Mark Johnson?

[emperor]

Might get shot down for this but if Bradley was available in the PSD then I would rather we took him

 

[_RT_]

Thanks

 

[emperor]

Thanks

well everyone else seemed to have let it go through to the keeper

 

[CoggaRules]

Not actually comparing Cousins to Johnson in terms of skills more the fact that both are 29 yet 1 is deemed too old for a young side rebuilding and the other is deemed as having a possible 3-5 years left in the game and a great fit for a side that is rebuilding. That is what I have a problem understanding.

this one is more likely to be Johnson and its a polite way to suggest that he is now shithouse and should retire.

 

[_RT_]

this one is more likely to be Johnson and its a polite way to suggest that he is now shithouse and should retire.

I suppose the question that needs to be asked then is if Cousins was not a Brownlow Medallist and Premiership player but rather another 29 year old looking for one last chance would it change peoples opinions?

Seems to me by the way that Johnson is being talked about it would. Although I can see the benefits of getting a player of Cousins quality to the club I just think that at this point in time we would be better off going after a potential 10 year player rather than a potential 12 -36 month player.

 

[CoggaRules]

I suppose the question that needs to be asked then is if Cousins was not a Brownlow Medallist and Premiership player but rather another 29 year old looking for one last chance would it change peoples opinions?

Seems to me by the way that Johnson is being talked about it would. Although I can see the benefits of getting a player of Cousins quality to the club I just think that at this point in time we would be better off going after a potential 10 year player rather than a potential 12 -36 month player.

you do know why this question doesnt need to be asked dont you?
I mean, please say you do.
Notwithstanding that, dont care if he didnt have a brownlow and wasnt a premiership player, all i see is a gun that goes out and stands head and shoulders above 99% of his current competition. i.e. dont know about you, but i watch footy, to see guns play footy the way this kid plays it and if he was playing it in our colours, would bring an extra 10,000 thorugh the gate. How on earth anyone dares to compare Cousins to a Johnson is beyond comprehension.
The end.

 

[Heisenberg_]

you do know why this question doesnt need to be asked dont you?
I mean, please say you do.
Notwithstanding that, dont care if he didnt have a brownlow and wasnt a premiership player, all i see is a gun that goes out and stands head and shoulders above 99% of his current competition. i.e. dont know about you, but i watch footy, to see guns play footy the way this kid plays it and if he was playing it in our colours, would bring an extra 10,000 thorugh the gate. How on earth anyone dares to compare Cousins to a Johnson is beyond comprehension.
The end.

And lets not forget that our players would have/want to improve their fitness levels just so they are able to actually keep up with him.
Who cares about the off field stuff when you are as good as he is and we have been a shambles for the best part of 30 years

 

[carmi99]

All this and yet he can't get a game with the team who has the worst list in the competition.....essendon. Says a lot.

Worst list in the competition? Funny coming from a Tigers supporter. Tigers have the worst list by a country mile and that includes Carlton. Ontop of that you are the worst performed club over the last 15 years....

 

[PUNTROADHAMMER]

Worst list in the competition? Funny coming from a Tigers supporter. Tigers have the worst list by a country mile and that includes Carlton. Ontop of that you are the worst performed club over the last 15 years....

Please f*ck off you twat....
We have a better list than Bombres and in my opinion, better the Bulldoggies, Demons and (maybe even) the Tankers.

 

[Drunken Wookie]

Worst list in the competition? Funny coming from a Tigers supporter. Tigers have the worst list by a country mile and that includes Carlton. Ontop of that you are the worst performed club over the last 15 years....

Essendon have Lloyd and Lucas, that's seriously it. Everyone else is either just showing enough, a complete dud or past it. Essendon have by far the worst list in the competition.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

surely he is of immense value 2008, 2009 2010, and 2011, like Browny is to the likes of Pettifer, according to many here. You cant just look at the score board vvalue dude. the kids playing side by side him on the field and having him on their side, would be a quantum leap in their development, well IMO anyway.

Fair enough. If we could have some assurance that he is at least a reasonable chance of playing three or four years of really good footy, then what the hell, why not. Especially if there's no other worthwhile younger options available.

Let me have a go.

Why did Wallace/Miller draft Kent Kingsley, Mark Graham and Patrick Bowden when their best days were behind them?

Is Cousins not an infinetely better player than all 3 put together?

When it comes to the PSD, you go for the best available player. Age shouldnt be a criteria. That's what the national draft is for- Picking up the next generation of players. PSD is geared around making short term gains.

The only question regarding Cousins is himself. Is he motivated enough to want to prove a lot of people wrong, and can he stay off the gear?

On playing matters alone, Cousins is worth 4-5 goals a game to our current side.

