nutbean

Well without being flippant -I so want the Dees winning to become my preferred drug of addiction.

I suppose being uninitiated in drugs my key questions on alcohol vs drugs is the concept and affects of moderation and secondly the road to addiction on alcohol vs drugs. I can have one drink and I can work, drive and interact coherently( some may question this !) .Can the same be said for taking a drug ? Unless I am mistaken there are degrees with alcohol - I have one drink and it has a tiny impact on me. An almost imperceptable degree of calming ( taking the edge off). Can you get the tiniest bit stoned on drugs ? More importantly is the addiction question ( which I honestly dont know the answer to) - take 10 guys and give them one beer everyday for a month - after the month how many could stop without any affect - how many would be on the road to becoming alcoholics. Now replace the beer with say ice. With zero insight or knowledge I would suggest that affect a month would be the % of ice users that are moving to addiction be much higher. Thats why I question the equality of the terms social drinker and social drug user. Again I will put in the big disclaimer of not knowing and just throwing out my unsubstantiated thoughts.

Lets talk hangers - pre knee injury- Gary Baker.

I'd be a bit more greyer - Jack picks his battle. I have seen Jack Watts go hard. I have not seen him attack ever contest like Jeremy Howe, who does not choose his battles - Howe only knows one way. Flip flopping - I saw an improvement last year to the year before - I want to see improvement in this area again

I rarely drink (lucky to have 10 drinks a year) and dont do drugs. I understand the devastation that alcohol can cause. My mind tells me ( with absolutely no data at all !) that the percentage of social drinkers becoming alcoholics would be significantly lower than social drug users becoming addicts ( and the discrepancy would be even more pronounced if you take weed out the picture). There is a perception that social drinking is ok and we dont make the immediate link to alcoholism whereas social drugs (excluding marijuana) has an association of "dont go there - you are flirting with extreme danger" ie addiction. Am I right ?

I agree with the first paragraph but would add the phrase, stupid, arrogant or the invincibility of youth. Its only your last sentence that I wonder about. I do wonder how much of the Cousins arrogance and bravado is just front and if he just dismisses his demons or if he is even able to .I wonder if the knowledge of what he has become does torment him.

I looked up the definition of addiction - the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma. I dont think anyone choses this. He chose to take drugs in the first place. Taking drugs in the first place is the mistake. His downward spiral has been because of his addiction not because he has just chosen to repeat his mistakes. There is no black and white in this very sad issue.

For the first 40 years of my life I had never met an addict. My partner of 8 years has someone close to her that is an addict and I can see exactly what you are saying. There has been compassion and help in large doses but the problem is the impact it has on those close to the addict. The lying, the manipulation, the false dawns of "being clean", the constant roads to recovery followed by relapses and the betrayal of family members trust. I have compassion but fully understand "the struggle with compassion" for those who lived close to it.

I'm going to add two future excitement machines ( disclaimer - they have to grow and build on the glimpses they have provided) Sam Blease - I think he has done it maybe 5 times in his brief career - those flat out after jets on runs bouncing the ball. Got my pulse racing. When Jetta of the swans does it too. Jeremy Howe - will take mark of the year in his career - enough said We have left one out of the list of current excitement machines - how quickly we have forgotten and how I yearn for those days. Flash in his first 3 years grabbing the ball and taking off - didnt need to dispose because he knew no one could catch him.

I got two - one very obscure. 1/ Andy Moir - a whizzkid at 18 who fizzled very quickly but boy could he take a hanger 2/ In the darker years - I dont know if excitement is the right word but you felt taller and braver watching Big Carl in the Dees jumper ( and terrified when he wore the Saints jumper)

I'm almost convinced that Scully is going.

They did about Hawkins and continued to until the final series last year.

