Carlton's Primary Playing List 2008

[Jeremias]

Oh for gods sake, some people just don't get it...

No need to elevate Jamison? have you seen our defense? or lack thereof

We had 3 rookies this year that were realistic chances of being elevated to the senior list at the end of season 2007-Jackson, O'hAilpin and Jamison.

A decision needed to be made on Jackson and Aisake-we needed to either elevate them to the senior list, or delist them. Given the progress they have both made, the decision to promote them would have been an easy one.

As has been said about 1,000 times before, we did NOT need to elevate Jamison. He has only been on the rookie list for 1 year, and we were therefore able to keep him on there for another year. On top of that, he can be our nominated rookie, meaning that despite him remaining on the rookie list, he is eligible for senior selection throughout season 2008. He can still play 22 games next year, form permitting, despite remaining on the rookie list.

Nobody can fault Jackson on his effort and determination. Still doesn't mean that he's not awkward and is not afraid of the ball.

I guess that you think Jacko broke his hand in round 5, his first game in the seniors for 2007, from being so far away from the ball.

Jackson is a tough customer. Has plenty of courage, and is not afraid of putting his body on the line to ensure his team gets the ball. That doesn't come from being "afraid of the ball".

Anyway, im not going to write jacko off until hes completed a full season.

And nor should you. Jackson has proved a lot more than Jamison, and deserved his promotion. He deserved to be promoted over Jamison, a decision helped by the fact that one could spend another year on the rookie list, whilst the other couldn't. Both have shown that they are willing to do what it takes to forge a career with the Navy Blue, so why shouldn't they be given every opportunity to do so?

 

[good2bblue]

I do have a bias against Jackson, it goes back to when I was playing junior footy aginst him.

 

[benindie123]

Oh for gods sake, some people just don't get it...



We had 3 rookies this year that were realistic chances of being elevated to the senior list at the end of season 2007-Jackson, O'hAilpin and Jamison.

A decision needed to be made on Jackson and Aisake-we needed to either elevate them to the senior list, or delist them. Given the progress they have both made, the decision to promote them would have been an easy one.

As has been said about 1,000 times before, we did NOT need to elevate Jamison. He has only been on the rookie list for 1 year, and we were therefore able to keep him on there for another year. On top of that, he can be our nominated rookie, meaning that despite him remaining on the rookie list, he is eligible for senior selection throughout season 2008. He can still play 22 games next year, form permitting, despite remaining on the rookie list.




I guess that you think Jacko broke his hand in round 5, his first game in the seniors for 2007, from being so far away from the ball.

Jackson is a tough customer. Has plenty of courage, and is not afraid of putting his body on the line to ensure his team gets the ball. That doesn't come from being "afraid of the ball".



And nor should you. Jackson has proved a lot more than Jamison, and deserved his promotion. He deserved to be promoted over Jamison, a decision helped by the fact that one could spend another year on the rookie list, whilst the other couldn't. Both have shown that they are willing to do what it takes to forge a career with the Navy Blue, so why shouldn't they be given every opportunity to do so?

'Jeremias' you're obviously on the Jackson bandwagon so thats great for you. No matter how many times you tell me Jackson has broken his hand or whatever I'll still tell you he's afraid of the ball.

Carlton have chosen to elevate him and thats their prerogative; a logical move due to the eligibility of Jamison being a nominated rookie. As i said earlier, I won't write Jackson off until he's completed a full season.

 

[blues4flag]

'Jeremias' you're obviously on the Jackson bandwagon so thats great for you. No matter how many times you tell me Jackson has broken his hand or whatever I'll still tell you he's afraid of the ball.

Carlton have chosen to elevate him and thats their prerogative; a logical move due to the eligibility of Jamison being a nominated rookie. As i said earlier, I won't write Jackson off until he's completed a full season.

Jackson showed a lot during the run he got towards the end of the season - being afraid of the ball he did not. I was very impressed with what he did, when I'd previously written him off. His game against Harvey in particular was very encouraging - I'd have him in the 22 come round one. As would I Jamieson, for that matter.

 

[Salaryman]

Good grief, I thought all the nuff nuffs who couldn't read or absorb a point were confined to the Collingwood, West Coast, Richmond or Essendon boards .

Jeremias must be about ready to extract his own teeth.

Hang on, wait for me to come over, I want to see this

 

[benindie123]

Jesus guys.

