McPhee

Sismis · Post by **Sismis** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:49 pm

Honestly, are people for f****** real when are talking about trading McPhee?

Sol · Post by **Sol** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:51 pm

yep he is highly overrated trade him back to freo for medhurst

Sol · Post by **Sol** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:52 pm

Sol wrote:yep he is highly overrated trade him back to freo for medhurst

antcl · Post by **antcl** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:31 pm

Although I wouldn't trade him, I could understand trading one of McPhee or NLM. Personally, I think their best position is the same one. So it would make sense to trade one to someone else who can use them as the 3rd/4th tall defender/rebounder for a draft pick.

So I'd trade NLM instead.

Tamworth Bomber · Post by **Tamworth Bomber** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:32 pm

If it came down to one of these having to be traded I would trade NLM

bueller · Post by **bueller** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:41 pm

We should be able to keep both of them, they are both attacking half backs who can take contested marks in defence.
With these two on board, we've got options and can rotate one of them through the forward line as well if the occasion suites.
I don't want to lose either of them, McPhee has proved he's a great player who has struggled this year getting over injuries etc.. and NLM is on the rise and shows potential matchwinning pace out of defence - ala Johncock, Wirrpanda, Pickett etc..

Post by **Jazz_84** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:12 pm

i can't understand anything in this thread apart from you sismis,

both required players at the club, should never come into sheedy's head to trade them

bdodgey · Post by **bdodgey** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:17 pm

I dare say McPhee isn't being actively traded, but instead we are "open to offers".

What will probably happen is that we wont find any trade that suits us (read a trade so absolutely in our favour that we can't say no to it) and he'll be signed up.

MH_Bomber · Post by **MH_Bomber** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:21 pm

Definitely NOT for trade NLM. Mcphee has not been himself for 2 years so I can kind of understand it.

robrulz5 · Post by **robrulz5** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:26 pm

We should be keeping both of them. They will both help the club move forward.

Rusty1978 · Post by **Rusty1978** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:49 pm

What the bloody hell would anyone want with MEDHURST!!!!!!!!!

Keep them both. Required players.

nomolos · Post by **nomolos** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:20 pm

Tamworth Bomber wrote:If it came down to one of these having to be traded I would trade NLM

I wholeheartedly AGREE!!!!!!

Brumaz · Post by **Brumaz** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:31 pm

keep them both!

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:49 am

Brumaz wrote:keep them both!

The most sensible three words written in this thread.

Sismis · Post by **Sismis** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:16 am

NLM would have to be one of the most underated players at this club. He is a godsend off HB giving us a lot of pace on the rebound.

bowzer · Post by **bowzer** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:21 am

Sismis wrote:NLM would have to be one of the most underated players at this club. He is a godsend off HB giving us a lot of pace on the rebound.

not only that he can play both ends of the ground and knows how to kick goals and take screamers.

does anyone know what the deal with mcphee not being contracted yet is?
it worries me

Ossie · Post by **Ossie** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:25 pm

You'd be silly to get rid of either IMHO. Both are rebounding half back flankers who can push back into a back pocket or even play on a wing. Versatile, good disposal, good engines, why would you want to get rid of either?

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:19 pm

I would trade any player if you got a better player in return.