How bad is Brent Staker? [Archive]

Gunnar Longshanks

25 May 2005, 15:31

iceman

25 May 2005, 15:34

I thought he looked good in several games last year, but to be honest, this year he's been pretty ordinary

Might be going back to the WAFL and soon

Jimmy_the_Gent

25 May 2005, 16:27

I'm getting tired of this but I'll say it again.

Show some patience with Staker FFS, yes he's playing poorly right now but in the not too distant future he might be great. Nothing is garneted of course but it's too early to stamp him as a failure after only 20 or 30 games.

Trade him? Yes, if the right deal comes along we should, but if it where my choice I wouldn't be actively putting him on the trading block and trying to get rid of him, the only way he'd be gone next season if we got a great deal.

Drop him? I'd give him another week; if he has a limited impact against Port I'd drop him.

And optimist who believe he could be a decent KPP; yep that's me.

understudy

25 May 2005, 16:30

Im getting tired of this - he's a dud and has been since he first came on the scene with the ACT/NSW Rams. Donuts is a waste of bandwidth !

coasting

25 May 2005, 16:38

I know he takes a beating, but seriously, is anyone left in any doubt about the lack of Gunnar Longshanks football knowledge?

Mead

25 May 2005, 16:39

I've typed this about 3 times but one more won't hurt.

Late draft pick KPPs take a long time to develop, that's why they are late draft picks.

Staker is 9 games into his third year at the club. When Ash Hansen was 9 games into his third year at the club, he hadn't even played a senior game yet. I'm tipping that people are pretty happy we didn't scratch Hansen on the basis of his first 3 years.

The only reason Staker has been playing AFL so far is because his pace and agility allowed him to play as a tall flanker whilst his body develops. During that time he's played some good games and some bad ones, but I'm leaning against getting rid of a player who if anything is a bit ahead of schedule.

I think its true that he's probably gone as far as he can go as a flanker and probably needs to spend a fair while in the WAFL just getting used to the kpp roles and bulking up, but done the track I think he'll be a very good player for us.

noodle

25 May 2005, 16:46

i'd send him back to the WAFL for a full season at east fremantle. let him figure out his game and mature a bit. he's a great prospect but just a little inexperienced for my liking.

Streaker

25 May 2005, 17:48

I know he takes a beating, but seriously, is anyone left in any doubt about the lack of Gunnar Longshanks football knowledge?

He has football knowledge? Wheres your proof.

Exeter

25 May 2005, 18:40

I'm with Mead, Noodle and Streaker on this.

Not concerned about his physical attributes and I think he'll be a far more viable prospect next year.

My only concern, and I haven't seen enough of him yet at AFL or WAFL level to be sure of this, is that he might not be as natural a reader of the play that a player like McConnell looks to be IMO. When he has been on the park, he's often looked like a fish out of water, but has occasionally shown some good things like he did in the first half against the Saints.

If it's game sense that's wanting, then he needs to find that at WAFL level where it's more foregiving, rather than the full glare of the AFL spotlight.

He needs more time to develop.

Gunnar Longshanks

25 May 2005, 19:44

I know he takes a beating, but seriously, is anyone left in any doubt about the lack of Gunnar Longshanks football knowledge?
Who are you? Are you going to dazzle everyone with your insight?

If you disagree with something then let's hear about it, but if you're just trying to pump yourself up without actually having anything to say, then that's pretty pathetic.

peterss

25 May 2005, 21:13

How bad is Brent Staker? The Answer is Very Bad

coasting

11 Jun 2005, 14:10

Gunnar Longshanks

11 Jun 2005, 14:28

There were a number of Gunnar Longshanks threads on this subject I could have bumped but I chose a short one. How good was Staker in the wet? Thats 3 great games he has played in a row. Time for Wan-ker Longshanks to post his Brent Staker apology thread.W*nker Longshanks! That's awesome, but why did you put the hyphen (that's what the - is called) in? Is it like Obi Wan-ker Nobi? You're probably a Star Wars geek.

Good to see you working some variety into your time-honoured "You're a w*nker/tool/moron" introduction. I can't wait for you to workshop some of your best material and take it on the road. There's a huge market for your razor-sharp comedy on Pitcairn Island.

Let's not get carried away with Staker. He kicked two great goals last night, but finished with 13 touches and 1 mark. That's not an overly productive game.

You have a pretty low benchmark for what constitutes "a great game" if you think Staker has played 3 of them in a row.

He's improving, and is finally contributing. The fact that he's showing he can play vindicates the frustrations of those who felt his earlier performances were unacceptable. If someone with potential (I never denied he had that) is doing absolutely nothing and playing shocker after shocker, then they should be dropped. Luckily for Staker, he pulled his finger out just in time, and is now relatively secure in his spot.

Let's see how he goes next week before you ask him to marry you.

coasting

11 Jun 2005, 14:49

Hahahahhaaa. His performance does not vindicate your comments as you called for his head, you said he was 'done', and should never be seen in an Eagles jumper again this season, or probably ever again. How do you go from that to... "Let's not get carried away with Staker"? Your original comments are there for all to see. Its nice to see you backtracking in your comments.

Sydney Shortshanks, out of all the bs knee-jerk-crap you posted about Brent Staker i'm going to point something out from your original post where you actually try to use your small brain to analyse something happening on the field...

