is lynch ready for our seniors

[|Andy|]

disagree, I think we can fit both zac and max in the same side but that would squeeze blake out. Personally one of those goes for either a runner or third tall. lynch is in form.

Either way we'll be taking one tall defender out, which is the main part of the argument.

[bigcarl]

disagree, I think we can fit both zac and max in the same side but that would squeeze blake out. Personally one of those goes for either a runner or third tall. lynch is in form.

Either way we'll be taking one tall defender out, which is the main part of the argument.

the problem might be solved by max's injury. we've been very cautious with this type of thing this season (gilbert/milne) and ross wouldn't want to be playing one short.

[Solar]

disagree, I think we can fit both zac and max in the same side but that would squeeze blake out. Personally one of those goes for either a runner or third tall. lynch is in form.

Either way we'll be taking one tall defender out, which is the main part of the argument.

the problem might be solved by max's injury. we've been very cautious with this type of thing this season (gilbert/milne) and ross wouldn't want to be playing one short.

agreed andy and agreed big carl

but in the long term these decisions need to be made. It was obvious (see marto's thread) that we had to many tall defensive players in the team and missing a forward option.

[plugger66]

That is brilliant Andy. Some here can't seem to get past the "if it aint broke dont fix it" theory. Anything that can be measured can be improved. I dont see why the Saints are any different.

Yep Andy was brilliant. Didnt come up with anyone to drop but just basically said lets drop someone.

Sorry I didnt realise you wanted to drop Dawson. That is even worse than not having anyone to drop. Why would even think about dropping him

Because come finals time we're going to have to drop either him or Hudgton. You take your pick..Hudgton has finals experience, Dawson doesn't. Geelong didn't go into 2007 with 3 ruckman, they went in with 2. We shouldn't go in with 3 immobile tall defenders, we only need 2 and bring in that 3rd tall forward, or small defender.

I don't know whether you watch footy, but you'd have realised that we dropped off when Hudgton came in after round 7, and we played better when Hudgton went off due to injury today. Hence further strengthening, mine and half of saintsational's argument that we only need 2 immobile tall defenders.

BESIDES, the point of my reply before about the Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates thing was to point out the OBVIOUS flaw in the statement "If it's not broken, don't fix it", because it obviously doesn't work with our current society who strive to continuely improve.

Plugger66.. "Why would even think about dropping him". Don't you mean, Why would YOU even think about dropping him? Well the answer is simple really.. If you weren't so thick minded, you realise that it is to get our structure right, thus going back to round 1-7 where we had a great backline, and we obviously played much better. So I would drop him because: For structure, We have a similar and i daresay better player in Hudgton, though Dawson is getting better, AND Hudgton has finals experience which will benefit St Kilda immensely come finals time.

See, unlike you, I want St Kilda to continuely improve, and to possibly win the Cup. In order to do that, we need to improve the whole team, which starts with the BASICS - i.e. getting the STRUCTURE CORRECT!..

And next time please stop trying to create an argument when you clearly have nothing to backup your own so-called "arguments" and only write one sentence statements that you think everyone will accept and agree with.

Writing a lot of words doesnt make the arguement better and attacking someone because he left out a word would mean your areguement is poor. I dont need any words to back up my arguement I just watch how Zac has been playing. It is that simple. So Andy you can write 5 para's I will just see Zac keep imprving every week and he is no where near getting dropped. I suggest instead of writing a lot of words you just watch how Zac has been plying.

Go watch Mark Blake's whole season in 2007 and then tell me why he got dropped on grand final day. When structure requires it, it'll happen. One of Dawson or Hudgton will make way in the finals. I'm not saying Zac is a bad player, in fact he's played great footy, way past our expectation, but having him and Hudgton doesn't make us a better football team, like how Bomber Thompson didn't bring Blake and King into the grandfinal team even though they were both starting 22.

Plugger. Do not attack someone for writing 5 paragraphs of common sense, when you can only write one paragraph of drizzle. I used to sit around and laugh at your arguments with other posters, but i can now see why everyone gets so frustrated with you.. You have no clue what you talk about! One player playing awesome doesn't make the team awesome. As Geelong enjoyed telling us all of last year, and Adelaide as well, Rather take a star team, then a team of stars. Think about that one and try to comprehend it before you write more drizzle about how your one sentences are suddenly correct.

