Trade Laycock Now

[Doctor Fish]

I've noticed that Stantons late miss isn't mentioned.
Jetta's efforts aren't slammed.
Hille's effort when we were streaming forward in the last isn't mentioned.
Lucas slip slideing all over the place isn't mentioned.
NLM insitance on giving away stupid soft free kicks isn't mentioned.
But no Laycock cost us the game.

Couldn't agree more Bonce. Far out. This forum is quite biased at times. Some people always need a whipping boy I guess...

Well, Bradley, Henno and Bolton have moved on.

...As did Salmon Dom. We almost lost Scotty a couple years back too. Some Essendon "fans" wanted him gone. I wonder if the same people that boo Chook are the same ones that used to give it to Scotty. You'd think they'd learn at some point. Bunch of sooks...

[Doctor Fish]

Laycock was far from our worst today. Indeed, his tap work in the centre square was bloody good. He's still got work to do and areas of his game to improve, but as far as a back-up ruckman goes, he's doing his job at the moment.

As far as the muppets pointing out his mistakes today - EVERYONE makes mistakes. It's just that when Layock gets the ball, you are expecting him to make one so when he does, you remember it. Some of Hille's errors today were frightful; much worse than missing a set shot at goal. Ironically, despite Hille's and Stanton's monster games, their mistakes in the final quarter cost us more than Laycock's did.

Let's just give up on this Laycock bashing. He'll be around next year, and rightfully so. With some confidence, he'll become a very handy ruckman. IT wasn't so long ago that Hille was in exactly the same position. Bagging Laycock is just popularist crap.

It isn't every day I find myself agreeing with you Gringo...

=D>

[Ossie]

I've noticed that Stantons late miss isn't mentioned.
Jetta's efforts aren't slammed.
Hille's effort when we were streaming forward in the last isn't mentioned.
Lucas slip slideing all over the place isn't mentioned.
NLM insitance on giving away stupid soft free kicks isn't mentioned.
But no Laycock cost us the game.

Couldn't agree more Bonce. Far out. This forum is quite biased at times. Some people always need a whipping boy I guess...

No, it's not about having a whipping boy. Yes, other players mucked up, but Laycock ALWAYS mucks up. He plays like he's never played the game in his life, he plays stupid. That's the difference. AND ... he has no bottle. For a 6'6" bloke he gets pushed around at marking contests and when beaten he just stands there, didn't chase Simmonds when outmarked and has no appetite for the contest. And THAT's what pisses me off.

[Doctor Fish]

I've noticed that Stantons late miss isn't mentioned.
Jetta's efforts aren't slammed.
Hille's effort when we were streaming forward in the last isn't mentioned.
Lucas slip slideing all over the place isn't mentioned.
NLM insitance on giving away stupid soft free kicks isn't mentioned.
But no Laycock cost us the game.

Couldn't agree more Bonce. Far out. This forum is quite biased at times. Some people always need a whipping boy I guess...

No, it's not about having a whipping boy. Yes, other players mucked up, but Laycock ALWAYS mucks up. He plays like he's never played the game in his life, he plays stupid. That's the difference. AND ... he has no bottle. For a 6'6" bloke he gets pushed around at marking contests and when beaten he just stands there, didn't chase Simmonds when outmarked and has no appetite for the contest. And THAT's what pisses me off.

Fair enough. That's your opinion Ossie. But he doesn't ALWAYS muck up. That's the point...

[Ossie]

Couldn't agree more Bonce. Far out. This forum is quite biased at times. Some people always need a whipping boy I guess...

No, it's not about having a whipping boy. Yes, other players mucked up, but Laycock ALWAYS mucks up. He plays like he's never played the game in his life, he plays stupid. That's the difference. AND ... he has no bottle. For a 6'6" bloke he gets pushed around at marking contests and when beaten he just stands there, didn't chase Simmonds when outmarked and has no appetite for the contest. And THAT's what pisses me off.

Fair enough. That's your opinion Ossie. But he doesn't ALWAYS muck up. That's the point...

Ok, maybe not always, but at least a couple of either bad decisions or poor efforts each week. And it doesn't seem to be improving.

