Injury Vardy lower leg injury 24/7/16

[Strangled Cat]

Simpson 2.0

Sean was a decent footballer!

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Cut him and run. Far too injury-prone, has shown very little to suggest his supposed potential will be realised at AFL level, and he apparently isn't happy at the club. Let him go to another club, if they really want a player who can't seem to string five games together at any level and who starts crying because the club wants him to find form in the VFL after seven years of persisting with him despite no return. Good luck to him.

When would we 'need' a player who has shown so little though? Even if he wasn't injured Kersten and Clark are both in front of him. As for years of development, he's had seven so far for very little return.

I see nothing wrong with having an injury prone player like Vardy as the 44th player on our list .

The way Geelong has used injury prone players to fill the bottom spaces on the list has been nothing short of pure genius .The club realises that there is just not enough talent going around for any club to have more than 35 AFL standard players on their list and that's at best .

The club has done the right thing by giving these bottom spots on our list to injury prone players who's body can still be fixed rather than too duds who will never have a hope of playing AFL to a competent level .

 

[Strangled Cat]

I see nothing wrong with having an injury prone player like Vardy as the 44th player on our list .

The way Geelong has used injury prone players to fill the bottom spaces on the list has been nothing short of pure genius .The club realises that there is just not enough talent going around for any club to have more than 35 AFL standard players on their list and that's at best .

The club has done the right thing by giving these bottom spots on our list to injury prone players who's body can still be fixed rather than too duds who will never have a hope of playing AFL to a competent level .

I tend to agree. If we can hang on to him and if he doesn't cost too much, there's really very little to lose. I really can't see another club going for him anyway given his horrid run with injuries.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I see nothing wrong with having an injury prone player like Vardy as the 44th player on our list .

The way Geelong has used injury prone players to fill the bottom spaces on the list has been nothing short of pure genius .The club realises that there is just not enough talent going around for any club to have more than 35 AFL standard players on their list and that's at best .

The club has done the right thing by giving these bottom spots on our list to injury prone players who's body can still be fixed rather than too duds who will never have a hope of playing AFL to a competent level .

Yeah I agree. No harm in keeping him. Most of our picks are late anyway and we kinda need him for depth.
At the end of the year Clark will be gone, Buzza is so far off its not funny, Lucey needs another year of VFL and who knows what's happened to Read.
Now with FA, persisting with players like this makes us look like an extremely attractive club. We certainly stick by our players.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I would keep both clark and vardy on cheap 1 year deals,good kpf are next to impossible to get with our late picks and we need backup for hawk in a premiership window.

But like walker last year if vardy wants to go we cant do much about it.

 

[CatRiot]

I would keep both clark and vardy on cheap 1 year deals,good kpf are next to impossible to get with our late picks and we need backup for hawk in a premiership window.

But like walker last year if vardy wants to go we cant do much about it.

I think one can be traded if the right deal came up. Have to remember Buzza will be a year older, House is a possible rookie chance, and well, Henderson, Blicavs, Taylor, Stanley can all drop forward.

One should be traded for the right deal, but what is the right deal? Pick upgrades, a top midfielder or top defender in the right age group 21-25?

 

[Larry Donohue]

I would keep both clark and vardy on cheap 1 year deals,good kpf are next to impossible to get with our late picks and we need backup for hawk in a premiership window.

But like walker last year if vardy wants to go we cant do much about it.

I don't think Vards will stay. A team like Richmond would be far better off with him than Vickery or Griffiths. An exchange of 2nd or even 3rd round picks would go well with such a deal. He could still be a useful AFL player for the right club. If not traded gfc should absolutely keep him. I feel though he needs a break where he can get gametime elsewhere. Clark on the other hand is capable of being a game winner. Needs to be retained and in fact needs gametime this year to see if he is ready to make a contribution to our premiership chase.

 

[Partridge]

I don't think Vards will stay. A team like Richmond would be far better off with him than Vickery or Griffiths. An exchange of 2nd or even 3rd round picks would go well with such a deal. He could still be a useful AFL player for the right club. If not traded gfc should absolutely keep him. I feel though he needs a break where he can get gametime elsewhere. Clark on the other hand is capable of being a game winner. Needs to be retained and in fact needs gametime this year to see if he is ready to make a contribution to our premiership chase.

But would they though? They're all pretty similar, except the Richmond duo are far more durable. Griffiths has played twice as many games and is a full year younger, while Vickery, who is a year older, has played 91 games more.

 

[Larry Donohue]

But would they though? They're all pretty similar, except the Richmond duo are far more durable. Griffiths has played twice as many games and is a full year younger, while Vickery, who is a year older, has played 91 games more.