Andy you defeated your own agrguement in your first line by mentioning Mark Blake. He is a ruckman and was dropped for another ruckman. Nothing to do with team balance. As for 5 paras of common sense well IMO it isnt common sense so I needed one para to say that. If we are too top heavy in the backline and there are arguements for that well dawson isnt the one that will go at the moment. the year has a long way to go so anything could happen in the future but at the moment he isnt going anywher.

By the way I'd rather a settled backline and not dropping a player in form than a backline that are playing in fear and even if they are in form they still may be dropped.

[|Andy|]

That is brilliant Andy. Some here can't seem to get past the "if it aint broke dont fix it" theory. Anything that can be measured can be improved. I dont see why the Saints are any different.

Yep Andy was brilliant. Didnt come up with anyone to drop but just basically said lets drop someone.

Sorry I didnt realise you wanted to drop Dawson. That is even worse than not having anyone to drop. Why would even think about dropping him

Because come finals time we're going to have to drop either him or Hudgton. You take your pick..Hudgton has finals experience, Dawson doesn't. Geelong didn't go into 2007 with 3 ruckman, they went in with 2. We shouldn't go in with 3 immobile tall defenders, we only need 2 and bring in that 3rd tall forward, or small defender.

I don't know whether you watch footy, but you'd have realised that we dropped off when Hudgton came in after round 7, and we played better when Hudgton went off due to injury today. Hence further strengthening, mine and half of saintsational's argument that we only need 2 immobile tall defenders.

BESIDES, the point of my reply before about the Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates thing was to point out the OBVIOUS flaw in the statement "If it's not broken, don't fix it", because it obviously doesn't work with our current society who strive to continuely improve.

Plugger66.. "Why would even think about dropping him". Don't you mean, Why would YOU even think about dropping him? Well the answer is simple really.. If you weren't so thick minded, you realise that it is to get our structure right, thus going back to round 1-7 where we had a great backline, and we obviously played much better. So I would drop him because: For structure, We have a similar and i daresay better player in Hudgton, though Dawson is getting better, AND Hudgton has finals experience which will benefit St Kilda immensely come finals time.

See, unlike you, I want St Kilda to continuely improve, and to possibly win the Cup. In order to do that, we need to improve the whole team, which starts with the BASICS - i.e. getting the STRUCTURE CORRECT!..

And next time please stop trying to create an argument when you clearly have nothing to backup your own so-called "arguments" and only write one sentence statements that you think everyone will accept and agree with.

Writing a lot of words doesnt make the arguement better and attacking someone because he left out a word would mean your areguement is poor. I dont need any words to back up my arguement I just watch how Zac has been playing. It is that simple. So Andy you can write 5 para's I will just see Zac keep imprving every week and he is no where near getting dropped. I suggest instead of writing a lot of words you just watch how Zac has been plying.

Go watch Mark Blake's whole season in 2007 and then tell me why he got dropped on grand final day. When structure requires it, it'll happen. One of Dawson or Hudgton will make way in the finals. I'm not saying Zac is a bad player, in fact he's played great footy, way past our expectation, but having him and Hudgton doesn't make us a better football team, like how Bomber Thompson didn't bring Blake and King into the grandfinal team even though they were both starting 22.

Plugger. Do not attack someone for writing 5 paragraphs of common sense, when you can only write one paragraph of drizzle. I used to sit around and laugh at your arguments with other posters, but i can now see why everyone gets so frustrated with you.. You have no clue what you talk about! One player playing awesome doesn't make the team awesome. As Geelong enjoyed telling us all of last year, and Adelaide as well, Rather take a star team, then a team of stars. Think about that one and try to comprehend it before you write more drizzle about how your one sentences are suddenly correct.

Andy you defeated your own agrguement in your first line by mentioning Mark Blake. He is a ruckman and was dropped for another ruckman. Nothing to do with team balance. As for 5 paras of common sense well IMO it isnt common sense so I needed one para to say that. If we are too top heavy in the backline and there are arguements for that well dawson isnt the one that will go at the moment. the year has a long way to go so anything could happen in the future but at the moment he isnt going anywher.

