Sweeney and Raymond gone!

fonz_#15 · Post: # 457620Post **fonz_#15** » Sun 16 Sep 2007 11:51pm

good luck to them with their future endeavours, one maybe premature (sweeney, deserved one more year imo) but there was little doubt about Raymond going.

SaintWodonga · Sun 16 Sep 2007 11:54pm

Source?

fonz_#15 · Post: # 457626Post **fonz_#15** » Sun 16 Sep 2007 11:58pm

actually a poster on this site who is very close to one of the 2 delisted players ( i know the player as well) received a text message confirming it from the players father, they will reveal themself if they please, yet they did not want to break the news.

Unforgiven · Sun 16 Sep 2007 11:59pm

If true im displeased that Sweeney was never given a real go. Top 10 in VFL goal kicking 2 years in a row I think.

Saints Premiers 2008 · Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:01am

im not realy for sweeney going but im (like us all) are not really in a position to comment or judge

the cleanout of the deadwood begins...

fonz_#15 · Post: # 457631Post **fonz_#15** » Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:02am

Saint Corin wrote:If true im displeased that Sweeney was never given a real go. Top 10 in VFL goal kicking 2 years in a row I think.

agree Corin..i dont think that it would have hurt for him to have one more year..he costs us no more than minimum wage.

Unforgiven · Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:06am

Potential is a dirty word, but to me Sweeney seemed to have so much, enough to merit a spot on the list for one more year. There were games in the VFL where when he got to the ball or was around he, he just made things happen(although didnt get to the ball enough). I just hate to die wondering, I would've rather him been given a fair go and it not working out, then just delisting him.

saintsRrising · Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:09am

Well at least Sweeney can tell his grand kids that he played AFL footy which is more than 99.9% can...Raymond never cracked it.

True Blue Sainter · Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:10am

Poor decision about Sweeney. Should have been given a real go. Was impressed with his game v Hawthorn. Could have been that X factor we lack up forward.

SaintWodonga · Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:13am

True Blue Sainter wrote:Poor decision about Sweeney. Should have been given a real go. Was impressed with his game v Hawthorn. Could have been that X factor we lack up forward.

I get the feeling there is something we don't know about, because on the surface, it looks like he should have stayed on.

fonz_#15 · Post: # 457640Post **fonz_#15** » Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:16am

SaintWodonga wrote:
True Blue Sainter wrote:Poor decision about Sweeney. Should have been given a real go. Was impressed with his game v Hawthorn. Could have been that X factor we lack up forward.
I get the feeling there is something we don't know about, because on the surface, it looks like he should have stayed on.

correct you are...

plugger66 · Post: # 457645Post **plugger66** » Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:23am

fonz_#15 wrote:
SaintWodonga wrote:
True Blue Sainter wrote:Poor decision about Sweeney. Should have been given a real go. Was impressed with his game v Hawthorn. Could have been that X factor we lack up forward.
I get the feeling there is something we don't know about, because on the surface, it looks like he should have stayed on.
correct you are...

HBoth had to go. One was not good enough the other was better than alot but there is more to it than being a good player.

Otiman · Post: # 457647Post **Otiman** » Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:27am

Might want to change your sig. plugger66.

Have to say these two would be the first two on the chopping block for me.

Beyond that, it's hard to pick any delistings outside of Rookies, unless there are issues with attitude beyond my view.

battye · Post: # 457648Post **battye** » Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:27am

Doesn't Sweeney have attitude problems?

luckysaint · Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:28am

plugger66 wrote: HBoth had to go. One was not good enough the other was better than alot but there is more to it than being a good player.

mMany more to go? I think i remember you alluding to 6-7 players going including retirements, have the goal post changed of late?

plugger66 · Post: # 457653Post **plugger66** » Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:31am

luckysaint wrote:
plugger66 wrote: HBoth had to go. One was not good enough the other was better than alot but there is more to it than being a good player.
mMany more to go? I think i remember you alluding to 6-7 players going including retirements, have the goal post changed of late?

Not at all. Still Brooks, Voss and probably Ferg to go.

Unforgiven · Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:35am

I read somewhere the Voss was still pondering about retirement I think.

fonz_#15 · Post: # 457657Post **fonz_#15** » Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:35am

plugger66 wrote:
luckysaint wrote:
plugger66 wrote: HBoth had to go. One was not good enough the other was better than alot but there is more to it than being a good player.
mMany more to go? I think i remember you alluding to 6-7 players going including retirements, have the goal post changed of late?
Not at all. Still Brooks, Voss and probably Ferg to go.

agree plugger.. although i like ferg for some reason and would like him to stay

saintsRrising · Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:35am

plugger66 wrote:
The other was better than a lot but there is more to it than being a good player.

I spoke with an ex-saints Club Doc not long ago and he indicated that one of Bevo's blind points was that he did not look at a players character etc enough when making his recommendations.....which is a large reason why the Saints seem to have recruited a disproportionate number of players with "issues".

Otiman · Post: # 457659Post **Otiman** » Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:36am

I don't see the point of delisting more than 2 or 3, given our retirements this year already include Gehrig, Thompson, M. Clarke.

Essentially trading players who have had some time in the system, with an unknown 4th and 5th round draft pick, and/or more Rookies. I still firmly believe that Brooks has something to offer, more than Watts in any case.

IF we trade players to gather some extra 3rd or 4th round draft picks, then perhaps this might work to our advantage.

fonz_#15 · Post: # 457662Post **fonz_#15** » Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:38am

Brooks is a nugget, has done sweet FA and has been there a darn sight longer than sweeney. How in gods name do you justify that?

Unforgiven · Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:42am

fonz_#15 wrote:Brooks is a nugget, has done sweet FA and has been there a darn sight longer than sweeney. How in gods name do you justify that?

I agree totally, but for arguments sake. Brooks apparantly has the talent and potential and that buys him some time, as does being a tall(more time to develop), and the knee injury set him back, etc. I don't get it either, but not much we can do

bobmurray · Post: # 457668Post **bobmurray** » Mon 17 Sep 2007 1:01am

battye wrote:Doesn't Sweeney have attitude problems?

Not anymore....apparently..

skeptic · Post: # 457846Post **skeptic** » Mon 17 Sep 2007 1:05pm

Do u guys r'ber when TS40 got the axe, it was rumoured that the day b4 the deadline that 1 more Saint may cop it too...
we all thought that that mysterious Saint may have been Raph Clarke but the rumour mill has it that was Sweeney that may have gone due to his attitude.

He did make a bit of a late season surge to keep his spot but by then IMO it was pbly too late... when you're not an amazingly gifted player you have to work 100% 100% of the time to make it and he pbly didn't

fonz_#15 · Post: # 457847Post **fonz_#15** » Mon 17 Sep 2007 1:10pm

skeptic wrote:Do u guys r'ber when TS40 got the axe, it was rumoured that the day b4 the deadline that 1 more Saint may cop it too...
we all thought that that mysterious Saint may have been Raph Clarke but the rumour mill has it that was Sweeney that may have gone due to his attitude.

He did make a bit of a late season surge to keep his spot but by then IMO it was pbly too late... when you're not an amazingly gifted player you have to work 100% 100% of the time to make it and he pbly didn't

it could never have been him since he had only een on the list 1 year and draftees must play at least 2