"And there are so many guys who are harder at the contest and who are cleaner by hand and foot than him competing for spots on the flanks."

If you couldn't see how clean Staker was with his hands in those conditions, especially for a guy at 196cm, then you are as blind as you are dumb. Just admit it, your wrong, the guy can play and is a big part of our future. If you hadn't posted so much crap about him you wouldn't be looking so foolish in trying to retract the foot from your mouth.

Gunnar Longshanks

11 Jun 2005, 15:38

"And there are so many guys who are harder at the contest and who are cleaner by hand and foot than him competing for spots on the flanks."

If you couldn't see how clean Staker was with his hands in those conditions, especially for a guy at 196cm, then you are as blind as you are dumb. Just admit it, your wrong, the guy can play and is a big part of our future. If you hadn't posted so much crap about him you wouldn't be looking so foolish in trying to retract the foot from your mouth.
He was good last night, and has been good enough in recent weeks to deserve continued selection.

My opinion of Staker has changed in accordance with his improved performances, but I still consider him a fringe player without a clearly-defined role.

You, however, are giving him way too much credit.

theorangeapple

11 Jun 2005, 15:59

He is a 20year old KPP. Get off his back.

Jimmy_the_Gent

11 Jun 2005, 16:17

He is a 20year old KPP. Get off his back.

So true, what gets at me though, is that he's an absolute freak and people can't see past his latest game. He's 20 and a KPP with more speed and skill then most his height; when he gets the strength and consistency which come with time and experience he'll be great for us.

sinepari

11 Jun 2005, 18:07

I thought he was pretty good last night considering the conditions were less than desirable for a player of his height.

Gunnar Longshanks

11 Jun 2005, 18:10

He is a 20year old KPP. Get off his back.
His performances earlier in the year were unacceptable and many people were more than happy to say so. As a 21 y.o. KPP who can't play KPP, he deserved every bit of flak he copped.

Now, because he hasn't been oustandingly poor for the last 3 games, a handful of d*ckheads are trying to play the "I told you so" card. Ridiculous!

You people can blow smoke up his a*se as much as you like, but until he stands up on a regular basis, I won't be convinced he's as valuable as many of his fans claim.

TurboHead

11 Jun 2005, 18:30

While I personally think Staker as a player is a knob sucking dog... I would have to say that I am pleased to see him put in some effort and improve his game since his game against Collingwood where he got 0 kicks and handballs....

Lets hope its a continuing trend for him.

____________ K H P M HO T FF FA G B
Collingwood 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0
Port Adelaide 14 5 19 7 0 0 1 0 0 0
Richmond 13 8 21 9 0 0 0 1 0 0
Essendon 9 4 13 1 0 0 1 1 2 0

coasting

11 Jun 2005, 18:41

His performances earlier in the year were unacceptable and many people were more than happy to say so. As a 21 y.o. KPP who can't play KPP, he deserved every bit of flak he copped.

Now, because he hasn't been oustandingly poor for the last 3 games, a handful of d*ckheads are trying to play the "I told you so" card. Ridiculous!

You people can blow smoke up his a*se as much as you like, but until he stands up on a regular basis, I won't be convinced he's as valuable as many of his fans claim.

Not outstandingly poor? Hahahaha... 21 possessions and 9 marks vs Richmond? 2 outstanding goals against Essendon in shocking conditions? He has played more good games this year than bad games and we are blowing smoke up his ass? For a guy who is 196cm? :D Nice try tool. Until you apologise for your absurd ramblings that Staker is 'done', is completely worthless and absolutely useless as a KPP no one around here is going to care what it takes to 'convince' you of anything.

Gunnar Longshanks

11 Jun 2005, 18:47

Not outstandingly poor? Hahahaha... 21 possessions and 9 marks vs Richmond? 2 outstanding goals against Essendon in shocking conditions? He has played more good games this year than bad games and we are blowing smoke up his ass?You're dreaming. He was pretty good against Richmond, although a lot of those possessions were uncontested in the backline.

2 goals last night was fantastic buit he didn't do anything else.

He's still not a KPP.

He's improved his output. That's undeniable. But he's still in the last 3-4 guys selected every week.

You're giving him way too much credit.

otis_david

11 Jun 2005, 18:49

I know he takes a beating, but seriously, is anyone left in any doubt of this guy's incompetence?

There just isn't a place for him. He can't play KP. Period.
And there are so many guys who are harder at the contest and who are cleaner by hand and foot than him competing for spots on the flanks.

What do we do with this guy? Should we trade him at season's end? Do we drop him and hope he finds some form? Are there still any optimists who believe he could become a decent FF or our first-choice CHB?

I don't think he should play another game this season.
Mate you are a first class tool.

You WROTE HIM OFF. No doubt about it. "I dont think he should play another game this season." "Trade him." "....any optimimists wh believe he could become a decent FF..."

Admit that you were wrong. Staker has been one of the best for us over the last few weeks. His disposal last night was first class and at times better than Judd and Fletcher (who both had a few skid off the boot).

What more do you want him to do to prove he is decent . I can put my hand up and say I never wrote Stakes off (cbf finding the threads but I will if need be) but you came out and called for him to be traded as he has no spot to fill on our team.

Admit you were wrong. You can't do it because you are pathetic.

otis_david

11 Jun 2005, 18:54

You're dreaming. He was pretty good against Richmond, although a lot of those possessions were uncontested in the backline.

