Untouchables

[Sanders]

If GWS was to offer you their first round pick plus another highly rated player for Danger would you go for it?
Just a simple question with no motives behind it.

I would think about it if I was a Crowie with the only negative being that you already have Walker in the forward line, but having two super top notch KPFs would be worth a thought.

You'd have to think about it.

Not sure I'd take it, but you'd pause for a second.

 

[Sanders]

Nah.

That would be like getting two face cards on the blackjack table and saying hit me. Yeah you could get an ace.... But there's a 98% chance you'll get any other card, and who the hell throws away a hand of 20? A madman, that's who.

Depends on the count & what the dealer is showing

The odds might be on splitting

 

[Sanders]

If GWS was to offer you their first round pick plus another highly rated player for Danger would you go for it?
Just a simple question with no motives behind it.

I would think about it if I was a Crowie with the only negative being that you already have Walker in the forward line, but having two super top notch KPFs would be worth a thought.

If they offered Whitfield + #1 for danger... You can make an argument for taking it.

With crouch & sloane we have lots of grunt, but not much silk. Whitfield would solve

Loss of Tippett? Boyd c'mon on down

The value is there, and another wrinkle...

Danger is one of the top 5 players in the game and might rise higher in the next 2 years. He's a very smart kid

We "control" his contract for 2 more years before RFA. When he will attract north of million dollar per year contract offers - which he might be too smart to turn down.

2 years of danger before FA (when he's on everyone's whiteboard) versus whitfield & boyd?

Heart says no, head says do it

I probably pull the trigger. Thankfully they'll never offer that much, and our own trigg-er doesn't have the cojones. So danger stays

 

[Slippery Pete]

Depends on the count & what the dealer is showing

The odds might be on splitting

You never split a 20.

 

[Sanders]

You never split a 20.

If the dealer flashes 6 you always split the 20

Always

 

[Slippery Pete]

If the dealer flashes 6 you always split the 20

Always

Then you go from having one guaranteed good hand, to two potentially bad hands.

The odds of a dealer 6 beating 20 are the lowest in the game. You don't mess with that.

 

[Sanders]

Then you go from having one guaranteed good hand, to two potentially bad hands.

The odds of a dealer 6 beating 20 are the lowest in the game. You don't mess with that.

you playing to win or not to lose?(thereby extending how long you spend at table before losing your stake)

If you play the odds you split

 

[Lawrst]

Wow,

No one rates Smith in this thread.

Interesting.

 

[Sanders]

Wow,

No one rates Smith in this thread.

Interesting.

If smith is "untouchable" then we need a new word for players who are totally unavailable

 

[PykeDream]

Wow,

No one rates Smith in this thread.

Interesting.

Maybe next year.

Like Andrew Gaff and Harley Bennell he's having his 'second-year blues' a season late.

 

[Lawrst]

We remember what our backline looked without smith this year right?

 

[Sanders]

Smith is a horrible back man, should be played on a wing and told to take the game ob

 

[BigLefty]

IMO, the definition of "untouchable" is you don't even entertain overs for them if offered. For a number of reasons but mostly because it rips the heart out of the supporters to see them leave.

I'm not talking about crazy fantasy land type overs that no-one in their right mind would offer.

My list is;

Danger, Tex, Sloane, Talia, Crouch. the end.

 

[cmndstab]

I'd rather someone other than Gibbs. He would cost a lot of cap space and doesn't hit a contest hard. Dare I say it, Bryce Sqibbs. Ok so he's not entirely bad, but we need a fast runner, but one that won't short-step a contest. We need a type more like Daisy Thomas, yes he has limitations but he tries his utmost at every opportunity, he has the added bonus that when he tries something beyond his capability he can have a laugh at himself when it doesn't work and then just gets on with the job.

Gibbs doesn't short-step contests, geez. He might have once or twice in his career but to imply he does it regularly is very unfair. He's a super skilled player and exactly what we need. We have plenty of strong inside players already, we don't need anyoner player who can "hit a contest hit". We need a player who can receive the ball from the likes of Crouch, Dangerfield and Thompson, and turn it into an effective entry inside 50.

Mind you, I'd take Daisy as well - doubt he'd be any cheaper than Gibbs though.

 

[Mattrox]

Gibbs doesn't short-step contests, geez. He might have once or twice in his career but to imply he does it regularly is very unfair. He's a super skilled player and exactly what we need. We have plenty of strong inside players already, we don't need anyoner player who can "hit a contest hit". We need a player who can receive the ball from the likes of Crouch, Dangerfield and Thompson, and turn it into an effective entry inside 50.

Mind you, I'd take Daisy as well - doubt he'd be any cheaper than Gibbs though.

I've seen it twice this year. Once early and then a couple weeks ago. I posted in the drafting and trading thread when it happened the 2nd time. And I don't mean Petrenko style hit contest, I mean not contest even when a clean possesion is possible in a one on one. I used to think claims were exaggerated, but it happens and it is cringe worthy when it happens. I consider this worse then burning the ball, because you don't get the possession in the 1st place. And it sets a poor example for younger players who would get dropped for doing the same.

No questioning his skill level. I just wonder how much of the not getting him as a father-son has coloured our perception. "You always want what you cannot have"

 

[Emperoar]

My list: Tex, Danger, Sloane, & Talia.

These four will continue to shape the club in the best direction.

 

[Golumless]

Untouchables:

Danger
Walker
Sloane
Talia*
Crouch*
Rutten
Laird*
Grigg*
Smith*

* denotes kids who have potential to improve.

Smith is probably the most dubious, but a lot of that is going on potential and if he moves into the wings.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Wow,

No one rates Smith in this thread.

Interesting.

Huh?

My Untouchables:
Dangerfield, Sloane, Walker, Crouch, Smith, Talia
Wayne's-World, Sunday at 11:51 AM Edit Delete Report
#14 Reply

 

[Bailey01]

Danger, Tex, Sloane, Talia, Smith, Douglas and Crouch

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

FFS honestly how does Bone get paid for that crap journalism

untouchable include Danger, Tex, Talia, Sloane, Crouch, Smith, Sauce, Truck, Thomno and Douglas everyone else is for sale at the right price

 

[GROTTO]

You never split a 20.

You obviously havent seen the shit that goes down at the Adelaide Casino on a Friday or Saturday night, I have seen people draw on 20, pull an ace out of their ace and think they are a genius.

 

[GROTTO]

If the dealer flashes 6 you always split the 20

Always

Actually you dont. Basic strategy says you sit always. As Bones would say all day every day!

 

[GROTTO]

FFS honestly how does Bone get paid for that crap journalism.

Why?

He gives me hope I could be one day a caller on 5AA or be writing articles for the Advertiser.

 

[GROTTO]

I can see a club like the Pies offer Danger a massive contract.

As long as we can be in the same ball park as the contract we will be ok IMO.

 

[weneverland]

Ridiculous list.

Seriously, if we are fair dinkum and a ruthless success driven club, other than Danger/Tex/Sloane/Crouch I would entertain any possible trade scenarios for everyone else. That's it. Just 4 players untouchable.

I was just about to say the same thing. Then I read your post and realised I didn't need to. These four would be the only ones that were absolutely untouchable. There are a few others that would require a lot of arm twisting to let go for someone better. But these four no.