
giantroo
Bleeding Blue and White








Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Yep get darling to work with larkey then we’ve also got ccj , pink and maleyWant? I don't think so. The club is run by garden gnomes with a pathological fear of tall people. We will go to any lengths to avoid drafting talls. It's been easy till now, we have been selling this 'best available' schtick for years, but this year we finally couldn't avoid it. We had a second-round pick sitting right in the middle of a pile of talls. We didn't panic though, we traded it for a midget, and the crisis was averted.
Some of them are actually doing that, not that I completely disagree with you. I still think our issue has been more skill execution related than fitness. The fitness part is always going to be a debate when you're playing young/elder players, which we're right in the middle of. But, I still think with less turnovers and less having to clean up previous f-ups we'll look a lot fitter. I guess it's an attitudinal thing because I'm a bit the same way, I'd be training my arse off, but everyone does things differently. We'll find out soon enough.I find it interesting seeing these fringe players in their off season travel snaps.
I get you need time away from footy. I get you’re young and want to travel.
But this is literally your last preseason to make an impact. Surely you just forgo one boys trip overseas and spend that time in the gym with the hope you can make something of yourself.
Seems bizarre to me.
Not just tall's, elite tall's that have the potential to be game breakers.I think the club wants to draft talls.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
It wouldn't surpise me that the AFL will tell both clubs to keep it under wraps until trade night and use the shot clock as bit of theatre to boost ratings etc.A lot of posters suggesting any trade for pick 2 won't happen until the night, I find this unlikely. Live trades like this are rare. I'm not sure why this year would be so different unless people think teams would trade up for FOS but not Lalor (or the other way around).
Quite right on the developing part as l think this is where we've been lacking in the last ten years....to turn some of these 3rd rounders and mid-season draftees into at least solid role players to maybe a star.We don't need a top 10 pick at every position. Developing players into roles is a key aspect of building a great side.
We have Curtis, RHJ, Konstanty, Payne and Harvey who play small forward roles.
We have Comben, Dawson and Maley who are developing into KPP roles. We'd like another one but not to the point that we need to make bad trades.
I'd draft a KPP at pick 2 before I would make a bad trade.
How about we take Armstrong or Tauru at 2 and develop them into a fantastic forward and one of the best players in the comp over the next five seasons?How about pick 6 for our 2 and we swap F1s. Would make for a very interesting 2025 season! Who would say no first?
Want? I don't think so. The club is run by garden gnomes with a pathological fear of tall people. We will go to any lengths to avoid drafting talls. It's been easy till now, we have been selling this 'best available' schtick for years, but this year we finally couldn't avoid it. We had a second-round pick sitting right in the middle of a pile of talls. We didn't panic though, we traded it for a midget, and the crisis was averted.
Im all in Langford. Swap future first and try to get Tauru
Why Langford over guys like Armstrong?Im all in Langford. Swap future first and try to get Tauru
So picking either at 2 instead of 6 and having another first rounder in 18 is a good idea?How about we take Armstrong or Tauru at 2 and develop them into a fantastic forward and one of the best players in the comp over the next five seasons?
If that's our plan and someone wants us to change it then they need to convince us to change it by offering overs.
Put down the crack pipe, mate.Hello, if GWS Made an offer for your 2025r1, what would it take?
Something like F1,62 for 16,37,2025r2?
I doubt either club goes for it. Just wondering though.
I thought you where offering your F1 for pick 13.
Can they be described as major or minor faults? Feeds in to our remedies. Don't want to end up with a Cumberland as a replacement for the CCJ when we just want our money back.We could argue that CCJ is Not Fit for Purpose under Australian Consumer Law![]()
Why Langford over guys like Armstrong?
Can see us asking for 6 and 11 for 2 but ending up with 6 and 18. Which ends up 200 odd points more for Richmond. In all honesty don't think it's that bad considering the even top crop and the fact we don't necessarily need any of them and are more interested in Tarau. The risk obvs being of Melbourne take tarau or if they go for shanahan/ Armstrong.
6 and 18 we'd end up with one of tarau/ shanahan and possibly Whitlock or another tall around then. Maybe even trainor. Not that bad
these scenarios are endless, and everyone has a take on what to do, and fair enough.6 and 18 might be an even trade under the current points system but with the new points system coming into effect next season (Because the current one has been identified as being flawed), 6 and 11 would be a fair trade on points.
Points have nothing to do with it. If we're taking a forward and the best deal we can get is 6 and 18 then of course we'll take it. Armstrong or the Viking will be there at 6 and we get another crack at 18, which could turn out to be a very good player. We get no value out of picking either at 2.6 and 18 might be an even trade under the current points system but with the new points system coming into effect next season (Because the current one has been identified as being flawed), 6 and 11 would be a fair trade on points.
I think it just comes down to what gives us the best competitive advantage.Points have nothing to do with it. If we're taking a forward and the best deal we can get is 6 and 18 then of course we'll take it. Armstrong or the Viking will be there at 6 and we get another crack at 18, which could turn out to be a very good player. We get no value out of picking either at 2.
Straight swap for a Cumberland tractor?Can they be described as major or minor faults? Feeds in to our remedies. Don't want to end up with a Cumberland as a replacement for the CCJ when we just want our money back.
Dunno. I'll decide later. Not interested right now.So picking either at 2 instead of 6 and having another first rounder in 18 is a good idea?
Yeah, I’m coming around to just picking Langford or Smith.I’m all in for keeping 2
Not as much as elsewhere. I will be fine keeping pick 2 but we've stacked the midfield and we're waiting for it to all mesh together, though I think Patch's coaching leaves a **** ton to be desired. Again, there's that theme coming through of only exceptional players breaking through at North because our training standards and line coaches are shit. Nevertheless, LDU, Sheezel, Wardlaw, Simpkin/Parker, and the odd-pinch hit from a big-bodied medium forward should be ok. Then there's Powell, who'll probably make the best 23. Smart player whose attributes don't complement each other at all.Assuming parker plays alot of time around the forward flank there is still a spot for genuine class in that midfield.