2 goals last night was fantastic buit he didn't do anything else.

He's still not a KPP.

He's improved his output. That's undeniable. But he's still in the last 3-4 guys selected every week.

You're giving him way too much credit.
You once again prove your ignorance. He is not going to hold down a KP now because he is 20 years old and has played a handful of games. Nobody expects him to. However he has excellent skills and disposal, is tall, athletic and will grow to be a good player for the West Coast Eagles.

Why dont we trade Hunter because Lucas kicked a few goals on him. He had about the same amount of the footy as Staker but didnt kick any goals and his man got the better of him. SO why dont we trade him. Does anyone believe he is decent?? You fool. A few games do not determine a player being useless. However on the other side of the fence, Staker has shown enough potential to prove he will be a good player.

Lets just thank our lucky stars you are not representing the WCE football club.

Gunnar Longshanks

11 Jun 2005, 18:55

Mate you are a first class tool.Typically insightful.
You WROTE HIM OFF. No doubt about it. "I dont think he should play another game this season." "Trade him." "....any optimimists wh believe he could become a decent FF...".
Read the post, you ape. Those comments were questions I was asking to instigate discussion. You can tell by the '?' (that's called a question mark) at the end of each of them.

Staker still isn't playing as a KPP. I stand by my argument that he can't cut it at CHF, FF or as a tall defender.

He got 13 touches and took 1 mark last night. Are you really that impressed by that output, or are you just desperate to inflate his performances for the sake of arguing with me?
Admit you were wrong. You can't do it because you are pathetic.How do you come up with these cutting-edge posts?

The Unbrain

11 Jun 2005, 18:56

You're dreaming. He was pretty good against Richmond, although a lot of those possessions were uncontested in the backline.

I guess Wirrapunda sucks too hey. We'd better drop him.

Gunnar Longshanks

11 Jun 2005, 19:01

You once again prove your ignorance. He is not going to hold down a KP now because he is 20 years old and has played a handful of games.He's 21, but you probably knew that already.

Why dont we trade Hunter because Lucas kicked a few goals on him. He had about the same amount of the footy as Staker but didnt kick any goals and his man got the better of him. SO why dont we trade him.Hunter is a key defender who does a job every week. Lucas had a good game last night, but Hunter has a clearly-defined role within our structure. You can't say that about Staker.
However on the other side of the fence, Staker has shown enough potential to prove he will be a good player.You can say that about every player in the league.

You're obviously convinced that Staker will be a superstar due to his last 3 games. I'm a little more skeptical. I'd like to see him actually beat an opponent as a defender, or take a contested mark up forward before agreeing with you.

otis_david

11 Jun 2005, 19:05

Typically insightful.

Read the post, you ape. Those comments were questions I was asking to instigate discussion. You can tell by the '?' (that's called a question mark) at the end of each of them.

Staker still isn't playing as a KPP. I stand by my argument that he can't cut it at CHF, FF or as a tall defender.

He got 13 touches and took 1 mark last night. Are you really that impressed by that output, or are you just desperate to inflate his performances for the sake of arguing with me?
How do you come up with these cutting-edge posts?

You said he shouldnt play another game for the Eagles this year. Your "suggestive" questions strongly implied that you believed he was useless. Then you went and said:

I don't think he should play another game this season.

Tell me what this means. Is this another way of "instigating debate". Mate you were wrong. And you can't/won't admit it because you are pathetic (10 bucks you'll quote me with the old "another insightful comment".)

Gunnar Longshanks

11 Jun 2005, 19:05

I guess Wirrapunda sucks too hey. We'd better drop him.Wirrpunda has a different role. He's a designated sweeper who reads the player much better than Staker.

Also, as a small defender, Wirrpunda has greater license to drop back and crumb the packs. Staker got a lot of link possessions in the backline against Richmond. He didn't clear the ball or win it at ground level (like Wirpunda does). He was just a stepping stone when we switched the play.

This is a pretty obvious distinction, but you're trying to conflate my criticisms of Staker with the job Wirrpunda does. Bad effort.

otis_david

11 Jun 2005, 19:11

He's 21, but you probably knew that already.
My Mistake. 10 points to you for spotting out error.

c
Hunter is a key defender who does a job every week. Lucas had a good game last night, but Hunter has a clearly-defined role within our structure. You can't say that about Staker.
You can say that about every player in the league. .[/QUOTE]
Its called versatility mate. Not every tall player is going to play key position. Staker will play back flank, wing, or forward flank. Sorry everything is not clear cut enough for you.

You're obviously convinced that Staker will be a superstar due to his last 3 games. I'm a little more skeptical. I'd like to see him actually beat an opponent as a defender, or take a contested mark up forward before agreeing with you.
Where have I said he will be a "superstar" again, your witty sense of sarcasm encites all. Staker has had about 10 mnutes of game time on a key forward (Reiwoilt) what do you expect him to do? What will it ake for you to admit that he is decent .

And for ********s sake nobdoy has said he is a KPP now. They said he will develop into a KPP in time. Read the thread you ********ing ape .

Gunnar Longshanks

11 Jun 2005, 19:12

Tell me what this means.Maybe I went too far there. I'm prepared to admit that.

However, you guys are acting as though he's come out and dominated since I made that claim. IMO, he's been OK. It's not like his selection has been vindicated by a run of awesome displays. That's the way you guys are painting his situation.

