Remove this Banner Ad

Prediction Michael Barlow

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tex200
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Big fan of Barlow's. I know he's not the quickest, but he sure knows how to get the ball... a lot. He does two-way run as well. I agree in not selecting him at the expense of the talent coming through... but if it's at the expense of say, other established players not really delivering (insert usual suspects here), then it can't hurt. If Mrouch and Barlow were the two 'slow' players in our team I can't see that being a disaster... we still need to extract the ball, right?
 
Would soften the blow of not landing anyone slightly. Certainly not an ideal acquisition but an acceptable loss mitigation.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Do not want.
Would be a backwards step for the club especailly after getting rid of Lyons
He is too slow and we have a heap of kids that need game time.
The club would look like they are in disaray after the spin the club has been putting out the last week.
 
Kane McGoodwin said:
I agree with this - surely a better backup need than grigg, shaw or hendo. This is what we should be weighing up if he passes the necessary tests.
Click to expand...
Was about to post that Grigg in danger of making way for Barlow.

Barlow suffered last year due to "non tanking".

Not the worst move to pick up. His competitiveness at training might help the development of youngsters. To have depth you need a good 2nd string. Better to have a good 2nd string for our players to train against.

A touch meh, but not violently opposed if we start the season with youngsters.
 
Look a no brainer to bring in for min. wage and very late pick as DFA .
Just think we have lost Lyons out of mids and my believe this would mean Thommo would come back as regular starter and if pick up Barlow then Thommo would get role given and help out hopefully in SANFL and around club .
Barlow would come in as inside mid and Knights , Milera etc would be outside mids.
CEY and Grigg are not AFL and one might be kept as insurance but certainly not starters.
 
deaneus said:
Perhaps our list strategy is less organic and more hydroponic?
Click to expand...
squat1.gif
 
craig crowing said:
Look a no brainer to bring in for min. wage and very late pick as DFA .
Just think we have lost Lyons out of mids and my believe this would mean Thommo would come back as regular starter and if pick up Barlow then Thommo would get role given and help out hopefully in SANFL and around club .
Barlow would come in as inside mid and Knights , Milera etc would be outside mids.
CEY and Grigg are not AFL and one might be kept as insurance but certainly not starters.
Click to expand...

RED CARD.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Danoz said:
Against the feelings that many here have posted, I can't see how he wouldn't add to our midfield. Would probably cost about the same as what Lyons would've (IMO), about the same speed, and has a similar sort of output (both quantitative and qualitative).

I wouldn't think CEY would be disadvantaged by us picking him up, as I think Barlow and CEY would take he places of Lyons and Thommo.

Regarding the 'spin', and this is the first time I've commented on it due to the steam coming from my ears, surely everyone can see that it WAS all spin, consolidation, putting the defenses up. Reid and Roo and whoever else was in it stuffed up majorly. They went for their man and they failed the bluff. Gibbs should've been a Crow right now, instead we'll be going for Barlow.

Bloody disappointing.
Click to expand...

So at 13 + Lever, you're still buying Gibbs?
 
Johnny Rutten said:
Barlow versus Gibbs
Comparison 2010-2016

Age - MB 28 yrs-10 months, BG 27 years-7 months
Games - MB 126, BG 143
Goals Avg - MB 0.64, BG 0.60
Disposals Avg - MB 25.2, BG 23.8
Disposal Efficiency - MB 67%, BG 71%
Tackle Avg - MB 5.1, BG 4.2
Inside 50s Avg - MB 2.8, BG 3.5
Clearances Avg - MB 3.8, BG 3.4
Contested Possies Avg - MB 10.7, BG 8.4
Score Assists Avg - MB 0.9, BG 0.8

The one area that Gibbs is clearly more proficient in is his use of the ball (see Disposal Efficiency). Otherwise, considering Barlow won't cost us anything and Gibbs would have cost us plenty, the comparison is a favourable one for Barlow.
Click to expand...

You obviously forgot that you were comparing midfielders. Here's the most important stat;

Bryce Barlow
0 Contested Marks Per Game 0.7
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

As depth, yeah ok. At the expense of players with a future, yeah nah get ****ed.
 
Danoz said:
No? Why is that relevant?
Click to expand...

How is it not relevant? You claimed that, "Reid and Roo and whoever else was in it stuffed up majorly. They went for their man and they failed the bluff." To me, you must be referring to the negotiation between the parties and that somehow walking away was a failure. Logically, the only way to have addressed that would have been to have paid whatever Carlton were demanding. Although, I will admit that your statement above doesn't really make a lot of sense, even in context with the rest of the post. I had to assume you were saying we blinked, which seeing as we weren't the seller, can only really mean that we weren't prepared to pay enough. How that relates to failing the bluff, I'm not sure, but I did try and make sense of it. And if you're unhappy with the deal not getting done, it can really only be about us not being prepared to pay enough. Anything else, such as letting people know that we were in negotiations, really is just pure garbage and inconsequential as to whether the deal got done for a fair price or not.
 
Peter J said:
Agree - it smacks to me of having a bet each way.

Wow we have amazing talent ready to step up and blossom in the midfield - we're getting organic growth.

But just in case they don't we will add this guy so we don't get smashed in the middle and remain competitive. Finish 8th and you just never know what might happen
Click to expand...
Roo likes a bet. Brother in law still has a form guide signed by him 20 years ago [emoji5]
 
1970crow said:
How is it not relevant? You claimed that, "Reid and Roo and whoever else was in it stuffed up majorly. They went for their man and they failed the bluff." To me, you must be referring to the negotiation between the parties and that somehow walking away was a failure. Logically, the only way to have addressed that would have been to have paid whatever Carlton were demanding. Although, I will admit that your statement above doesn't really make a lot of sense, even in context with the rest of the post. I had to assume you were saying we blinked, which seeing as we weren't the seller, can only really mean that we weren't prepared to pay enough. How that relates to failing the bluff, I'm not sure, but I did try and make sense of it. And if you're unhappy with the deal not getting done, it can really only be about us not being prepared to pay enough. Anything else, such as letting people know that we were in negotiations, really is just pure garbage and inconsequential as to whether the deal got done for a fair price or not.
Click to expand...
And do you know for sure that Carlton wanted 13 + Lever and that was it? Take it or leave it? If you don't know what was on the table, how can guessing what it was be relevant?

AFC made the strides to lure Gibbs. AFC then failed to make it happen. Perhaps they should have chosen a different target, from a club we haven't been pilfering for years, a club that wasn't going to take a stand on a player they have already sewn up for 3 more years? Why hadn't they been in contact with CFC preceding the trade period to make sure we could satisfy them before going public? Do you ever see Hawthorn going public on a player then not making a deal? I'm happy we didn't pay overs, but surely a few phone calls prior could've made it clear what CFC would be asking for?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom