Nasher

Is he in the God Squad or the Party Squad?

Heh. That's Nashor to you, thanks.

Maybe we could start calling him Pedersen, just for a laugh?

I don't know for sure as I can only comment on my own experience, but I theorise that people have always been willing to break the law when it suited them, it's just that historically this has been masked by the closer alignment of the laws and people's moral compasses. I don't think the disrespect is growing per se, just the divide between social progress and the law. Happy to agree to disagree - particularly on the matter of whether socially we are progressing or regressing.

No - moral compasses have progressed, and the law has remained stationary. By effect, the two have naturally drifted apart. The idea of the law driving my moral compass is completely foreign to me. It just doesn't resonate with me at all. Maybe it's a Gen Y thing, though I bet people have been committing minor law infringements since there was such thing as laws. I don't reckon anyone could ever say they haven't done things that in the eyes of the law are illegal, and don't feel at all guilty about it. The law only deters me from doing things I probably wouldn't do anyway.

Being told they're illegal doesn't seem to be helping much, either.

It's probably a reflection that over time the law has drifted away from where people's moral compasses are naturally aligned, so they have stopped using it as a guideline for behaviour. It just hasn't kept up with social progress. I don't steal cars, bash people, drive recklessly or take drugs, and that is because I think that I shouldn't, not because they're illegal. Education in my case has proven to be a far more effective tool than the threat of being charged.

You said that the threat of jail, or having a lead pellet shot through my chest, provide me with enough reasons to stay away from the very very available hard drugs that I come across here. Very cheap, available for home delivery, and very potent. The bullet in your chest might deter you, but clearly it's not much of a deterrent for the obviously large numbers consuming the very cheap, very potent hard stuff. For everyone in my social circles, the deterrent for not doing hard drugs (or any drugs) is the risk of getting addicted and ruining our lives. Nobody I know gives a rats tossbag if it's illegal - in my experience for most people who want to experiment or use infrequently, getting caught is an acceptable risk - getting hooked isn't. I can't imagine the risk of getting in trouble with the police ever outweighing the risk of having your life destroyed by an addiction. Try not to be so needlessly aggressive next time.

You have almost perfectly argued against your own point with this post.

We already have a second round pick available to use to do this trade if that's what we want to get done, so either way dumping Garland still only grants us use of a second pick - either the one we get or the one we already had. We've proved over the last few years that we can improve our side without needing to give up best 22 players who want to stay, so let's do that again. I don't share your view that he is expendable, if that were the case he'd be at Casey more often than he is (ie never). If our team didn't need Garland he wouldn't be such a feature in the side.I'd be honestly stunned if the club dumps Garland. The only way I can see him going is if he doesn't want to stay.

Our time and energy is not limitless. Sniff about, sure, but focus the bulk of our resources on targets that are actually likely to bear fruit. This one isn't one if those.

It would be a shame to see him leave in that manner. I see him as a player who has carried himself with dignity, even when his closest mates at the club didn't. That said, Bulldogs probably said that about Crossy.

We wouldn't realistically get any more than an "end of first round" one, which I would baulk at. Far too much risk there. Getting anything higher than that (i.e. a true first rounder) is too remote a possibility to bother considering with an all encompassing "depends what we get..." statement I reckon - it's like me saying I'd strongly consider buying a Ferrari depending on how much I win at the TAB tomorrow. Probably just splitting hairs though.

Ahaha. Is there a sharper wit in AFL circles than Titus at the moment?

A second round draft pick or the like is what we're looking at. We got KOTD by turning Sylvia in to Vince and that was shrewd work by the club, but it could have just as easily turned to poo. It would almost never be my preferred option to lose a versatile, experienced, clear best 22 player for a draft pick in the second round. I'd also be really disappointed to see Garland go on a personal level.

98% time on ground this week - more than anyone else on either team. Normally it's the domain of KPP players to spend that amount of time on the ground, not mids or flankers. Starting to think the guy might actually be superhuman. He's being asked to shoulder a very heavy workload and is doing a damn fine job of it.

Can anyone who was at the game give us some insight as to where on the field ANB lined up when he was on, mostly? On TV he seemed to be playing as a forward, but then again in the goal where he received the handball over the top, a minute earlier he could be seen running along side Lumumba on the half back flank. I guess I'm trying to work out of the above quoted dismissal of scoring 3 goals is reasonable. If he was playing the 'role' I expected - starting at half-forward and running through the middle, then I'd say 3 goals is an excellent return and nothing to be sneezed at. If he was playing as a stay at home opportunistic forward perhaps that reduces the weighting of it, albeit only slightly. I'd also point out he only played 74% TOG which was lower than everyone except than the sub and the subee.

They didn't give up anything though.

I have to keep reminding myself to stop waiting for it all to go tits up. He actually seems to be improving each week, too.

I've considered the possibility of him playing 100 MFC games too, but the West Coast game will only be #30. It's a long way off. Should easily manage 50 though.

General question: for the people who post "Out: Dawes", are you saying what you'd do, or what you think our coaches are going to do? Because I'm quite confident that there's absolutely no way on Earth Roos and co are going to drop Dawes. It's just wishful thinking.

Cross is the only player I've ever seen who uses the ball better when he is horizontal than when vertical. His ability to rocket out a handball while either prone on the ground, or diving through mid-air is expectional. His marking overhead is also extremely reliable. Has been in our top 10 this year IMO and is a dead certainty to go around again for at least another one. As he's never been a player who has relied on pace and has a history of first rate fitness, I see no reason he shouldn't be able to play well in to his 30s.

In: Hogan, Garland Out: Bail, Riley It's not remotely like for like, but it's two top 22 players for the bottom two players in our side. I wouldn't like to see Spencer dropped - Max made the comment that he was relieved when Spencer was named as it would mean he wouldn't get run off his legs; surely this also applies in Darwin against NicNat. I would hate to see Gawn flagging in the last quarter as he pretty much always has whenever he's rucked the whole game. I also want to see if the combination works in general or if it was just good luck/a once off. I can't see Roos dropping Dawes. He went out of his way to highlight the efforts of he and Howe at bring the smalls in to the game. I also can't see the JKH for <anyone> swap happening myself. I'm a fan, but I don't see him as such an important player as to drop another player who played well in a great team win.

?!

Two best 22 players return and no new injuries. Makes for a nice change.