Danger Zone

Remove this Banner Ad

Benwah83 said:
The other thing that I didn't note in my first post above - by Mahoney coming out and suggesting #2 and #3 could be on the table, we're showing our hand. Which, in turn, forces Adelaide to have the tough conversation with Danger to try and get him to show his hand.

The Dees are playing this the only feasible way that they can to have a crack at Danger. Doesn't look likely that it will pay off, and I think we're paying overs if we give up #2 and #3 for him. But we're using those bargaining chips to shake the **** out of the tree, on the off chance that some fruit might fall out of it.

I think it's been well-played by the club so far.
Click to expand...
I listened to it and wasn't left with a categorical impression either way. Maybe I read it wrong but Mohoney sort of hovered around it without clearly confirming 2&3 were on offer - might have to listen again.

I agree though about the shaking the tree. Dangerfield himself is the biggest factor of all here. I just don't see him wanting to go to Melbourne. Adelaide potentially between a rock and a hard place if he's scouting options for next year. They desperately want him to stay but in order to guarantee a best possible outcome they would have to convince him about going to us - you wouldn't read about it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Benwah83 said:
The other thing that I didn't note in my first post above - by Mahoney coming out and suggesting #2 and #3 could be on the table, we're showing our hand. Which, in turn, forces Adelaide to have the tough conversation with Danger to try and get him to show his hand.

The Dees are playing this the only feasible way that they can to have a crack at Danger. Doesn't look likely that it will pay off, and I think we're paying overs if we give up #2 and #3 for him. But we're using those bargaining chips to shake the **** out of the tree, on the off chance that some fruit might fall out of it.

I think it's been well-played by the club so far.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. Well said.
 
Benwah83 said:
The other thing that I didn't note in my first post above - by Mahoney coming out and suggesting #2 and #3 could be on the table, we're showing our hand. Which, in turn, forces Adelaide to have the tough conversation with Danger to try and get him to show his hand.

The Dees are playing this the only feasible way that they can to have a crack at Danger. Doesn't look likely that it will pay off, and I think we're paying overs if we give up #2 and #3 for him. But we're using those bargaining chips to shake the **** out of the tree, on the off chance that some fruit might fall out of it.

I think it's been well-played by the club so far.
Click to expand...

We're not ******* around and I love it.
 
RandB said:
I listened to it and wasn't left with a categorical impression either way. Maybe I read it wrong but Mohoney sort of hovered around it without clearly confirming 2&3 were on offer - might have to listen again.

I agree though about the shaking the tree. Dangerfield himself is the biggest factor of all here. I just don't see him wanting to go to Melbourne. Adelaide potentially between a rock and a hard place if he's scouting options for next year. They desperately want him to stay but in order to guarantee a best possible outcome they would have to convince him about going to us - you wouldn't read about it.
Click to expand...
AFL Website seems pretty confident that 2&3 is currently on offer.

Melbourne's football operations manager Josh Mahoney told NAB AFL Trade Radio the Demons would be prepared to package up the high-end picks in this year's draft to help secure the superstar.
Click to expand...
 
ponsdale said:
AFL Website seems pretty confident that 2&3 is currently on offer.
Click to expand...
Apparently offerred and rejected (in principle)

Adelaide says no to Melbourne’s offer to poach star midfielder Patrick Dangerfield

The circumstances aren't there for a trade which is why I find this whole 2&3 stuff ridiculous. For as long as Adelaide are under the impression they can keep him nothing will be good enough as an offer - he is untouchable.

As the article suggests, if Danger requests a trade then it's a whole new ball game and 2&3 is overs. If Danger is open to coming to MFC then we don't need to spill our guts with 2&3 we just have to offer the Crows the best offer out of his destination clubs.

Dangerfield will decide if Adelaide trade or not, not us and our exorbitant offer to pry him away from them.

The only reason I can think of why the club would offer 2&3 straight off the bat is so that Adelaide have a word with him and direct him towards us vs the other clubs in the event he wants to walk.
 
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but any thoughts to the idea we are shaking the tree so that Adelaide put all their eggs in the Danger basket & then having a genuine crack at either Sloane or Tex?
 
RandB said:
The only reason I can think of why the club would offer 2&3 straight off the bat is so that Adelaide have a word with him and direct him towards us vs the other clubs in the event he wants to walk.
Click to expand...
It's certainly going to shake a few trees!

Personally, I'm torn between thinking it is overs (commits too many recruiting resources for one player) and then thinking that we need to do it (genuine marketable talent). But it appears that MFC have a clear strategy with making the offer so public now and before we are even sure that we have pick 3. It's a bold call. And I'm all for those.
 
ponsdale said:
It's certainly going to shake a few trees!

