Bombertalk

just a simple yes or no for 2010...
bit like prismall, trying to break into an elite midfeild?

DYSON#2 wrote:just a simple yes or no for 2010...
bit like prismall, trying to break into an elite midfeild?

Doubt he'll be going anywhere Dyson. One of St.Kilda's most improved this year. 24th in the comp for tackles laid and is averaging a goal a game. What would the Bombers give up for him do you reckon?

visiting saint wrote:

DYSON#2 wrote:just a simple yes or no for 2010...
bit like prismall, trying to break into an elite midfeild?

Doubt he'll be going anywhere Dyson. One of St.Kilda's most improved this year. 24th in the comp for tackles laid and is averaging a goal a game. What would the Bombers give up for him do you reckon?

Stanton

done

Monfries, Jetta, Laycock in one transaction. But give us Milne back thanks.

I'd try and find room for him. Like him as a player.

How about Matt McGuire?

Windy_Hill wrote:

visiting saint wrote:

DYSON#2 wrote:just a simple yes or no for 2010...
bit like prismall, trying to break into an elite midfeild?

Doubt he'll be going anywhere Dyson. One of St.Kilda's most improved this year. 24th in the comp for tackles laid and is averaging a goal a game. What would the Bombers give up for him do you reckon?

Stanton

Interested to know why you reckon that's a good exchange for the Dons? They're almost exactly the same age but Stanton has played twice as many games. McQualter was St.Kilda's first round pick in 2004 and struggled under Thomas to find a spot in the side. Was delisted and then re-drafted to the rookie list under Lyon. Has had to fight and work extra hard to get a regular game and is now a regular first 22 player. Can't see him wanting to move after this season being the first year he's played all games and can't see the Saints being willing to let him go unless it was for an exceptional deal.

BenDoolan wrote:Monfries, Jetta, Laycock in one transaction. But give us Milne back thanks.

We love the Tiprat. Best small forward in the comp or damn close to it.

dom_105 wrote:How about Matt McGuire?

Yep i would rather the Goose than McQualter but i doubt it will happen. There was a lot of talk on SEN yesterday that the Saints were after Jordan McMahon from the Tigers (God only knows why LOL) and that the Tiges might ask for Maguire in return.

Anything could happen come trade week... i have a feeling that a lot more clubs will be willing to trade away picks for players considering the lack of depth of the draft.

visiting saint wrote:
Interested to know why you reckon that's a good exchange for the Dons? They're almost exactly the same age but Stanton has played twice as many games. McQualter was St.Kilda's first round pick in 2004 and struggled under Thomas to find a spot in the side. Was delisted and then re-drafted to the rookie list under Lyon. Has had to fight and work extra hard to get a regular game and is now a regular first 22 player. Can't see him wanting to move after this season being the first year he's played all games and can't see the Saints being willing to let him go unless it was for an exceptional deal.

So is that a yes or a no? I reckon its a deal that would work well for both clubs and players.

He looks like a good average player and I don't see how he would improve us as a team.

no way id give stanton for him. Thats ridiculous.

Easy to look good in a team thats won 19 on the trot. Plus he's playing behind a lot of very, very good players.

Windy_Hill wrote: So is that a yes or a no? I reckon its a deal that would work well for both clubs and players.

No, I wouldn't swap him for Stanton. The club's put a lot of time and effort getting him up to being a first team regular. He's gone from being a genuine mid-fielder in the 2005 draft to being more of a run with player. He's also got the happy knack of kicking a goal a game and he's up there for goal assists this year. It's easy to say that you wouldn't want to trade anyone who's a regular in a team that's 19 - 0, but I'd be wanting to hang onto McQualter. His best footy's still in front of him.

Mrs Mercuri wrote:

dom_105 wrote:How about Matt McGuire?

Yep i would rather the Goose than McQualter but i doubt it will happen. There was a lot of talk on SEN yesterday that the Saints were after Jordan McMahon from the Tigers (God only knows why LOL) and that the Tiges might ask for Maguire in return.

Anything could happen come trade week... i have a feeling that a lot more clubs will be willing to trade away picks for players considering the lack of depth of the draft.

McMahon will be delisted by the tiges and rightfully so.

DC wrote:no way id give stanton for him. Thats ridiculous.

Easy to look good in a team thats won 19 on the trot. Plus he's playing behind a lot of very, very good players.

Ditto.

hop wrote:

DC wrote:no way id give stanton for him. Thats ridiculous.

Easy to look good in a team thats won 19 on the trot. Plus he's playing behind a lot of very, very good players.

Ditto.

Why are we wedded to Stants - I just dont get it - yep he's a good average player who gets the ball a bit. However his disposal efficiency is average, he has no defensive game, he doesnt score goals or even set them up, he is mid-paced and not very strong, he doesnt mark the ball and lacks penetration in his kicking??? So whats the big deal. OK, he's not our worst but gee, even Visiting Saint doesnt want a bar of him!!!

However, I reckon Stanton's glossy marketing brochure looks good enough that some club will give us something for him, someone who can add more to our set up than what Stanton currently does.

Windy_Hill wrote:

hop wrote:

DC wrote:no way id give stanton for him. Thats ridiculous.

Easy to look good in a team thats won 19 on the trot. Plus he's playing behind a lot of very, very good players.

Ditto.

Why are we wedded to Stants - I just dont get it - yep he's a good average player who gets the ball a bit. However his disposal efficiency is average, he has no defensive game, he doesnt score goals or even set them up, he is mid-paced and not very strong, he doesnt mark the ball and lacks penetration in his kicking??? So whats the big deal. OK, he's not our worst but gee, even Visiting Saint doesnt want a bar of him!!!

However, I reckon Stanton's glossy marketing brochure looks good enough that some club will give us something for him, someone who can add more to our set up than what Stanton currently does.

Stanton v Kerr
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2001110

Stanton v Judd
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002147

Stanton v Black
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... 02&pid2=48

Stanton v Swan
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002032

Stanton v Bartel
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002057

Stanton v Mitchell
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002057

Stanton v Cousins
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... 2&pid2=150

And so on....

And I don't even think Stanton is playing to his best at the moment. But you can see by these coparisons that he is up there with the guns of the competition. Plus he has more tackles, 1%ers, rebound from 50, and F50 entries than most of them. So he does work hard, but gets no thanks from anyone.

As for Visiting Saint.....well, he wouldn't regard ANY player on our list when his team is currently creaming the entire competition!

haha i did a comparison of Stants and Dale Thomas and i know it's not hard but he smashed Thomas in all area's except for goal kicking (0.2 goals per game behind Thomas who is a forward half the time)

BenDoolan wrote: And I don't even think Stanton is playing to his best at the moment. But you can see by these coparisons that he is up there with the guns of the competition. Plus he has more tackles, 1%ers, rebound from 50, and F50 entries than most of them. So he does work hard, but gets no thanks from anyone.

As for Visiting Saint.....well, he wouldn't regard ANY player on our list when his team is currently creaming the entire competition!

Not so. The Saints have still got a bit of deadwood on their list and there are plenty of guys on the Bombers list I'd be happy to have on ours.