Remove this Banner Ad

Clinton Young - Thoughts?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
jimmy35 said:
Daisy wasn't our top 5 players this year, next year either if he doesn't lift his game. But that's not the point, Dawes will be a better player than pick 20 will be next year and he'd be a better option on the list than half a dozen others I can think of, whether the coaching staff think so or not. He wasn't expendable when they offered him a 3 year contract a while ago.
Click to expand...

If he'd have stayed where would you have rated him in our best 22? Bottom 6? Bottom half? Top half?

I'm just curious where a bloke that never finished in the top 10 of our B&F in 4 completed seasons fits in. I'd also like to hear who these half a dozen blokes who he'd be better than are?

Obviously Cloke's not one, Lynch more than has the runs on the board to cover Dawes and Goldsack was far more valuable this year not to mention he's stronger in the air, more dangerous at ground level and clearly more versatile with his ability to play more than one position (which Dawes proved he isn't capable of this year). I could accept a Caff returning from injury, Gault and Paine because their young, however being behind the other 3 automatically makes him a depth player in 2013 because we aren't quick enough to go with the 3 talls.

With that being the case what value do you believe he'd have had at the trade table in 2013 after spending most of the year in the two's? Certainly not pick 20 that's for sure!

We struck while the iron was hot so just move on! Of course if he tears it up next year bump this and show many of us up as the fools we are, but until then lift that lower lip the club is always bigger than the individual.
 
Some questions
1) When was the last time Dawes took a number of contested marks in a game?
2) Has he ever really used his size to advantage?
3) When Cloke was down, did Dawes take the bull by the horns and step up?
4) Do we know if Melbourne approached his management long ago and offered 'overs' for the 2013 season?

These may have been answered earlier, sorry.
 
Dawes will most certainly be a better player than pick 20 next year. Unfortunately, pick 20 as a better chance of making our best 22 than Dawes. Keeffe, Lynch, Cloke, Jolly, Reid, Brown is a far better combination than Brown, Reid, Jolly, Dawes, Lynch and Cloke. Dawes would be brilliant insurance, but Ceglar, Gault and Witts should also be pressing for game time. Is pick 20 worth more than insurance. It seems that's the opinion of the football department.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Scodog10 said:
If he'd have stayed where would you have rated him in our best 22? Bottom 6? Bottom half? Top half?

I'm just curious where a bloke that never finished in the top 10 of our B&F in 4 completed seasons fits in. I'd also like to hear who these half a dozen blokes who he'd be better than are?

Obviously Cloke's not one, Lynch more than has the runs on the board to cover Dawes and Goldsack was far more valuable this year not to mention he's stronger in the air, more dangerous at ground level and clearly more versatile with his ability to play more than one position (which Dawes proved he isn't capable of this year). I could accept a Caff returning from injury, Gault and Paine because their young, however being behind the other 3 automatically makes him a depth player in 2013 because we aren't quick enough to go with the 3 talls.

With that being the case what value do you believe he'd have had at the trade table in 2013 after spending most of the year in the two's? Certainly not pick 20 that's for sure!

We struck while the iron was hot so just move on! Of course if he tears it up next year bump this and show many of us up as the fools we are, but until then lift that lower lip the club is always bigger than the individual.
Click to expand...


Personally I'd have hoped he had the preseason from hell and became a beast and was a clear starter in the forward line, I'd also hope he even came back to the form he showed early in 2011 and Lynch played the Leroy role and all was good but that's all irrelevant. The club obviously rated him enough to offer him a 3 year contract so seemingly they thought he was worth the list spot as well.
Would he be best 22 next year? We will never know because he won't get that chance but the thing is even if he wasn't he was an option in the 2's if need be. If he isn't worth a spot ahead of the likes of Young, Ugle, Yagmoor, Wood, Clarke, Rounds etc then I'd be amazed. Understand that it's about management, salary cap, list spots and player types but if you think our list is stronger because he's gone then you've got some problems.
 
motr said:
Dawes will most certainly be a better player than pick 20 next year. Unfortunately, pick 20 as a better chance of making our best 22 than Dawes. Keeffe, Lynch, Cloke, Jolly, Reid, Brown is a far better combination than Brown, Reid, Jolly, Dawes, Lynch and Cloke. Dawes would be brilliant insurance, but Ceglar, Gault and Witts should also be pressing for game time. Is pick 20 worth more than insurance. It seems that's the opinion of the football department.
Click to expand...

Is that the same football department that gave him a 3 year contract last year?
 
As it stands our 2013 list is stronger. Firstly, Lynch is a far better option than Dawes. Secondly, Ball, Johnson and a more mature Seedsman and Williams give us much more than Wellingham in the midfield. And that's ignoring the potential in Josh Thomas and cameos from Didak and Krakoeur. Keeffe will certainly cover what we lose in Tarrant and Elliot, Sinclair and Paine will be much stronger and more experienced. Perhaps Swan may have peaked, but Sidebottom might explode and we all know Daisy's potential.