While I'm prepared to admit that he's definitely improved, and that my calling for his head was a little premature, I'm not prepared to embrace him as an emerging superstar the way you guys are.

I think I'm being pretty reasonable. You guys are just a bunch of apes desperate to throw sh*t at each other.

otis_david

11 Jun 2005, 19:14

Wirrpunda has a different role. He's a designated sweeper who reads the player much better than Staker.

Also, as a small defender, Wirrpunda has greater license to drop back and crumb the packs. Staker got a lot of link possessions in the backline against Richmond. He didn't clear the ball or win it at ground level (like Wirpunda does). He was just a stepping stone when we switched the play.

This is a pretty obvious distinction, but you're trying to conflate my criticisms of Staker with the job Wirrpunda does. Bad effort.
Staker is developing into a KP as a flanker. He wont win alot of his own ball (although he does occasionally). Flankers are usually "link up men", and there is nothing wrong with that. He is finding the ball. I agree with you that he is more of a reciever atm, however he usually uses the ball well and in time will grow stronger into the KPP that he can be.

Gunnar Longshanks

11 Jun 2005, 19:19

Its called versatility mate. Not every tall player is going to play key position. Staker will play back flank, wing, or forward flank. Sorry everything is not clear cut enough for you.He's 196cm. If he can't play KPP then he's not very versatile.

In the modern game, HBF, wing and HFF aren't that different, so Staker's ability to play all of them doesn't say much.

He can pick up 15 possessions on wing for or as long as he likes, but until he does a job on a tall forward, or goes forward and take contested marks himself, he'll continue to be a fringe player.

Let's see how he goes this week. Brad Miller or Ben Holland would be a natural match-up for him, and Melbourne's defence lacks a third tall. It's cherry-ripe for him to contribute as a KPP.

Let's see how he goes.

otis_david

11 Jun 2005, 19:20

Maybe I went too far there. I'm prepared to admit that.

All you needed to say the first time :) .

However, you guys are acting as though he's come out and dominated since I made that claim. IMO, he's been OK. It's not like his selection has been vindicated by a run of awesome displays. That's the way you guys are painting his situation.

I think you will find and most agree that he has repayed the selectors faith in him. Not with awsome displays (which noone was suggesting) but with solid football and playing a part in our winning games.

While I'm prepared to admit that he's definitely improved, and that my calling for his head was a little premature, I'm not prepared to embrace him as an emerging superstar the way you guys are..
First I have never said he will be a superstar. But really what we have seen thus far from Buffy can lead us to no other conclusion than he will improve and therfore become a good player for the Eagles, a superstar..maybe not likely but a solid player who always contributes and gives it his all- yes.
[/QUOTE]

I think I'm being pretty reasonable. You guys are just a bunch of apes desperate to throw sh*t at each other.
Just glad to hear you admit you were wrong :D.

Gunnar Longshanks

11 Jun 2005, 19:23

Just glad to hear you admit you were wrong :D.There's a difference between being wrong and being guilty of slight exaggeration.

Staker is still a fringe player. He's completely expendable, and will continue to be so until his height becomes an asset at either of the ground.

otis_david

11 Jun 2005, 19:25

He's 196cm. If he can't play KPP then he's not very versatile..
For me KP means the spine. Staker atm does not have the strength to play on the likes of Tredrea, Gherig and win. He is versatile in that he can play forward and back.

In the modern game, HFB, wing and HFF aren't that different, so Staker's ability to play all of them doesn't say much..[QUOTE]
Forward and back are different mate.

[QUOTE]
He can pick up 15 possessions on wing for or as long as he likes, but until he does a job on a tall forward, or goes forward and take contested marks himself, he'll continue to be a fringe player...

Nay he will be the third tall down back, or fill in for Hansen at CHF. ATM he is not going to be a Key Player down the spine, and according to you if he doesnt do this he is a fringe player? He is able to play forward or back- and gives us versatility. I think I need to restate what I have previously said, he may play KP time to time, but he will not dominate or be considered a true KPP till he adds some wieght- IMO.

Let's see how he goes this week. Brad Miller or Ben Holland would be a natural match-up for him, and Melbourne's defence lacks a third tall. It's cherry-ripe for him to contribute as a KPP..

Let's see how he goes.

Gunnar Longshanks

11 Jun 2005, 19:30

You're really struggling with the Quote function aren't you?

It's pretty tough to get the hang of.

Staker doesn't need to be a KPP, but he does need to play as a genuine third tall at one end of the ground. I'm not convinced he's been able to do this so far.

otis_david

11 Jun 2005, 19:33

You're really struggling with the Quote function aren't you?

It's pretty tough to get the hang of.
.
YEHA SOZ I STFFUED IT UP BTU ITS FXIDED NOW PLZTHNX!11.
.[/QUOTE]

otis_david

11 Jun 2005, 19:36

Staker will improve in time. For a 21 year old he is making a good fist of it so far and we will watch his development with interest.
Lets just hope as Eagles fans united together that Buffy can make the most of his potential and be a good player for us in the future.

Rant Over.

Jimmy_the_Gent

12 Jun 2005, 00:14

You're really struggling with the Quote function aren't you?

It's pretty tough to get the hang of..

:D Funny to see that you have to resort to this type of thing Gunnar. Sad in a way too.

Staker doesn't need to be a KPP, but he does need to play as a genuine third tall at one end of the ground. I'm not convinced he's been able to do this so far.

