Mr PeeBomber…
I would like to inform you that Laverde did not play against the dogs. As such he couldn’t have turned it over and he certainly wasn’t the reason we lost.
I think you don’t know how Laverde looks like and most certainly confusing him for another player.
I believe he could have “not played on and kicked the set shot!”
Apologies @theDJR for the pedanticalness (and yes it is a word, according to dictionary.com), but…
“…THESE ARE just facts”
Plural. One of my pet foibles.
Edit: I could’ve phrased that better (thus catering to the needs of those who are prone to the “could of” faux pas by preserving the phonetic appeal, while also satisfying the strict apostrophic requirements of AN10)
Looks like a fair assessment to me
Their would be people who would have there own opinion on this matter.
It’s the fans.
Nowt?
A Scot nothin’
Surely no one thinks he would be delisted yeah? Like if he cant be traded?
You’d have to persist with Laverde. He looks like he has lost some agililty which isn’t surprising given his ankle and hmastring injuries. He is playing a bullocking role and is good contested mark but, if we can get his agility and confidence in his body back, he has a lot more potential than he is currently getting credit for.
You’re an idiot
I never saw it with this kid, and couldn’t understand why we kept persisting.
Then I went to the magoos game against Port Melbourne.
He literally tore the game apart.
33 touches playing both mid and half forward in the three quarters of the game he played after racing back from the G where he’d been held over as an emergency. 5 minute warm up on the boundary and then straight into it with about 5 minutes left in the first.
He showed, speed, aggression, a spring that I’d never seen before, lovely skills, and the confidence to back himself in.
I understand he would have currency as a sweetener in a trade scenario, but apart from that I’d be seriously loath to lose him.
I was wrong. There is a serious player in there if we can get his body right.
Certainly not on the physical side of things, if anything he was a little over developed in that area. The club would have provided specific goals for young Neagle and dietary advice, but it is up to the individual player to work hard enough to meet those goals and heed the advice. Clearly he didn’t. Call it the Cupido effect, but on a much smaller scale, as Jay didn’t have as much natural talent.
As for the grammar issue? When l meet a grammar Nazi in distress l try to comfort them by saying “there, their, they’re,” but not always.
And what a serious bonus it would be as another big bodied mid.
Really hope he can show something similar tonight!
I don’t think so, no.
Ahhhh… finally Boot… 
Hopefully, it’s justified.
If we lose him it’ll be for absolute peanuts, I for one hope we/he decides to stay because I reckon there is a very handy player there with LAV
I always rated him higher than Langford because you can’t teach aggression,which he has in spades. Injuries aside I can only imagine what we’d have if he’d had the same run as Langford.
Will be a good addition to the team if he can get going.
I’d be loathe to lose him too. I think he’ll get his body right, and with that confidence, which i think is one of his issues. He doesn’t feel as if he belongs yet, which is fair enough. I think there’s a dynamic player in there though.
Part of the issue I think is that he’s a prime-mover in the seconds and plays with dash and aggression. He gets lost in the firsts because he gets played as a defensive forward and given limited scope to play as he does in the seconds; and because he’s the kid and doesn’t have the same self-belief.
I reckon he would benefit from an extended run like Langford did, and being set more challenging tasks.
Some tempting offers coming through for Jayden I hear.
Things are in the balance.
The unfortunate reality is that you need to over-pay to dislodge a player from a team, and when that player is not getting that much, it’s a relatively easy thing to do. A gamble, though.
We’ll see.