Wiseblood

I've never really had one LH (even though I know you only brought it up in reference to Roosy). I always believe in some way that we can win any game we play. Ridiculous, yes, but I can't approach our games in any other way. Hogan signing on until, say, 2019 or 2020 would be one of the biggest shows of faith in our club in a long, long time. I would literally sob tears of joy for hours.

If we were to sign him up to an extension at the end of the year as it was alluded to in the HUN article, well, I think I would shed tears of joy, excitement and relief.

The disappointing thing is that our players should be fired up to atone for a game like we had against the Dogs without any help from Roos. Where is that pride in the jumper and the willingness to bounce back from it? Why don't they take some responsibility for their performance and work their backsides off to change it? Regardless of what else happens they should have steeled themselves to not put in such a horrible performance two weeks in a row. I'm not absolving Roos for his involvement but it's just as much on the players as it is on Roos.

If Dixon walks, which he probably will do, then they have the room to sign the other two. So really it's up to Hall if he wants a change or he thinks he has the ability to stay in the side when the others return. He would be a handy pick up, although would be a rung or two below someone like Motlop in terms of what they can bring to the side. Wouldn't say no at the right price.

I know it's different, but... how many of us would of said that when we traveled down to Simonds Stadium earlier in the year? Just saying...

He is completely biased when talking about Geelong. It's understandable but he takes it to ridiculous lengths. Outside of that he seemingly has to comment on EVERYTHING that is going on. He doesn't make 'special comments', he makes 'comments'. He can't distinguish between them.

Cameron Ling continues to cement himself as the most annoying colour commentator on television right now. His only rival for that spot is Ian Healy. He just spouts dribble over and over again and never shuts up. I used to enjoy his comments when he was a boundary rider as he could only contribute rarely. How I wish they put him back there. As much as I hate to give credit to the Filth it's great to see them smashing the Cats and knocking them well and truly out of the finals race.

Pretty much. I am totally worn out with this football club though. Couldn't even muster any sort of annoyance at the game on the weekend, just acceptance that this is the way we are. I've tried to defend the club, the players and the decisions being made but Sunday was almost it for me. Won't go, listen or watch our last two games. I don't have the energy. The club can do what they like with Garland and the rest. Doesn't seem like it makes much difference to me. I just feel sorry for those guys.

The Herald Sun is running with the story now as well. Doesn't necessarily add any more substance to the rumours but we can probably deduce there is at least something in it. I'd take him in a heartbeat if he wants to come here. Would add some instantly quality to the list.

*sigh* I don't even know what to think anymore. I'm exhausted thinking about the off season, all the holes we need to fill and how we are going to attract anyone the club. I still think the club will re-sign him and let Howe go but most are probably right when they say it makes little difference if he stays or goes.

I have a feeling, going by the VFL report, that Stretch has been brought in as direct replacement for Jetta. Wouldn't surprise me to see him line up in a back pocket today.

I reckon one J. Viney might get the job on him today.

I'm normally pretty good on game day... this just has an Essendon feel to it, and we all know how that worked out. I'm still very hopeful we can come out and smash them but previous form in games like these leaves plenty to be desired.

I don't think anyone would really be arguing that. I know I've defended Garland to a large extent in this thread, but that doesn't mean I would be against further list changes with other players. Our record indicates we need to. What I'm arguing is that there is still a need for Garland in our side at this time. His ability to play tall and small is very good and while he is no Matt Suckling or Nick Malceski with ball in hand he generally does enough with it for it not to be a huge problem. He is a required player.

I feel sick.

How reliable is Rob Waters? For the right price I'd be happy to have him. Had a ripper game tonight, although it was only against the Lions. 25 goals and 25 goal assists in a season is nothing our club could ignore.

For someone who complains that I don't read their posts you should take some of your own advice. I was comparing nothing more than turnovers. Both Garland and McDonald make them. How many times have we seen McDonald miss a target or make a bad decision by foot? Lots of times. I was not comparing anything else. So settle down.

You want to know what I see in Garland, Steve? I see a bloke who brings experience to our side. I see a bloke who can play well on quicker talls and smalls, something our side lacks. We have the players who can play tall OR small, but not someone like Garland who can do both very well. In this stage of the clubs development I believe Garland is someone we can ill afford to lose. We have covered Chip well this year, even though he didn't play down back in his last year with us, but Garland provides the experience, understanding and (relative) skill that we just can't cover right now. With the emergence of Gawn, Jamar has become expendable. And I would be fine to see him go. But Garland I wouldn't. I agree though that he doesn't necessarily exude the leadership that you might expect from him, but has he ever actually been a leader? I believe he was chosen as there wasn't anyone else at the time. That's been put right with his omission from the leadership group. Lastly, when the chips are down for the club during games you could hardly lay the blame at this feet. Who would want to play in that backline? If a team is putting on huge amounts of pressure and getting 50+ Inside 50s a game then you would expect the backline to struggle. It's not over my head. Just because I disagree with you on most of it doesn't mean I don't get it. People can see things differently.

That's ironic.

He hasn't played any worse than either of them this year. He has had a better year than Lumumba at any rate.

Their loss is worse then. They have something to play for and get blown off the park. Not a good look. I just think today puts into perspective how over the top people went with the loss from last weekend. It was bad, yes, but not wrist slashing, question everything sort of stuff.

Pies v Tigers GWS v Swans I get it. Works both ways.

Fair call on the North game, although after the first quarter when we were smashed all over the ground he did his job defensively very well which he does most weeks. He is a reliable, experienced player who is irreplaceable at the minute. Some might argue that Frost is being earmarked for his role, and that may well be, but he is still unproven and was played forward at the start of the year. Plus if we want to talk about turnovers then you could also argue someone like Tom McDonald does them regularly as well, and sometimes they are more costly.

Well said. Two sides, out of finals contention, got smashed by two sides pushing hard for a Top 4 spot. Just like us last week. But serious questions had better be asked of Leon Cameron and Bucks though.

Well why don't you make it about that group of players? By focusing on just one, Garland, you give the impression that you believe out of all of them he is the bigger problem. Just because Garland is OOC is a poor excuse. Jamar is OOC also. Players can be traded very easily if need be, or others recruited to fill their role. You have focused, consistently, on Garland throughout this year and this is just a further example of that. As you mentioned yourself there are guys out there like Adcock who can fill a role for us that may have been filled by one of these players you have trouble with. You might claim it's about the others as well but we all know that's not entirely true. You have it in for Garland and have so all year. And I'm not annoyed through emotional bias. Far from it. We have holes on our list and variety of players that aren't up to standard. Garland, however, isn't one of them. You have no proof that he brings no value to the side other than his 'intensity'. Name me the times he's been beaten this year, or caused costly turnovers? There are far more players on our list we should be focusing on than Garland.