View Full Version : Armstrong
Ford Fairlane
27 Sep 2005, 19:16
Port linked to Steve Armstrong by Ch 10 news. Allege a deal is being shored up to be completed early in trade week.
Porthos
27 Sep 2005, 19:32
I know I say it a lot, but `whats he done?'
Santos L Helper
27 Sep 2005, 19:37
I know I say it a lot, but `whats he done?'
'Broken record' forum.
Porthos
27 Sep 2005, 19:46
"I told you we should've sacked Choco, he will ruin Port Adelaide"
Ford Fairlane
27 Sep 2005, 20:00
We're going to have the best second string midfield in the world!
pinkus maximus
27 Sep 2005, 20:07
Hope you guys get him early in the week so we dont have to consider it
theorangeapple
27 Sep 2005, 20:15
Freo are also keen, we are not. You can have him as far as I am concerned. The guy is nothing special, so-so pace, so-so commitment and so-so skills.
Macca19
27 Sep 2005, 20:24
Meh. Next
JeNnO_powerfreak_21
27 Sep 2005, 20:58
We forget these are just rumors most of these things don't happen.
Capital Power
27 Sep 2005, 21:09
Yeah but with 183 days to go until kick-off we need rumours to keep us all amused.
Powerstufff
27 Sep 2005, 21:45
who?
First Google result (http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=risingstar&spg=display&articleid=30891) is from 2002 but has a bit of background.
Other sites thrown up over the past 2 years seem to show him as regular trade bait almost as soon as he arrived at Melbourne.
This page (http://melbournefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=players&spg=playerprofile&personid=13711) from the official Melbourne site is probably all we need to know.
He fits the profile of the type of player we will chase.
40-50 games, young-ish, plus looks as if he likes to tackle.
Santos L Helper
27 Sep 2005, 22:39
This is a joke, right?
This is a joke, right?
Which bit? :confused:
Ford Fairlane
27 Sep 2005, 22:57
This is a joke, right?
Mark Aiston is a joke. Apparently the rumour was serious. ;)
Sylvia Saint
27 Sep 2005, 23:07
I heard last week that Port were very keen, so there ya go!
Arma could be another Walsh...
portentous
27 Sep 2005, 23:22
Can't we get Russell Robertson instead?
Can't we get Russell Robertson instead?
You been drinking again? :p
portentous
27 Sep 2005, 23:25
You been drinking again? :p
Well if I can't have Matty Primus, I gotta have someone to lust after. ;) How on earth will I be able to make irrational statements based on my "loins" otherwise? :D
Well if I can't have Matty Primus, I gotta have someone to lust after. ;) How on earth will I be able to make irrational statements based on my "loins" otherwise? :D
Careful there, loins are hard to cook. They burn easily. :D
portentous
27 Sep 2005, 23:37
Funny thing is when I saw the thread title I thought of "Lance Armstrong". Thought we were after a replacement for Roger James! :)
Funny thing is when I saw the thread title I thought of "Lance Armstrong". Thought we were after a replacement for Roger James! :)
Good pick up. :D
He did spend more time on the pushbike than on the field.
Told you that sooner or later you would start thinking stupidly too. :thumbsu:
portentous
27 Sep 2005, 23:46
Good pick up. :D
He did spend more time on the pushbike than on the field.
Told you that sooner or later you would start thinking stupidly too. :thumbsu:
And I thought it was just the alcohol poisoning. :D
And I thought it was just the alcohol poisoning. :D
That's definitely contagious.
Statistically proven and very easily at that. Groups get poisoned more often by alcohol than individuals.
portentous
27 Sep 2005, 23:52
Groupies get poisoned more often by alcohol
:D
portentous
28 Sep 2005, 00:03
:D
:D
This guy was on fire in his first year, if I recall correctly. Extract that out of him and we're laughing. Like this :D, PAFC est. 1870, always :Ding
Ford Fairlane
28 Sep 2005, 08:27
2003 (second season playing AFL) he played 18 games for 231 disposals, 43 tackles and 8g7p. After that it turned to crap with 6 games in each of 2004 and 2005 (ave. 10 and 6.5ppg).
Over his career he's had 44 frees for and only 11 against. That'd have to be an attraction!
Malibu#27
28 Sep 2005, 09:56
I always try to remember that apart from the "high profile" sook wants to go home type trades, the majority of trades are for "fringe players" .... players which may not be getting the opportunity they need at one club or a second club sees something that the first doesnt .... sometimes the change of environment is what the player needs.
