- May 7, 2007
- 5,109
- 6,047
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
JJ for Rozee.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is he averaging more goals?
Look, maybe we try to trade him, but he's been a 45+ goal forward for us for the last four years, we can sell him to a change of environment - Port's not a bad idea as suggested earlier
We should really be asking for a first rounder, maybe a late one, but a first nonetheless
Is he averaging more goals?
Look, maybe we try to trade him, but he's been a 45+ goal forward for us for the last four years, we can sell him to a change of environment - Port's not a bad idea as suggested earlier
We should really be asking for a first rounder, maybe a late one, but a first nonetheless
No room if grundy comes.
Why would we pay for Grundy now? We should have bought him 4 years ago, now we have ROB.
Anyway, JJ is good but he may be superfluous.
They say sauce has dried up.
Himmilberg to play Mcgoverns role. Grundy could teach Rob plenty.
For me, it all comes back to the fact that you can't trade a contracted player if they don't want to go. Yes, you can tell them they won't get games if they stay, but they can't do anything if the player calls their bluff and tells the club, "Too bad, I'm sticking around anyway."
Harsh critics around here. JJ has been down this year no doubt but up and running he’s a 50+ goal forward and backup ruckman. That’s a pretty handy player. He’ll hit form soon enough. EH has got him covered for effort but JJ is a better kick. He’s not completely useless. He pantsed Rance last year. Yes, he deserves to be dropped but short memories...
And whilst my comment is not about the thread......With everyone saying contracts are worthless then given Jenkins could do as WTF suggests it means that contracts are not worthless. So if a player wants to break his contract it can only be done with the clubs approval. Of course the question could be raised "does Jenkins want to sit around in the twos" or ör would we want to hold onto a player that wants to go". But contracts are not worthless.
Oh you and your examples!Ryan Burton says hello.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
If we have Grundy, I'm not really concerned where ROB playsOr, Rob could just do the role he's already doing?
What's he going to teach him, if we just put him back in the 2's?
If we have Grundy, I'm not really concerned where ROB plays
To suggest we don't go for Grundy because we have ROB is like saying we don't go for Cripps because we have CEY
What arguments do you have to discount his 60 goals last year?Jj was always terrible in the ruck. People needs to stop using this as a point in his favor
Jesus you lot. He’s been one of our best talls for the last few years and you can’t throw him out quick enough.
What arguments do you have to discount his 60 goals last year?
No, you trade JacobsPretty much, you trade ROB the moment you sign Grundy.
No, you trade Jacobs
I hope you're right...oh both counts (nothing against ROB, but it would mean we have BG)Jacobs is retiring end of this season.
That said, there would be no point whatsoever in keeping ROB, nor would he want to stay in that situation. Trade, and try to get something back to try to offset the bounty of getting Grundy.
Otten will go before Jenkins does. Jenkins won't get traded before trade week (obviously). Otten will be delisted before that - probably the day after our final game of the year. Hartigan might be able to pinch hit in the ruck (but again is shorter than Jenkins), but can he play forward? The guy has kicked 1 goal in his career. He may struggle to get a gig in defence next year if we have Talia, Keath and Doedee all fit, and I can't see him being much cop as a regular in the forward line.
No, you trade Jacobs
What arguments do you have to discount his 60 goals last year?
Is he averaging more goals?
Look, maybe we try to trade him, but he's been a 45+ goal forward for us for the last four years, we can sell him to a change of environment - Port's not a bad idea as suggested earlier
We should really be asking for a first rounder, maybe a late one, but a first nonetheless