stevethemanjordan

ummmmm...

DE? You're not really looking at that are you? It is sooooooo misleading. I'm using him as one of many in our backline who do not use the ball well enough.. They don't make smart decisions and they don't kick well. You can't have a backline with most of the players sharing the same weakness.

Lift our intensity by 20% for the remainder of the game and start moving the ball smarter and we will blow them away.

Whilst I don't wish to 'pick' on him, can some of you watch Garland today and tell me what he's adding to the side today? He's already fluffed kicks. One of which was to a player less than 15 metres away on his own. Do people see how one-dimensional our backline is? Garland has value through FA. We need a different skill set in our side and in our backline. Watch Garland for the rest of the day and you'll see what I mean. He is insignificant. Irrelevant.

And I'd agree with you. But we wouldn't be 'disposing' him. And that's the point. We'd receive compo which could set us up to get someone decent through a trade. That's the whole point of this. He still has value.

You didn't do a very good job..

I saw it also. In any workplace, the relationships you hold have to be strong while you're there. I don't think a 'hug' after a win is any indication that Garland is a required player... But that's just me.

Jamar and Garland along with Dunn, Frawley, Sylvia are and were a core group of underperforming, inconsistent players who were and have been with us since the pre-Bailey era. Howe came along not long afterwards. All of them, (for various reasons) have at times during their career shown a lack of care and commitment to be fiercely competitive at all times. They also share these following traits: * Lack of skill level and decision making. Sometimes to the point of making comical extremely comical errors. * Have never improved their individual games over the course of their careers in a consistent way like Nathan Jones. Form has always been up and down. * An extremely low level of leadership qualities present in their game and in the way that they play. When you have a group of older/experienced players such as these guys who share those sort of traits, it doesn't bode particularly well for your club, the list, the younger generation of players etc etc. There is a reason Frawley and Sylvia are gone. And no I do not believe that Roos would have preferred to keep them regardless of what he said to the media during that time. Jamar and Garland are another two that will be gone for the same reasons and Howe has seemed to follow trend with this lot and we can still net something really good for him. Someone please tell me what Garland adds to our club in it's present state? What?!

No. Why jump to a silly ultimatum when it's easy to see what the post is referring too? We are talking about blokes who have been here since the Bailey days and some from before. The blokes who are insignificant players at our club but who should really be the leaders. Nathan Jones isn't in that bracket and neither is Viney both for different reasons. Why is it so hard to understand?

In your view. Whilst I agree that this year he has been more consistent in his effort, I've seen enough to know that: A) We've won plenty without him as we have coverage for his position and over the past few of years I have never thought 'Gee, we missed Garland today'. B) Our backline needs to be more dynamic. We have far too many players who cannot kick. Garland is another. C) Our recruiting and trading over the past couple of years has been exceptional. To think he'd be a loss simply doesn't make sense when looking at the wins our club has had via trading/drafting. D) Even if we somehow managed to lose out on the trade/draft pick, there has been nothing to suggest that his position can't be filled and played just as well. As that has already occurred this year. Seriously. Did you just appear out of a cave? Have the last two drafts, recruiting and development done absolutely nothing to quash that view? Have you been following the club since the Bailey days?

I'm of the belief that both Garland and Howe will be shown the door by the club at the end of the year and I reckon Roos is comfortable knowing that it'll give us the ammunition we need to further compliment and improve our list. To continue to bring in blokes with a fresh state of mind and willingness to compete at all times. Whether it be specialised positions we'll be targeting or mids to complement our one-paced midfield or both. Our own supporters are scared of what the unknown looks like. Posters were scared and underwhelmed when we grabbed Bernie Vince, arguably our best mid (along with Jones). Posters were scared when we got Garlett for nothing on the back of a poor season at a club he was uninspired to play for and look at the impact he has not only on the scoreboard but in general play. I implore you to look at some of the vision of opposition players kicking out and how something as simple as kamikaze style running at that opposition player, (providing they play on) usually results in a miss-kick and a restart for us. We've been missing those kind of pressure acts from most players on our list for the best part of a decade. Do I even need to bring up Vandenberg again and the impact he has had in his first year as a bloke who had a shoulder op and did half a pre-season before he played. I can't fathom the idea that some supporters of ours want to keep underperforming players in the hope that they'll come good. Or because they've been with the club for so long that there's a sense of 'sorry' felt for them. [censored] me. First year players have shown both of these blokes up! Not only that. If you're looking at the needs of our list, it doesn't even make sense to want to keep someone like Garland! A player who's strengths we already have covered and who's weakness/weaknesses we already have enough of. Imagine if we'd kept Frawley like so many here were hoping we would!? It's astonishing. We need to continue to turn over underperforming experienced players who are NQR's. Roos knows it, the rest of the club knows it. We don't have the champion leader veterans of yesteryear like a club like St Kilda or even the Doggies have. We had to bring one of them in! Cross! When will people wake up to the fact that keeping as many 'experienced best 22 atm players who have been on our list for 6-7 + years' is simply not an option for the MFC!?! I will happily eat humble pie if we keep Garland and or Howe. But I honestly cannot see it happening for the sake of rebuilding and rebranding our entire list from top to bottom. Garland Howe Jamar. They'll all be gone by the end of the year. Save this post.