Why can't he play as a really tall HF/HB flanker? I mean Stenglein is 189cm and 91kg going by your theory he should be dropped unless he gets a game as a KPP.

Ruddiger

12 Jun 2005, 00:51

Staker doesn't need to be a KPP, but he does need to play as a genuine third tall at one end of the ground. I'm not convinced he's been able to do this so far.

How many games has he played ? I think its far too harsh.

He's responded from a bad game against the Pies a few weeeks ago in great fashion and played the last 3 games with great ability and courage.

94_Eagles

12 Jun 2005, 02:19

If he could add consistent contested marking to his suddenly found game he would become a major part of this team. But then again, that goes for all our forwards, Lynch, Dougs, Hansen etc.

weagles_fan

12 Jun 2005, 13:11

If he could add consistent contested marking to his suddenly found game he would become a major part of this team. But then again, that goes for all our forwards, Lynch, Dougs, Hansen etc.Lynch is very good 1 on 1.

Gunnar Longshanks

12 Jun 2005, 19:42

Why can't he play as a really tall HF/HB flanker? I mean Stenglein is 189cm and 91kg going by your theory he should be dropped unless he gets a game as a KPP.What are you talking about?

What do you think my "theory" is, and why would you draw that conclusion from it?

Staker is 196cm. He's not going to cut it as a tagger. He's not going to cut it as a wingman. He needs to hold his place as, at the very least, a genuine 3rd tall in either defence or attack? Do you call this a theory? I think it's common sense.

What the hell does this have to do with Stenglein?

Gunnar Longshanks

12 Jun 2005, 19:45

:D Funny to see that you have to resort to this type of thing Gunnar. Sad in a way too.Yawn.

I spent two pages engaging this ape's argument.

Sometimes, a person's abject stupidity just needs to be acknowledged.

Cue the hilarious line where you imply that I am in fact stupid.

Mr Q

12 Jun 2005, 20:04

Gunnar Longshanks

12 Jun 2005, 20:10

The problem G_L is that you're bagging a kid who's just put in three good weeks in a row. Look, I didn't have much time for Staker being kept a few weeks ago after the doughnut week, but he's turned it around impressively in the last few weeks. Swallow your pride and admit it.
I've already admitted it. I've admitted that he's improved and now deserves his spot in the side.

What I maintain is that he'll continue to be a fringe player until his height becomes a genuine asset at either end of the ground.

It's pretty straightforward. I can't believe people are still arguing about this.

Bestbird

12 Jun 2005, 20:29

I thought the Coaches showed great faith by retaining Staker in the best 22 after a few ordinary games and he has payed them back so far with a couple of good games

Kudos to the coaching staff yet again and for Staker showing a bit of character

Jimmy_the_Gent

12 Jun 2005, 21:07

Staker is 196cm. He's not going to cut it as a tagger. He's not going to cut it as a wingman. He needs to hold his place as, at the very least, a genuine 3rd tall in either defence or attack? Do you call this a theory? I think it's common sense.

But why can't he be a tall HF/HB flanker? If he was 190cm he'd be fine in your books but because he's tall -which is in fact an asset- you think he can't play there.

94_Eagles

12 Jun 2005, 21:15

Lynch is very good 1 on 1.

Note how I said consitently... I don't think he has that consitentcy yet.

otis_david

12 Jun 2005, 21:35

Yawn.

I spent two pages engaging this ape's argument.

Sometimes, a person's abject stupidity just needs to be acknowledged.

Cue the hilarious line where you imply that I am in fact stupid.

Its ironic that you have a go at people for using sarcasm and derogative comments and then go and call people "apes" and abuse them because they cant use the quote button properly. You are a hypocrite.

Gunnar Longshanks

12 Jun 2005, 22:06

But why can't he be a tall HF/HB flanker? If he was 190cm he'd be fine in your books but because he's tall -which is in fact an asset- you think he can't play there.
I said he needed to be a "genuine 3rd tall". Where did I say he couldn't play on a flank?

The key is not where he plays, but how he plays. At the moment, he's playing on a flank but not really using his height to his advantage.

For him to be a truly valuable part of our team, he needs to "play tall" (which he is not doing) and actually take contested marks.

You're talking a fair bit of ********. Make a point or shut up.

Gunnar Longshanks

12 Jun 2005, 22:12

Its ironic that you have a go at people for using sarcasm and derogative comments and then go and call people "apes" and abuse them because they cant use the quote button properly. You are a hypocrite.Who are you trying to impress?

What do you think "irony" means?

I don't have a go at people for pointing out other people's stupidity. If they can do it effectively then good luck to them. I get tired of people just saying "You're a tool/moron/********er" as though that alone will win them an argument. I've engaged all the points-of-view put forth. Stupid people deserve to have their stupidity acknowledged.

I take the ******** out of people like you because you're so transparently desperate to convey an intellect you clearly don't possess.

otis_david

13 Jun 2005, 00:04

Well done mate you know some big ********ing words. Ill "dumb down" what you have said for "idiots" like me who arent up to your high standard of intellect.

Who are you trying to impress?

What do you think "irony" means?

You are stupid.

I don't have a go at people for pointing out other people's stupidity. If they can do it effectively then good luck to them. I get tired of people just saying "You're a tool/moron/********er" as though that alone will win them an argument. I've engaged all the points-of-view put forth. Stupid people deserve to have their stupidity acknowledged.

