Author Topic: How did we rate Richmond's trade/free agency period?  (Read 1764 times)

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: How did we rate Richmond's trade/free agency period?
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2013, 11:35:42 AM »
Ya but 400+ new membership s over day compared to last season

the claw

  • Guest
Re: How did we rate Richmond's trade/free agency period?
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2013, 12:19:07 PM »
At least we didn't use 32 on Everitt.  :lol
and yet hes played better footy to date than hampson. i reckon this point is regularly lost in this debate.
hampsons track record is very poor for a bloke whos 26 before the start of next season and is entering yr 8. i dont think anyone can argue hes been a good player and  has the runs on the board.
everitt  is 25 at the start of next season is in yr 8 but at the least is coming of a pretty decent  20 game season something which hampson cant say. hes yet to put a decent season together.

we are keen to put the boots into opposition players who have regularly performed better  but defend to ridiculous levels our own players and the club for taking them.

Offline Chuck17

  • The Shaun Grugg of OER
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13305
Re: How did we rate Richmond's trade/free agency period?
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2013, 12:52:39 PM »


we are keen to put the boots into opposition players who have regularly performed better  but defend to ridiculous levels our own players and the club for taking them.

It would be worse if we didn't have you to keep us grounded

Rampstar

  • Guest
Re: How did we rate Richmond's trade/free agency period?
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2013, 01:32:18 PM »
At least we didn't use 32 on Everitt.  :lol
and yet hes played better footy to date than hampson. i reckon this point is regularly lost in this debate.
hampsons track record is very poor for a bloke whos 26 before the start of next season and is entering yr 8. i dont think anyone can argue hes been a good player and  has the runs on the board.
everitt  is 25 at the start of next season is in yr 8 but at the least is coming of a pretty decent  20 game season something which hampson cant say. hes yet to put a decent season together.

we are keen to put the boots into opposition players who have regularly performed better  but defend to ridiculous levels our own players and the club for taking them.

have to agree with claw Everitt has shown a lot more than Hampson has to this stage.

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: How did we rate Richmond's trade/free agency period?
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2013, 01:34:36 PM »
yes but we are in more need of a ruck than a average hbf

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
Re: How did we rate Richmond's trade/free agency period?
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2013, 07:34:28 PM »
minor details, Bentley old chap, minor details.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline Coach

  • Hardly A Prude
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8719
  • Depend on Schulzy
Re: How did we rate Richmond's trade/free agency period?
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2013, 08:53:14 PM »
How is that relevant to Claw's point? I don't think he said we should have traded for Evva.

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: How did we rate Richmond's trade/free agency period?
« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2013, 09:21:28 PM »
How is that relevant to Claw's point? I don't think he said we should have traded for Evva.

and yet hes played better footy to date than hampson


there is the implication that evirtt being the superior player for us to chase

regardless of the fact we are ok for run of the mill hbfs, yet desperate  prior to the hampson trade to reinforce a weak ruck division.

Offline Coach

  • Hardly A Prude
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8719
  • Depend on Schulzy
Re: How did we rate Richmond's trade/free agency period?
« Reply #23 on: October 26, 2013, 09:25:36 PM »
The stuff is it with you people?


"we are keen to put the boots into opposition players who have regularly performed better  but defend to ridiculous levels our own players and the club for taking them."

^

How does that = "we should have picked Everitt instead of Hampson? That is not even close to what Claw is talking about.


Offline tigs2011

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5517
Re: How did we rate Richmond's trade/free agency period?
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2013, 01:02:50 AM »
At least we didn't use 32 on Everitt.  :lol
and yet hes played better footy to date than hampson. i reckon this point is regularly lost in this debate.
hampsons track record is very poor for a bloke whos 26 before the start of next season and is entering yr 8. i dont think anyone can argue hes been a good player and  has the runs on the board.
everitt  is 25 at the start of next season is in yr 8 but at the least is coming of a pretty decent  20 game season something which hampson cant say. hes yet to put a decent season together.

we are keen to put the boots into opposition players who have regularly performed better  but defend to ridiculous levels our own players and the club for taking them.
Lol you'd have a 10 page rant if we drafted Everitt. Everitt is at his 3rd bloody club in 7 years FFS. You are keen to pump up every oppo player and put the boots into our own no matter what.  :sleep