By the way I'd rather a settled backline and not dropping a player in form than a backline that are playing in fear and even if they are in form they still may be dropped.

I did not in any way defeat my argument, which was that we were too top heavy and one tall defender needs to go due to structural problems. Mark Blake was taken out because they didn't need 3 rucks and it would cause structural problems as well as leave out a smaller midfield or more agile player. Eventhough him and Steven King were both in their starting 22. And I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that we are too top heavy and someone needs to go. I was just suggesting that the someone be Dawson. It doesn't have to be, I didn't say it had to be Dawson. My whole argument was based around the fact that someone needs to go, and Max going down may well be a blessing in disguise, so we have no need to drop Dawson or Blake who both have had good years.

I don't know what you call common sense, neither do I care what you call common sense because this is just a public forum, but i guess when I've had three people agreeing with what I have said, purely proves that what i wrote made sense, hence the agreement. And I don't think i have to remind you that noone has agreed with what you've said..

And I don't care what you'd rather happen. Because I'm pretty sure everyone else would rather a more potent St Kilda team ie Round 1-7 which played well and killed off opponents, then a slow top heavy St Kilda team that will only grind out wins.

[plugger66]

That is brilliant Andy. Some here can't seem to get past the "if it aint broke dont fix it" theory. Anything that can be measured can be improved. I dont see why the Saints are any different.

Yep Andy was brilliant. Didnt come up with anyone to drop but just basically said lets drop someone.

Sorry I didnt realise you wanted to drop Dawson. That is even worse than not having anyone to drop. Why would even think about dropping him

Because come finals time we're going to have to drop either him or Hudgton. You take your pick..Hudgton has finals experience, Dawson doesn't. Geelong didn't go into 2007 with 3 ruckman, they went in with 2. We shouldn't go in with 3 immobile tall defenders, we only need 2 and bring in that 3rd tall forward, or small defender.

I don't know whether you watch footy, but you'd have realised that we dropped off when Hudgton came in after round 7, and we played better when Hudgton went off due to injury today. Hence further strengthening, mine and half of saintsational's argument that we only need 2 immobile tall defenders.

BESIDES, the point of my reply before about the Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates thing was to point out the OBVIOUS flaw in the statement "If it's not broken, don't fix it", because it obviously doesn't work with our current society who strive to continuely improve.

Plugger66.. "Why would even think about dropping him". Don't you mean, Why would YOU even think about dropping him? Well the answer is simple really.. If you weren't so thick minded, you realise that it is to get our structure right, thus going back to round 1-7 where we had a great backline, and we obviously played much better. So I would drop him because: For structure, We have a similar and i daresay better player in Hudgton, though Dawson is getting better, AND Hudgton has finals experience which will benefit St Kilda immensely come finals time.

See, unlike you, I want St Kilda to continuely improve, and to possibly win the Cup. In order to do that, we need to improve the whole team, which starts with the BASICS - i.e. getting the STRUCTURE CORRECT!..

And next time please stop trying to create an argument when you clearly have nothing to backup your own so-called "arguments" and only write one sentence statements that you think everyone will accept and agree with.

Writing a lot of words doesnt make the arguement better and attacking someone because he left out a word would mean your areguement is poor. I dont need any words to back up my arguement I just watch how Zac has been playing. It is that simple. So Andy you can write 5 para's I will just see Zac keep imprving every week and he is no where near getting dropped. I suggest instead of writing a lot of words you just watch how Zac has been plying.

Go watch Mark Blake's whole season in 2007 and then tell me why he got dropped on grand final day. When structure requires it, it'll happen. One of Dawson or Hudgton will make way in the finals. I'm not saying Zac is a bad player, in fact he's played great footy, way past our expectation, but having him and Hudgton doesn't make us a better football team, like how Bomber Thompson didn't bring Blake and King into the grandfinal team even though they were both starting 22.

Plugger. Do not attack someone for writing 5 paragraphs of common sense, when you can only write one paragraph of drizzle. I used to sit around and laugh at your arguments with other posters, but i can now see why everyone gets so frustrated with you.. You have no clue what you talk about! One player playing awesome doesn't make the team awesome. As Geelong enjoyed telling us all of last year, and Adelaide as well, Rather take a star team, then a team of stars. Think about that one and try to comprehend it before you write more drizzle about how your one sentences are suddenly correct.