Ive never said "Your a tool" and left it at that as if its my arguement. In some posts there may be phrases like this, but it is much the same in your own posts.

I take the ******** out of people like you because you're so transparently desperate to convey an intellect you clearly don't possess.
Again you are saying- your stupid.

Look at it this way. You feel big whenever you put down sombody claiming they are trying to be smart because they dont have a broad vocabulary like you. Well mate I'm 16 and your apparantley 24. I assume due to your overall manner and tone that you probably have attended some higher form education (like Uni) and no doubt your a pretty smart chappy.

Im sorry that I am only in year 10 and can't comprehend some of the bull******** that you come up with. I have not met one person in the "real world" who talks like you that isnt a freak. You obviously use big words as a way to make yourself feel good.

If you want to argue about football fine thats what Bigfooty is for. Discussing football, but don't think you are that much better than everyone else here because you know more words. IMO you are quite ignorant about many things in Football. You often talk about things like they are black and white IIRC a thread about Hunter being "too short" for CHB. And we need a good CHB to have a good spine. Mate the teams dont line up exactly in the 3 3 3 3 3 formation on the team sheet. Again talking about Staker he has to play KPP because hes tall. Quite cearly you are not so well informed about football as you think you are and I am sure there would be lots of redneck bogans out there who follow football, who may not posses a large vocabulary like you, or finished high school, who would know about the same if not more about football than you.

You are not better than everybody else, and by bagging other people you are proving that you are just as low as those who have a go at you.

Bomber1313

13 Jun 2005, 00:46

Im sorry that I am only in year 10 and can't comprehend some of the bull******** that you come up with. I have not met one person in the "real world" who talks like you that isnt a freak. You obviously use big words as a way to make yourself feel good.

If you want to argue about football fine thats what Bigfooty is for. Discussing football, but don't think you are that much better than everyone else here because you know more words. IMO you are quite ignorant about many things in Football. You often talk about things like they are black and white IIRC a thread about Hunter being "too short" for CHB. And we need a good CHB to have a good spine. Mate the teams dont line up exactly in the 3 3 3 3 3 formation on the team sheet. Again talking about Staker he has to play KPP because hes tall. Quite cearly you are not so well informed about football as you think you are and I am sure there would be lots of redneck bogans out there who follow football, who may not posses a large vocabulary like you, or finished high school, who would know about the same if not more about football than you.

You are not better than everybody else, and by bagging other people you are proving that you are just as low as those who have a go at you.

ZING.

Gunnar Longshanks

13 Jun 2005, 02:34

ZING.You reckon? It was a pretty good effort.

It would have been better if I had actually made the claims he shot down.

Responding to an argument no-one has made is a little pointless in the scheme of things.

Gunnar Longshanks

13 Jun 2005, 02:43

Well mate I'm 16 and your apparantley 24. I assume due to your overall manner and tone that you probably have attended some higher form education (like Uni) and no doubt your a pretty smart chappy.Someone's done their homework.

You often talk about things like they are black and white IIRC a thread about Hunter being "too short" for CHB. And we need a good CHB to have a good spine.Hunter has been awesome this year, but I think we'd be better off if Hunter was able to play as a 3rd tall. For this to happen, we need a genuine CHB who's +192cm. Gaspar? Staker? At the moment, Hunter is doing a fantastic job, but I still think we might get caught short in this department come finals.

Again talking about Staker he has to play KPP because hes tall.I'm more concerned with Staker "playing tall". He doesn't need to hold down FF, CHF or CHB, but he needs to at least hold his own as a genuine 3rd tall.

For him to pick up 15 touches on a wing isn't good enough. We have faster, smarter, smaller players to do that. They're also better tacklers and harder runners.

For Staker to hold his spot, he needs to be able to either go forward and take contested marks, or go back and contain a guy like Ben Holland or Brad Miller. He hasn't shown a capacity to do either.

coasting

13 Jun 2005, 03:04

For Staker to hold his spot, he needs to be able to either go forward and take contested marks, or go back and contain a guy like Ben Holland or Brad Miller.

Wrong. To hold his spot he needs to 1) play well and 2) fullfill the assignments given to him by the coaching staff. Don't presume you know what the coaches have asked him to do because you don't. Just because he isn't pulling down 10 screamers a match doesn't mean he isn't playing his role.

Gunnar Longshanks

13 Jun 2005, 03:18

Wrong. To hold his spot he needs to 1) play well and 2) fullfill the assignments given to him by the coaching staff. Don't presume you know what the coaches have asked him to do because you don't. Just because he isn't pulling down 10 screamers a match doesn't mean he isn't playing his role.That's a classic non-opinion.

You've boldly declared my opinion to be wrong, without actually suggesting anything specific of your own. This is emphasised by your horrible attempt to write a list. You ran out of ideas after typing '1)'.

Nice work.

coasting

13 Jun 2005, 03:26

That's a classic non-opinion.

You've boldly declared my opinion to be wrong, without actually suggesting anything specific of your own.

Nice work.

Not declared anything specific? :D I'll try and explain it again very slowly so that your very small brain can understand. Try to follow if you can. You're saying he has to take contested marks in the forward line to keep his spot in the team. I'm saying he has to do what the coaches instruct him to do to keep his spot in the team, whatever it is. That could be any number of things and not specifically taking marks in the forward line. Now, which bit don't you follow? :D

nearlyblonde

13 Jun 2005, 18:17

You may not be stupid G.L., but jeeze, you`re a boring little ********.

