brennan - i don't know what to think.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:03 pm

What have I re-iterated for months? We have Gumbelton, Neagle, Daniher, Johns and Ryder who can play up forward!

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:04 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:
BenDoolan wrote:
Essendon4eva wrote:I said similiar...not INDENTICAL!
No shit Sherlock - EVERY club will look SIMILAR

And...the difference is. What have we added?

F*cked if I know! But it was you who said....

Our list is going to look pretty similar. Knights hasn't made a good impression.

So you might want to explain how Knights hasn't made an impression because our list is "going to look pretty similar". I guess the other 15 coaches don't make an impression either eh?

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:12 pm

Just look at the completed trades thread. Everyone has made a positive change.
Judd to Carlton.
Johnston to Brisbane.
Wood to Collingwood.
Adam Schneider, Sean Dempster to St Kilda.

So do the math. The teams aorund us make moves to get better. We keep our list similar to last season.
So yes, all list look similar, but every other teams has either remained better than us, or made moves to become better.

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:18 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:Just look at the completed trades thread. Everyone has made a positive change.
Judd to Carlton.
Johnston to Brisbane.
Wood to Collingwood.
Adam Schneider, Sean Dempster to St Kilda.

So do the math. The teams aorund us make moves to get better. We keep our list similar to last season.
So yes, all list look similar, but every other teams has either remained better than us, or made moves to become better.

Would've loved Judd, but he f***** the Eagles over by declaring he wanted to go to Carlton and Carlton alone...we had no hope of getting him.

Did not need a soft 27 year midfield, for someone who is meant to have great skills, butchers the ball far too often for my liking and is softer than Ricky Dyson. Particularly if we would have to give up a first round pick for him.

Did not need a young 20 year old unproven ruckman...particularly if it was going to cost us a first round pick. While not the greatest ruck combination at the moment we got enough talent there in Hille, Laycock and Ryder to get the job done.

Did not need a fat, unfit half-forward flanker, who goes missing for great chunks of games and the season. We certainly did not need a soft, weak HBF who was going to be delisted if not traded...and we certainly did not need to give up a 2nd round draft pick for them.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:23 pm

'ealesy', that is not the point. it isn't we should have went and got those players. It was to show those teams made moves to get better. We have not done anything. So we will finish in the bottom four this season.

Those clubs all have reason for getting the players they did.
Collingwood - A young ruckman to develop under Fraser.
Brisbane - A medfeilder, who is great by foot and may flourish playing with Brown, Black, power.

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:28 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:'ealesy', that is not the point. it isn't we should have went and got those players. It was to show those teams made moves to get better. We have not done anything. So we will finish in the bottom four this season.

Those clubs all have reason for getting the players they did.
Collingwood - A young ruckman to develop under Fraser.
Brisbane - A medfeilder, who is great by foot and may flourish playing with Brown, Black, power.

But it does matter...because they were the players on offer.

Why trade for players we don't need.

Point out the key defenders, classy skillful midfielder, or hard in and under ball magnet midfielders that were offer during trade week. Because that is what we needed.

Name one of those players who have moved club (apart form Judd, where we weren't in the running) who has moved club?

or should we have just traded for hacks in these positions who we hoped could turn it around at Windy Hill??

We asked about Brent Prismall and Geelong told us to get f***** because he was still under contract. Explain how we are meant to get the players we need when they aren't on offer???!!!

We can't trade for them if they aren't f****** on offer now can we???

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:29 pm

and why is ealesy in quotation marks 'Essendon4eva'???

WTF is that meant to mean??

billyduckworth · Post by **billyduckworth** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:32 pm

Don't worry, ealesy. I think it just means he is functionally illiterate. We established long ago that he has no idea whatsoever how to use punctuation, spell or otherwise show any respect for the English language.

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:03 pm

ealesy wrote:and why is ealesy in quotation marks 'Essendon4eva'???

WTF is that meant to mean??

I am more worried about the fact that he has used the word medfielder more than once. Kinda removes the possibility of an innocent typo when it happens twice!!

Now I need to follow my own advice and ignore the retarded gimp

Post by **Jazz_84** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:07 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:What have I re-iterated for months? We have Gumbelton, Neagle, Daniher, Johns and Ryder who can play up forward!

haha oh my god.... thank you

and why didn't you tell everyone months ago that we had Daniher???

DC · Post by DC » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:22 pm

retarded gimp

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:02 pm

bomberdonnie wrote:
ealesy wrote:and why is ealesy in quotation marks 'Essendon4eva'???

WTF is that meant to mean??
I am more worried about the fact that he has used the word medfielder more than once. Kinda removes the possibility of an innocent typo when it happens twice!!
Now I need to follow my own advice and ignore the retarded gimp

Twice??? You mean, twice multiplied by 400.

keri · Post by **keri** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:10 pm

BD, we really should turn the other cheek....

Just make sure your pants are around your ankles and you're pointing at his face at the time.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:17 pm

keri wrote:BD, we really should turn the other cheek....

Just make sure your pants are around your ankles and you're pointing at his face at the time.

....so I can take a leak

keri · Post by **keri** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:19 pm

Would you though, even if he was on fire?

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:22 pm

keri wrote:Would you though, even if he was on fire?

Certainly would - my liquid is quite flammable!

keri · Post by **keri** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:27 pm

Fair enough. I'd bring the marshmallows, but they'd taste all icky.