Andy you defeated your own agrguement in your first line by mentioning Mark Blake. He is a ruckman and was dropped for another ruckman. Nothing to do with team balance. As for 5 paras of common sense well IMO it isnt common sense so I needed one para to say that. If we are too top heavy in the backline and there are arguements for that well dawson isnt the one that will go at the moment. the year has a long way to go so anything could happen in the future but at the moment he isnt going anywher.

By the way I'd rather a settled backline and not dropping a player in form than a backline that are playing in fear and even if they are in form they still may be dropped.

I did not in any way defeat my argument, which was that we were too top heavy and one tall defender needs to go due to structural problems. Mark Blake was taken out because they didn't need 3 rucks and it would cause structural problems as well as leave out a smaller midfield or more agile player. Eventhough him and Steven King were both in their starting 22. And I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that we are too top heavy and someone needs to go. I was just suggesting that the someone be Dawson. It doesn't have to be, I didn't say it had to be Dawson. My whole argument was based around the fact that someone needs to go, and Max going down may well be a blessing in disguise, so we have no need to drop Dawson or Blake who both have had good years.

I don't know what you call common sense, neither do I care what you call common sense because this is just a public forum, but i guess when I've had three people agreeing with what I have said, purely proves that what i wrote made sense, hence the agreement. And I don't think i have to remind you that noone has agreed with what you've said..

And I don't care what you'd rather happen. Because I'm pretty sure everyone else would rather a more potent St Kilda team ie Round 1-7 which played well and killed off opponents, then a slow top heavy St Kilda team that will only grind out wins.

Sorry I missed all 3 of the posts that agree with you dropping Dawson. Can you please post them again. The only post i saw about your comment on dropping Dawson was one by Solar and he disagreed with you. And please dont show me posts on the team balance issue because this arguement started because you wanted to drop Dawson not because of team balance.

[Moods]

Mark Blake was dropped FOR steven King. King was never in the team in the first place. In fact he played in the VFL reserves GF the previous week. Blake was dropped b/c his form dropped off twd the end of the year, and he played a howler in the prelim final. King was promoted b/c he was playing well in the reserves and played a good game in the VFL GF. His promotion had nothing to do with structure or team balance.

I don't neccessarily disagree with you, and I'm not sure Plugger does either. We ARE a bit top heavy down back, which I think plugger has acknowledged in other threads. However, I agree with plugger in that at the moment, Zac will not be the player that has to be dropped re team balance. If anything that will be BLAKE. It may even be Max unless he can get some more continuity into his body.

[plugger66]

Mark Blake was dropped FOR steven King. King was never in the team in the first place. In fact he played in the VFL reserves GF the previous week. Blake was dropped b/c his form dropped off twd the end of the year, and he played a howler in the prelim final. King was promoted b/c he was playing well in the reserves and played a good game in the VFL GF. His promotion had nothing to do with structure or team balance.

I don't neccessarily disagree with you, and I'm not sure Plugger does either. We ARE a bit top heavy down back, which I think plugger has acknowledged in other threads. However, I agree with plugger in that at the moment, Zac will not be the player that has to be dropped re team balance. If anything that will be BLAKE. It may even be Max unless he can get some more continuity into his body.

That is what I have been saying all along. I have a real issue with our back 6 at the moment but Zac isnt one of them. As bad as it sounds I wouldnt mind Max missing a couple to see how the back 6 works without him again. Who knows who should go but at the moment Zac isnt one of them.

[|Andy|]

Mark Blake was dropped FOR steven King. King was never in the team in the first place. In fact he played in the VFL reserves GF the previous week. Blake was dropped b/c his form dropped off twd the end of the year, and he played a howler in the prelim final. King was promoted b/c he was playing well in the reserves and played a good game in the VFL GF. His promotion had nothing to do with structure or team balance.

I don't neccessarily disagree with you, and I'm not sure Plugger does either. We ARE a bit top heavy down back, which I think plugger has acknowledged in other threads. However, I agree with plugger in that at the moment, Zac will not be the player that has to be dropped re team balance. If anything that will be BLAKE. It may even be Max unless he can get some more continuity into his body.

