're better than that, surely? 

Where did I say Hibbert and Lewis were competing for a rookie spot with Green? You are making crapp up once again in a straw man arguement.

Once again just for you, and read slowly now, I said I preferred the speed traits they had to the speed traits of a player who has foot speed but slow decision making speed. 

Geezus! Gotta laugh at a guy who nonchalantly "throws it out there" for discussion then shouts down anyone who doesn't agree with him. Kind of sad, but not unexpected.

Keep going if you like. I CBF

Haha gotta laugh at a guy who continually stalks another poster and then complains when they actually reply...

Keep punching champ.

 

5 minutes ago, stuie said:

Haha gotta laugh at a guy who continually stalks another poster and then complains when they actually reply...

Keep punching champ.

 

Massive irony.