Jump to content

titan_uranus

Life Member
  • Posts

    14,706
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

titan_uranus last won the day on June 5

titan_uranus had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

18,412 profile views

titan_uranus's Achievements

Legend

Legend (6/10)

18k

Reputation

  1. Dunkley yes. Gunston is an interesting one. They're not short of goalkickers. Losing McStay barely changes that. Their major problem is defence. Dunkley helps but I don't think he elevates them from a terrible defensive side to one which can win a flag. They get Ashcroft too, but unless I'm missing something they are short of picks/points and are going to have to do some trading to get them in (and any compensation for McStay gets cancelled/watered down by bringing Gunston in). Does that mean they have to give a player or two up?
  2. Whether or not this is good for Brisbane is irrelevant. I don't know what you think I'm "disguising" here. You are upset we aren't bringing Gunston in. Which in my argument is a silly thing to be upset about because you don't know: whether we enquired; or whether he would have been interested in moving to another Melbourne club (given he is quoted as saying he's looking for a "change of lifestyle").
  3. Are we going to do this every time another player goes to another club? Are we upset about Dunkley, or De Goey, or McStay, or Rankine, or Lobb, or Logue, or Rioli, or Amon? And do you know we didn't "throw our hat in the ring"? And besides all of this, isn't Gunston going for a change up to his late-stage career having won three premierships and played in Victoria for 10 years, now he wants to try something new - so would he even have moved club just to say in Melbourne?
  4. Agree with this. All this talk about managing players like Geelong did. They had easier opponents and an extra 1-2 wins than us and so were able to rest players. We hadn't locked up top 4 and couldn't afford to rest players, as our games were all against finalists or sides in contention for finals. The WC-North fortnight was probably the one time this year we had the chance to give a sore player or two a break, but I don't see what we were supposed to do in the last 8 weeks when our ladder position was on the line.
  5. I've always liked Tomlinson more than the general vibe on Demonland. But his contract is disproportionate to his potential role in 2023 and beyond. We can't be spending as much money as we are on a player who is depth, even if I rate that depth more than most. Particularly when we have Turner coming along as a key defender, and we've just re-contracted another defender in Smith. There should be a club in the league who could use Tomlinson and if we have to pay a portion of his salary to facilitate the trade, that should be a win-win-win.
  6. I can only see this working with Grundy doing more ground coverage and more forward half ruckwork, and Gawn sitting behind the play when the ball's in our forward half and looming as an intercepter, which we know he excels at. I don't agree that a first round pick is the right price if we're paying 50% or more of Grundy's contract, but I suspect the club doesn't care and sees a plan with Grundy that wins us another flag.
  7. I think you can mount an argument the opposite is true. Are you telling me Collingwood wouldn't have obtained a better output from Grundy over Mason Cox's 2 marks, 5 disposals, 2 tackles and 18 hit outs? Darcy Cameron played number 1 ruck most of the year, but he's got strong forward qualities. Collingwood were beaten in CPs and clearances most weeks and Grundy's historically been a ruck who can play as an additional midfielder. I'd have thought yesterday highlighted how Grundy over Cox, shifting Cameron into the forward/ruck role, would make Collingwood a better side.
  8. @Mach5 hasn't exactly been neutral on this topic in the past. That said, I have no inside knowledge and have no way of knowing who is right/wrong.
  9. I assume you're a doctor/physio and you can definitively confirm that the speed of TMac's rehab contributed to the re-injury?
  10. I generally agree with this, and with Montagna last night who said this was their year and their chance. History tells us they are highly unlikely to go 11-1 (or whatever it was) in close games in next year’s H&A season. Port was that side last year, couldn’t replicate it this year, missed finals. The fixture though is an unknown. It should be harder, given their finish, but that is no guarantee. We will, though, be seeing a heck of a lot of them in prime time.
  11. Tonight just shows how bad we were last week. Brisbane were out of place tonight. Should not have been playing a prelim, and would not have had we done our job last week.
  12. It's all about balance. We may well have got the balance wrong in having players go back to training too soon after the GF. But if you're going to get it wrong, I'd prefer to have players doing more training rather than not enough. It's very easy to criticise now, but no one was criticising their desire and drive back in December, were they.
  13. That argument is not convincing at all. We had 11 games against eventual finalists. Richmond had 7, Collingwood, Geelong and Sydney all had 8. Despite that, we finished 2nd. So even if our 10-0 start was just "soft kills", we had fewer of those opportunities than everyone else in the top 8 and finished above all of them except Geelong.
  14. Chargers, Bucs, Colts
×
×
  • Create New...