While Im not endorsing any particular trades, I do find it interesting that almost every deal that is mentioned is judged as another example of stupid port adelaide trading. I suppose sometimes its easier to be negative.
Not every deal that we make is going to be pick 73 swapped for Luke Ball type stuff.
Im not saying we should welcome every trade with applause and unbridled enthusiasm ..... but think sometimes we have to temper our wishes for those "super trades" and realise we are generallytrading the 18th - 26th players on our lists.
Porthos
28 Sep 2005, 10:10
I think other people need to realise that trading for fringe players with known flaws from other clubs is quite probably a worse option than just keeping our draft picks.
We are by no means obliged to trade for decrepit players.
Malibu#27
28 Sep 2005, 10:19
I think other people need to realise that trading for fringe players with known flaws from other clubs is quite probably a worse option than just keeping our draft picks.
We are by no means obliged to trade for decrepit players.
I agree with that.
Forzaport
28 Sep 2005, 11:41
From what i can see about armstrong's past - it looks like he could be a mighty fine player - or a mighty fine dud. I think it's worth a shot - depending on what we trade for him.
Powerstufff
28 Sep 2005, 12:03
I always try to remember that apart from the "high profile" sook wants to go home type trades, the majority of trades are for "fringe players" .... players which may not be getting the opportunity they need at one club or a second club sees something that the first doesnt .... sometimes the change of environment is what the player needs......Quite true, and there is some really good value out there. Especially as a lot of these players bust their buns if given a chance. We wouldn't have played finals without Walsh, who I knew nothing of until this year.
I misut admit I'd be more confident in our horse-trading abilities if we hadn't picked up Shattock this year. How could we have got that so wrong? Or Robert Forster-Knight the year before. What was that even about?
portentous
28 Sep 2005, 12:31
Quite true, and there is some really good value out there. Especially as a lot of these players bust their buns if given a chance. We wouldn't have played finals without Walsh, who I knew nothing of until this year.
I misut admit I'd be more confident in our horse-trading abilities if we hadn't picked up Shattock this year. How could we have got that so wrong? Or Robert Forster-Knight the year before. What was that even about?
Choco likes our recruits to come from clubs that have won a flag in the last 10 years, and our "discards" to go to clubs that are unlikely to win one in the next 10!
Choco likes our recruits to come from clubs that have won a flag in the last 10 years, and our "discards" to go to clubs that are unlikely to win one in the next 10!
Mahoney, Montgomery, Bishop, Wakelin - not a lot of (previous club) success there from our recycled premiership players. Though the bit about offloading to clubs that won't hurt us on field has been right.
portentous
28 Sep 2005, 12:42
Mahoney, Montgomery, Bishop, Wakelin - not a lot of (previous club) success there from our recycled premiership players. Though the bit about offloading to clubs that won't hurt us on field has been right.
Did Choco pick up Monty, Bishop and Wakelin? Thought they were before his time.
And Mahoney was nabbed in the draft, not the result of a trade. His previous medical history makes him an extraordinary case anyway.
Porthos
28 Sep 2005, 12:43
They were all definitely Choco. Jack's last trade was Rombotis-Naish
I think other people need to realise that trading for fringe players with known flaws from other clubs is quite probably a worse option than just keeping our draft picks.
We are by no means obliged to trade for decrepit players.
I disagree. There have been many many many occasions, where a player has struggled at one club, and looked hapless, and then moved to another club and became very very good.
There are a number of factors to consider. Take Steven Salopek for example. He has loads of talent, but atm, alot of other teams would consider him 'dud', as he has done nothing of note at AFL level. We at port know why, and that is due to injury and illness.
Armstrong seems to be in a similar boat. Rated extremely highly, started off well, injured, and hasn't got out of the injury troubles as yet. He is by no means a dud. Just struggling with injury.
If you look at our team porthos, you will see a continuing pattern. many of our players, are discards, or fringe players at other clubs, that Choco has turned into Very decent, or even good players.
Players who have become more than mediocre since coming to Port:
Matthew Bishop,
Adam Kingsley,
Josh Mahoney,
Brett Montgomery,
Darryl Wakelin,
Phil Walsh
Some of these players were pretty good at their prior clubs, but have become alot better at Port. Where would we be without these players?
Williams knows what he's doing, and very rarely do we give up alot, and pick up a dud via trades. We don't trade often, but when we do, it's usually a decent trade.
Porthos
28 Sep 2005, 13:54
There are a number of factors to consider. Take Steven Salopek for example. He has loads of talent, but atm, alot of other teams would consider him 'dud'I don't think any actual teams would call him `dud' at all.
