aboynamedsue wrote:
For me, it isn't a question of whether we should have gone after Brock, it's whether we gave up too much for him.
Brock brings hardness, endurance, footy smarts and leadership skills to our midfield...
But pick #11 for a player from the wooden spoon club who didn't make the top 10 of their B&F the year before, who has a history of injury problems, who has questionable pace and ability to spread, and who has no depth in his kicking...
If the Demons wouldn't deal for less than #11 (or at least agree to, say, Brock + #34 for #11 + #59, or similar), an alternative might have been to shift our focus to Luke Ball or even Shane Tuck, whom we might have been able to get for a lot less...
Anyway, I reckon in 12 months time we'll have a better idea as to whether this trade was a good idea. It didn't seem like a good idea at the time, it seems like a worse idea now, so fingers crossed Brock can have a better 2011....
"Really hope this trade works out... Brock has had only one top 10 quality type year (in 2006).
Hopefully he can get his body right, but Brock has been injury prone, slowed down further (not quick to begin with) while the game has sped up, and disposal has been questionable at times!"
The above was posted on the 23rd Sep 2009 in the "Brock McLean - SEMI-OFFICIAL for PICK 11".
What is incredibly disturbing is you didn't have to be Nostradamus to predict Brock's 2010! He won't get close to playing the number of games for Carlton that he played for Melb!
Sadly, that may turn out to be a good thing!
Login
Register
FAQ
