Chook

Holy crapola! That's enough to give you nightmares! I love it!

Good post. I like it when people really break down why players are or are not good enough. It makes me feel like I'm actually learning something, rather than just wasting my time on a footy forum (even though that's still what I'm doing).

Holy moly, guys. There's nothing dumber than a bunch of guys circle-jerking about how smart they all are. I for one have no idea about Sam Blease and whether he's going to make it, beyond what I read on this forum. So how about you stop bitching about others' stupidity and help them get smarter if you're so bloody intelligent yourselves. Credit to E25 for at least touching on the subject of his actual Casey performances before beating the hell out of the OP.

'Specially with a broken leg!

This post has been made possible thanks to my broadcast partners "get a bike you lazy scum," "eat an apple once in a while," "hey look - what's that outside? Could it be the sun?" "Or maybe a banana if you're really hungry," "Yep, it's definitely the sun," and of course " ."Man, I wish they'd lay off the sponsers from time to time.

I knew someone would say this. So what? Mark Jamar wasn't there either, but I'll bet he has some say in the leadership of our ruck division.

Knowing 16 year-olds, I reckon him having a girlfriend now would make him want to get out of there more than ever in two years time.

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.