I'm not entirely in agreement that age shouldn't be an issue. Let's be honest, we are virtually no chance of winning a Premiership in 2008 or 2009. Does Cousin's potential contribution to the development of the players that will be around for our next serious Flag tilt outweigh the potential decade of output of a younger selection? Could he play beyond two years with us and be part of a genuine sortie on the Flag? I'm not convinced his mind or body would be part of it.

As for the drafting of Mark Graham? Firstly, he was Pick 60-something in the National Draft after we had already taken SIX youngsters - there was feck all else still available at that stage. Pick 1 in the PSD should be far more valuable. Secondly, we had half of our experienced backline doubtful with long-term injuries going into 2005 - Graham was taken simply to ease the load on our younger backmen like Thursfield, Jackson, Moore and Raines. Thirdly, Mark Graham did almost singlehandedly win us one game (v Sydney). He paid his meagre wage in that one match.

Kingsley was taken as an 8th or 9th best forward option - he as never going to get a game ahead of Richo, Brown, Pettifer, Simmonds, Deledio, Schulz, Polak, Jackson, Tambling or Pattison if they'd all been fit. As it turned out, KK's own injuries completely reduced his effectiveness, so that by the time he could have contributed (second half of the season) he had become irrelevant. We had finished 9th in 2006 and were entitled to believe that we were a show of Finals action going into 2007. If, for example, on the eve of the 1st Elimination Final Richo pulled a hammy, then a fit KK might have been handy to bring in as a possible tall forward, especially if Riewoldt and Hughes hadn't come on quickly enough by then?

Hindsight tells us that getting Kingsley was an error. But he was taken at about Pick 8 in the PSD - again, there was nothing much else out there, and he cost us a bloody pittance. Hindsight tends to be like that. Straight after Round 9, 2005 hindsight told us that Nathan Brown was an absolute steal for Picks 6 and 20, while hindsight straight after Round 10, 2005 told us that Nathan Brown was a mistake for Picks 6 and 20.

If you're prepared to just cop the lambasting from opposition posters about us taking him for what it really is - mindless, uninformed trollism - then mistakingly selecting Kingsley is really quite irrelevant to our entire forward progress.

Patrick Bowden was taken for entirely different reasons than those other two veterans. I think Plough seriously thought he had a lot to offer over an extended period at Tigerland. He was obviously mistaken, but again it was only a very late draft pick that was sacrificed.

And you're right, Cousins at his best is worth more than those other three put together.

 

[_RT_]

you do know why this question doesnt need to be asked dont you?
I mean, please say you do.
Notwithstanding that, dont care if he didnt have a brownlow and wasnt a premiership player, all i see is a gun that goes out and stands head and shoulders above 99% of his current competition. i.e. dont know about you, but i watch footy, to see guns play footy the way this kid plays it and if he was playing it in our colours, would bring an extra 10,000 thorugh the gate. How on earth anyone dares to compare Cousins to a Johnson is beyond comprehension.
The end.

As I said I can see the benefits of getting a player of Cousins quality(football wise) to Richmond. Bring on the development of the kids quicker, more people through the gates, marketing, etc.

I guess I see Cousins as another one of the quick fixes that always seems to be great idea at the time, but invariably blows up in our faces. Just have to sit back and see what happens in the next 6 weeks until the PSD. All this talk could be wasted if the AFL stands by its decision to de-register him.

 

[Brown Bottle]

As I said I can see the benefits of getting a player of Cousins quality(football wise) to Richmond. Bring on the development of the kids quicker, more people through the gates, marketing, etc.

I guess I see Cousins as another one of the quick fixes that always seems to be great idea at the time, but invariably blows up in our faces. Just have to sit back and see what happens in the next 6 weeks until the PSD. All this talk could be wasted if the AFL stands by its decision to de-register him.

It's a big IF, but imagine if our midfielders learned to give the same type of "gut-busting" performances that Cousins has given for WC, year-in, year-out. Of course he's very unlikely to play in a premiership for us, but he might provide some understanding for our kids of what's going to be required to achieve that goal.

 

[CoggaRules]

It's a big IF, but imagine if our midfielders learned to give the same type of "gut-busting" performances that Cousins has given for WC, year-in, year-out. Of course he's very unlikely to play in a premiership for us, but he might provide some understanding for our kids of what's going to be required to achieve that goal.

and there it is in a nutshell...seeing him barking up because he has spent every penny and then fronting up in the next quarter and spending every penny again..

 

[_RT_]

It's a big IF, but imagine if our midfielders learned to give the same type of "gut-busting" performances that Cousins has given for WC, year-in, year-out. Of course he's very unlikely to play in a premiership for us, but he might provide some understanding for our kids of what's going to be required to achieve that goal.

Again I can see the benefits of getting Cousins, just hope that if we do it does not turn out to be another of those decisions.

 

[1980]

Fair enough. If we could have some assurance that he is at least a reasonable chance of playing three or four years of really good footy, then what the hell, why not. Especially if there's no other worthwhile younger options available.