I don't rate Jackson. You guys do. A textbook example of a disagreement. If everyone agreed with each other i would be laying in a hammock in Iraq. Get over the fact that you can't convince me to iron a 38 on my back.

btw great call gilly under the circumstances. bringing dentistry into it, classic piece of humor. however, you're a doveman fan so i feel inclined to retract my sarcastic remark.

 

[Bluebear]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but dont you need to have a player on the veterans list to have a nominated rookie?

Might be a different rule if you have no veterans

You're wrong.

The club can have two players, any combination of veterans or nominated rookies.
Last year we had Kouta (vet) and Jackson (NR).

With no veterans this year we can have both second year rookies as nominated rookies (Jammo and Jacobs).
This would free up an additional rookie spot if we wanted, and allow Jacobs and Jammo to be available for senior selection.

The thread I highlighted in my earlier post has links to lots of info about this stuff.

Clearly people (not you directly benindie) prefer to just go on believing what they think than to actually read the info that is provided....................the info is there, and would prevent a lot of arguements.

 

[anth22]

Jackson for the NAB rising star next year pencil in

 

[Jeremias]

You're wrong.

The club can have two players, any combination of veterans or nominated rookies.
Last year we had Kouta (vet) and Jackson (NR).

I don't think we actually nominated Jackson to be a nominated rookie. We didn't have one last year, even though we were able to if we wanted.

 

[WALKERTOBETTS]

Not that it will happen, but Jaimo could still be on the rookie list for another 2 years, as Rookies can be on the ROOKIE LIST for 3 years overall
In my opinion Jacko is your genuine, "old tradition footballer", he is no athlete in my books, but knows how to get the pill, knows what to do with the pill, and for one has done his apprenticeship on the Rookie list, having an inside midfielder is a bonus for us to have. I'm excited

 

[Jeremias]

Not that it will happen, but Jaimo could still be on the rookie list for another 2 years, as Rookies can be on the ROOKIE LIST for 3 years overall

That is incorrect. Players are allowed on the rookie list for a total of 2 years, meaning at the end of next year, Jamo has to be either elevated to the senior list, or delisted.

International rookies are allowed on the rookie list for a 3rd year. That's what we saw with both Setanta and Aisake.

in my opinion Jacko is your genuine, "old tradition footballer", he is no athlete in my books, but knows how to get the pill, knows what to do with the pill, and for one has done his apprenticeship on the Rookie list, having an inside midfielder is a bonus for us to have. I'm excited

That's an interesting bit of a post. You have gone from saying something unbelievably wrong, to something correct. Jackson is one of, if not the best athletes on our list. He IS an athlete, and is constantly, if not winning the time trials, in the top few. He is a runner, has a great tank, and can run all day. So in that regard, you are completely wrong.

Having said that, you are correct that he has done his apprenticeship on the RL, and looks to have a bright future as a link man through the middle, and as a tagger.

 

[BlueWorld]

That is incorrect. Players are allowed on the rookie list for a total of 2 years, meaning at the end of next year, Jamo has to be either elevated to the senior list, or delisted.

International rookies are allowed on the rookie list for a 3rd year. That's what we saw with both Setanta and Aisake.



That's an interesting bit of a post. You have gone from saying something unbelievably wrong, to something correct. Jackson is one of, if not the best athletes on our list. He IS an athlete, and is constantly, if not winning the time trials, in the top few. He is a runner, has a great tank, and can run all day. So in that regard, you are completely wrong.

Having said that, you are correct that he has done his apprenticeship on the RL, and looks to have a bright future as a link man through the middle, and as a tagger.

Might have good endurance but lacks speed. Callum Chambers & Prendergast were also good athletes & did well in time trials.

 

[johnsy14]

Jackson for the NAB rising star next year pencil in

Will be a chance but will need to overcome his fear of the ball

 

[benindie123]

You're wrong.

The club can have two players, any combination of veterans or nominated rookies.
Last year we had Kouta (vet) and Jackson (NR).

With no veterans this year we can have both second year rookies as nominated rookies (Jammo and Jacobs).
This would free up an additional rookie spot if we wanted, and allow Jacobs and Jammo to be available for senior selection.

The thread I highlighted in my earlier post has links to lots of info about this stuff.

Clearly people (not you directly benindie) prefer to just go on believing what they think than to actually read the info that is provided....................the info is there, and would prevent a lot of arguements.

