Fev would be handy but I cant think of what we could give

[Fall Out Boy]

Fev is one dimensional in terms of marking - can only take it when its kicked to him on the lead

Not what you guys are looking for as he doesn't take contested marks

Exactly. And another reason why he wouldn't be a good CHF.

BTW Given this, i've always wondered why Carlton don't use their best kicks right in the guts.
Brett Johnson and Heath Scotland are prolific, but to me it would make so much more sense to have Houlihan and Stevens up the field to ensure better delivery for Fev (and even for Lance).

 

[Bartel'sNo1Fan]

yuck i dont want him
i just wish i could lock our current team away in a little bubble where they cant leave and noone can take them.
no changes at all (that involve losing players or gaining ones that would NEVER fit in with the boys i.e. fev, or gehrig or something hideous like that) and let them grow together.

 

[jim boy]

He is a good player, last year I would have liked to go for him for a big price, but we've scored a bloke in Ottens who fills a big hole in our side and Fevola wouldn't really make that much difference to our setup. He has missed the boat.

 

[Turbocat]

It would be interesting to hear what Matty Scarlett thought. At times I think he has worried him , at other times well contained.
I think Phat comparison with KK is valid. In todays footy it not just the best player but the best & best value player. Id think you have 90% of Fevs worth of the field but at 1/2 the cost and with 100% less issues of field

 

[bibi01]

He wouldn't fit Thompson's criteria, and the relative cost would be prohibitive.

Kent Kingsley isn't much, but he does consistently kick goals.
I doubt Fevola could do enough to justify the financial and player list sacrifices that would be needed to be made to get him.

with the likes of ling, kelly and co deivering the ball to fev he would be every chance to kick 100+

 

[Jack-Packenham]

Exactly. And another reason why he wouldn't be a good CHF./QUOTE]


What a judge you are!!!!!

 

[Jack-Packenham]

Fevola wouldn't really make that much difference to our setup.

Are you joking?????

 

[Jack-Packenham]

with the likes of ling, kelly and co deivering the ball to fev he would be every chance to kick 100+

100% correct

If we got him and paid him the same as Ottens nobody could be upset. He would automatically be in our best 5 players and probably the most dangerous. Offer Playfair and Mooney in a swap.

 

[Jack-Packenham]

To think that Kingsley is even half as good as Fevola is just ridiculous. They are totally on a different level. As much as I would love to get him there is noway the blues are going to let him go. They will pay him whatever it takes to keep him.

 

[jim boy]

Are you joking?????

It's a thing called team balance, he may be better than a number of players on our list, but we don't have the pressing need for him now that Ottens is in the team and creating a presence at full forward.

And this restructured forward line is paying dividends, two scores this season of 140 or more so far. Realistically I can't see how having Fev in the team would have meant we would have scored a significantly larger amount. Last season we cold afford to lose a good player in Moloney in order to get team balance. We don't have that luxury any more.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

fevola would most definitely make a solid contribution to out club however the price in terms of players we'd have to sacrifice and the money he'd demand, as well his lack of drive on the field when things aren't going well than i'd say it just isn't worth it.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

What a judge you are!!!!!

He kicks five goals AT FULL FORWARD and then it suddenly somehow proves he'd be a good CHF. Um, okay.

 

[Jack-Packenham]

He kicks five goals AT FULL FORWARD and then it suddenly somehow proves he'd be a good CHF. Um, okay.

Have a look at the replay and tell me if he was leading out of the goal square like a full forward does. You might find he was playing about 30 metres from goal ala Wayne Carey, and as far as I remember he was classified as a pretty handy CHF.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Have a look at the replay and tell me if he was leading out of the goal square like a full forward does. You might find he was playing about 30 metres from goal ala Wayne Carey, and as far as I remember he was classified as a pretty handy CHF.

Ah, so to be a FF you must strictly lead from the goalsquare, and also, if you start your leads in one game from the same position Wayne Carey did, you must be a CHF.

Interesting concept, let's take it further.

Given Warren Tredrea and Nick Riewoldt don't fit either of your defintions, thus aren't either FF's or CHF's, what position do they actually play?

Kent Kingsley is playing 30m out from goal now. Is he also a CHF?

Fevola is a full-forward all day long. Playing one game where he starts his leads 15 metres further up the ground doesn't a) make you a CHF or b) prove that you'd be a good CHF.

Nice try though.

 

[Jack-Packenham]

Ah, so to be a FF you must strictly lead from the goalsquare, and also, if you start your leads in one game from the same position Wayne Carey did, you must be a CHF.

Interesting concept, let's take it further.

Given Warren Tredrea and Nick Riewoldt don't fit either of your defintions, thus aren't either FF's or CHF's, what position do they actually play?

