rpfc

Oh, I do think he is a good player. I just don't see the need to prop him up at the expense of Jamar. He may not have won a AA before 2010, but he did 'something' previous to that. He managed to back up a great ruckman in White and impressed enough to get us to pick him over Darren Jolly. Gawn might regress, he might do another knee (touch wood), he might be entering an era of smaller ruckmen dominating. But he is lucky enough that he is coming into some form when the competition at ruck at this club is the lowest it has been since...I can't even remember. Pre-Stynes? He has played 9 games this year and got a three year deal out of his form and the fact that we have no better options at the club or on the horizon.

You like to refer to people's posts as 'nonsense' - I don't really see the difference.

This is his 6th year on the list. And he may be AA in his 7th season, but until he does that, Jamar has him covered.

Already upgraded and 2 year contract given.

Updated for Gawn. Still 12 PL player unsigned and 3 players on the RL that decisions have to be made on. We don't HAVE to sign any of these players but I would keep (at the right price) Garland, Howe, Toumpas, Pedersen, Cross, and Riley. Considering that Howe will want more than 'the right price' - I think he will be traded. Toumpas might be shopped, and Michie might be given another go should we trade those two out, and/or Cross calls it quits. Harmes might get upgraded or given a third year on the RL - his last month of footy will determine that. I think it is hard to argue that Jamar, McKenzie, Fitzpatrick, Hunt, and Bail should be given another contract.

I would have Sidebottom and then Ziebell, and then Watts. None of the others really excite me. Rich maybe...

Some of you are acting like he had never played a good game prior to this year. He played a handful of 'Near Breakout' games a year which is why so many of us were still on the bandwagon that is much fuller now.

This will be his 8th year on the list and he is getting to the point where a decision has to be made. But if he is back up to Gawn, that's fine.

Gawn and Stef both need first ruck. Won't work.

Look, they make this stuff up as they go along but the AFL gives us no favours so I am not about to assume one was given when the best team took a bloke from us for 2.4m over 4 years...

He is at the club for the next 48 games guaranteed - there is no rush. The next deal can be the huge one.

You do not know that was the case, so don't say things like they are facts. It was reported that they gave him north of $600k - that is more believable as to why we had ND3.

He was nowhere at the start of this season, or even 9 rounds into this - his 6th season. Now he is setup to play good footy from his 7th onwards. I expected it to take this long - so don't complain about how long this has taken - this is about the time it takes for a 208cm ruckman to get going. #don'tdraftteenageruckmen And, well done, look forward to the next 5 years with an excellent tap ruckman who can mark and kick a goal.

There is no 'opportunity cost' when it comes the salary cap, so what we have paid this motley crew the last few years is not relevant to me - my tired phrase 'Gotta Pay Somebody' is a truism - clubs must pay their player 95% of the approx. $10m cap. You are going to get value out of very few when bad teams have to pay like good teams. The real 'opportunity cost' comes with the pick used or traded for a player and like the discussion on Watts - this can be nauseating. What I would say to those that wonder whether keeping ND20 for Dawes would be better is to look at the players taken after that pick in that draft (oddly enough I reckon we got the best two players after that pick in Viney and Kent...) and also whether we would still require a replacement for Dawes and whether Pedersen would be that. Because that hypothetical would require us to give something for that too.

I meant that the interconnected NY is ubiquitous with the Yankees and that 'luxury' of people identifying so readily with that simple icon has been built over time. The first club, the club that wrote the rules - not many know this - ironically the current emblem attempts to educate people of this. An interconnected MFC is certainly not going to.

Faultless? Wow. It's three interconnected letters. It doesn't even say the name of the club, the game we play, or indeed that we are a club. The Yankees are the Yankees - they own the interconnected NY. I don't really think we can have the luxury of a logo so simple and neat. Complex and busy is fine, especially with a club that has been very busy for the last 157 years.

I like the emblem. This is an argument that has been had since it came out and, according to Bartlett, there was a great deal more love for the emblem than the club thought - I hope they keep it and have other logos to target whomever they feel like. But really, this is Olympic Argument - back here every 4 years talking about the same nonsense and spending a lot of money of things we aren't that interested in...

Would you be over or under par?

I am all for keeping your best players but is Howe one of those? I know he draws crowds - wait till the kids all talk about Hogan at school the way they talked about Franklin - he will get the crowds in. But if I picking that forward line he is 4th or 5th picked and struggles to make a first choice backline. If he gets you something you need and he can be replaced.

Where did you hear that? Because this bloke plays the role that Howe plays in our forward line. If we are after him - I think we have made our decision re: keeping Howe. Just supposition but something to ponder...

You must be in the Skimming Posts and Not Really Reading Them Club... It's ok, you aren't alone.

insipid(ɪnˈsɪpɪd) adj 1. lacking spirit; boring 2. lacking taste; unpalatable in•sip•id(ɪnˈsɪp ɪd) adj. 1. without distinctive, interesting, or stimulating qualities; vapid: an insipid personality. 2. without sufficient taste to be pleasing, as food or drink; bland: a rather insipid soup. insipidadjective 1. Lacking an appetizing flavor:bland, flat, flavorless, tasteless, unsavory. 2. Lacking the qualities requisite for spiritedness and originality:bland, innocuous, jejune, namby-pamby, vapid, washy, waterish, watery. Jeez, Hardwick didn't like what the Tiges were cooking against us... Very watery soup apparently.

Putrid. Insipid. Disgusting. I get the desire to use evocative words to describe the performance of footballers, but these, and a few others, are such appallingly exaggerated, misused, and overused that I now judge those that use these terms with similar words... Is that irony? No. It isn't. #wordsmatter

No doubt, but where he got the confidence to get those "hard balls" I don't know.

He is not relying on hard footy to get his touches and impact games - he is not actively avoiding hard footy like he had accustomed himself to previously, and that is great - but his best footy he has played has been on the back of others getting him the footy and then him doing his stuff.