nutbean

I absolutely think Trump is comedy gold ( right up until the time he gets elected then I will cry out from rooftops "beware the loony tunes...beware the loony tunes")

Feel exactly the same but I have actively moved onto American politics, in particular, the GOP - it is a laugh riot and the good thing is that it doesn't impact here at all ( unless of course Donald gets in and would probably start World War 3 )

Please tell me who miraculously makes the transition to becoming an outside player because we brought in another inside player. Your argument has merit if you say we should have brought in Billy Stretch as he is pure outside run but as we got smashed on the outside Oliver would not have been answer to that. Brayshaw gets more outside ball than Oliver does ( and I'm not saying Brayshaw should have played either)

Am I too old school ? I understand the zone/rotating defense principle but cannot you not exclude one defender and have him sit on the best forward StKilda have -being Rooey ?

One debuted in team that played pretty well whilst the other played in a team thats performance was inept and one spent the majority of time onball whilst the other spend the majority of time in the forward half and at the first game I ate one pie whilst on Saturday I had a really bad chicken burger so I am at loss to to try and make sense of the comparison ..just sayin...

"our aim is to play consistent football week in and week out - we look no further forward than the team we are playing next week - that is our focus" ( that is how the question should be answered)

I would have loved Oliver in the team but I absolutely back team fitness/coaching staff on this. We had a living breathing example of what happens when you overplay youngsters with Brayshaw last season. His first half to second of the season was very different and Roos admitted he was overplayed. Now whether one week off or a week off and freshen up through the VFL is right or not I have no idea but I will back them on the Oliver decision because I just think we have the insight to query it.

BIG FONT AND CAPITALS DOESN'T MAKE AN OPINION RIGHT (or maybe it does...what the hell do I know)

And if I had bought a tattslotto ticket last night I would be $4M richer today. How on earth can anyone know what sort of game someone who DIDN'T play in the team would've played ? He could have just as easily had a quiet week like he did two weeks ago. You have now gone from the realms of considered opinion to outright guessing... (And please don't point to his VFL game - we have seen many footballers get leather poisoning at VFL and get promoted and not get a touch)

He may well come good but to pay big bucks for a name because you missed out on other big names is folly IMO. We do have a fair idea of the top paid players in the league - tell me that Boyd fits in with them. As another example of paying for potential - if Cripps of Carlton got into the top echelon of paid players - I would have no problem. you are paying for potential but he also has enough exposed form to warrant paying for that potential.

Whilst I will comment on the likeness of certain players and say that Franklin, Ablett and Dangerfield deserve to be paid as the marquee players in the AFL I don't get into debate of actual figures a player does get paid. I made the exception with Boyd because he is now in the top 10 best paid players in the league and it was based on pure potential. I am not saying that Boyd won't come good but to date he has shown little. As to Hogan, I won't comment on what he should be paid but surely you would agree that he has shown infinitely more than Boyd. We would be paying Hogan on his upside but we also have some insight as to what we believe he can deliver he has shown us that in some nice patches. Can you say the same about Boyd ?

$1m a season is a pretty expensive price tag for notional excitement and hope. franklin I get, danger and Ablett I get - that much for a player that could be ? Not for me thanks....

I think he has been solid without being spectacular - he will get the money irrespective,

This is exactly it - AT least Hogan has some exposed form before he gets the big bucks. Boyd had shown pretty much nothing and to date hasn't shown all that much more

Yup - the backup plan is get the best deal they can, hope that the Weed or Hulett come on and either draft or trade in a forward but to suggest that "the way the Dees are playing Hogan is not the focal point the club realises he may want to go home" ???( It is pretty much the same backup plan they have for any player - if anyone wants out - get the best deal, hope a youngster comes through or trade in). Are you seriously suggesting that they are not using him as focal point because he may want to go home ????????

whaaaaatttt ??? The way they are playing Hogan shows me that the club realises that he is a better as a centre half forward that moves around with some time deep and some time up the field than a stay at home full forward.... (btw - the non focal point has taken more marks than anyone else in the team.)

I listened to SEN for 5 minutes and heard that giant [censored] Greg Denham say we should not pay overs and used Tom Boyd as the example. So...Idiot Denham is comparing Boyd to our last seasons leading goal kicker, mark and contested mark ( i think he was top 5 in the league for contested marks last season ?) and this season Jesse has had a slower start to the season where he still our highest mark taker, second to Gawn in contested marks and second to Watts in goal kicking. I have no problem in arguing that you don't want to overpay players ( taking note that player payments are totally subjective) but comparing him to Boyd who may turn out ok but undoubtedly the bulldogs punted on him before they had any real exposed form to justify the contract they gave is comparing apples with a turd sandwich

I was thinking that too but I was also thinking that Melksham would have had 3 games at Casey where he would have had 75 possessions a game and kicked 5 goals per game from half back. Seriously, two months ago people were arguing on why we had even recruited Bugg and at the same time suggesting that Trengove wouldn't even get on the field again. How on earth can you measure Melksham who hasn't played at all since last year and we haven't really seen him up close for any great length of time against players who are playing right now. I use Bernie Vince as an example of a player that when he arrived there was some degree of skepticism around how much value he would be - he is now arguably one of the first picked every week.

Never ever ever ( ever ) going to happen - if we can get a 1 goal a week I would be delighted - that means 20 plus for the year. 2-3 goals makes means 46 goals to 72 for the year. I do agree that he does need to impact the scoreboard more - you are just setting the bar a wee bit high.

you are indisputably a very attractive man...

You can watch at Etihad - jump on a plane now.

This whisper makes no sense to me. There is zero ambiguity on our coaching structure going forward. Roos is going - contract will expire - Goodwin will coach - a contract in place. I would be gobsmacked if there was any significant movement in the coaching structure at all.

Agreed but if you hadn't noticed, Mick actually doesn't have place anymore - except a little spot on the radio where he has to be contrary and controversial to be even slightly relevant

I was well loved by my team mates ( that's because no matter how badly they played I always played worse)