Not Again!

Remove this Banner Ad

Martin's flavour of the month at the moment, and there's no doubting he's a good player. A great player in fact. One of my favourites outside MFC.

But what's wrong with Trengove? Somebody dig up his stats from his last start. Just because he doesn't get the fanfare Martin does, doesn't mean he ain't as good. He's going to be an absolute superstar in his own right.

Plus, we don't have to put up with awful neck tatts and mullet haircuts lol. ;-)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Martin would bring us to victory over a winless north melbourne, our first of the year.

Richmond are still struggling and we're a few years ahead of them with great young guns such as the gys, trenners and tapscott. None of this hindsight stuff.
 
Sylvia Saint said:
Martin's flavour of the month at the moment, and there's no doubting he's a good player. A great player in fact. One of my favourites outside MFC.

But what's wrong with Trengove? Somebody dig up his stats from his last start. Just because he doesn't get the fanfare Martin does, doesn't mean he ain't as good. He's going to be an absolute superstar in his own right.

Plus, we don't have to put up with awful neck tatts and mullet haircuts lol. ;-)
Click to expand...

Exactly. Trengove is every bit as good as Martin. Throw in Scully and you really can't seperate the 3 of them. They will all be guns of the comp. I'm very happy with our choices, and I'm sure the Tigers are happy with there's. So lets all be happy and move on....
 
Troll thread, but oh well.

To answer the question, no, we should not have taken Dustin Martin at pick 1 or 2. We clearly thought that Scully and Trengove would be better players. What else could we have done? If this decision turns out to be a good call or not, however, remains to be seen.

Just because we had the first and second picks in the draft does not mean that we will necessarily get the best and second best players. Including passed picks and rookie upgrades, there were 180 picks (main draft, pre-season draft and rookie draft). To get the best two players from this pool would be phenomenal, regardless of which picks you have.

Why stop here?

2000:
Why did we take Daniel Breese over Graham Johncock?
2001:
Why did we take Luke Molan over Dane Swan?
2002:
Why did we take "426" Smith over Nick Maxwell?
2003:
Why did we pass instead of taking Sam Fisher?
2004:
Why did we take Michael Newton over Matthew Egan?
2005:
Why did we take Heath Neville over Kieran Jack?
2006:
Why did we take Isaac Weetra over Jesse White?

There's always going to be players who are better than picks 1 and/or 2. I'm just happy we get to follow the careers of Scully and Trengove (and Martin at the Tiges)! :thumbsu:
 
well said Headless, love both trengove and scully (he is very much out of sight out of mind atm) but martin is a gun just what we need in our midfield. hindsight is wonderful.

i like the "why didnt we take jack darling thread?" better
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

cheney said:
People, i'm afriad to say it but......... Should we have chosen Dustin Martin at 2? Thoughts...
Click to expand...

How's it go again? Oh yeah:

Obvious troll is obvious.

I think that's the one...
 
'Not Again!' must refer to yet another what if? draft/trade thread... yawn.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Not Again!

Similar threads

Russian Demon
Unofficial Preview Round 9 vs Hawforn - He's NOT the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy!
Replies
21
Views
756
Crimson Azure
Crimson Azure

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top