Druggos apparently don't play any of this years top 6 teams. It craps the he11 out of me that they get so much help from the powers that be.
Incorrect.....although i can see how you can make that assumption. Richmond finished 5th at the end of the H+A season. Although they did lose week 1 of finals.
In fairness to him, he has made two rookie mistakes. In one he didn't protect the ball, the other he didn't read the drop/swirl.
I think they will persist with him a bit longer, because he is a very talented athlete and they know this, but there is work to do. He was also shown up with not covering the quarterback, but he isn't the first running back or in Tackle/Guard to do that either, or else we would seen a QB ever sacked.
I think another major drop though in his next game and it would be thanks, but it isn't working. If he was born a yank playing the game he would likely be an absolute superstar of the game, that is why they will keep trying I think.
That and they are sh1te anyway. Just about the worst team in the country, so his mistakes are not costing games any more than other players on the team, just the spotlight is right on him.
At least that is my take on it. They could just cut him as well
...and thats what i was saying about him. He has so much to learn just to catch up to high school guys in terms of basics.
Even IF he gets that up to scratch and he hasn't been cut in the meantime, he still needs to leapfrog blokes who are likely faster, stronger and more knowledgeable than him to even make an impact.
Never knocked the bloke for what he has been able to achieve, but things are so far stacked against him, that reality is that he will not live up to even half the amount of hype surrounding him. Which was my point.
I'll admit I know very little about it . So yep you called it pretty right. The thing is that punt return thing is a bit of a wanky position. He'd be a lot better just running the ball but it looks like there are a couple of pretty competent blokes in front of him.
It is a wanky position, but that is the reason he made the team. If he can't do that, he's got no hope.
The thing with running the ball is you can't fumble it. If you do, your career will be very short. The fact he keeps fumbling on punt returns means coaches are not likely to take a chance with him on offense.
"Would you trust the members to vote? "We'd end up with a board full of ex-footballers!"
Well guess what....it hasn't worked the way we've been doing things....and some of those ex-footballers have probably done very well for themselves.
I think we've had this discussion a few times.
Sooner or later, you have to give the members some say in it all. Perhaps its a critical step in actually growing our membership base!
In regards to ex-footballers.... 1. They would have to nominate, can't think of too many that would do so. Hence, it's unlikely to get a board full of them. 2. If they do nominate, they would probably be very well credentialled, and we do know they will have best intentions and be passionate about their role! 3. Can't be any worse with how we've been going anyway.
Can I ask how someone can become a board member without being voted onto the board by the members?
This has left a distinctly dodgey smell about it.
Why is this person entitled to a place on our board? She has a bunch of irrelevant qualifications, unclear if she gives a flying crap about the club and is another lawyer...
The club has made absolutely no attempt to explain why someone with those qualifications is now on the board.
Take that a step further Jeza, how many people on the board got on the board via a vote?
I reckon over half of our board over the past 15 years got on without a vote.
Germinder and Fahour not going around again and not being replaced, which takes it from 10 to 8 but this of board members to be ratified by vote on December 22, which I assume is an EGM...or is it the AGM?
AGM = Annual General Meeting is normal, hence Annual. EGM = Extraordinary General Meeting, which by definition is not normal.
Some new blood, with fresh ideas. Starting up a womens team/league could yield us more members too.
Said the same thing yesterday to my mates was we watching. There was one incident where a WC players helped Hodge off up off the ground after a collision near the boundary line. I would have "accidentally" tripped over him and dropped my knee into his throat to the give the sniping kent a taste of his own medicine. Proof again that nice guys don't win.
I was gobsmacked when i saw that and although the eagles chances at the time were slim, that act took it all the way to 0% chance of winning.
In the past, a player who was reported could not be awarded votes in that game. That was changed to cover the situation where a reported player is cleared by the tribunal.
The priority given to the 'fairest' element is demonstrated by the ineligibility rules and the fact that it is the umpires' award.
I don't mind the Brownlow going to the fairest and best player, particularly now that we have the coaches' award and the AFLPA award. That should cover all angles.
That is a crock.
Firstly, fairest and best is the same thing as best and fairest.
There was some discussion about it on Footy Classified.
They used the example of Jordan Lewis giving someone a coathanger in a marking contest, getting reported at the time, and getting 2 votes for the game. They were arguing that the brownlow should simply be awarded 'best' player as the umpires obviously don't take into account the 'fairest' element when giving votes. FYI, Lewis got 2 (or 3) weeks because of the hit.
As it turns out, the umpires simply award the votes to the best players. The tribunal works out the fairest element.
In any event, i put more stock in things like the AFLCA player of the year award. THEY are the ones that are best placed to decide the best player.