Personally, I'm torn between thinking it is overs (commits too many recruiting resources for one player) and then thinking that we need to do it (genuine marketable talent). But it appears that MFC have a clear strategy with making the offer so public now and before we are even sure that we have pick 3. It's a bold call. And I'm all for those.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with it. I would prefer pick 2 and then a second round draft pick though - I feel that's more than adequate - but landing Dangerfield over another Trengrove/Scully or Sylvia/McLean possible combination would be a massive win in my books.

I still think the forward line is our major problem.
 
Jiska said:
I still think the forward line is our major problem.
Click to expand...

We definitely need to get another genuine tall target to help Hogan out. Pedo and Dawes are third tall types who have to play above themselves.

It's why I suggested packaging Jenkins with Dangerfield if we were to cough up 2&3. Especially if they are into Cameron.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RandB said:
We definitely need to get another genuine tall target to help Hogan out. Pedo and Dawes are third tall types who have to play above themselves.

It's why I suggested packaging Jenkins with Dangerfield if we were to cough up 2&3. Especially if they are into Cameron.
Click to expand...

Adelaide wouldn't give up Jenkins though and they aren't getting Cameron just like we aren't getting Dangerfield.
 
Dez! said:
Adelaide wouldn't give up Jenkins though and they aren't getting Cameron just like we aren't getting Dangerfield.
Click to expand...
Jenkins had a good year filling in for Tex but he isn't untradeable. Certainly worth enquiring about. As far as who will or won't go where we honestly have no idea until after trade week and FA. I have my doubts about Dangerfield as well but setting anything in stone at this point is just guessing tbh. Could end up right, could end up wrong.
 
Jiska said:
I don't have a problem with it. I would prefer pick 2 and then a second round draft pick though - I feel that's more than adequate - but landing Dangerfield over another Trengrove/Scully or Sylvia/McLean possible combination would be a massive win in my books.

I still think the forward line is our major problem.
Click to expand...

Midfield 1st, Backline 2nd, Forward 3rd

Look at Sydney on GF day, had all the elite talent in the forward line possible and Buddy was on fire but it didnt mean s**t because the ball wasn't there

It wont matter if you have Carey, Lockett, Dunstall, Ablett, Coleman and Hudson down there if it only goes in 25 times
 
nickgrant69 said:
Midfield 1st, Backline 2nd, Forward 3rd

Look at Sydney on GF day, had all the elite talent in the forward line possible and Buddy was on fire but it didnt mean s**t because the ball wasn't there

It wont matter if you have Carey, Lockett, Dunstall, Ablett, Coleman and Hudson down there if it only goes in 25 times
Click to expand...
Practically though, with our midfield being this bad, we need the kind of forwardline that will make the most of its chances.
 
nickgrant69 said:
Midfield 1st, Backline 2nd, Forward 3rd

Look at Sydney on GF day, had all the elite talent in the forward line possible and Buddy was on fire but it didnt mean s**t because the ball wasn't there

It wont matter if you have Carey, Lockett, Dunstall, Ablett, Coleman and Hudson down there if it only goes in 25 times
Click to expand...

Forward line comes after midfield, our backline is good enough for now to focus on forward line problems.
 
nickgrant69 said:
Our forward line was one of the most effective in the AFL in either 2011/12 ... Didnt help us much
Click to expand...
It did in 2011, we were pretty good.
 
Anyone else see Collingwood as a threat in this planned Dangerfield coup?

I mean if Beams goes, they'll have the cap space and two first round picks to use, not to mention a whole bunch of S.A talent they can throw in as steak knives.

I'd rather see Danger stay in Adelaide than watch him go round in the black + white.
 
Show Some Fight said:
It did in 2011, we were pretty good.
Click to expand...

No we werent, we smashed up some interstate sides who werent that good and got smashed by everyone else

Also im fairly sure we were in the top few in 2012 for scoring from entries, we were shithouse
 
Dez! said:
Forward line comes after midfield, our backline is good enough for now to focus on forward line problems.
Click to expand...

Well the backline will be an extension of the midfield, We are ok for 'defending' but we need guys who can use the footy rotating through the backline

Those issues need to be addressed before the forward line
 
stabler said:
Anyone else see Collingwood as a threat in this planned Dangerfield coup?

I mean if Beams goes, they'll have the cap space and two first round picks to use, not to mention a whole bunch of S.A talent they can throw in as steak knives.

I'd rather see Danger stay in Adelaide than watch him go round in the black + white.
Click to expand...

They don't have two first round picks, #8 is going to Darcy Moore as a F/S.

nickgrant69 said:
Well the backline will be an extension of the midfield, We are ok for 'defending' but we need guys who can use the footy rotating through the backline

Those issues need to be addressed before the forward line
Click to expand...

It's the other way round, the midfield is an extension of the back line when they drop back.

We aren't winning games without kicking goals, when you averaging like 60 points are game this is a far larger problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top