That is what I have been saying all along. I have a real issue with our back 6 at the moment but Zac isnt one of them. As bad as it sounds I wouldnt mind Max missing a couple to see how the back 6 works without him again. Who knows who should go but at the moment Zac isnt one of them.

This argument started because I was pointing out the flaws of the quote "If it ain't broken don't fix it.

Solar: agreed andy and agreed big carl

Goose is king wrote:
That is brilliant Andy. Some here can't seem to get past the "if it aint broke dont fix it" theory. Anything that can be measured can be improved. I dont see why the Saints are any different.

LTN16: Good Point

My input into this thread was not because of dropping Dawson himself. It was to point out the quote that oh so many people use is not that good in itself. I offered Dawson to be dropped as an example, but my whole point was that we had to drop a tall defender, and if it's not necessarily Dawson, it'll be Blake, or current Hudgton going down with injury has been a blessing in disguise.

And then you begin your sarcastic, yes you are brilliant Andy thread which was just plain trolling. Oh plugger you think you're so great... Wouldn't it be easier for you if the world just agreed with you...

And if you hadn't realise that i said drop Dawson because of team balance, then I have no idea where you have stuck your head in these past few days...

[Moods]

Well it sounds to me that we all agree then

Thread would be boring if we all just agreed from the outset though. What would everyone do all day?

[ace]

Still NO

[plugger66]

Mark Blake was dropped FOR steven King. King was never in the team in the first place. In fact he played in the VFL reserves GF the previous week. Blake was dropped b/c his form dropped off twd the end of the year, and he played a howler in the prelim final. King was promoted b/c he was playing well in the reserves and played a good game in the VFL GF. His promotion had nothing to do with structure or team balance.

I don't neccessarily disagree with you, and I'm not sure Plugger does either. We ARE a bit top heavy down back, which I think plugger has acknowledged in other threads. However, I agree with plugger in that at the moment, Zac will not be the player that has to be dropped re team balance. If anything that will be BLAKE. It may even be Max unless he can get some more continuity into his body.

That is what I have been saying all along. I have a real issue with our back 6 at the moment but Zac isnt one of them. As bad as it sounds I wouldnt mind Max missing a couple to see how the back 6 works without him again. Who knows who should go but at the moment Zac isnt one of them.

This argument started because I was pointing out the flaws of the quote "If it ain't broken don't fix it.

Solar: agreed andy and agreed big carl

Goose is king wrote:
That is brilliant Andy. Some here can't seem to get past the "if it aint broke dont fix it" theory. Anything that can be measured can be improved. I dont see why the Saints are any different.

LTN16: Good Point

My input into this thread was not because of dropping Dawson himself. It was to point out the quote that oh so many people use is not that good in itself. I offered Dawson to be dropped as an example, but my whole point was that we had to drop a tall defender, and if it's not necessarily Dawson, it'll be Blake, or current Hudgton going down with injury has been a blessing in disguise.

And then you begin your sarcastic, yes you are brilliant Andy thread which was just plain trolling. Oh plugger you think you're so great... Wouldn't it be easier for you if the world just agreed with you...

And if you hadn't realise that i said drop Dawson because of team balance, then I have no idea where you have stuck your head in these past few days...

I stuck my head in because you wanted to drop Dawson now before the finals. Why would you drop Dawson to get the balance right and not one person has agreed with the dropping of Dawson. Please show me at least one. I dont think I am great what ever that means but I do go to the footy and I wouldnt drop our best key backman just to get the mix right.

[|Andy|]

Mark Blake was dropped FOR steven King. King was never in the team in the first place. In fact he played in the VFL reserves GF the previous week. Blake was dropped b/c his form dropped off twd the end of the year, and he played a howler in the prelim final. King was promoted b/c he was playing well in the reserves and played a good game in the VFL GF. His promotion had nothing to do with structure or team balance.

I don't neccessarily disagree with you, and I'm not sure Plugger does either. We ARE a bit top heavy down back, which I think plugger has acknowledged in other threads. However, I agree with plugger in that at the moment, Zac will not be the player that has to be dropped re team balance. If anything that will be BLAKE. It may even be Max unless he can get some more continuity into his body.