I can't tell if the reason that he's had such an impact during games this year off the back of a an extremely limited pre-season, (his first AFL one) and the fact that he's had one year of development at this level is a good or bad thing. The 'non-negotiables' he has in spades. A fierce desire to compete and to play for the team. When you have a 23 year old rookie come in and show that it is in fact possible to impact during games off of next to no pre-season, it certainly makes those posters who continuously make the tiresome excuse that limited pre-season = right off of a year for player x look like fools. It's a positive that under our current recruiting and developing team, we've been able to find a bloke who doesn't need to be shown or taught when it is he needs to compete. Because he does it all the time. The only thing that a pre-season will do will be increase things like aerobic/anaerobic running ability, strength, power, agility etc. I wonder what some players who haven't been able to bring and apply the same levels of competitiveness think when they look at this bloke running around on the field. I'd certainly feel embarrassed if I were them. Colin Garland, Jeremy Howe, Jack Watts please take note for the remainder of the year. There is a level of intensity and competitiveness that needs to be displayed every time you step out onto the field and it doesn't matter how much of a pre-season you've done. Aaron Vandenberg and Gus Brayshaw are proof of it.

Providing his foot holds up, it will be a huge positive for us knowing that an 80 game player who has proven talent and skill could slot straight in and contribute. Gone will be the days of seeing Matt Jones and Bail on the team sheet. (I hope).

Garland and Howe need to go if we're going to continue to make inroads as a club. Take the picks and continue to trade well. Consistent, dynamic, hungry and skilled players across the list. All of whom need to play at the same level of intensity every game.

[censored] this.So should we. Jesus Christ. They shouldn't be coming out any more angry than us. They absolutely annihilated us two years ago by almost 150 points. We should be licking our lips at the chance of giving it back to them whilst they're down and out. We owe them.

While we've seen he can be really great as a close checking defender who spoils well and can intercept mark well, he continues to make the most baffling of blunders. Kicking straight to Nic Nat in the middle of the ground. That's the kind of [censored] you want to see once a year from an AFL footballer if at all. But unfortunately, he does things like that more often than I'd like. It really undoes all of the good work he manages.

Can't understand taking a NQR in Spencer out to bring Fitzy who is also a NQR, in. Their mids are fit, fast and get on the spread. Tyson typified what we were like most of the night. Slow, lacking urgency and mediocre when kicking. He is certainly a way off the pace.

Garlett's urgency and willingness to chase, harass and tackle any opposition player was nothing short of phenomenal tonight. It directly resulted in goals and scoring shots for us and he kicked 1.2 with our ball movement going inside forward 50 being terrible again. He had 10 tackles. 10! It's [censored] tiresome reading assessments like these when they can be so wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. You're either blind or you have no idea. He was pretty much our best player.

This is a real danger game for the Weagles. We go in as under dogs with a boost of confidence from the Geelong game. They've got some pretty sore bookend players from their match against Richmond in Schofield, McGovern and Cripps (to a lesser extent), none of whom are definite starters. They'll all be touch and go this week. On top of McKenzie and Brown being out, I think at least one or two of those sore three won't get up for this game and if that's the case they're in trouble providing our midfield fires. With Hogan coming in, they'll have him, Dawes, Howe and potentially a resting Gawn or Spencer to deal with if we decide to play two ruckman to combat Nic-Nat. This is definitely a winnable game, but we need our midfield to get on top and we need to convert most entries inside 50.

Nathan Jones is the one player on our list who has astonishingly enough come through without being affected. Of course he is not next on the list. The bloke has improved his game every single year, his development and desire to succeed and see the club succeed has been the only beacon of light through this entire nightmare. He is our Captian. I don't know why you're bringing him up. He stands alone. He is the outlier. What are the merits of keeping Garland from a 'list needs' point of view then? What, (other than your fondness of the guy on a human level) do you see that he provides our backline that someone like Frost can't provide? With the understanding that we are the worst 'kicking' side in the AFL especially coming out of our defence and that the pick we'd obtain from him would be further ammunition to add to the needs of our list, what is he offering the club that outweighs the potential of the pick we'd be receiving? We just beat Geelong in Geelong fcs! Garland wasn't there! Being a '125 game MFC servant' isn't a valid answer btw.

Your patience must be through the roof for a player like Watts then... Yarran has proven his ability and performed dominantly a number of times at the top level displaying elite level skills, pace and intensity. Like Garlett last year, he's form is suffering from possibly a number of reasons. Yarran possesses so much of what our list lacks. Speed and elite kicking. I think you're being short-sighted with this one.

