2017 Trade Hypotheticals (opposition supporters post here)

Remove this Banner Ad

A pick in the 20s would be almost as unlikely as a club trading their only AFL standard ruckman.
 
Martin will be 31 at the start of next season and Goldstein will be available and is younger and better. + Martin has given pretty good service to Brisbane and didn't leave a few seasons ago when everyone thought he would so I'd reckon that they'll let him go for not very much if he wants to leave. A pick in the 20s is dreamland stuff.
So if a team wants Goldstein then go for it, but Martin is contracted and we dont have a younger player at the moment who is at his level ready to step into his shoes. He is 31, but he is in the best handful of ruckman in the comp and if a team in a premiership window wants him to fit a need then a 2nd round pick is what we would want. If no one wants to offer anything near that then he just stays and plays on with us.
 
A pick in the 20s would be almost as unlikely as a club trading their only AFL standard ruckman.
Is he though? Archie is still a piece in work but shown he has something and the big o has come along nicely.

Archie should give us first use more than Stef
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Is he though? Archie is still a piece in work but shown he has something and the big o has come along nicely.

Archie should give us first use more than Stef

The last home and away game against the Swans when Archie was rucking uncontested and still unable to give us first use wasn't a great endorsement for his ability.

For next season they're more than handy backups and in the future could definitely at least be competent at AFL level but for now I feel better with Stef as the first picked for round one.
 
I always thought TBD would sound like Edna Krabappel but look like Ned Flanders.

4983755649_ac5e8b03d5_b.jpg

?
 
Disturbing or arousing?
For me, disturbing.

You, however may please yourself. And if you do I suspect that would indicate your choice.


Not that there is anything wrong with that.... no actually there is a lot wrong about that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

For me, disturbing.

You, however may please yourself. And if you do I suspect that would indicate your choice.


Not that there is anything wrong with that.... no actually there is a lot wrong about that.

A handsome, principled man with a footlong dick is disturbing? I'm straight and I'd be up for it if he were Flanders.
 
Can't see us picking up another ruck with Ballandean coming on board. I think we will back in the development of Smith and McInerney.
I would like to see archie get a good run of games in first grade. He has shown some good signs when he has got a chance, (had a really good game v collingwood). The more games he gets the better he will be. Well worth giving him more responsibility next year. Martin thrives on being the solo ruckman, certainly plays better when he is. At 31 next year its time he took a bit of a back seat and guide our young rucks into the future.
 
The last home and away game against the Swans when Archie was rucking uncontested and still unable to give us first use wasn't a great endorsement for his ability.

Was that his inability as a ruckman or our onball division's inability to extract the pill? Can't categorically assign blame to one one component of a midfield group when that same midfield group was tracking last or there abouts for clearence work for the year IMO. Would suggest Archie has RFI's but certainly could provide something for us
 
Was that his inability as a ruckman or our onball division's inability to extract the pill? Can't categorically assign blame to one one component of a midfield group when that same midfield group was tracking last or there abouts for clearence work for the year IMO. Would suggest Archie has RFI's but certainly could provide something for us

Did I categorically assign blame to Archie?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top