Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Thu Jun 12, 2025 4:06 pm

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 231 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:19 am 
Offline
Ken Hunter

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:54 pm
Posts: 14686
Location: The Vodka Train
harker wrote:
Pafloyul wrote:
DocSherrin wrote:
after only one year in the top job, it's probably unfair to paint Shane Rogers with the same Wayne Hughes brush...


It shouldn't automatically mean he is any better, either. For better or worse, last years picks seemed fairly Hughsesque.


Seriously now, what does that even mean?

Call it now. Who would have an "expert" taken in our three selections: #11......................#35..........................#54.........................Rookie #11.......................


..not bagging rogers, don't know his work well enough i think.... ..but given a choice between Menzel and Jaksch, and where our list currently sits.. ..i'd have thought it was an obvious decision to make.. ..yes ppl say Menzel was too good to pass up once he 'slipped' down to us, but there's a whole theory out there on players that 'slip' down the order.. ..yes Menzel will be a good player, possibly better than good, provided his knee's don't continue their family tradition.. ..i'd have gone for Jaksch..

..Temay i liked what i read and saw of him at draft time, and again he addresses a need.. ..quality small defenders is what we don't have any of coming thru the ranks.. ..and Graham likewise am happy with.. ..mostly for me it's menzel over jaksch, and i know there was a lot of stuff surrounding garlett and mention of the afl 'advising' against him but as a rookie that's where i'd have taken the punt..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:04 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:30 pm
Posts: 4584
Location: Blisstonia.
JohnM wrote:
harker wrote:
Pafloyul wrote:
DocSherrin wrote:
after only one year in the top job, it's probably unfair to paint Shane Rogers with the same Wayne Hughes brush...


It shouldn't automatically mean he is any better, either. For better or worse, last years picks seemed fairly Hughsesque.


Seriously now, what does that even mean?

Call it now. Who would have an "expert" taken in our three selections: #11......................#35..........................#54.........................Rookie #11.......................


Anyone know Stephen Wells twitter handle? We could ask him.


Wells on SEN following the day of the draft was asked if he had pick 1 who would he have taken and he answered Menzel.

May have had a lot to do with his link with Daniel, but still significant none the less.

_________________
"They're [REDACTED]'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:12 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:09 pm
Posts: 17218
Synbad wrote:
if u can poach a guy who has a good record youd sack rogers too

we cant afford to wait and see


...but Rogers does have a pretty good record.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:16 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:51 am
Posts: 4919
DocSherrin wrote:
Synbad wrote:
if u can poach a guy who has a good record youd sack rogers too

we cant afford to wait and see


...but Rogers does have a pretty good record.


At which club?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:18 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:42 pm
Posts: 2464
Location: Princess Park
Big Kahuna Boot wrote:
harker wrote:
Pafloyul wrote:
DocSherrin wrote:
after only one year in the top job, it's probably unfair to paint Shane Rogers with the same Wayne Hughes brush...


It shouldn't automatically mean he is any better, either. For better or worse, last years picks seemed fairly Hughsesque.


Seriously now, what does that even mean?

Call it now. Who would have an "expert" taken in our three selections: #11......................#35..........................#54.........................Rookie #11.......................


..not bagging rogers, don't know his work well enough i think.... ..but given a choice between Menzel and Jaksch, and where our list currently sits.. ..i'd have thought it was an obvious decision to make.. ..yes ppl say Menzel was too good to pass up once he 'slipped' down to us, but there's a whole theory out there on players that 'slip' down the order.. ..yes Menzel will be a good player, possibly better than good, provided his knee's don't continue their family tradition.. ..i'd have gone for Jaksch..

..Temay i liked what i read and saw of him at draft time, and again he addresses a need.. ..quality small defenders is what we don't have any of coming thru the ranks.. ..and Graham likewise am happy with.. ..mostly for me it's menzel over jaksch, and i know there was a lot of stuff surrounding garlett and mention of the afl 'advising' against him but as a rookie that's where i'd have taken the punt..


Good reply BKB however to state (not you) that last years selections at this early stage seem to be Hugheseque is a big call.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:44 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 1378
..not bagging rogers, don't know his work well enough i think.... ..but given a choice between Menzel and Jaksch, and where our list currently sits.. ..i'd have thought it was an obvious decision to make.. ..yes ppl say Menzel was too good to pass up once he 'slipped' down to us, but there's a whole theory out there on players that 'slip' down the order.. ..yes Menzel will be a good player, possibly better than good, provided his knee's don't continue their family tradition.. ..i'd have gone for Jaksch..