By my reckoning we have a stronger list and the bonus of three late first round picks that we are putting in the hands of a very strong recruitment team. I don't get all the pessimism.
 
jimmy35 said:
Personally I'd have hoped he had the preseason from hell and became a beast and was a clear starter in the forward line, I'd also hope he even came back to the form he showed early in 2011 and Lynch played the Leroy role and all was good but that's all irrelevant. The club obviously rated him enough to offer him a 3 year contract so seemingly they thought he was worth the list spot as well.
Would he be best 22 next year? We will never know because he won't get that chance but the thing is even if he wasn't he was an option in the 2's if need be. If he isn't worth a spot ahead of the likes of Young, Ugle, Yagmoor, Wood, Clarke, Rounds etc then I'd be amazed. Understand that it's about management, salary cap, list spots and player types but if you think our list is stronger because he's gone then you've got some problems.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, however you didn't answer my first question about where he fit into our best 22. For the last 6 weeks of the season he was simply getting a game because we had no other options.

It was never about being worthy of a list spot. It was always about being best 22 which given the circumstances Dawes was clearly going to struggle with in 2013 due to the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

To compare Dawes to 6 smalls is a joke. They would never challenge Dawes for his place in the best 22. Which I repeat is what its all about. I guarantee we would have been happy to keep him as depth, but can you honestly say hand on heart that Dawes would have been happy with that with the sweetheart offer on the table from the Dees? Also considering you keep banging on about him being not worthy of a list spot who is it that stated this nonsense??

It depends who we land with pick 20. For instance if we decide to pull the trigger on Dean Towers I would be more than confident that he could have an impact above mediocre, he really is an ideal player to slot in on a HBF. Also we landed Eliott and Clarke with a worse pick last year and I'd have put their output for 2012 on a par with Dawes....

Anyway as I said lets move on I know I can't convince you of Dawes underachievement's and you sure as shit ain't going to convince me that its the blow that your talking it up as!
 
Scodog10 said:
That's fair enough, however you didn't answer my first question about where he fit into our best 22. For the last 6 weeks of the season he was simply getting a game because we had no other options.

It was never about being worthy of a list spot. It was always about being best 22 which given the circumstances Dawes was clearly going to struggle with in 2013 due to the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

To compare Dawes to 6 smalls is a joke. They would never challenge Dawes for his place in the best 22. Which I repeat is what its all about. I guarantee we would have been happy to keep him as depth, but can you honestly say hand on heart that Dawes would have been happy with that with the sweetheart offer on the table from the Dees? Also considering you keep banging on about him being not worthy of a list spot who is it that stated this nonsense??

It depends who we land with pick 20. For instance if we decide to pull the trigger on Dean Towers I would be more than confident that he could have an impact above mediocre, he really is an ideal player to slot in on a HBF. Also we landed Eliott and Clarke with a worse pick last year and I'd have put their output for 2012 on a par with Dawes....

Anyway as I said lets move on I know I can't convince you of Dawes underachievement's and you sure as shit ain't going to convince me that its the blow that your talking it up as!
Click to expand...

Considering he played every game bar one this year after playing poor footy I'd assume he'd get a spot in best 22 if he got back into form. That's where I'd see him fitting in. Like any other player, it's pretty straight forward.
And not everyone fits into best 22 , that's how it works. If we didn't have options this year so he had to play, and we do have options next year then having Dawes on the list would make our list better would it not? Which was my point.
 
jimmy35 said:
Considering he played every game bar one this year after playing poor footy I'd assume he'd get a spot in best 22 if he got back into form. That's where I'd see him fitting in. Like any other player, it's pretty straight forward.
And not everyone fits into best 22 , that's how it works. If we didn't have options this year so he had to play, and we do have options next year then having Dawes on the list would make our list better would it not? Which was my point.
Click to expand...

How many games would he have played if we had Lynch on our list this year.
 
jimmy35 said:
No idea. Depends how Lynch played I guess.
Click to expand...

I would have been picking Lynch before Dawes. It seems quite obvious Buckley was not looking towards a Lynch, Cloke, Dawes combo. If Lynch was on our 2012 list I'm quite sure Dawes would have been a VFL regular.
 
motr said:
I would have been picking Lynch before Dawes. It seems quite obvious Buckley was not looking towards a Lynch, Cloke, Dawes combo. If Lynch was on our 2012 list I'm quite sure Dawes would have been a VFL regular.
Click to expand...