[Rossoneri]

I want to ask the Laycock supporters several questions:

- Would you want the ball in Laycocks hands, after yesterday, 5 points down in a GF, 1 minute to go, 30m out?

His set shot from 50 went straight through the middle and he normally is a very good shot from a set shot. Have seen him kick a number of goals from almost impossible angles. Funny thing confidence, isnt it.

- How often are you prepared to put up with his insipid efforts, particularly in defense and rucking, before you say enough is enough, that costs us goals? His "efforts" cost us 3 he missed and 3 he gave away yesterday.

How long did we put up with Hille's soft efforts? Now he is AA (or at least should be) Stanton was also very soft, now look at him. And I reckon Jetta cost us three goals too yesterday, where's a thread on him?

- It is now common knowledge around the AFL he is as soft as a gay guy on a all girl clothes optional beach. Voss intimated it last week commentating, and yesterday, Healy and T. Shaw, all hard at it players half his size verbally confirmed obliquely but in words that footballers would know. How good is that for the team?

A commentator with an opinion, what is the world coming to? Yes he is soft at this point in time, but so are many people who are down on confidence. Some go harder, some go into their shell fearing that by going in, they'll be spoiliing their own teammate. He has little confidence crashing a pack at the moment.

In previous posts, I supported a contract extension on condition he through himself into the gym and turned himself into the incredible hulk which would give him confidence in pack situations (wonder what his pinch and BMI tests are?). After yesterday, forget it. I'd rather have Froggy in the ruck. At least he gives a contest.

Ruckwork was ok yesterday, but I was still disappointed when he rocked up to PS training looking in poor shape.

Those who hang shit on Stants, Hille and Lloyd for missing goals and having brain farts, have a look at their stats = Laypenis. They missed because of tiredness...something Laycock most certainly wasn't. And Meggles....well he plays like one.

Maybe he is unfit, perhaps you should start another thread about Quinn? I have come to realise that we are coming from a very poor fitness base under Sheedy. We are playing a different style under knights and while Sheedy wanted to have big strong guys like the 84-85 teams, Knights wants a fast nimble team. The players have to almost re-start and re-train their bodies, this is probably why we have had so many soft-tissue injuries early on and possibly why at the moment, they are starting to subside.

Let it be known I am a massive Quinn critic, but I'd like to see how many soft-tissue injuries we get after say round 10 next year, playing a new game plan with bodies that are used to it.

Back to Laycock, he is unfit and until he turns up in October (yes, earlier than normal) looking supremely fit, then eh will always be #2. If you want to be #1, earn it. Hille has done that, the guy is now a f****** mountain and using his body to great use. But, two years ago, people wanted him traded and Laycock put as #1.

Give him one more contract, if nothing, then see ya later. he is only 23.

[Rossoneri]

Regardless if you have kicked 900 or 3, you should still kick easy set shot goals. That being said, I cant remember Lloyd missing an easy shot in the final quarter. Kick over the head was ambitious but he was just trying everything he could.

As for the Jetta misses, whether you have played 1 game or 300, running into an open goal, 15 meters out, you slot it home. No need to handpass, especially when Hille is the goal square pointing at the goals screaming at you to kick the goal.

Those commentators have played in 4 Premierships, won Brownlows, have been Captains of their Clubs

So has Robert Walls (minus the brownlow)

#1 or #2?..... doesn't matter....we just want him fit, strong and competitive and you won't hear boo from me. If a bloke is putting in, why criticise him?

I agree that Laycock is very disappointing at the moment, but the same thing was being said about Hille 2 years ago and look at where he is now. Hille seemed to have the heart of a pea a couple of years back and was soft as butter despite is massive frame. Now have a look at how he is going. Laycock is only 23 remember.

[jimmyc1985]

I agree that Laycock is very disappointing at the moment, but the same thing was being said about Hille 2 years ago and look at where he is now. Hille seemed to have the heart of a pea a couple of years back and was soft as butter despite is massive frame. Now have a look at how he is going. Laycock is only 23 remember.