Don't have time to browse the forums all day. Easier to just post empty statements.

 

[Jeremias]

Might have good endurance but lacks speed. Callum Chambers & Prendergast were also good athletes & did well in time trials.

Irrelevant.

Someone said that he wasn't an athlete, and that is completely wrong, so I made the point.

Jackson has shown more footballing ability in a handful of games than Chambers and Prendergast did in their entire careers.

 

[WALKERTOBETTS]

That's an interesting bit of a post. You have gone from saying something unbelievably wrong, to something correct. Jackson is one of, if not the best athletes on our list. He IS an athlete, and is constantly, if not winning the time trials, in the top few. He is a runner, has a great tank, and can run all day. So in that regard, you are completely wrong.

Having said that, you are correct that he has done his apprenticeship on the RL, and looks to have a bright future as a link man through the middle, and as a tagger.[/quote]

Could you please defy athletes, I think from memory Kouta was an athlete, Diesel was not but yet ran all day and gathered possies, at will.
I don't know but did they win time trials, my statement was to recognise Jacko as a footballer and not as someone that was selected because he was a state champion in the 400m actually 1500m - 5000m if your talking about endurance (tank) or time trials, that bit about "finding" the pill meant k-n-o-w-i-n-g how to get the b-a-l-l, not winning time trials, or Sorry should "I" rephrase that and have said "Jacko" is an athlete that had outstanding achievements in his teams pre-season time trials that aloud him to get greater use of the ball during, "game days", which is needed?. I think Jacko plays as an "insider midfielder", when people wrestle for the ball, and get up and do it continually for a number of years some people "instinctively" do create better tanks, as it would be needed to suite his own game style. Could you please rephrase that bit about completely wrong? especially if you are going to correct someone. It was an interesting post.

Kind regards

 

[Dramoth]

Good grief, I thought all the nuff nuffs who couldn't read or absorb a point were confined to the Collingwood, West Coast, Richmond or Essendon boards .

Jeremias must be about ready to extract his own teeth.

Hang on, wait for me to come over, I want to see this

Dont forget to take the video camera I want to see that as well...

Once again benindie123 has shown that his awesome knowledge about the rules of the game exceeds the rest of us...

Considering that overseas rookies can only spend 2 years on the rookie list and Australian born players 3, both Aisake and Jacko had reached the end of the line. benindie123... which one of those two players would you have delisted so that you could promote Jamison?

EDIT: Whoops... got it round the wrong way...

As we have no-one on the veterans list, doesnt that mean that we can actually have 2 nominated rookies?

 

[benindie123]

Dont forget to take the video camera I want to see that as well...

Once again benindie123 has shown that his awesome knowledge about the rules of the game exceeds the rest of us...

Considering that overseas rookies can only spend 2 years on the rookie list and Australian born players 3, both Aisake and Jacko had reached the end of the line. benindie123... which one of those two players would you have delisted so that you could promote Jamison?

EDIT: Whoops... got it round the wrong way...

As we have no-one on the veterans list, doesnt that mean that we can actually have 2 nominated rookies?

Well-worn ground?

Just because we can keep Jackson doesn't mean we should.

Anyway whats your point dramoth?

 

[Jeremias]

Well-worn ground?

Just because we can keep Jackson doesn't mean we should.

Anyway whats your point dramoth?

It's pretty obvious that his point is that you are part of a minority, in fact, you ARE the minority.

Jacko has been a great selection on the rookie list for us.

 

[Jeremias]

As we have no-one on the veterans list, doesnt that mean that we can actually have 2 nominated rookies?

I believe this to actually be the case.

It's pretty obvious that one nominated rookie will be Jamison.

The only other rookie listed player we have at the moment is Jacobs. He would seem the logical choice at the moment, but we should see who we pick up in the upcoming rookie draft before any decision on Jacobs is made. Probably won't nominate Jacobs, as the only way he would get a game in the seniors is if we had a few long term injuries to ruckmen, in which case he would be elevated anyway, so it would probably just be a waste of a nomination to nominate him.

 

[Dramoth]

Well-worn ground?

Just because we can keep Jackson doesn't mean we should.

Anyway whats your point dramoth?

My point is, if we can keep Jamison on the rookie list for 1 more year and still play him in the seniors as a nominated rookie then why get rid of someone who actually has shown some talent just because someone wants Jamison on the senior list.

