One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on August 21, 2010, 05:01:47 PM
-
Maybe a couple of forced changes - Thursty, Cuz? :(
Fire away....
-
Luke for Thursty, Cuz wil be fine
Leave the rest, if we play the same game as today we will kill port :thumbsup
-
Luke had operation last week, he wont be there
Tiges are morals to win next week, just leave Nahas OUT
-
Out: Thursty (inj), Collo
In: Grimes, Jacko
-
Luke had operation last week, he wont be there
Tiges are morals to win next week, just leave Nahas OUT
Good to see him taking his rehab seriously by going out on the turps last night
-
Luke had operation last week, he wont be there
Tiges are morals to win next week, just leave Nahas OUT
Good to see him taking his rehab seriously by going out on the turps last night
hopefully he is on the Gold Coast next season :gotigers
-
Jackson in. Thursty out(inj)
-
I'd like to see Grimes play a game this year. I like how Malthouse does things by given a debut, a taste of AFL and leave it with the individual.
Grimes can play deserves a debut and would be good development wise coming into the pre season knowing whats required for AFL standards.
In: Jackson, Grimes
Out: Nahas, Thurstfield
Nahas unfortunately may have played his last game, I'm not 100% seeing him being delisted but he needs some serious weight behind him. He's be 23 before the year is out, needs some weight.
I also really like the Post/Graham ruck combo. Saints didn't have a decent ruckman so we could experiment, Brogan and Trengrove don't worry me I think we can try for this again.
-
Nahas has a contract for 2011.
-
Nahas has a contract for 2011.
Another rip snorter of a decisions right there lol :help
-
Nahas has a contract for 2011.
Pretty sure this is an assumption and even if true, we don't know if the 2nd year is an option based on performance
-
Nahas has a contract for 2011.
clearly not up to AFL standard after yesterday :banghead
-
Ins: White, Jackson, Polo, Polak, ;D
Outs: Connors, Collins, Post, Thursfield (inj)
-
Nahas has a contract for 2011.
Pretty sure this is an assumption and even if true, we don't know if the 2nd year is an option based on performance
You're assumption is incorrect, its on the contracts list thread, he was signed for 2 years at the end of last season. I hope we can get out of it, his biggest muscle is the love one and that is only good for whacking Caro about the chops with.
-
IN: Grimes, Webberley, Jackson
OUT: Thursfield (inj.), Connors, Nahas
-
Nahas has a contract for 2011.
clearly not up to AFL standard after yesterday :banghead
Thing is the times he has been sent back to VFL, has kinda stuggled there as well.
I watched him pre AFL and know a few VFL supporters and he was awesome back then, so maybe something is amiss atm ???
-
Ins: White, Jackson, Polo, Polak, ;D
Outs: Connors, Collins, Post, Thursfield (inj)
I might start looking for some covesyls lol ;D
-
Nahas has a contract for 2011.
Pretty sure this is an assumption and even if true, we don't know if the 2nd year is an option based on performance
You're assumption is incorrect, its on the contracts list thread, he was signed for 2 years at the end of last season. I hope we can get out of it, his biggest muscle is the love one and that is only good for whacking Caro about the chops with.
I'm sorry, but the OER contracts thread is not evidence to suggest that 1) it is true and 2) second year is not an option based on performance
Have you actually clicked the link that refers to Nahas' 2 year deal, it is just a post by one-eyed saying Nahas 2 year deal
You'll have to come up with something better than that
-
I'm sorry, but the OER contracts thread is not evidence to suggest that 1) it is true and 2) second year is not an option based on performance
Have you actually clicked the link that refers to Nahas' 2 year deal, it is just a post by one-eyed saying Nahas 2 year deal
You'll have to come up with something better than that
If the rules is that promoted roookies must get 2 years like drafted players do then the bloke has a 2 year contract ... Historically that's what the club has done. I know that BrownE was given a 2 year deal and he is a promoted rookie
-
Nahas has a contract for 2011.
clearly not up to AFL standard after yesterday :banghead
Thing is the times he has been sent back to VFL, has kinda stuggled there as well.
I watched him pre AFL and know a few VFL supporters and he was awesome back then, so maybe something is amiss atm ???
Keeps falling over, thats whats amiss.
and he was bounced around like a ping pong ball on saturday
-
Small players are not meant to break tackles and bust open packs. They are supposed to be quick and elusive, in other words avoid the heavy stuff. How much hard grunt work did you ever see from KB, one of the greatest to don the yellow and black ?
Continually falling over is a valid critism, but to mine, Nahas's biggest problem is that , simply, he keeps getting caught, but to me he actually showed some improvement on Saturday from what we have seen this year.
When he was given his upgrade he had probably done enough to earn it, but has not come on as hoped.
Yes Jack Im sure you would have said something against this at the time, but if you bag enough players, the law of averages says that you will get it right sometimes.
