3 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Reminds me of a punt Hawthorn took once on a fat ex-footballer. 

...and of another one they took with Garlett.

They don't always pan out.

I love the thought of getting a player like the Bennell that took us apart at the 'G' a fair few years back now for next to nothing.

...but the chances are he won't ever get back to that standard with injury, attitude and time out of the game being major concerns.

4 hours ago, rjay said:

...and of another one they took with Garlett.

They don't always pan out.

I love the thought of getting a player like the Bennell that took us apart at the 'G' a fair few years back now for next to nothing.

...but the chances are he won't ever get back to that standard with injury, attitude and time out of the game being major concerns.

If we considered taking him I'd train him through the summer pushing his body to the brink. If he showed continued hunger and didn't break down Rookie him like Stack

Something about Geelong getting him that doesn’t feel good, if they can get his body right with him behaving that’ll be a massive weapon and I hate the idea of Geelong having a weapon added to their list. 

I still think that we should be having a very serious look at him but bring him on board with conditions. Weekly sessions with a club psychologist, chaperone, and perhaps a few other things to keep him in line. 

He’s made mistakes in the past, he has every reason and incentive to want to move on from them. 

Give him a year contract, and see how he goes.

Edited October 25, 20195 yr by deebug

5 hours ago, rjay said:

...and of another one they took with Garlett.

They don't always pan out.

I love the thought of getting a player like the Bennell that took us apart at the 'G' a fair few years back now for next to nothing.

...but the chances are he won't ever get back to that standard with injury, attitude and time out of the game being major concerns.

I agree it's not a high percentage move, but the potential rewards are great if it comes off. Given how little it costs to take the chance it is worth the risk. Offer him two years with an activation clause in his second. He gets a year to get fit and find form, then he needs to play senior footy in 2021.

Isn't he linked to the Cats?

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

Isn't he linked to the Cats?

He was linked to Sydney a week ago. If we offer him decent terms he can be linked to us too.

how many years has it been since he got through a season of football?

we already have three injured for the entirety last year - four if you count kk

we can't afford the risk of picking a player who is often injured when list spots are at a premium as we have four players from last year under contract who barely played, if at all

pass

Edited October 25, 20195 yr by whatwhatsaywhat

1 hour ago, Pennant St Dee said:

If we considered taking him I'd train him through the summer pushing his body to the brink. If he showed continued hunger and didn't break down Rookie him like Stack

Jeezus, I'm not sure I'd treat a horse or dog like that Pennant!

Edited October 25, 20195 yr by Moonshadow

Gosh i wish someone knew something about this bloke's destination and would he be older or younger than Jarrah?

21 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Gosh i wish someone knew something about this bloke's destination and would he be older or younger than Jarrah?

Depends on what year he was felled

13 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Reminds me of a punt Hawthorn took once on a fat ex-footballer. 

Massive difference in taking on a guy 1 year out of the game who didn't have any injury issues, he was just fat. Bennell hasn't effectively played for 4 years, who knows if he's even still got the same speed, reflexes or coordination. 

Brereton was another who had a year off due to injury then went to the swans and then the pies and was horrible. 

Until he proves he can run and maintain a decent level of fitness for some time I'd be avoiding him

Prefer others.

No

No

No

We're likely to take at least 2 mature footballers in the upcoming period. I think a risk on Bennell is well worth considering. Which other 2 do people prefer ahead of him?

26 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

We're likely to take at least 2 mature footballers in the upcoming period. I think a risk on Bennell is well worth considering. Which other 2 do people prefer ahead of him?

I’ll go for some Sams.

Sam Murray seems very committed to atoning for his past and to getting himself fit for the fray. I wasn’t initially keen on him but he’s saying and doing the right things.

Sam Gray would fit a need as a goal kicking smallish forward if he decides to leave Port (or they delist him).

 If we can find a tall (7 foot) agile American basketballer (from the land of Uncle Sam) who could be taught to play our game a la Mason Cox, then perhaps as a Category B.

On 10/9/2018 at 10:01 PM, beelzebub said:

This is a thread because ??? ?

It's October and almost anything gets a run bb.

12 hours ago, Red and Blue realist said:

Massive difference in taking on a guy 1 year out of the game who didn't have any injury issues, he was just fat. Bennell hasn't effectively played for 4 years, who knows if he's even still got the same speed, reflexes or coordination. 