That is what I have been saying all along. I have a real issue with our back 6 at the moment but Zac isnt one of them. As bad as it sounds I wouldnt mind Max missing a couple to see how the back 6 works without him again. Who knows who should go but at the moment Zac isnt one of them.

This argument started because I was pointing out the flaws of the quote "If it ain't broken don't fix it.

Solar: agreed andy and agreed big carl

Goose is king wrote:
That is brilliant Andy. Some here can't seem to get past the "if it aint broke dont fix it" theory. Anything that can be measured can be improved. I dont see why the Saints are any different.

LTN16: Good Point

My input into this thread was not because of dropping Dawson himself. It was to point out the quote that oh so many people use is not that good in itself. I offered Dawson to be dropped as an example, but my whole point was that we had to drop a tall defender, and if it's not necessarily Dawson, it'll be Blake, or current Hudgton going down with injury has been a blessing in disguise.

And then you begin your sarcastic, yes you are brilliant Andy thread which was just plain trolling. Oh plugger you think you're so great... Wouldn't it be easier for you if the world just agreed with you...

And if you hadn't realise that i said drop Dawson because of team balance, then I have no idea where you have stuck your head in these past few days...

I stuck my head in because you wanted to drop Dawson now before the finals. Why would you drop Dawson to get the balance right and not one person has agreed with the dropping of Dawson. Please show me at least one. I dont think I am great what ever that means but I do go to the footy and I wouldnt drop our best key backman just to get the mix right.

You're thickheaded as well.. You can't seem to get it into your mind that I like you, think there's a problem with our structue. And i don't care who we drop, as they are all performing well, but we will have to drop one of the 3 tall backs, whether it be dawson, max or blake.

[plugger66]

Mark Blake was dropped FOR steven King. King was never in the team in the first place. In fact he played in the VFL reserves GF the previous week. Blake was dropped b/c his form dropped off twd the end of the year, and he played a howler in the prelim final. King was promoted b/c he was playing well in the reserves and played a good game in the VFL GF. His promotion had nothing to do with structure or team balance.

I don't neccessarily disagree with you, and I'm not sure Plugger does either. We ARE a bit top heavy down back, which I think plugger has acknowledged in other threads. However, I agree with plugger in that at the moment, Zac will not be the player that has to be dropped re team balance. If anything that will be BLAKE. It may even be Max unless he can get some more continuity into his body.

That is what I have been saying all along. I have a real issue with our back 6 at the moment but Zac isnt one of them. As bad as it sounds I wouldnt mind Max missing a couple to see how the back 6 works without him again. Who knows who should go but at the moment Zac isnt one of them.

This argument started because I was pointing out the flaws of the quote "If it ain't broken don't fix it.

Solar: agreed andy and agreed big carl

Goose is king wrote:
That is brilliant Andy. Some here can't seem to get past the "if it aint broke dont fix it" theory. Anything that can be measured can be improved. I dont see why the Saints are any different.

LTN16: Good Point

My input into this thread was not because of dropping Dawson himself. It was to point out the quote that oh so many people use is not that good in itself. I offered Dawson to be dropped as an example, but my whole point was that we had to drop a tall defender, and if it's not necessarily Dawson, it'll be Blake, or current Hudgton going down with injury has been a blessing in disguise.

And then you begin your sarcastic, yes you are brilliant Andy thread which was just plain trolling. Oh plugger you think you're so great... Wouldn't it be easier for you if the world just agreed with you...

And if you hadn't realise that i said drop Dawson because of team balance, then I have no idea where you have stuck your head in these past few days...

I stuck my head in because you wanted to drop Dawson now before the finals. Why would you drop Dawson to get the balance right and not one person has agreed with the dropping of Dawson. Please show me at least one. I dont think I am great what ever that means but I do go to the footy and I wouldnt drop our best key backman just to get the mix right.

You're thickheaded as well.. You can't seem to get it into your mind that I like you, think there's a problem with our structue. And i don't care who we drop, as they are all performing well, but we will have to drop one of the 3 tall backs, whether it be dawson, max or blake.

And if you had a said that in the first place there wouldnt have been an issue.