So if Dawes was playing well in the VFL and Lynch was playing poorly Dawes wouldn't get a game?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

celebrate.gif


;)
 
Without revisiting should we or should we not have traded Dawes, some comments reagarding the role 'his' role and 'the' role going forward.
He played all but one game in 2012 because he was the best option. There were plenty of other options, they were either not good enough, may never be good enough or years away from being ready. Woods, Ceglar, Witts even young Gault not to mention Shae.
If Lynch is to play more a Leroy role, then Dawes role in 2013 would have been as it was in 2010 and 2011 where he played most games apart from when injured ( Once he settled in the team in 2010, incidently he was, at that time, the same age as Ceglar in now)
I guess the conclusion is that with Lynch there is still a role for another permanent KF. We have Goldy, Paine and Caff as a minimum to fill that heading into a rich draft. I would be hopeful a combination of those 3 will do the job, adding flexibility and with a goal output between 35 and 45 which would be a terrific result.
 
jimmy35 said:
Considering he played every game bar one this year after playing poor footy I'd assume he'd get a spot in best 22 if he got back into form. That's where I'd see him fitting in. Like any other player, it's pretty straight forward.
And not everyone fits into best 22 , that's how it works. If we didn't have options this year so he had to play, and we do have options next year then having Dawes on the list would make our list better would it not? Which was my point.
Click to expand...

Try telling Dawes that he doesn't necessarily fit into the best 22 next year when Melbourne have the sort of offer they had on the table as well as a guarantee of senior football. This is the crux of why he left and the fact your pointing the finger at the football department over his departure is disgusting IMO! Especially with all the positive things they've done in the past 2-3 years.

We cop it enough from external sources (just look at that ridiculous pressure index for the coaches in the HUN today) and here we have our own turning on those in charge because a bloke that can't mark overhead and averages just 1.1 goals a game was traded for over the odds!
 
Scodog10 said:
Try telling Dawes that he doesn't necessarily fit into the best 22 next year when Melbourne have the sort of offer they had on the table as well as a guarantee of senior football. This is the crux of why he left and the fact your pointing the finger at the football department over his departure is disgusting IMO! Especially with all the positive things they've done in the past 2-3 years.

We cop it enough from external sources (just look at that ridiculous pressure index for the coaches in the HUN today) and here we have our own turning on those in charge because a bloke that can't mark overhead and averages just 1.1 goals a game was traded for over the odds!
Click to expand...

Dawes was contracted, if they wanted him to stay they would have. They didn't so somewhere along the line they've had a change of heart for whatever reason. They aren't beyond questioning, they aren't infallible, in fact they gave him a contract a year ago and now they didn't want to keep him, who's know what they'd have thought of him next year if he hit form again.
The fact of the matter is keeping Dawsey would have made our list stronger for next year and that should be the aim.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

jimmy35 said:
Dawes was contracted, if they wanted him to stay they would have. They didn't so somewhere along the line they've had a change of heart for whatever reason. They aren't beyond questioning, they aren't infallible, in fact they gave him a contract a year ago and now they didn't want to keep him, who's know what they'd have thought of him next year if he hit form again.
The fact of the matter is keeping Dawsey would have made our list stronger for next year and that should be the aim.
Click to expand...

Would you hold a bloke to a contract for two years if he doesn't want to be there (which he made clear when he chose Melbourne and just as easily could have chosen to stay)? Now that would have been a mistake worth canning the football department for. It's also a mistake that not one club has made since trading became serious business late last decade.....
 
Scodog10 said:
Would you hold a bloke to a contract for two years if he doesn't want to be there (which he made clear when he chose Melbourne and just as easily could have chosen to stay)? Now that would have been a mistake worth canning the football department for. It's also a mistake that not one club has made since trading became serious business late last decade.....
Click to expand...

If they couldn't have convinced him he was a required player with a bit of smarm then they're in the wrong game. They obviously had a change of heart about him for whatever reason. As I've already said.
Ryan O'Keefe seemed to settle back into things at the Swans quite nicely after wanting out.
 
jimmy35 said:
If they couldn't have convinced him he was a required player with a bit of smarm then they're in the wrong game. They obviously had a change of heart about him for whatever reason. As I've already said.
Ryan O'Keefe seemed to settle back into things at the Swans quite nicely after wanting out.
Click to expand...

Why would you want to smarm a borderline best 22 player into staying with the club when you can trade him for overs? Just for a second though let's say we convinced him to stay yet come the midway point of 2013 he's played 5 average games and is only just going. He could be just another disruptive influence at the club in 2013 after consecutive years of the MM bullshit and Cloke contract!

FWIW Buckley appears to be much like MM in so much as the attitude of its my way or the highway. There is no doubt in my mind that MM would never have lowered himself to smarm a footballer the quality of Chris Dawes into staying at the club.

Lastly O'Keefe was out of contract which meant there was a massive difference between the two. O'Keefe could have walked after the trade period finished if things didn't work out. That was never an option with Dawes.
 
soreplums said:
Who/ what is he talking about?
Click to expand...

Clinton Young and going by what he said he could be out and In Black and White next year? That what I took out of that Tweet
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top