Players who have become more than mediocre since coming to Port:
Matthew Bishop - 1/3 of the Eagleton deal
Adam Kingsley - DRAFTED at pick #37 in a draft that had at least 30% of its talent ripped out of it by us beforehand.
Josh Mahoney - DRAFTED at pick #12 in the pre-season draft, our last pick for the year
Brett Montgomery - 1/3 of the Eagleton deal
Darryl Wakelin - First time I've heard a vice-captain referred to as a fringe dud.
Phil Walsh - a freebie
Some of these players were pretty good at their prior clubs, but have become alot better at Port. Where would we be without these players?And you've missed my point, and in fact seem to prove it. Why would we trade a better pick than any we've used for the above players, when its quite clear that we could draft similar players later?
Williams knows what he's doing, and very rarely do we give up alot, and pick up a dud via trades. We don't trade often, but when we do, it's usually a decent trade.Sure. And that backbone of good trading has resulted from never trading a first or second round pick for a player that a) doesn't fill a genuine need and b) isn't entrenched in their current side's first 22.
This is precisely why I am flabbergasted that so many on this board want our club to join the ranks of morons that trade away decent draft picks for disappointing fringe players instead of either drafting new talent, or picking up experienced talent with later picks.
I interpreted what you said as "don't give away our draft picks for fringe players"
Now, i wouldn't mind giving late picks for some fringe players that have shown potential. Or in Armstrongs case, he has strong potential, and has been hampered by injury. I would give up even a 2nd round pick if required. The draft is very weak, and there's not alot to be gained anyway, the value of the 2nd round pick this draft is not much. Armstrong is still very young as well
Porthos
28 Sep 2005, 14:10
Armstrong could be OK, but even as weak as this draft supposedly is (don't forget, 2000 was too), I would be very reluctant to give up our second round pick for him.
There are three real queries over Armstrong coming to Port.
1) He's from WA. Why Port?
2) He's injury prone. Do we need more injury prone midfielders? Will the hard track at Alberton not worsen this?
3) If he's got so much potential, why are Melbourne cutting him loose?
Ford Fairlane
28 Sep 2005, 14:14
Moylan could be the WA connection. But as to the other questions, beats me - what have his injury problems been? He was hurt in the Bali bombings, but he had his best year straight after, so it doesn't appear to be some physical or psychological response to that event.
theorangeapple
28 Sep 2005, 14:15
Will cost a 2nd round pick.
Maybe 3rd if lucky.
Ford Fairlane
28 Sep 2005, 14:16
Or Gilham.
PJ Power
28 Sep 2005, 16:34
If that is the best we can do for Gilham, then that is not surprising but still disappointing.
I think the Shattock experience has tainted our reputation of trading to boost our midfield stocks. We did waste a draft pick with that one - getting 10 poor games from a player like that at the expense of blooding your better young players is a horrible mistake. We have to limit those types of errors.
I personally rate Armstrong very highly and feel he could develop into a good player for port. Considering he hasnt been getting a game at Melbourne means his price will not be too high. 21 year old and with some confidence worth a chance if we dont give too much away.
2003 (second season playing AFL) he played 18 games for 231 disposals, 43 tackles and 8g7p. After that it turned to crap with 6 games in each of 2004 and 2005 (ave. 10 and 6.5ppg).
Over his career he's had 44 frees for and only 11 against. That'd have to be an attraction!
I am sure I read somewhere that he was injured in the Bali bombing and then had some fitness problems.
:D
Little PAF got to my account again did he? :D
PowerKop
28 Sep 2005, 19:19
sounds like a definate goer according to ten news tonight. SHould be a good pickup, as long as we don't give up our 2nd pick. Either 3rd pick or Gilham if we cannot convince him to stay.
Yep. (http://melbournefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=70732)
portentous
28 Sep 2005, 19:25
Little PAF got to my account again did he? :D
:D
Ford Fairlane
28 Sep 2005, 19:47
I am sure I read somewhere that he was injured in the Bali bombing and then had some fitness problems.
Probably post #45. ;) He was injured in the bombings but 2003 was his best year.
portentous
28 Sep 2005, 19:49
Probably post #45. ;) He was injured in the bombings but 2003 was his best year.
*PAF's been drinking yet again :D
*PAF's been drinking yet again :D
Nah, just left my googles at work that's all. :D
Probably post #45. ;) He was injured in the bombings but 2003 was his best year.
Whoops.
