Thoughts....

[Rossoneri]

When Hille was 24-25, he had the heart of a pea, now he should have been AA ruckman last year and not having him this year has killed us (though Ryder has come through)

Salopek seems to be on the outer at Port. I have seen him play and seems to be an ok player, not sure who would have to give up more out of Port and Us in regards to swapping Salopek and Laycock. I reckon we would have to throw in something else, but might be worth looking at.

[Crazyman]

People said exactly the same things about Hille at the same stage of his career.

It is a pretty consistant rule. The big guys take longer.

So using that arguement, why didn't Knights hold onto CJ?

Laycock is contracted to the end of next year. IMO, he has a little over 12 months to get his body right, spend a season on the track and show his is worth keeping around and hopefully prove us all wrong...alternatively, I can't see anyone else taking him but if they do, I reckon we will be the winners no matter what we get on current value...or he will be delisted which atm I think is more likely...

[swoodley]

People said exactly the same things about Hille at the same stage of his career.

It is a pretty consistant rule. The big guys take longer.

BULLSHIT...Hille was never a lazy pie eating sloth bear.

From my memory, it was more that he didn't get game time because we kept getting experienced ruckmen in to help develop him (and then they got most of the game time).

He always gave 100% when he was on the ground.

[Sismis]

People said exactly the same things about Hille at the same stage of his career.

It is a pretty consistant rule. The big guys take longer.

So using that arguement, why didn't Knights hold onto CJ?

Laycock is contracted to the end of next year. IMO, he has a little over 12 months to get his body right, spend a season on the track and show his is worth keeping around and hopefully prove us all wrong...alternatively, I can't see anyone else taking him but if they do, I reckon we will be the winners no matter what we get on current value...or he will be delisted which atm I think is more likely...

Yeah they are exactly the same Laycock has shown real ability at marking and kicking long goals. He could be very handy in the next couple of years with the transition of Lloyd/Lucas. He hasn't shown much in the ruck as yet but as I said this often takes time.

[Rossoneri]

Swoods, he was ordinary. he would have the odd standout game, amazingly against the great ruckmen back then (King, Cox and Darcy) but struggled immensly against ordinary ruckman. He started getting more consistent in 2006 but the burden of captaincy was alot to handle. He was great in 2007, but then had a fall out with Sheedy.

2008 - he was sensational and basically was another midfielder.

[Sismis]

People said exactly the same things about Hille at the same stage of his career.

It is a pretty consistant rule. The big guys take longer.

BULLSHIT...Hille was never a lazy pie eating sloth bear.

From my memory, it was more that he didn't get game time because we kept getting experienced ruckmen in to help develop him (and then they got most of the game time).

He always gave 100% when he was on the ground.

This was the title of a thread re Hille, which i think was written by someone still posting here. "Hille is not a ruckman's cankhole"

[Mrs Mercuri]

When Hille was 24-25, he had the heart of a pea, now he should have been AA ruckman last year and not having him this year has killed us (though Ryder has come through)

Salopek seems to be on the outer at Port. I have seen him play and seems to be an ok player, not sure who would have to give up more out of Port and Us in regards to swapping Salopek and Laycock. I reckon we would have to throw in something else, but might be worth looking at.

thats interesting because i thought he was one of Port's best young midfielders. Maybe we can lure him back to Victoria. Jay Nash is out of favour here at the moment and i know that PA were thinking of drafting him but we jumped in first. Maybe a deal could be done that way.