I'm not entirely in agreement that age shouldn't be an issue. Let's be honest, we are virtually no chance of winning a Premiership in 2008 or 2009. Does Cousin's potential contribution to the development of the players that will be around for our next serious Flag tilt outweigh the potential decade of output of a younger selection? Could he play beyond two years with us and be part of a genuine sortie on the Flag? I'm not convinced his mind or body would be part of it.

As for the drafting of Mark Graham? Firstly, he was Pick 60-something in the National Draft after we had already taken SIX youngsters - there was feck all else still available at that stage. Pick 1 in the PSD should be far more valuable. Secondly, we had half of our experienced backline doubtful with long-term injuries going into 2005 - Graham was taken simply to ease the load on our younger backmen like Thursfield, Jackson, Moore and Raines. Thirdly, Mark Graham did almost singlehandedly win us one game (v Sydney). He paid his meagre wage in that one match.

Kingsley was taken as an 8th or 9th best forward option - he as never going to get a game ahead of Richo, Brown, Pettifer, Simmonds, Deledio, Schulz, Polak, Jackson, Tambling or Pattison if they'd all been fit. As it turned out, KK's own injuries completely reduced his effectiveness, so that by the time he could have contributed (second half of the season) he had become irrelevant. We had finished 9th in 2006 and were entitled to believe that we were a show of Finals action going into 2007. If, for example, on the eve of the 1st Elimination Final Richo pulled a hammy, then a fit KK might have been handy to bring in as a possible tall forward, especially if Riewoldt and Hughes hadn't come on quickly enough by then?

Hindsight tells us that getting Kingsley was an error. But he was taken at about Pick 8 in the PSD - again, there was nothing much else out there, and he cost us a bloody pittance. Hindsight tends to be like that. Straight after Round 9, 2005 hindsight told us that Nathan Brown was an absolute steal for Picks 6 and 20, while hindsight straight after Round 10, 2005 told us that Nathan Brown was a mistake for Picks 6 and 20.

If you're prepared to just cop the lambasting from opposition posters about us taking him for what it really is - mindless, uninformed trollism - then mistakingly selecting Kingsley is really quite irrelevant to our entire forward progress.

Patrick Bowden was taken for entirely different reasons than those other two veterans. I think Plough seriously thought he had a lot to offer over an extended period at Tigerland. He was obviously mistaken, but again it was only a very late draft pick that was sacrificed.

And you're right, Cousins at his best is worth more than those other three put together.

If we got graham to help take the load off our young backmen and help them develop, so much more reason we should take Cousins to do the same with our young midfielders. Maybe we'd have more confidence with Lids in the middle if Cousins was playing there as well.

 

[Rancid_Beasties]

Even with Cousins you will still finish bottom 4. Just like Carlton will still finish bottom 4 next yeat with Judd. If you had of said bottom 2 that might be more realistic but you dont have the list (even with Cousins) to finish outside of the bottom 4.

Wrong.
What team could have done any better than us:

1. without a near AA ruckman of the previous year because of injury (simmonds)
2. with their best midfielder slipping in the shower and re-doing his knee (coughlan)
3. with their best forward unable to return until midway through they year because of a horrific leg injury (brown)
4. With their 2 time all australian full back chucking a hissy fit and retiring mid season because his spot was under pressure (gaspar)
5. With their 2 backup ruckmen injured all year (knobel and hall), forcing them to use a raw kid who is actually a CHF as a ruckman (pattison)
6. With their goalsneak forward getting into trouble pre season and losing complete focus all year (krakouer)
7. With their captain playing with a broken hand most of the year.

We also should/could have won the following matches that we lost: rounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 22. I count at least 2 of those as wins, namely vs essendon and round 22 against the saints where we tanked in the dying minutes. If we won half of those games, we would have finished 8 wins and a draw. Given cousin's experience, its not out of the equation that we could have easily won 8-10 games this year, so why wouldnt we finish above the bottom 4 next year?

PS prior to us recruiting him Polak was a 2 strike stoner.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

If we got graham to help take the load off our young backmen and help them develop, so much more reason we should take Cousins to do the same with our young midfielders. Maybe we'd have more confidence with Lids in the middle if Cousins was playing there as well.

Yep, definite parallel there. But I don't think our midfield of 2008 is quite as dire as our backline of 2005. Tuck, Cogs, Newman, McMahon, Hyde, Tivendale, Pettifer and Johnson, if all fit, are a pretty decent bunch of more senior midfield options, if a long way from an elite group, and should shoulder most of the burden to allow the continued development of Foley, Deledio, Tambling, Polo, JON, Meyer, Howat, Edwards, Connors, White, Casserley, Morton and any other young mids we happen to draft with Pick 2, 18 and 51.