-
I'm sorry, but the OER contracts thread is not evidence to suggest that 1) it is true and 2) second year is not an option based on performance
Have you actually clicked the link that refers to Nahas' 2 year deal, it is just a post by one-eyed saying Nahas 2 year deal
You'll have to come up with something better than that
If the rules is that promoted roookies must get 2 years like drafted players do then the bloke has a 2 year contract ... Historically that's what the club has done. I know that BrownE was given a 2 year deal and he is a promoted rookie
I know you have to give drafted players 2 year contracts, never seen the one about giving a promoted rookie 2 years
Browne would have got two as he's a ruckmen and they always take longer to develop, he'd shown a fair bit in only his first year so that makes sense
-
I'm sorry, but the OER contracts thread is not evidence to suggest that 1) it is true and 2) second year is not an option based on performance
Have you actually clicked the link that refers to Nahas' 2 year deal, it is just a post by one-eyed saying Nahas 2 year deal
You'll have to come up with something better than that
If the rules is that promoted roookies must get 2 years like drafted players do then the bloke has a 2 year contract ... Historically that's what the club has done. I know that BrownE was given a 2 year deal and he is a promoted rookie
I know you have to give drafted players 2 year contracts, never seen the one about giving a promoted rookie 2 years
Browne would have got two as he's a ruckmen and they always take longer to develop, he'd shown a fair bit in only his first year so that makes sense
I hope you're right Infamy, last thing we need is another year for Nahas.
-
Bring in Grimesy for Thursfield, don't want to scar the bloke as the only dude other than McMahon on the senior list not to get a crack this year LMAO
-
Whats up with Relton, did he get the barunga bullet?
-
Whats up with Relton, did he get the barunga bullet?
Went back up north. Couldn't cope with the demands of being an AFL footballer after his missus returned home with his kid(s). Club let him go to give him time and space to re-assess his interest in pursuing an AFL career. Interesting that Morton mentioned in his interview that they (the club and players) could have done more to support him, hence his pro-active stance with Taylor who must have been showing signs of heading down the same path.
-
So if every rookie gets a 2 year contract after being promoted does this mean Polak will definitely at the club next year?
-
Whats up with Relton, did he get the barunga bullet?
Got caught scoffing a hamburger before the Werribee v Coburg game. Last seen working at Macca's NT ;)
-
So if every rookie gets a 2 year contract after being promoted does this mean Polak will definitely at the club next year?
:-\ :-\
I think you've got yourself confused Stripes
Rookies get elevated to the senior list during the course of a season but they are still rookies. Polak falls into this category as does Hicks & O'Reilly. When the season is over they go back to being rooklies for the purposes of list lodgements with the league etc
At the end of the season clubs have the option before the draft to promote rookies to their senior lists. This is what happened to Nahas & BrownE last year. They were rookies in 2009 and promoted to the senior list for 2010.
The discussion has been about whether Nahas was given a 2 year contract when he was promoted to the senior list permanantly and therefore no longer a rookie
-
I liked Relton, I hoped he would kick on actually, he had a bit of toe and a bit of flair about him. He muscled up a bit too since he came down. Maybe he will sort his poo out and decide to be player.
-
I liked Relton, I hoped he would kick on actually, he had a bit of toe and a bit of flair about him. He muscled up a bit too since he came down. Maybe he will sort his poo out and decide to be player.
Couldn't see that happening unfortunately.
-
Bring in Grimesy for Thursfield, don't want to scar the bloke as the only dude other than McMahon on the senior list not to get a crack this year LMAO
The paper said Grimes was BOG for Coburg so he is due a game.
it will be great to have Grimes, O'Rielly, Taylor, Gourdis etc. in a winning side vsthe South Australian scum and we keep pick #6 8)
-
RICHMOND - In the Mix
A good effort against the Saints and some tired bodies should mean few changes. Last week's experiment with one ruckman didn't work all that well, so expect Andrew Browne to return. Will Thursfield has a corked thigh, so young Dylan Grimes, who has been excellent at Coburg, could get his first run at senior level. Ben Nason is looking very tired, and could make way for Jeromey Webberley.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/101071/default.aspx
-
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Gus kill the Ainters dud rucks.
-
Gus had a corker for mine BUT, they were playing poor ol Pattison remember, one of our offloads.
-
Im glad Mitch has taken Troy under his chicken-wing. I've got high hopes for TT. I thought he showed a bit on the weekend too. Seems to have good defensive pressure - something that has been lacking in our forward line for some time now.
Heard he's got a decent right hook too.
-
Im glad Mitch has taken Troy under his chicken-wing. I've got high hopes for TT. I thought he showed a bit on the weekend too. Seems to have good defensive pressure - something that has been lacking in our forward line for some time now.
Agree Willy. I thought he showed some glimpses of special talent on Saturday - whether or not that will lead to becoming a good AFL player is still in the hands of the hindsight gods but there certainly appears to be a bit to work with.
-
Willy? Milly vanilly chilly willy??? is that you? Yeah Troy Punchy Taylor goes alright, lol, uppercuts, sounds like a Melton hair dressing salon.
-
The paper yesterday mentioned Grimes in for Astbury because Dave is injured ???. Surely they mixed Astbury up for Thursty?
-
The paper yesterday mentioned Grimes in for Astbury because Dave is injured ???. Surely they mixed Astbury up for Thursty?
Apparently Astbury has gone in for hip surgury
-
Willy? Milly vanilly chilly willy??? is that you? Yeah Troy Punchy Taylor goes alright, lol, uppercuts, sounds like a Melton hair dressing salon.
haha.
Good to be back in the love nest Hooter.