I think they would. They may be durable but I believe Vickery is on the outer and may have some value for them at the trade table. Vardy could offer better support to Jack with his athleticism (which Vickery doesnt have). Griffiths more likely to be kept as he gets around the park more andhits up in the ruck.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Unless we can find a mature body somewhere which I doubt we will. Keep.
Can't lose he and Clark at once. We need at least one for depth

 

[Hinkley29]

Unless we can find a mature body somewhere which I doubt we will. Keep.
Can't lose he and Clark at once. We need at least one for depth

But what depth do they actually provide? If they aren't up to it, they aren't up to it.

And I don't think either are up to it.

IMO - Clark is only break glass in case of emergency insurance for a Hawkins injury (heaven forbid) and Vardy is the same if both Stanley and Smith fall over (heaven forbid).

Basically what I am saying is if either of them are playing significant roles in our finals side then we are screwed.

 

[Partridge]

But what depth do they actually provide? If they aren't up to it, they aren't up to it.

And I don't think either are up to it.

IMO - Clark is only break glass in case of emergency insurance for a Hawkins injury (heaven forbid) and Vardy is the same if both Stanley and Smith fall over (heaven forbid).

Basically what I am saying is if either of them are playing significant roles in our finals side then we are screwed.

I'd say Clark at full fitness is up to it. Whether we see that again is another matter.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

But what depth do they actually provide? If they aren't up to it, they aren't up to it.

And I don't think either are up to it.

IMO - Clark is only break glass in case of emergency insurance for a Hawkins injury (heaven forbid) and Vardy is the same if both Stanley and Smith fall over (heaven forbid).

Basically what I am saying is if either of them are playing significant roles in our finals side then we are screwed.

All I'm saying is we can't lose both at once. Then we're relying on Buzza, Read and Lucey for depth which they may be able to provide one day but all are a bit raw atm.

 

[Hinkley29]

I'd say Clark at full fitness is up to it. Whether we see that again is another matter.

Maybe.

Clark circa 2011 at full fitness was up to it.
I am doubtful that Clark circa 2016 at full fitness is.

 

[catswhiskers]

Maybe.

Clark circa 2011 at full fitness was up to it.
I am doubtful that Clark circa 2016 at full fitness is.

Clark at full fitness and fully focused is definitely up to it. His work prior to being selected to play his one game this year was well above VFL standard.
Even though a little "off" colour last Sunday he contributed well. 19 possessions and 3 goals including two huge roosts (without wind assistance I must add) for 6 points. Talent lives right there - the stars need to align tho.

 

[Hinkley29]

Clark at full fitness and fully focused is definitely up to it. His work prior to being selected to play his one game this year was well above VFL standard.
Even though a little "off" colour last Sunday he contributed well. 19 possessions and 3 goals including two huge roosts (without wind assistance I must add) for 6 points. Talent lives right there - the stars need to align tho.

I hope you are correct and my pessimism is misguided.

 

[catempire]

But would they though? They're all pretty similar, except the Richmond duo are far more durable. Griffiths has played twice as many games and is a full year younger, while Vickery, who is a year older, has played 91 games more.

I'll give you Vickery but an inanimate carbon rod would be of more use than Griffiths. Saw him live on Sunday and he is spudtacular.

 

[Partridge]

I'll give you Vickery but an inanimate carbon rod would be of more use than Griffiths. Saw him live on Sunday and he is spudtacular.

Anyone who can kick 5 against Sydney has some degree of talent. Imagine the reaction on here if Vardy did that.

Regardless he's unlikely to be going anywhere.

 

[GFrost]

Do we know the severity yet?

 

[catempire]

Anyone who can kick 5 against Sydney has some degree of talent. Imagine the reaction on here if Vardy did that.

Regardless he's unlikely to be going anywhere.

If we are just talking talent then Vardy > Griffiths.

 

[Partridge]

If we are just talking talent then Vardy > Griffiths.

For me, it would be three attributes. Talent, durability, and output.

But Vardy is apparently a super talent.

 

[Daniel McL]

Do we know the severity yet?

If it was minor we probably would have known by now... They don't appear to be in a rush to tell us so if I had to guess I'd say 5+ weeks out for Vards unfortunately :/

 

[catempire]

For me, it would be three attributes. Talent, durability, and output.

But Vardy is apparently a super talent.

Output being the most important and a function of the first two (among other variables). So Vardy, despite talent, is low output. Griffiths, despite durability (at least relative to Vardy), is low output. Neither is preferable.

 

[JD Tomahawk]

try offer him up for trade even if we get bugger all. He needs a fresh start. Also sick of not having him in the ones with the potential he has.

 

[Whit3y]

the vardy myth is becoming scott gumbleton like with his so called talent/potential

and im tony sure essendon fans know what happened with him