Chook

Walls only picks a second Mark of the Week if the voters' choice is different from the one he likes. That week then has two nominees for Mark of the Year - on which only the public has a say.

Can you imagine a Bulldogs supporter saying something like that at the end of last year? I can. Who knows what next year might have brought for McDonald. James won't ever have the stigma of "playing too long" hanging over his head. Can you say the same for Brad Johnson?

Good. Liam Jurrah wouldn't even be up for MotY if Robert Walls didn't have a say.

Carlton would never trade him either. After Judd, he is probably their most important player, at least in the games I've seen of them. I'd love him at my Club if I were trying to win the GF next year. I'm not, so I'd rather chase up a ruckman a few years younger than Waite.

Are you kidding!? I see the way to beat Jones as dragging him into your forward-line. Nathan Jones is one of the worst defenders I've ever seen! That's not a real criticism of him because he has so many other strengths. But a defender he is not. IMO, of course.

Agreed. Let's just keep it to footy, then. Go Dees!

But I'm asking whether you think it should be illegal. Perhaps that's not what you think you're talking about, but it is. If you believe that he should have gotten a worse punishment than he did, that's just a hop, skip and a jump away from my contention (although on the opposite side of the argument) that it shouldn't even be illegal at all. If you can argue that the penalty should be greater, can't I equally argue that there shouldn't be one at all? Laws are only laws until they are opposed by enough people to get the law changed. What Rosa Parkes did was illegal, but she raised the question of whether there should be a punishment for something that isn't really hurting anyone. If something is considered "wrong", I think it's more than necessary to wonder what the world would be like if it wasn't. Otherwise, how could false assumptions ever be changed? Brendan Fevola has nearly wrecked his life legally multiple times, and Cameron Stokes has nearly wrecked his life illegally, doing something less damaging to himself than many people do with everyday consumption of legal prescription and recreational drugs. The only difference is the legality (often based on no more than historical convention) of the means by which said "destruction" has taken place.

But if they did want to trade him, then presumably you'd have no complaints. Or does your faith in the Football Department only extend as far as their ability to make decisions which you like? I guess that's the point E25 is making.

I'm liking your posts, DD. Keep it up. But I've heard some pretty good things about that surgery, so that wouldn't bother me. Not to mention the fact that if we did get Drummond, we'd be doing him a favour by getting him off that slab of concrete that is the centre of the Gabba pitch.

Maybe you should go and live in Indonesia, where the laws regarding drug trafficking might be more to your liking. But first ask yourself what really is so bad about someone buying their friend a little bit of something that makes them happy, and please think beyond the fact that it's illegal.

Good post. Credit where credit's due, some of your posts are actually okay, and this is one. People moan about how clubs shouldn't have delusions of sentiment, and that the FD never "owes" its' players, but in the same sentence, they want things that may not be good for the club's long-term future. This might be okay, except that they do it under the pretence of "faith in the football department" or whatever. Nathan Jones is easily good enough to play in a Premiership, but that doesn't mean that he should stay at the Club. Not only that, but just because you want to trade someone, it doesn't mean you'd be just as happy if they were delisted. Sometimes you need to trade a good player that you have for one that you need more. Nathan Jones and Matthew Warnock are good players, who you'd never delist, but because we have a couple of their types already, we (and they, mind you) might be better off if a trade could be worked out between our club and, for example, Carlton (for Warnock) and any of the other teams who require a quality in-and-under player (which Jones is). In short, sometimes the fact that you want to trade a player is not a sign that you disrespect their ability, but rather that you rate them highly enough that you think they can get you something you need. And we all know that what we need rarely comes cheap.

But he's a "druggie!" My mummy told me they're all evil crack-whores who eat children and sell their babies for their next fix. Seriously, some people are a little bit too insular, which causes them to unquestioningly believe what society wants them to. Many of these same people kill themselves with cigarettes and drown their sorrows in booze, unaware of the sheer hypocrisy of their actions. End rant.

Really? That's good to hear.

Outstanding!

Franklin?

Godwin's Law!

Time heals all wounds, eh? Or if you prefer, comedy = tragedy + time. I like that one.

I'm of the opinion that a Chip to the pocket is always better than a launch to a 50/50. At the very worst, you should be able to get a boundary throw-in, and if you set-up right, you can still launch it from the pocket, which is around 10 metres further out than you would have otherwise been. Not to mention the switch of play that you can sometimes get away with. But the most important thing in this situation is to, for god's sake, do it quickly.

What about the dude who wears no 24. He goes all right, doesn't he?

1. JMac number one (classy "retiree") 2. JMac number two (at the bottom of every pack like he's digging for gold) 3. JMac number three (Brisbane reject? I think not!)

Can you see the Fox Sports watermark on the top right hand side of the screen? If not, or if half of it is cut off, I'm thinking that your actual television might have a zoom function that you might have accidentally pressed on your TV's remote. It's hard to diagnose without actually seeing it, and in any case, it may have been something with the actual broadcast while you were watching it. Maybe you could check out a different game during today or tomorrow's replays and see if there is still a problem. If there is, then I think that what I just mentioned might be true.

If you call "bomb the ball to 45 out" a good long kick. He has the capacity to kick the ball well over long distances, but as you say, his decision making is lacking. But it's not that he makes the wrong decision, but that he seems to make no decision at all. With Beamer, it seems to be a matter of: 1. Do I have the ball? If yes, go to 2. If no, get ball. 2. Am I being tackled? If yes, barge through x number of players, then go to 3. If no, go to 3 anyway. 3. Kick ball long into forward-line. Return to 1.

What did he say? Was this in his press conference? I know the Norf supporters are annoyed at the media for loving our young players, but I didn't know Scott was whinging also.

You know that when you see Nathan Jones lying on the ground without a ball underneath him and three blokes on top of him, he's either been hit by a car or his back is broken. Tough as nails and bald to boot. What more could you want?

Do you have an old-fashioned TV or a flat-screen TV with the wider screen? Does the picture look all out of proportion (all the players really short and fat)?