I'm getting a bit tired of the comparisons of Hille v Laycock. Hille as of 3 years ago played stinkers here and there, no question, but he also played quite a few serviceable games, and played good games as often as he played stinkers. The main difference between Hille of 3 years ago and Hille today is consistency, i reckon. Laycock is churning out stinkers just about every week, although i reckon the reaction to his game yesterday has been way overdone - i thought he was better yesterday than he's been in most other games this season.

[Rossoneri]

I agree that Laycock is very disappointing at the moment, but the same thing was being said about Hille 2 years ago and look at where he is now. Hille seemed to have the heart of a pea a couple of years back and was soft as butter despite is massive frame. Now have a look at how he is going. Laycock is only 23 remember.

I'm getting a bit tired of the comparisons of Hille v Laycock. Hille as of 3 years ago played stinkers here and there, no question, but he also played quite a few serviceable games, and played good games as often as he played stinkers. The main difference between Hille of 3 years ago and Hille today is consistency, i reckon. Laycock is churning out stinkers just about every week, although i reckon the reaction to his game yesterday has been way overdone - i thought he was better yesterday than he's been in most other games this season.

Hille only good games were agionst Cox, Darcy, King funnily enough. Laycock had a shit start to the year but I reckon he is getting better (very slowly) the last three weeks. My comparison was more to do with people bagging the crap out of Hille and wanting to trade him, even though he wasn't as bad as everybody thought. And Hille was having more stinkers than good games a while back, but he slowly reduced the difference and in the past 24 months his best and worst games are no where near as far apart as they were. This is something Laycock needs to understand and develop.

[MH_Bomber]

He seems to just lack confidence. I remember there was a game where Hille got injury and it was like he grew another leg. He was getting all the hitouts and really lifted. I think the lack of support from the Bomber brethren is weighing on him immensely. Perhaps its really difficult working under the shadow of Hille who, as much I like him, strikes me as a bit arrogant.

I think he has a lot of potential and we need to keep him.

[Megan]

Oh c'mon Filth. Biggest generalisation on this board. He plays like one?

I haven't surveyed the gay population in order to find out how they play, so please share your research with me? With the % of gays who make up the population of Australia, surely there's a few playing at AFL level.

I always thought Modra was gay, they rate him as a pretty good player

(I realise I'm totally off track with the forum post here, but I just think that's a crappy insult)

[hop]

Oh c'mon Filth. Biggest generalisation on this board. He plays like one?

I haven't surveyed the gay population in order to find out how they play, so please share your research with me? With the % of gays who make up the population of Australia, surely there's a few playing at AFL level.

I always thought Modra was gay, they rate him as a pretty good player

(I realise I'm totally off track with the forum post here, but I just think that's a crappy insult)

Never heard of the Carlton Football Club?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[robrulz5]

The most frustrating thing about Laycock is we all know how much talent he has. 200cm+, can kick the ball 55m and can take a grab. He now just needs to fitness base and the consistency.

He could have kicked 4 yesterday but I'd rather him miss those shots this year instead of next year when we are in the hunt for a finals spot.

[CameronClayton]

We'll trade you Kepler and M Johnson back for Laycock. Surely you do that trade?? You know Freo offer the best deals in town.

Nah we will just take Warnock in a direct swap. Laycock already has 3 years on this bloke & you can see who is gonna be the best player.

I keep saying that Laycock is our next Alessio, but in reality he is just a bigger, taller version of Cupido. Talented as all hell, but lazy, disinterested & the heart the size of a pea.

[Megan]

Sorry Filth Got some mates who have copped some grief for being gay, it just bugs me. That, and jokes about people who can't play being 'retarded' or 'brain damaged' piss me off too, so just a heads up

And I think comparing Chook to Alessio is rough. Ces was good for at least one match winning performance every year, against the Swans

[rockhole]

The guy's had 5 shots on goal so he was getting it in the right area. Had he kicked 3 goals 2 we would be singing his praises. It is no wonder he kicked 1 goal 4 given the great support he gets from the various web sites and media.( and supporters.) When the guy's confidence was up he could slot them from outside 50 off 2 steps.

You do not give away big blokes until you are absolutely positive he is either a dud or you have an abundance of big blokes. I believe that neither isthe case here. Sure he needs to bulk up, but I am not buying this line that he does not try. If he did not trying, his teammates would abandon him, which was not evident on Saturday. In fact they were trying to help him regain confidence.