Get over yourself already.

Mr Q

13 Jun 2005, 19:33

You've boldly declared my opinion to be wrong, without actually suggesting anything specific of your own. This is emphasised by your horrible attempt to write a list. You ran out of ideas after typing '1)'.
But you were wrong. Wildly and horribly wrong. I can give you a list very quickly as to why you were wrong about Staker:
1) West Coast v Port Adelaide
2) West Coast v Richmond
3) West Coast v Essendon

I know he takes a beating, but seriously, is anyone left in any doubt of this guy's incompetence?

I don't think he should play another game this season.

Those were in your original post, and were quite clearly WRONG. Eat your words and stop trying to argue about it. You started an argument and got beaten up over it. Learn something from that.

Lots of us were wrong. I thought Staker should have been dropped. However I'd rather be happy to be wrong rather than try to defend myself irrationally.

Jimmy_the_Gent

13 Jun 2005, 19:42

I said he needed to be a "genuine 3rd tall". Where did I say he couldn't play on a flank?

The key is not where he plays, but how he plays. At the moment, he's playing on a flank but not really using his height to his advantage.

For him to be a truly valuable part of our team, he needs to "play tall" (which he is not doing) and actually take contested marks.

You're talking a fair bit of ********. Make a point or shut up.

Point is that he's earning his spot as a flanker for now. He doesn't need to "play tall", it would be nice to if could but for now he's a good flanker and you shouldn't rip into him for not "playing tall" because we other talls on out list who aren't getting a game at all.

ScottyB

13 Jun 2005, 19:42

From an outsider I think he is developing quite well and cant see any reason why he wont be a regular in your best 22. Those of you who dont just expect too much too soon.

Gunnar Longshanks

13 Jun 2005, 19:58

You're saying he has to take contested marks in the forward line to keep his spot in the team. I'm saying he has to do what the coaches instruct him to do to keep his spot in the team, whatever it is.
Like I said, you'ver offered nothing specific in place on my suggestion. You're just saying that maybe the coaching staff have their own plan which none of us are aware of.

The fact you've used the phrase "whatever it is" shows how ambiguous your non-opinion is.

Gunnar Longshanks

13 Jun 2005, 20:10

But you were wrong. Wildly and horribly wrong. I can give you a list very quickly as to why you were wrong about Staker:
1) West Coast v Port Adelaide
2) West Coast v Richmond
3) West Coast v Essendon

You seem like a reasonable fellow.

How good do you think Staker was in those games? I'd say he was OK. Good even. Not fantastic.

I've admitted I went too far in my original post. Staker deserves to be selected this week. I've conceded that much. But I think a lot of people have seized on his improved form and completely thrown their pendulum.

Staker is going OK, but he will remain a fringe player until he performs in the role I've discussed previously. He needs to either provide a genuine target in attack or be able to shut down the 3rd opposition tall forward. In short, he needs to present an option as a genuine 3rd tall in either attack or defence.

I haven't seen him do either with any success, so I remain skeptical about how well he's been playing.

Let's see how he goes this week. Neitz is out, but Miller and Holland will still need to be contained. Holland would be an ideal match-up for Staker. If Staker plays forward, Melbourne might struggle to find a 3rd tall defender for him. It's cherry ripe for him to finally "play tall". Let's see if he's up to it.

I think this is pretty reasonable. I don't think I'm saying anything outrageous. Some people are just desperate to disagree with me for the sake of it. While I'm happy to defend my position, it becomes repetitive when people are unable or unwilling to bring anything new to the discussion.

YAKUZA

14 Jun 2005, 09:38

I guess the bottom line as far as this topic is concerned is that those in authority and whose opinions count reckon the lad is ok and your opinion GL is wrong and irrelevant, end of story!

Jimmy_the_Gent

10 Apr 2006, 01:55

Gunnar Longshanks

10 Apr 2006, 02:00

Nice call on Staker.Those comments were specific to last season.

On his performances last season, I think I was vindicated. He was bloody ordinary.

How about we wait until he plays more than one decent match in 2006 before hailing him as the best thing since sliced bread?

Today's effort was excellent. Believe me, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong on this score.

Jimmy_the_Gent

10 Apr 2006, 02:13

Those comments were specific to last season.

On his performances last season, I think I was vindicated. He was bloody ordinary.

How about we wait until he plays more than one decent match in 2006 before hailing him as the best thing since sliced bread?

Today's effort was excellent. Believe me, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong on this score.

Well, you have a go at Cuzz09 for being fickle and starting threads about missing the 8 after we had a poor preseason yet you were just as fickle about Staker's career. In all honesty though, I didn't bump up this thread to have a go at you, it -and the other staker thread- really annoyed me when they first came up and I had them in my favourites, so I thought now would be a good time to deleate them.

Gunnar Longshanks

10 Apr 2006, 02:17

Well, you have a go at Cuzz09 for being fickle and starting threads about missing the 8 after we had a poor preseason yet you were just as fickle about Staker's career. In all honesty though, I didn't bump up this thread to have a go at you, it -and the other staker thread- really annoyed me when they first came up and I had them in my favourites, so I thought now would be a good time to deleate them.I criticised a player who wasn't contributing. And rightly so.