I don't remember Frawley playing a single game for Casey last year and I'm sure you'll agree that we haven't missed him this year? Our team seems to be doing better with him gone in fact.. But he was considered best 22 every week last year wasn't he? So really, it's a non-argument. As for the 'logic'. I can see that it makes sense to you. You regard Colin as one of our 'better' players and I'm pretty sure you held Frawley in that category too. I'm not so sure everyone working at the MFC would agree with you and your definition of better. Your logic seems simple enough RPFC, but what yourself and Nasher and plenty of others seem to be missing is the magnitude of failure the club has been subject to. We are talking about a failed football club trying to completely rebuild itself. It's not as if we made the finals a couple of years ago and we're bottoming out a bit. We have been sub-standard within every inch of the club and the list has suffered hugely because of it. Leadership, development of players, elite environment, drafting of players and personalities etc . These things have been completely non-existent at our club. Do supporters consistently miss this? We are unique. No club has been through what we have. And therefore the list has suffered immeasurably! Which is why we've broken all sorts of losing records over the past 6-7 years. Colin Garland is absolutely without a doubt a player who's form, (like others previous) has been all over the place. You say he's had a consistent season to date, and I agree. Roos says so too. He is playing a role and has played it well. Given he's one of the longest serving MFC players on our list, you'd think he'd be offering some sort of leadership. But he hasn't. He's not even in the leadership group and that speaks volumes to me. Why do you think we've brought in players like Cross and Vince? And why is it that they're two players who have had the biggest impact on our list and not players like Garland? Frawley was consistent in his form last year. So far as to say he 'played his role'. (..*Shudders*..). There's a process the MFC are taking and need to continue to take. Rejuvenation and Regeneration. Players like Garland play a role yes. But they are not going to change the face of the club. They are merely passengers now and I have a feeling that him, Howe and Jamar will all be gone by the end of the season.

He's been dropped to the reserves in order to work on some deficiencies a handful of times. Like many young players.Saying he hasn't been getting games is just a silly thing to say. As for Yarran. He's proven that when he plays at his potential, he's an extremely damaging and great player.

Many seem to share this view as though it's the only outcome. I can't understand it. Who says, (even if we did obtain a second-rounder) that we'd be going to the draft with it? It would give us a much higher chance of being able to trade for something great if bundled together with another player/pick. Here's a hypothetical. What if it netted us someone like Yarran? Frost takes Garland's place and would perform just as well and we add to our backline with running ability and elite kicking skills. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe Roos and co would easily be able to get Yarran playing at his best in a new environment. And his best offers the team a lot more than what Garland's best does. Especially when we have a bloke who can slot straight in and take his spot in Frost. A player like that ticks all the boxes in terms of what our team needs. And that is what this is about. Not keeping a player based on emotional attachment.

I am one of those supporters who 'wouldn't care' if he left. For me it's a really simple equation: What are our list needs? Let's look at our backline. Would it be fair to say and would posters agree that we've had a number of defenders at 190cm + who's strengths are one-on-one defending? T-Mac, Dunn, Garland, Frawley, Frost. Of course Frawley is now gone as Dunn and McDonald have proven that they are just as capable in on-on-one defending. Posters were crying out at the thought of losing a 'one time AA defender' claiming that the team would 'suffer' from his loss. I'm sure they've changed their tune. What has Garland offered in years previous that we haven't had? Versatility as a defender. He's been able to play tall and small and that was his value to the side. Frawley and McDonald taking the talls and Garland taking either the dangerous small or if the opposition went tall in their forwardline he'd take the third tall. With the acquisition of Frost, (a key position player who is extremely competitive on-on-one with unbelievable pace and agility and a player the club see as a long term defender) and a newly found position for Jetta, (who is now playing on the dangerous smalls every week and more often than not coming out on top) I ask this: What does Garland offer the backline that isn't already being offered? Not a whole lot is the way I see it. The versatility argument is now non-existent as we have coverage for extra talls or dangerous smalls. What our backline needs most is another defender with elite kicking skills. Our scores against for turnovers and our inability to move the ball efficiently and effectively from the backline to forward-line (as well as having a poor midfield) are two hugely significant reasons why our on-field performances have been indeed comical at times. Now if Garland leaving via FA nets us a second round pick, I'm not sure why 'thevil1', you think that the only option we'd have is to go to the draft with it. You do understand how trading works don't you? If the recent trading, recruiting and developing of our club hasn't inspired some sort of confidence that we'd be netting 'something or someone' who will offer something more than what Garland offers our club then you're turning a blind eye. The same shite was being written about the potential loss of Frawley and Sylvia at the time and look how they both turned out. Garland is similar in that he doesn't have the skills our backline needs and we have coverage for the skills that he does offer. He doesn't have any real leadership qualities that scream for continued change at the club and like Frawley and Sylvia before him, he's not someone who has the capacity to inspire change. Supporters need to start recognising the importance of list regeneration at our club. We are completely unique in that we've had so many sub-par senior players playing terribly inconsistent footy for so long. We're trying to change the face of our club and that means letting go of some of the guys who have been NQR's for years now. Open your eyes to what's outside the box. We're in good hands!