One more - Even though we think JW is meant to be a key forward I would compare him today** to Paul Roos. He played at a time when key position at 188cm was workable. He started life as a very tall winger with the same perceived appetite for the contest as many are saying JW has and ended up as fine CHB earning himself 4 AA's. He never developed the taste for crash and bash but was a excellent footballer none the less. (Today** - as per my previous post I don't subscribe to the view that what Jack Watts is today is what he will be in 3 years time)

Another two cents worth - why are we consigning a player at the tender age 21 to "he will never be this or be that". Just finished watching 94 Melb vs Collingwood - a year younger David Neitz who did mature early and won AA was running around CHB - i would say floating around full back /chb more like it. He looked really great but after watching the way he played I will make the pronouncement that Neita will never make a crash and bash footballer ...wait a second..... Matthew Richardson who was an audacious talent went from a spring heeled forward who would jump over everything with not much physicality or appetite for the ground contest to become quite solid and jumping into all contests with gusto, to becoming a gorilla, to slimming off and going back to the wing in his last season. My take on Jack - year one wasted, year two slow progress, year three visible and noticeable improvement. I want to see more progression than year three this year. Thats pretty simple. What style of footballer will he be ? Today ? this year ? or in 3 years ? good luck with that.

I am not sure how to read into the figures provided above - to me Port Adelaide look pretty healthy on most fronts yet they are close to broke - how does that work ?

ummm. because we dont have one,

it just must have been against us - he would tear us apart spotting up players 40-50m down the field - I remember his disposal being excellent and then I saw the game on TV today. ( so much for my memory)

I think the "mishandling" as Bailey later said was the timing. Junior should have been told earlier in the year that this was his last year and not left it until near the end of the season. We can argue the merits of whether we think he would have added value for another year but at the end of the day lots of footballers get the tap on the shoulder - its just how you go about doing it.

I know that a lot of my next statement should be taken in context of maturity and hardneing of the body but think of one Daisy Thomas - went from his first couple of years of outside, give it to me, try for a speccy showpony to one of the hardest at it footballers going. We have seen our team play at various stages under Bailey hard frenetic footy- unfortunately all too rarely. Think of us vs Collingwood 2010 both games as the benchmark we need to play with week in and week out.

I think it can be because as a coach less than full commitment should not be accepted. If a player does not want to be "part of a team that is the hardest to play against" then Casey it is for you !

There is a tribute day to Jimmy all day today on fox footy - they are replaying all day, games he played in and I caught a game this morning ( and taped the rest) - 1994 - Melbourne v Collingwood - we won by a couple of points. The skills of both teams is pretty ordinary (Buckley got plenty of the ball and butchered it every time). What you couldnt help but notice is the hardness and intensity at the ball ( and some push and shove when required). I know it was a different time but Darren Kowall who I remember as not the bravest would rate up there today with Nat Jones. Much harder, uncompromising football. Very little coralling - see the ball, make the contest. Obst, Dyson, Viney - hard hard men. Both Febey's went at the ball like men possessed. P.S. Stop diving Brad Plain - it's pathetic.

I shouldn't show my anger but I will as I am reading a bit criticism of Jimmy having a state funeral.(not on here - Sun and Age comments on articles) "Lots of people do good work for charity and their work doesnt merit a state funeral". I for one do charity work and will never receive a state funeral. I for one have not founded an organisation that has helped over 60,000 young Australians. Many celebrities have lent their names to charities that have helped raising money in the short term and then run out of steam as their "celebrity status" dissipates( not that I will ever criticise any efforts to help others). Whilst Jimmy has maintained a certain level of celebrity Reach has become what is not because of Jimmy lending his name but because of his committment ( and others) to the cause. I suggest to anyone that says lots of peoples do good charity work (which I applaud) that goes unheralded to go and research Reach and see the enormity of what it has done and continues to do in large measure due to its founder. Does Jimmy deserve a State funeral ? No. He deserves a federal funeral and national day named in his honor.

I...errr...ummm....oh god (not that there's anything wrong with that)

You are right - he could disguise his name a 100 times over but that would have made zero difference. There was only one YM - I miss him so.

Is it just me but everytime I look at your av biff, I think to myself " he's an loathsome offensive brute yet I cannot look away"