#12 Mark Baguley


#1482

Yep, fits right into the oft talked about “5 year premiership window” demographic


#1483

Well if you have him in your best 22 I must have imagined all this from LY


#1484

:joy::joy::joy:


#1485

I have defended Bags, but not out of sympathy or loyalty, but because that’s the way I see it. He is not as appreciably slower as so many are saying, in my opinion, and he has skills that are more important to the team than McNiece’s current, developing, set. That said, I’ll repeat that I am a big fan of McNiece and certainly see him in the Bags role in the future, however he may achieve that spot.
I think a lot of people, including myself, are guilty of sometimes disregarding a opposing opinion as stemming from a misguided thought process, when in fact - it’s just a different opinion and view.


#1486

You’re shooting fish in a barrel here, man.


#1487

Is it, though?

We play 1 or 2 tight small backs each week.

We currently have Bags and McNeice; Dea, and of course mcGrath. Plus about 5? half backs who we could turn to in a pinch.

I’m not sure there’s really a strong case to dedicate more list spots to the role.
We need to look at who the next Bags is, because he’s going soonish, but that’s not necessarilyby drafting. We may be better off developing a Redman or someone else as a defensive player.


#1488

Guelfi, possibly.


#1489

I did say development wise, not drafting :).

Redman seems to be being developed as a half back rather than a lockdown small but there’s definitely a spot there in the next few years if he goes that way. Dea is basically the same age as McNiece (few months older) and McGrath is going to be a midfielder not a long term backman.


#1490

All true - but they’re all options we could turn to if bags broke down this year. And if he seriously did break down, yeah, draft another one. I just don’t think we need cover for the cover, not on the main list.


#1491

Look I don’t mind differing opinions on players eg DP on his 10 year slagging off of Stanton, but at least DP was consistent in his posting (ie wait for a bad game by Stants then slag him off, stay quiet for the next 5 weeks when Stants was in our best players), but BK has done a Barnaby IMO.

Slag him off all last season, then put him in his best 22 this year?? He doesn’t have conviction in his beliefs - if Bags needed the tap on the shoulder & was totally cooked LY, WTF put him in his best 22?


#1492

BK’s alright, just loves a good old knee jerk reaction, just slightly dressed up.

His mood swings in the NBA thread (following Lakers who are rebuilding with kids and, surprisingly, inconsistent) are very enjoyable!


#1493

I’ll worry when he puts Hartley in his 22.


#1494

I’m concerned. He has had so many goals kicked on him over the last few years, and his form chart is in free fall. The mind is as willing as ever, but he physically can’t go with quality forwards any more.

I suspect we’ll be playing McGrath back out of necessity a fair bit. We need to find another player or two to fill his position as the cupboard is almost bare.


#1495

I’m not saying I don’t agree with you, I’m just saying that Bags is not what you’d call a ‘Pre-season Specialist.’


#1496

He hasn’t been a regular season specialists either for about three years.


#1497

His best footy is behind him, no doubt.

He had some very good games last year, but he didn’t have a good season overall.

Still best 22 until proven absolutely otherwise imo.

And don’t pretend this isn’t all just part of your pro-McNeice agenda.


#1498

Before we go all career over blah blah.

Do I think / hope he is overtaken this year - yes

Was that possibly the worst game he has ever played -'yes

Do you think he’s losing sleep about it - No; so neither should We.


#1499

He built through last year. Was real good in the last third of the year. (Stank it up at the start)


#1500

Surely you have a look at mcneice.


#1501

He inexplicably decided to take on Butler in the 1st qtr with no more than a metre of space.
I hope he doesnt make a habit of that…very poor judgment indeed.