It is amazing to me how this site and others cannot exist without a scapegoat. We squanderd goals in the first quarter, gave away dumb fee kicks throughout the entire game, kicked 2 goals 7 in the final quarter, (with help from Bowden) and had 1 guy on the bench after losing Fletcher before the game, but the loss is still down to Laycock.

I can still recall the comments a couple of years ago, almost word for word, descibing Hille in the same light. These comments were ignored as the the comments regardig Laycock will be ignored.

[BenDoolan]

The guy's had 5 shots on goal so he was getting it in the right area. Had he kicked 3 goals 2 we would be singing his praises. It is no wonder he kicked 1 goal 4 given the great support he gets from the various web sites and media.( and supporters.) When the guy's confidence was up he could slot them from outside 50 off 2 steps.

You do not give away big blokes until you are absolutely positive he is either a dud or you have an abundance of big blokes. I believe that neither isthe case here. Sure he needs to bulk up, but I am not buying this line that he does not try. If he did not trying, his teammates would abandon him, which was not evident on Saturday. In fact they were trying to help him regain confidence.

It is amazing to me how this site and others cannot exist without a scapegoat. We squanderd goals in the first quarter, gave away dumb fee kicks throughout the entire game, kicked 2 goals 7 in the final quarter, (with help from Bowden) and had 1 guy on the bench after losing Fletcher before the game, but the loss is still down to Laycock.

I can still recall the comments a couple of years ago, almost word for word, descibing Hille in the same light. These comments were ignored as the the comments regardig Laycock will be ignored.

Good post.

Whilst I have been one of those critical of his performances (last year and earlier this year), I still believe he has something to offer. However, my main gripe was that he put his hand out and demanded more money in a 2 year deal or else "he'd walk" at the end of 2006. He hasn't repaid that faith over the last 2 years in value for money. I would hope the club can sit down with him at the end of this year and offer something less (financially) until such time he delivers on his potential. If he can't take a reduction on his next contract and he walks, then so be it. There has to be a balance between player payment and player achievement IMO. If Laycock is committed and keen to succeed at our club, then he will accept the offer.

[Madden]

Absolutely must not be delisted, and only traded if we get a fantastic deal.

He is pretty ordinary at the moment but he has absolutely improved since the start of the year. Although he has played a lot of games, he is still relatively young and ruckmen usually don't start playing their best footy until their late 20s.

I am not saying that we should keep him until then in the hope that he will get good, but he should definately be given another year and we will see how he goes. Ideally, most clubs would like to have 3-4 ruckmen on their lists - if we give Laycock away we would be left with only Hille as a creditable option, with Bellchambers and maybe another 18yo as backup. That's absoutely not good enough. Plus, at the end of the year we already have 4 guaranteed delistings (Michael, Johns, Lee, Johnson), and probably another likely one in Peverill.

He's not great, but he's the best option we've got and he still has time on his side. Should be offered another contract.

[ace076]

great post Rockhole.

[Doctor Fish]

The guy's had 5 shots on goal so he was getting it in the right area. Had he kicked 3 goals 2 we would be singing his praises. It is no wonder he kicked 1 goal 4 given the great support he gets from the various web sites and media.( and supporters.) When the guy's confidence was up he could slot them from outside 50 off 2 steps.

You do not give away big blokes until you are absolutely positive he is either a dud or you have an abundance of big blokes. I believe that neither isthe case here. Sure he needs to bulk up, but I am not buying this line that he does not try. If he did not trying, his teammates would abandon him, which was not evident on Saturday. In fact they were trying to help him regain confidence.

It is amazing to me how this site and others cannot exist without a scapegoat. We squanderd goals in the first quarter, gave away dumb fee kicks throughout the entire game, kicked 2 goals 7 in the final quarter, (with help from Bowden) and had 1 guy on the bench after losing Fletcher before the game, but the loss is still down to Laycock.

I can still recall the comments a couple of years ago, almost word for word, descibing Hille in the same light. These comments were ignored as the the comments regardig Laycock will be ignored.

=D>