I've no doubt that they would have discussed terms before the medical, but they wouldn't have put a formal offer (a contract) on the table for him to sign until he had passed the medical.
I think the opposite. It's a great look. He was clearly at a 24/7 gym putting in some extra work before pre-season. No rest for Harley.
I never thought he was going to sign..however the smugness and crap the AFC and the supporters had to put up with all year from across the border has made hating them all the easier. I feel confident that this new admin won't roll over like we have in the past. It's not going to be what we really want, but think it will be better than what Conners spouted this morning on trade radio.
TOO MUCH TO READ!Again, who's doing strawmans? I'm not saying part of the trade is irrelevant, I'm saying dismissing Cheney in the context of the trade because it suits your argument is disingenuous.
What is your statement, exactly?
AKA "got nothing".
If it's meh, then rebut back don't ignore it. The fact stands, I rebutted, you did not rebut back, therefore I rebutted and you ignored.
He's not a nothing player. He was an option other than Shaw and Otten. Lever came on quicker than expected and I'd say we needed Cheney anyway. He played 12 games this year, and towards the end was in our bests or close to it. You can't say a player we needed is a nothing player.
Well rebut then, don't go hide under a rock, drift off into vague "I've got nothing to add", "yawns" and bullshit. You're just fobbing it off and it looks like you're doing it because you can't respond.
http://www.afc.com.au/news/2014-10-17/duo-add-versatility
"We’ve addressed ruck, we’ve addressed some areas of our defence…and we’ve been able to do that whilst at the same time holding integrity in what we want to do in round one and two (at the AFL National Draft) and improving our back-end picks."
http://www.afc.com.au/news/2014-10-16/crows-make-late-trades
"We identified the need for another ruckman and liked Luke’s athleticism and ability to also play forward, Walsh said. The Club had been keeping a close eye on his development for the past couple of years."
There is an opportunity cost with everything, you can roll it out for any situation but it means nothing on it's own. You could say there was an opportunity cost for trading for Jacobs. The question isn't if there is an opportunity cost, it's if the cost of the opportunity was worth it taking all things into consideration. Again, we had no backup ruck and needed another defender. We paid very little and it was worth it unless you want to say we didn't need a backup ruck or another defender as an option.
I said: "Who would we have drafted with the picks we didn't give away? what you're saying is paradoxical."
Meaning, the draft spots we lost were insignificant, not literally "who went in one of the draft spots we gave up".
Yes, and Lowden was swinging from forward to pinch-hit ruck in the game. Your point? but both were better options that Lowden, I'm not disputing that. Are you saying McEvoy is s**t or what?
Rucks take longer to develop, he was 23, had limited opportunity but when he did get the opportunity he played a great game. A 23 year old with potential was better than a proven spud.
See above.
Fobbing again.
Catch you later, don't forget your bat and ball
This is comparable to a William Wallace speech before battle. I AM WITH YOU!!!! HOLD!! HOLD!!! HOLD!!!! YARARAARRRRRR
WE NEED NONE OF THESE!!! Outside run, we know what we need!
He'd revert to his usual Clanger ridden self in our lineup. The Hawks are so good that they can basically hide him as a foil in their forward line, he gets terribly outclassed down back.
didn't.