How is that fickle?

Jimmy_the_Gent

10 Apr 2006, 22:17

I criticised a player who wasn't contributing. And rightly so.

How is that fickle?

You wrote him off too quickly, thus fickle.

otis_david

10 Apr 2006, 22:26

The fact is 21 years old and to write off a player that young is just stupid. Andrew McDougall is another example of a bloke who has a good 7 years left in his career, don't write him off either ;)

Gunnar Longshanks

10 Apr 2006, 23:36

You wrote him off too quickly, thus fickle.Fickle suggests a change of mind.

Premature, maybe? Perhaps a little exaggerated. I've been fairly consistent in my skeptisism about Staker's output. There's nothing fickle about that.

Besides, I never said he should be delisted. I just said that he wasn't in our best 22, which he wasn't.

People on this board are so desperate for Staker to be quality that they jump on one good game as a sure sign of his arrival as a top-liner.

How about we wait for him to string a few performances together before insisting that all criticism of Staker was completely unfounded?

otis_david

11 Apr 2006, 00:20

Fact is he put together many consistent performances last year and already this year is looking good. Of course he will have down days but atm he is our best looking young KPP IMO and in the next few years as the chance to really make a name for himself, has shown more than McDougall and is more naturally talented than Hansen.

Jimmy_the_Gent

11 Apr 2006, 01:20

Fickle suggests a change of mind.

So you're still skeptical of Staker holding down a KP and you still think he's incompetent? Ok.

People on this board are so desperate for Staker to be quality that they jump on one good game as a sure sign of his arrival as a top-liner.

That isn't true, I'm merely pointing out that he isn't total crap. Never did I say he's a top liner and I haven't read anything of the sort on here. One game proves he can play a KP.

How about we wait for him to string a few performances together before insisting that all criticism of Staker was completely unfounded?

This I agree with, especially since you used and emphasised "all".

F/D

11 Apr 2006, 01:39

Gunnar wrong again :o

sdb4884

11 Apr 2006, 02:58

Gunnar wrong again :o

He's Gunnar always be wrong :D

Gunnar Longshanks

9 Jan 2007, 09:02

So is Staker in our best 22?

sdb4884

9 Jan 2007, 12:09

yes, just ahead of Seaby and Rosa.

Wirrapanda Glass Waters
Chick Graham Selwood
Braun Fletcher Stenglein
Embley Hansen Cousins
Armstrong Lynch Hunter
Cox Judd Kerr
Nicoski Bones Butler Staker

QL 21

9 Jan 2007, 14:44

yes, just ahead of Seaby and Rosa.

Wirrapanda Glass Waters
Chick Graham Selwood
Braun Fletcher Stenglein
Embley Hansen Cousins
Armstrong Lynch Hunter
Cox Judd Kerr
Nicoski Bones Butler Staker

He's definitely not ahead of Seaby. Who will backup Cox?

sdb4884

10 Jan 2007, 17:27

He's definitely not ahead of Seaby. Who will backup Cox?

Jaymie Graham, Bones is good enough for KP as is Hunter. Seaby is holding back the fringe.

Cuzz09

10 Jan 2007, 19:14

Staker is good at marking

94_Eagles

10 Jan 2007, 20:02

No, he's not.

Boy from the West

11 Jan 2007, 17:04

Jaymie Graham, Bones is good enough for KP as is Hunter. Seaby is holding back the fringe.
While I do rate Graham as a player, if Coxy went down for an extended period of time, I think that Seaby would be more capable of being No 1 ruck than he.

I think that while Coxy is playing Graham may give us a bit more than Seaby on a week in week out basis.

Seaby is a better ruckman than Graham but Graham is a better overall player IMHO.

PLease forward a packet of angry pills to Seabs and I think that we may get vast improvement.

nibbles

11 Jan 2007, 20:37

PLease forward a packet of angry pills to Seabs and I think that we may get vast improvement.

word - he is way too christian... hurt someone seabs!

Lach72

12 Jan 2007, 09:44

word - he is way too christian... hurt someone seabs!

Must've been a low flying helicopter...;)

zcox

12 Jan 2007, 15:39

yes i really don't rate seaby. at times he is too indecisive and looks as if he doesn't know what to do. as a ruckman he is alright and can fill in for coxy while he has a rest. i don't know how well he would cope or how well we would go if we lost coxy for a period, i don't think seaby could handle the full time role, not good enough. as for graham, we would be wasting him in the ruck, has proved he can play up forward and back so much more valuable than seaby. should've given gardiner one more chance, so what if he's a ****************, he's a good ruckman.

sdb4884

12 Jan 2007, 16:16

Total_Juddshanks

12 Jan 2007, 16:58

No, he's not.

Yeah he is.

Led the Eagles in contested marks per game in 06.

10th in the league in overall contested marks, and the youngest player in the top 30.

Got some weaknesses, but also has an excellent set of hands.

zcox

15 Jan 2007, 11:43

Big Brent Staker. Very unlucky to miss out on the GF I thought. at times he does seem a bit out of sort and doesn't look like he's trying hard enough. That's just how some players look when they are playing the game. He is a very good grab and has a nice leap on him also. Very athletic and can produce freakish plays at times, very unpredictable. We would be silly to waste him in the WAFL this year. I think he will perform consistently this year (if given the chance) and is a key factor to our questionable forward line.