My other point is that you dont actually listen to any other point of view except for your own blinkered view of the world, do you? Maybe if you listened to other people on here who actually know why the blues promoted Jackson and Aisake instead of Jamison and (Aisake/Jacobs) instead of saying that we should have gotten rid of Jackson and promoted Jamison, your credibility would go up a bit.

I believe this to actually be the case.

It's pretty obvious that one nominated rookie will be Jackson.

The only other rookie listed player we have at the moment is Jacobs. He would seem the logical choice at the moment, but we should see who we pick up in the upcoming rookie draft before any decision on Jacobs is made. Probably won't nominate Jacobs, as the only way he would get a game in the seniors is if we had a few long term injuries to ruckmen, in which case he would be elevated anyway, so it would probably just be a waste of a nomination to nominate him.

It's Jamison who will be one of the nominated rookies... Jackson, much to benindie123's disgust, got promoted to the seniors

But yeah, I think that it is going to be Jacobs and Jamison on the nominated rookie list. They get the odd run out with the seniors and get some first team game time while still working on their development at the ants.

 

[benindie123]

Well if Jacko turns out to be a gun, good on him and well done Carlton for giving him a go.

All ive done is given my opinion on him so i dont know what the big fuss is.

 

[Jeremias]

My point is, if we can keep Jamison on the rookie list for 1 more year and still play him in the seniors as a nominated rookie then why get rid of someone who actually has shown some talent just because someone wants Jamison on the senior list.

Exactly right.

It would make no sense whatsoever to elevate Jamison ahead of Jackson.

My other point is that you dont actually listen to any other point of view except for your own blinkered view of the world, do you? Maybe if you listened to other people on here who actually know why the blues promoted Jackson and Aisake instead of Jamison and (Aisake/Jacobs) instead of saying that we should have gotten rid of Jackson and promoted Jamison, your credibility would go up a bit.

He just doesn't seem to understand that we needed to elevate or delist Jackson and Aisake, so the choice was an easy one. With Jamison, we were able to not only keep him on the rookie list for another year, but we are also able to make him a nominated rookie, meaning that even if he isn't on the senior list, he can still play in the senior team.

It's Jamison who will be one of the nominated rookies... Jackson, much to benindie123's disgust, got promoted to the seniors

Whoops, yeah...my bad. Pretty confusing-Jacobs, Jamison, Jackson!

But yeah, I think that it is going to be Jacobs and Jamison on the nominated rookie list. They get the odd run out with the seniors and get some first team game time while still working on their development at the ants.

I would say that it is definitely Jamison as a nominated rookie. I wouldn't be as sure about Jacobs as I am about Jamison, at least not until after the drafts, to see if someone slipped through unexpectedly. And anyway, as I said earlier, the only way that Jacobs will get a game (which I highly doubt will happen anyway) is if we have a few serious injuries to our ruckmen-and in that case, Jacobs could be elevated off the rookie list to replace them-so it might be a wasted nomination.

 

[Bluebear]

Jacobs could be elevated off the rookie list to replace them-so it might be a wasted nomination.

If he doesn't get nominated then it will be wasted anyway.

It's not a question of whether we want him to be available or not, but more a question of whether we want to open up the extra rookie spot to take another rookie.

IMO we lose nothing other than half his salary by putting him on the nominated list and taking an extra rookie.

 

[benindie123]

Exactly right.

It would make no sense whatsoever to elevate Jamison ahead of Jackson.




He just doesn't seem to understand that we needed to elevate or delist Jackson and Aisake, so the choice was an easy one. With Jamison, we were able to not only keep him on the rookie list for another year, but we are also able to make him a nominated rookie, meaning that even if he isn't on the senior list, he can still play in the senior team.





Whoops, yeah...my bad. Pretty confusing-Jacobs, Jamison, Jackson!



I would say that it is definitely Jamison as a nominated rookie. I wouldn't be as sure about Jacobs as I am about Jamison, at least not until after the drafts, to see if someone slipped through unexpectedly. And anyway, as I said earlier, the only way that Jacobs will get a game (which I highly doubt will happen anyway) is if we have a few serious injuries to our ruckmen-and in that case, Jacobs could be elevated off the rookie list to replace them-so it might be a wasted nomination.

This is hilarious.

I love seeing BF addicts go insane in the off-season.

Sorry guys, I'm going to have to tentatively decline your challenge.