..Temay i liked what i read and saw of him at draft time, and again he addresses a need.. ..quality small defenders is what we don't have any of coming thru the ranks.. ..and Graham likewise am happy with.. ..mostly for me it's menzel over jaksch, and i know there was a lot of stuff surrounding garlett and mention of the afl 'advising' against him but as a rookie that's where i'd have taken the punt..[/quote]

Judd, J.Selwood are others to have slipped from injury concerns.
But, yes, Jaksch would have suited the list but we have no idea how highly he was rated by us - though we may have a dig to get anyway through GWS trading.
There has been talk of WCE now lining up for D.Garlett next year but maybe best for him to grow up with a tough year in he WAFL and see how he bounces back from the disappointment of not be drafted & off field attitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:41 am 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 8:15 pm
Posts: 4842
Blue4ever wrote:
Big Kahuna Boot wrote:
harker wrote:
Pafloyul wrote:
DocSherrin wrote:
after only one year in the top job, it's probably unfair to paint Shane Rogers with the same Wayne Hughes brush...


It shouldn't automatically mean he is any better, either. For better or worse, last years picks seemed fairly Hughsesque.


Seriously now, what does that even mean?

Call it now. Who would have an "expert" taken in our three selections: #11......................#35..........................#54.........................Rookie #11.......................


..not bagging rogers, don't know his work well enough i think.... ..but given a choice between Menzel and Jaksch, and where our list currently sits.. ..i'd have thought it was an obvious decision to make.. ..yes ppl say Menzel was too good to pass up once he 'slipped' down to us, but there's a whole theory out there on players that 'slip' down the order.. ..yes Menzel will be a good player, possibly better than good, provided his knee's don't continue their family tradition.. ..i'd have gone for Jaksch..

..Temay i liked what i read and saw of him at draft time, and again he addresses a need.. ..quality small defenders is what we don't have any of coming thru the ranks.. ..and Graham likewise am happy with.. ..mostly for me it's menzel over jaksch, and i know there was a lot of stuff surrounding garlett and mention of the afl 'advising' against him but as a rookie that's where i'd have taken the punt..


Good reply BKB however to state (not you) that last years selections at this early stage seem to be Hugheseque is a big call.


It is a big call and I'm prepared to be wrong but the point is, not everything Hughes touches needs to turn into crap, that's not the point I'm making. Some people's pessimism on this forum seems to be conditional which is odd.

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:56 am 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 8:15 pm
Posts: 4842
harker wrote:
Pafloyul wrote:
DocSherrin wrote:
after only one year in the top job, it's probably unfair to paint Shane Rogers with the same Wayne Hughes brush...


It shouldn't automatically mean he is any better, either. For better or worse, last years picks seemed fairly Hughsesque.


Seriously now, what does that even mean?

Call it now. Who would have an "expert" taken in our three selections: #11......................#35..........................#54.........................Rookie #11.......................



Image

:roll:

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:55 am 
Offline
Vale 1953-2020
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 1:23 am
Posts: 11671
What actually is "conditional pessimism"?

Is that like "if it's Tuesday then the glass is half empty"?

_________________
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!!!

After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says W T F .........
Visit http://fromthemoshpit.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:38 pm 
Offline
Ken Hunter

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:54 pm
Posts: 14686
Location: The Vodka Train
BIRDTOWN wrote:

Judd, J.Selwood are others to have slipped from injury concerns.
But, yes, Jaksch would have suited the list but we have no idea how highly he was rated by us - though we may have a dig to get anyway through GWS trading.
There has been talk of WCE now lining up for D.Garlett next year but maybe best for him to grow up with a tough year in he WAFL and see how he bounces back from the disappointment of not be drafted & off field attitude.


..Judd 'slipped' from 1 to 3.. ..Selwood 'slipped' from a possible 1 to 7, and he hardly played for the year.. ..i'm not saying Menzel will be as good as those, or a poor choice.. ..i'm just saying we went for a player that 'slipped' down to us cos his skills were meant to be too good to pass on, even though passing on a versatile, athletic and contested sort of kpp is something you'd think we'd need even more than some HF flash and dazzle.. ..Jaksch was highly rated, best kpp after daniher, and a kpp like hendo that is good and comfortable either fwd or def.. ..was picked in the draft right after our pick, and we may have a similar position pick this year, reckon GWS would take that pick for Jaksch now..?.. ..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:12 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:37 pm
Posts: 19393
Location: afl.virtualsports.com.au
Should've just bumped this one!

_________________
"You are being watched. The government has a secret system. A machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it." - Finch


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 231 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Crusader, Google [Bot], GWS, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group