No one could seriously deny the impact that a fit and firing Ben Cousins with his mind right could have. He's a star of monumental proportions. Before I would commit to him, though, I still reserve two concerns - (a) the selection of Cousins could seriously backfire if his head and body aren't in it, and (b) we may have passed up the opportunity to snare a far younger prospect with No. 1 pick who will be still there contributing in 2010 and beyond.

 

[CoggaRules]

Yep, definite parallel there. But I don't think our midfield of 2008 is quite as dire as our backline of 2005. Tuck, Cogs, Newman, McMahon, Hyde, Tivendale, Pettifer and Johnson, if all fit, are a pretty decent bunch of more senior midfield options, if a long way from an elite group, and should shoulder most of the burden to allow the continued development of Foley, Deledio, Tambling, Polo, JON, Meyer, Howat, Edwards, Connors, White, Casserley, Morton and any other young mids we happen to draft with Pick 2, 18 and 51.

No one could seriously deny the impact that a fit and firing Ben Cousins with his mind right could have. He's a star of monumental proportions. Before I would commit to him, though, I still reserve two concerns - (a) the selection of Cousins could seriously backfire if his head and body aren't in it, and (b) we may have passed up the opportunity to snare a far younger prospect with No. 1 pick who will be still there contributing in 2010 and beyond.

ok ghost, but you are forgetting one important thing. PSD is more likely to have recycleds...and the dregs from the draft...so bearing that in mind...the chances of having a young prospect that will be contibtuing in 2010 and beyond are basically on a par with the chances of Ben's head and body not being right. Lets not forget...he had most of the year off and came back and went bang...he didnt ease into it...he hit the game at the only pace he knows, so his hamstring problem was more to do with the way he came back, as opposed to his age. Dont know about you, but when it comes to fronting up each week, Ben has been one of the most consistent players in the comp. Minimal downtime througout his career and that, playing in a position that inflicts the most wear and tear on the body.
One thing you shouldnt discount also...the kid has pride, whatever the media circus is going gaga at, when it comes to the game of footy, he is a machine, and now he has more impetus in proving to his former club that they made one of the biggest mistakes in their history, by knee jerking and not getting all the info on what transpired.
The deal is we all know its a gamble, but i will bet on a champ being what he is, a champ. Other bet on a chance to find a servicable player, and maybe at 100/1 finding a top player.
btw, i will offer you this comparison to the one me and few others suggest about his onfield influence to our youngsters. Ratten playing next to Diesel in his formative years...

 

[1980]

Yep, definite parallel there. But I don't think our midfield of 2008 is quite as dire as our backline of 2005. Tuck, Cogs, Newman, McMahon, Hyde, Tivendale, Pettifer and Johnson, if all fit, are a pretty decent bunch of more senior midfield options, if a long way from an elite group, and should shoulder most of the burden to allow the continued development of Foley, Deledio, Tambling, Polo, JON, Meyer, Howat, Edwards, Connors, White, Casserley, Morton and any other young mids we happen to draft with Pick 2, 18 and 51.

No one could seriously deny the impact that a fit and firing Ben Cousins with his mind right could have. He's a star of monumental proportions. Before I would commit to him, though, I still reserve two concerns - (a) the selection of Cousins could seriously backfire if his head and body aren't in it, and (b) we may have passed up the opportunity to snare a far younger prospect with No. 1 pick who will be still there contributing in 2010 and beyond.

Most importantly, the position he has put himself in, I reckon he'd play on a performance based contract. You wouldnt want to be paying top dollars unless you had a list close to playing finals, but Cousins on a cheap contract would definetely bring in some experience and winning culture into the middle. You cannot put a price on the confidence a Lids or Foley are going to gain from playing alongside him.

The question remains. Is his head right?

I reckon thats more a question for Wallace than Cousins. Can Wallace keep him motivated and focused??? Because I reckon Sheedy could.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Yep, fair points all, lads. Might be all academic now anyway ... looks like the Eags are retaining him on their list?

 

[polakthetiger]

looks like the Eags are retaining him on their list?

Are you sure?...The way I heard it was, they need to retain him until after the draft or his salary would be included in their 08 amount, whereas it won't if they cut him after the draft, which they intend to do.

But later came across this..


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22682277-2,00.html

 

[Crumden]

Straight after Round 9, 2005 hindsight told us that Nathan Brown was an absolute steal for Picks 6 and 20, while hindsight straight after Round 10, 2005 told us that Nathan Brown was a mistake for Picks 6 and 20.

Its looking OK again now Ghost. Especially considering 7 of the top 20 from the 2003 draft have been delisted from their original clubs.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Its looking OK again now Ghost. Especially considering 7 of the top 20 from the 2003 draft have been delisted from their original clubs.

Is that right? That's a classic. Picks 6 and 20 are looking like a bargain deal for us again, Crum.

 

[froars]

We've got one too many Johnsons on our list now - NO!