Kent Kingsley is playing 30m out from goal now. Is he also a CHF?

Fevola is a full-forward all day long. Playing one game where he starts his leads 15 metres further up the ground doesn't a) make you a CHF or b) prove that you'd be a good CHF.

Nice try though.

Its safe to say that the original 18 definitions for the positions are now well and truly outdated. I would prefer to call them key forwards or marking forwards because they now play completely different to the old full forward/centre half forward. If Fevola is just a full forward why does he have the ball outside 50 metres all the time. Jason Dunstall and Tony Lockett is what I call a full forward, and how often did they have a shot from outside 50 metres.

We might just have to agree to disagree on this one. I would prefer to have Fevola forward and Egan back rather than Kingsley forward and Mooney back. I also think they would cost about the same as well.

 

[fishman]

(please note I aint bothered to read all of this thread)

If Geelong need anything it is an other tall defender. I would hate to think if we lost both Scarlett and Harley in one hit.

Yeah OK, Egan is around and Mooney with blokes like Spencer and Lonergan (though he is more a forward) but would you be that confident with these blokes coming in?

Would it b worth looking at one of the Clokes or maybe Sam Hunt or (though i doubt it) Fergus Watts offering up Mackie as trade bait? Lets face it Mackie aint that much chop and will struggle with Chapman, S Johnson, Ablett, Thurley, Gardiner floating around.

Also he if they thought he was any good he would have been in in place of Thurley.

 

[GeeCat]

If Geelong need anything it is an other tall defender. I would hate to think if we lost both Scarlett and Harley in one hit.

Yeah OK, Egan is around and Mooney with blokes like Spencer and Lonergan (though he is more a forward) but would you be that confident with these blokes coming in?

Would it b worth looking at one of the Clokes or maybe Sam Hunt or (though i doubt it)

You can't be confident anytime you lose your top two defenders. Scarlett for one is irreplaceable. The best you can hope is that the replacements can get the same job done to an extent that is satisfactory or plausible. They are after all, only temporary replacements or stand-ins. It's a pipedream to think that, in these sorts of extreme cases, the replacement player can perform to the same level of, in this case, Scarlett or even Harley.

That being said, I'm confident that, in Egan and Mooney, we have two blokes who have the ability to perform to a good enough level should the circumstance arise.

However, to then suggest one of the Clokes or Sam Hunt after claiming Egan and Mooney to be unreliable replacements is simply ludicrous.

For starters, Egan and to an extent Mooney are more a defenders than any of the Clokes. Hell, for what it's worth, Cameron and Travis, perhaps the only Clokes with decent footballing ability, are primarily ruckmen and forwards respectively. Jason is...Jason.

Sam Hunt I don't mind for a VFL level player, but there's a reason he's lumbering in the Bendigo team. Picking him up would hardly solve any of the potential problems you've outlined. For starters he's already be behind Mooney and Egan...far behind you would think. The day he actually gets a senior gig for this club is...well....never.

Fergus Watts offering up Mackie as trade bait? Lets face it Mackie aint that much chop and will struggle with Chapman, S Johnson, Ablett, Thurley, Gardiner floating around.

Also he if they thought he was any good he would have been in in place of Thurley.

I stand to be corrected, but Fergus is a forward. The problem is there, the solution still nowhere to be found.

On Thurley being in the team before Mackie, did it ever occur to you perhaps form had to do with it? Mackie played poorly enough to warrant a demotion, Thurley played well enough in the seconds to warrant a call-up. Your logic then that Mackie must be no good is bemusing to say the least.

 

[nananana catman]

If Geelong ever unleash a Cloke, I shall unleash a dagger. Fergus Watts is a forward, or at least thats what he was drafted as.

 

[Jack-Packenham]

I would swap Mackie for Watts any day of the week

 

[fishman]

On Thurley being in the team before Mackie, did it ever occur to you perhaps form had to do with it? Mackie played poorly enough to warrant a demotion, Thurley played well enough in the seconds to warrant a call-up. Your logic then that Mackie must be no good is bemusing to say the least.

Mate Mackie is useless. He has had heaps of opportunities and not shown enough.

 

[nananana catman]

Mate Mackie is useless. He has had heaps of opportunities and not shown enough.

Dude, you cannot see him when he turns sideways, Playfairs taken this long, Mackie is a season behind him.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Mate Mackie is useless. He has had heaps of opportunities and not shown enough.

He's 20, built like a stick insect, played mainly school footy as a junior (only briefly played in the SANFL system) and has only played 16 AFL games.

Far too early to write him off.

 

[scottydeewah]

Far too early to write him off.

Too true. I think he may not come really good until 22-23. And if we arent paying him much keep him on the list. He has played alright so far.

He does get pushed off the ball to easy though but he will learn