Brereton was another who had a year off due to injury then went to the swans and then the pies and was horrible. 

Until he proves he can run and maintain a decent level of fitness for some time I'd be avoiding him

That's the theory behind offering him two years with a trigger clause for a third. One year to get his game back in shape, second year he needs to perform. Length of contract could be a big factor in luring him to Melbourne.

1 hour ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

That's the theory behind offering him two years with a trigger clause for a third. One year to get his game back in shape, second year he needs to perform. Length of contract could be a big factor in luring him to Melbourne.

So you want us to give him a 2 year contract even though there's a good chance of him never playing a game? He's one of the best talents of the last 10 years but has played 2 ordinary games in the last 4 years, and had major injury issues. Why would anyone offer him even a 1 year contract let alone a 2 with incentives

1 hour ago, Red and Blue realist said:

So you want us to give him a 2 year contract even though there's a good chance of him never playing a game? He's one of the best talents of the last 10 years but has played 2 ordinary games in the last 4 years, and had major injury issues. Why would anyone offer him even a 1 year contract let alone a 2 with incentives

Read @Redleg's post. #280 in this thread. FWIW I've read other sources who support what RL outlines. If his post is correct then yes, I would roll the dice & give him a 2 year contract

5 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

Read @Redleg's post. #280 in this thread. FWIW I've read other sources who support what RL outlines. If his post is correct then yes, I would roll the dice & give him a 2 year contract

I'm not doubting he's got his life together, my main agreement is that no-one has seen him even run after the surgery. So why give anyone a contract when we've got no idea if he can even play footy at a high level anymore? If he can prove he can hit top speeds, hasn't lost any reflexes, still had the same game sense and coordination then maybe he's worth a shot. But until then he's just a guy who used to have a lot of talent who hasn't played a good game in over 4 injury interrupted years, so how anyone could think he's worth a 2 year deal is beyond me.

On 10/26/2019 at 10:38 PM, Red and Blue realist said:

I'm not doubting he's got his life together, my main agreement is that no-one has seen him even run after the surgery. So why give anyone a contract when we've got no idea if he can even play footy at a high level anymore? If he can prove he can hit top speeds, hasn't lost any reflexes, still had the same game sense and coordination then maybe he's worth a shot. But until then he's just a guy who used to have a lot of talent who hasn't played a good game in over 4 injury interrupted years, so how anyone could think he's worth a 2 year deal is beyond me.

l think Harley saw the same gold coast sports science specialist that said that  the root of KK's concussion issues had been newly identified during trade talk. Atleast KK didnt have any behavioral issues. Not interested, will just be a distraction

On 10/26/2019 at 9:22 PM, Red and Blue realist said:

So you want us to give him a 2 year contract even though there's a good chance of him never playing a game? He's one of the best talents of the last 10 years but has played 2 ordinary games in the last 4 years, and had major injury issues. Why would anyone offer him even a 1 year contract let alone a 2 with incentives

This is the club that gave KK, with his major concussion issues, a 3 year contract. Anything's possible from us.

Edited October 27, 20195 yr by TheoX

1 hour ago, TheoX said:

This is the club that gave KK, with his major concussion issues, a 3 year contract. Anything's possible from us.

KK at least played in 4 out of the last 6 games in the season before we picked him up, going out for the last 2 rounds with an injury not related to concussion. So he had recent history of playing, and playing reasonably well in the lead up to being traded to us, plus came as steak knives in the May deal, and has only just turned 24, so could reasonably have 6/7 years left.  

 

On 10/26/2019 at 9:22 PM, Red and Blue realist said:

So you want us to give him a 2 year contract even though there's a good chance of him never playing a game? He's one of the best talents of the last 10 years but has played 2 ordinary games in the last 4 years, and had major injury issues. Why would anyone offer him even a 1 year contract let alone a 2 with incentives

We need to offer something to get the guy to the club.  If Geelong are offering one year, we offer two.  If they are offering two, we offer two + one with a trigger.  There are at least four clubs looking at him and we're probably the least successful of the lot.  We're not going to get him for a one year deal. 

Beyond that simple fact, one spot on our list simply isn't that big a deal.  We just re-signed both Wagners, Dunkley, Baker, Chandler and Lockhart.  Is Bennell a worse option to have on our list that any of them?  I readily admit that he's a risk and might never even play a senior game for us, but he's certainly not any weaker than the fringe players we have already given contracts to.