View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
Haha
Let's take bets on how long the bump takes! _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Johnno75 wrote: | I think we can safely put this thread to bed. |
I don't follow _________________ Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Johnno75
Joined: 07 Oct 2010 Location: Wantirna
|
Post subject: | |
|
think positive wrote: | Haha
Let's take bets on how long the bump takes! |
Oh about 10 seconds after he fumbles the ball. God help him if his efficiency is not 100%. _________________ Human behavioural studies suggest people who use a lot of swear words tend to be more honest & trustworthy. |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
Post subject: | |
|
Don't believe that we should be be considering giving Witts away. Two ruckmen I believe are essential: like we are seeing now...if one is injured, you need another to step in. And if both are elite...they can definitely play together! I think one of our major goals must be to train one of them to play forward and become a roaming target on our forward line, to add that extra lethal dimension to our forward line. I am not sure which of Grundy and Witts this should be. Our coaches need to establish that. We need to acquire the likes of Treloar through other means! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
No one's considering "giving him away" and I'm not saying we should trade him. All I'm saying is, if there was someone we desperately wanted (eg. Treloar) and we needed to give up a quality player to get him, Witts is probably our most tradeable. Because, while you do need two first rucks, you do not need them to play in your best 22. So far we haven't even fully established that Witts and Grundy can play their best footy in the same team, for some players such a relationship can take years to work out and playing two first rucks has become increasingly rare across the league.
My view is that it's very unlikely that we do trade him considering the work we've put into development and how excellent are his prospects, but it's far from outside the realms of possibility. _________________ Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
I'd trade Pendlebury first. |
|
|
|
|
neil
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Location: Queensland
|
Post subject: | |
|
You trade away players you have a surplus of example Greenwood to us from Norf. They had alot of inside mids.
We have a lot of HBF but they are not as valuable as rucks and KPPs _________________ Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
neil
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Location: Queensland
|
Post subject: | |
|
You trade away players you have a surplus of example Greenwood to us from Norf. They had alot of inside mids.
We have a lot of HBF but they are not as valuable as rucks and KPPs _________________ Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Location: The 18
|
Post subject: | |
|
jackcass wrote: | John Wren wrote: | AN_Inkling wrote: | Member 7167 wrote: | This is not rocket science guys. You need more than 1 ruck unless you can guarantee that your main ruck will never get injured and that simply is not reality
If Grundy and Witts continue to develop they will both be in the top 22 long term if they both stay fit. Witts will be the main ruck and Grundy who is a lot better at ground level and is much more versatile will play relief ruck and will spend significant time in the forward line.
As I have said many time, if they both continue to develop and stay fit as a ruck duo we will be the envy of the AFL. The potential outcome is worth the investment and gamble. |
Absolutely, and this is almost certainly what will happen. The alternative though is not so ridiculous as to be unworthy of discussion. |
it's only unworthy to those who don't get what you are saying. |
I think the discussion is valid but way too premature. Give it a couple of seasons so we can at least see how they develop and who knows 1 of Witts or Grundy may even request a trade if they aren't getting senior opportunity. |
We aren't the ones making the trade/draft decisions so not sure why people get themselves in a tizz over an interesting discussion.
It's in the clubs hands and the thought of trading Witts could be completely foreign to them and that would be perfectly fine and reasonable.
Witts is an an excellent first ruck prospect.
However if they did entertain trading Witts for someone of the calibre of young Treloar (and only someone of that calibre) then Witts performance today wouldn't have done it's chances any harm.
My question is how do you believe the club will be able to meet the demands of GWS if our supposed high interest in Treloar is true if not for giving up someone like Witts?
Outside of the unfortunate loss of Scharenberg to Adelaide and having another first round pick to offer not sure what other obvious options we have.
Then again that's another scenario that raises the ire. _________________ He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
|