nutbean

Call me hotlips anytime you like.

That weak bodied Brett Kirk was a vegetarian.

I'd have a quiet word to your brother. Depression may not be a physical condition in terms of a muscle tear or strain but it commonly has accompanying physical manifestations - lethargy, loss of appetite to name but two. It is indeed a medical condition. Edit - bad humor indeed.

yup ( or at the bottom of the packs at stoppages - Greg Williams made a career out of it and he couldnt kick for 3/4's of his career however the champion that he was, his last years at Carlton he managed to make become quite skillful by foot over short distances - like Mitchell) An attacking half back flanker - used as an outlet - who can't kick - is a terrible liability. As much as we loved Clint Bartram for his hardness - I used to despair at his hard running to present as an outlet because he skill by foot constantly let him down and cost us.

I see McKenzie and Nicholson differently. Whilst I acknowledge that McKenzies disposal is a liability at present I think ( read hope) with more spread and outside mids that McKenzie's role can be simplified to being in and under extractor/tagger and a giving the ball out to a player 5-10m away. He has that capability. ( think Mitchell in his earlier days - couldn't kick to save himself but developed good hands and was a brilliant extractor - he is now quite reliable over about 3O metres) The issue with Nicholson is that he is such a hard runner that he often presents himself as the last link in a chain who then has to spot up someone. You do not want Nicholson being last link in the chain - his disposal will let him down. Cameron Ling was a bit the same - dodgy by foot - but he was usually a very early link in the chain of handballs - not the end of the chain.

Bingo ! Only relevant stat is turnovers and clangers - it is not a coincidence that most goals are kicked from turnovers.

That is a big call !

I'm multi tasking.

The whole gameplan thing - I seriously don't get it. Be defensively minded ? well that's not a gameplan thats common sense Keep the ball in hand and don't kick to a contest - at the risk of not kicking a score at all you can't be outscored if you don't let your opponents have the ball. Clarkson is a perfect example of a coach who demands the above as part of the gameplan but then mixes his attacking vs defending mindset on any given day depending on how the hawks and the opposition are going. When buddy was on fire he would open the forward line and give him free rein or he was equally as comfortable shutting the game down. Do you believe that if we had a fit and firing Clark, Dawes and Hogan ( and Howe standing on all their heads) in the forward half that Roos would not change it up ? keep possession yes but get it into those three one on one as quick as possible?

(goose comment - tongue firmly placed in cheek)

The likes of Terlich get marked a little harder ( and rightly so) as they are mature aged and are expected to adapt pretty quickly - as opposed to drafting your 18 year olds.

How do you know that this is the completed game plan and how do you know it won't be adjusted and evolve depending on the cattle - I'll wager that whilst the overall plan is more defensively minded and a generous helping of keepings off this will still evolve as our cattle matures or even gets on the paddock ( pardon the pun). For example - you will see more bail out kicks to the forward line when we actually get some personnel with height and strength playing there.

You are a goose Jazza (you forgot to add " mix in some personal abuse" )

Good with his hands but will not be damaging until he learns to kick better.

I'm so relieved - George Brandis just told me it's ok to be a bigot ! Mods get ready - I'm about to cut loose .......................................................

Whilst we may groan with tossing the ball about "aimlessly", it is pretty hard to build confidence in players if they can't get the ball in their hands. The gameplan is there for all to see and I think that Roos might have already had a little success by the team winning the ball and sharing it around. We need to go more direct sometimes, take first options and not turn it over so much but you can't do any of those things if you don't have the pill in your hands in the first place. ( I also think it will help when we get some semblance of a forward line in place)

Moloney - was restricted - we didn't match the offer and couldn't get him out the door quick enough Rivers - from all reports, the club didnt try too hard to keep him either The only one the club tried to keep was Sylvia.

I am not sure of your point ? Both Trengove and Martin were ready to go in their first year. If you are suggesting we should have picked Martin over Trengove then I am happy to be pointed to the post where you suggested that , where ANYONE suggested that before that draft. Trengove and Scully were the two best selections at draft time in the land - daylight - then Martin. That it hasn't played out that way is unfortunate - I would go as far as saying as Scully has been the worst of the three.

And Rhys Palmer won the rising star in his first year. The only point you are making is some players take longer to develop than others - some skyrocket early and fizzle out or never develop further and yes, some players that are project players that will require time to develop never develop at all. To base a recruiting strategy on not picking players that require some time is flawed in the extreme - in general you would then never pick a ruckman or big KP as they take more time to mature ( there are exceptions)

And this attitude will keep us a cellar dweller for years to come. We will lose players - all clubs do. But you have got to back this new regime in to bring stability and success and a culture of players wanting to stick around to taste success.( please lord, be in my lifetime). You draft players who you consider the best pick for the club over an extended period. Just because one pick is ready to go right now as opposed to another requiring a year or two to develop should not cloud your thinking. And the thought of losing a player after 8 years !!

Im not sure you are following the thread - if he was in the top 3 highest paid players at the club he would be a restricted free agent not unrestricted. ( playing a bit a loose considering his contract was front ended but he is not in the top 10 highest paid this season)

I think it says it all that our best player by a mile is Nathan Jones. I love Jonesy , his endeavour and never say die attitude. But think Geelong in its prime - I love Cameron Ling who went from a good tagger to great midfielder (even made AA) - similar attributes to Jones - but he was fourth in line behind Ablett, Bartel, Selwood, Stevey J. We need four better midfielders than Jones and as good as Terlich is now we need much better footballers than him - or for him to continue to improve.

I hate the word overused word "star" or "superstar" - we haven't had one since Flower. Loved Neita and he was a true champion of the club but wasn't a superstar. And there have been lots of champions of the club and I am sure Nat Jones will be remembered at the end of his career as that.

We need to sign him yes. Superstar ? ummm..

You are having 50 cents each way. You suggest that after we front loaded Frawleys contract we should have adjusted other contracts to keep him an RFA but then you say we should front load contracts to get stars - this action is exactly why Frawley is a UFA. So which one is it ?