sue

Amusing to reflect on how much positivity is expressed when we nominate 18 year-old "Johnny Hasn't-Played-an-AFL-game" as an early pick in the lottery of the draft, yet how much negativity is being expressed about this bloke. Let's wait and see.

never saw a game more in need of clash jumpers

If we played about 500 games a year these stats, in the absence of other information, might really mean something rather than just provide entertaining conjectures.

Actually without making that clear, the impact of Hogan's remark is pretty much lost on those who were not aware.

agree - too many kicks to oppo's advantage and handballs that didn't quite hit the target - there must be other reasons why Petracca is rated so highly. I'm always suspicious of these clips but you'd expect them to make a player look better than he really is usually.

The argument has no real merit. Under your reasoning the only club which would ever 'deserve' a PP is one where half the players were killed in a airplane accident. (Even then someone would argue the club's at fault - they should have gone by bus.) In all other cases, if you are crap, it is because you had some form of bad management. Therefore it would be argued they don't deserve a PP. There is a whiff of the Victorian-era attitude about only helping what they saw as the deserving poor.

My position on Watts is now very simple - if we get Roos and Roos says Watts is required. He is. I don't care how weak or uncommitted is is.

Fair enough BB. My intent was to critique the OP's bald statement, which if accepted would say lack of commitment is sufficient to trade someone as good as Buddy. I think you'd agree that it is not sufficient, though one would prefer star player with commitment. I agree with what you say about about relative leverage of course.

True, but you miss my point. The OP said : He has said he doesn't know if he wants to play for the club. That's enough for me to want to get a decent trade going and forget about player attachment. I said there may be lots of reasons to trade someone (as you believe applies in Watts' case), but the above is not sufficient to want to trade someone, eg. Buddy.

I think the reverse. There may be all sorts of reasons for wanting to trade Watts, but I don't think this is one of them. Few players have any loyalty to a club these days. Would Hawthorn supporters say trade Buddy for no other reason than he hasn't fully committed to the club? (No, I'm not saying Watts is as valuable as Buddy, just saying there are more important reasons to trade/retain than commitment these days. Also not saying the way Watts spoke reflected well on him.)

How predictable. You and another poster or two miss my point. I don't like threads about drafting Cloke, so I don't read them. But I know what they are about because they (usually) have a meaningful title. What about starting a thread entitled "Not the Not Tom $cully Thread" - we could put all sorts of meaningful stuff in there. Ah well, back to ignoring this thread for me. I guess I'll just have to die wondering if there was something interesting in here to read. Bye.

I expect those who read and post in this thread enjoy it, but perhaps there are many like me who don't read it because it no longer has a clear purpose and title. As a result many of us will be missing out on whatever pearls of wisdom are posted. The thread was created as a reaction to the endless discussion of $cully on other threads. That has dwindled to a trickle calculating how many thousands of dollars he is getting per kick (snigger). So at he risk of having my head kicked in, and hear the obvious responses of "ignore it if you don't like it" etc., can I suggest perhaps it is time to close the thread?