My short term memory is a bit like Ted the kangaroo hey? :o :D
PortProudWA
28 Sep 2005, 20:07
As I said on another thread
Would bloody love to get hold of Army!! He was captain of my daughters school faction, lives in the same town as me, just around the corner actually lol , know them quite well. Often see him when he comes back! The whole family are sport mad, brother plays for Swannies. He had a great year before the bali bombing, took a real lot out of him. (that did take a whack out his calf, but looks fine now. Was a real emotional thing for this kid to handle)
I use to watch this kid when we first moved down from Darwin playing school footy and for Kala, then followed him when he went to Perth, said to Hayley when I saw him play Primary Footy, Army will make AFL. Given the chance, this kid will set the world on fire - he aint had the chance at the Dee's. The Armstrong's live for footy. he's so dam fast and skillful when give the chance, won the Dee's Best First year player (what ever its called in 2003)
Get him Port.........I wanna see his dam brother walk around Kala in a Port jumper not a friggin Demons one , and to stop givin me the birdie and give me a bloody big grin instead!!!!
If we get him, he will be worth his wait in gold.........trust me!!!
blackdiamond
28 Sep 2005, 21:01
The way it sounded on Channel 10 tonight (yeah I know, never believe anything they say) but it sounded like they were going to delist him anyway.
Being this why bother, we will end up paying over the odds by showing any interest, leave him for the national draft.
PortProudWA
28 Sep 2005, 21:11
Probably post #45. ;) He was injured in the bombings but 2003 was his best year.
It was his calf FF. I saw it when he come back from that hey, it was bad, pretty bloody horrible. Had a few other big bits taken out of him hear and there, but his calf and leg was worst hit. But have seen it since and it healed up pretty dam well. The emotional scare he went though is what I think really shock this kid up in 2004!!
Given that, I reckon he has recovered from both, and I say TAKE HIM!! NOW!! (God, be a great membership coo for us over here as well lol :D )
The way it sounded on Channel 10 tonight (yeah I know, never believe anything they say) but it sounded like they were going to delist him anyway.
Being this why bother, we will end up paying over the odds by showing any interest, leave him for the national draft.
Who Scott??
Russian
28 Sep 2005, 21:28
The way it sounded on Channel 10 tonight (yeah I know, never believe anything they say) but it sounded like they were going to delist him anyway.
Being this why bother, we will end up paying over the odds by showing any interest, leave him for the national draft.Because for every player we get for a draft pick, that's one more player we have to delist before the end of the month ;)
dreamkillers
28 Sep 2005, 22:06
I think the Shattock experience has tainted our reputation of trading to boost our midfield stocks. We did waste a draft pick with that one - getting 10 poor games from a player like that at the expense of blooding your better young players is a horrible mistake. We have to limit those types of errors.
There have been considerable changes behind the scenes in regard to scouting and dealing with players and their managers after some of last years poor efforts that were recognised by the club.
By the end of next week we'll be able to see whether it has actually made a difference.
Malibu#27
28 Sep 2005, 22:52
There have been considerable changes behind the scenes in regard to scouting and dealing with players and their managers after some of last years poor efforts that were recognised by the club.
By the end of next week we'll be able to see whether it has actually made a difference.
Probably more likely that we will find out by about the middle of next season.
PJ Power
28 Sep 2005, 23:03
If this guy costs us say pick 45 and we get him and Melbourne's fourth round pick (?58) in return, you would consider it.
But from the very little I have seen or heard of him, he still comes across as being a likely fringe/backup midfielder. Probably not one who would be of much use as a predominant HFF (like Thompson has been for the Crows) either. Maybe he might be the sort of guy who can be developed into a Baker (Saints variety) type of BP mongrel.
The fact that we might be trading for fringe players, still concerns me that Choco is focusing mainly on getting the maximum results out of our squad for the next 2 years (while his contract is still with us).
If we play an Armstrong for half the season off the bench the way we did Shattock and Cochrane in 2005, where will that leave us in terms of developing Thomson and Salopek, not to mention other youngsters on our list who want to crack into that midfield (Symes, Ebert, Eckerman and Ezard).
If the kid can really, really play, then fantastic. But if we get him, I will not be convinced of his value until at the earlies round 10 next year. Shattock played well in round 2 against the Lions and some wondered if we had a genuine player. His outing against Geelong at Skilled, concussed or not, was the last straw.
dreamkillers
28 Sep 2005, 23:28
Probably more likely that we will find out by about the middle of next season.
That's when we'll know the value of the players and some of the other changes but we should be able to see by the end of next week whether there's been a better effort and more active work done in regards to trades.