Dangerfield + Kerridge + 53 = Milera + Menzel + Gore - Discuss

Remove this Banner Ad

That's right, you showed me that you're rubber and I'm glue.

I'm sure the sixth or seventh time you re-use that taro card line will be the devastating one, keep going back to the well old son. Whatever you do, don't take your meds and go have a good lie down, rage on!
 
I'll give you 1 thing, at least you're are consistent. Whenever a conversation drifts off into an area you didn't expect, you have an amusing ability to turn around and push the ad homs.

Dangerfield didn't stay. Did we win a GF with him?

So please feel free to explain to me, and everyone else, how you know we would have won a GF if he had of stayed?

I won't be upset if you drift into numerology and astrology now. Please feel free explore all the mystical arts to support your argument
 

Log in to remove this ad.

If the 'area I didnt expect' was you having a complete mental breakdown, then sure.

I mean, you're so low rent that you actually seem to think that responding to a hypothetical with 'waitaminute...but that didnt happen' is a telling blow. Everyone already knows that. And yet here you are strutting around for having thought of it?

Look, it's one thing to have an accident- I get it, you lost control, you can't conduct yourself like a big boy, it was embarrassing, it happens I suppose. What you should do is go clean yourself off, and try to work on a strategy so it doesnt happen again, not sit here rolling in the s**t screaming trying to convince me that it was a masterstroke.
 
There's nothing more pathetic on these boards than someone who picked a fight squealing about 'playing the man' when they cop the slightest chin music back.

But what else was I going to attack? You've hardly offered a position of any insight worth discussing. 'You can't know a hypothetical for certain', says local genius. Thanks for that. Really cut through that controversy.
 
:$:$:$ so embarrass .. lol

I guess we can take that as a comprehensive,"I really don't know whether or not we'd have won a premiership if dangerfield stayed"

I'm glad you finally got that off of your chest. Wasn't so hard really was it?

A bit of a shame your ego was messing with you so much that you felt the need to go on an off topic personal attack

Anyway, there is some place in my heart where I forgive your limiting and juvenile behaviour
 
We'd have a flag already with Dangerfield.
Would've given us a much better shot, but I think Smith was a much bigger loss on GF day.

I can equally see Dangerfield breaking out of a pack, taking a bounce and kicking it at full pace into the stands followed after the siren by much hands on hips, look at me and how disappointed I am that this team couldn't get over the line for me carry on.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Would've given us a much better shot, but I think Smith was a much bigger loss on GF day.

I can equally see Dangerfield breaking out of a pack, taking a bounce and kicking it at full pace into the stands followed after the siren by much hands on hips, look at me and how disappointed I am that this team couldn't get over the line for me carry on.

It's possible it wouldnt have been enough to get over the line, but its pretty hard not to think that the one thing that we really missed in 2017 was an elite midfielder to match Dusty.

I know a lot of people are of the view that we added by subtraction or whatever when Danger left. Personally, I think that stuff is silly- new game play, and a list that reached maturity (along side the final decline of Hawthorn) made us contenders in '16 / '17.
 
Chuck Danger into our 2017 side and we would have got a hell of a lot closer than we did, if not won it.

We were beaten in the midfield. We had no point of difference, no bull to go up against Martin, who would Richmond have tried to shut down, Sloane or Danger? No one to push forward and give us an option.

Do people forget Dangers 2017 form?
 
Chuck Danger into our 2017 side and we would have got a hell of a lot closer than we did, if not won it.

We were beaten in the midfield. We had no point of difference, no bull to go up against Martin, who would Richmond have tried to shut down, Sloane or Danger? No one to push forward and give us an option.

Do people forget Dangers 2017 form?

Agree. And in 2016. Does Sloane's absence in the final round destroy our entire season if Danger is there? I'm as dirty about missing that premiership as I am about 2017. There's no way that the Dogs were better than us.

These things aren't really that out there as far as predictions go. No one with a modicum of sanity would melt down at the suggestion that adding the best player in the competition (or one of) to a team that nearly won the premiership may have seen them won it. That's quite obvious, and hasnt been challenged at all- demented claims that hypothetical are impermissible aside.
 
Last edited:
Coulda, woulda, shoulda....

What's the value of this?

There's nothing wrong with posters wanting to discuss alternative scenarios, particularly when weighing the success or otherwise of a trade. It's a perfectly valid enquiry.

Why do you and the other dullards think you get to decide whether or not it can be discussed?
 
Coulda, woulda, shoulda....
Only look back to learn from it for the upcoming year.

Appears Pyke has learnt some valuable lessons & I'm feeling very confident about this season.
 
Only look back to learn from it for the upcoming year.

And nothing can be learned from considering our off field practices at any point?

If you do think that perhaps that should be done routinely (as any sensible person would), do you then think that a relevant factor in considering our performance in a trading situation is the opportunity loss of removing the asset we traded away?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top