-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The Potential Trading Of McMahon
- Thread starter Smoking Aces
- Start date
the claw said:
Stats are for losers huh? Funny that because I reckon that stat "goals" is a pretty critical one once the siren goes.
However on the subject of Mc Mahon, lets assume the Tigers still go into the draft with 8 picks (delists and possible trades of Raines and tuck), do you Claw genuinely beleive that you are going to get a player with good skills around the 50 mark in a weak draft?
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Mc mahon, just a realist who thinks that we have more chance of a new coach doing a Farren Ray on Mc mahon and making him a useful player, than we have of getting a player with his finishing skills at 50 in the draft.
TigerAZZ said:
Spot on. Some posters would have you seeing the game is made up of nothing but champions and duds. I reckon they grew up watching too many B grade westerns - where the good guys where white hats and the bad guys black ones.
Sanchez is one of my least favoruite players, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that a different club and atmosphere will be able to get some good football out of him in the right role. He has occasionally even played good games of football for us when not challenged on the defensive end.
I only don't like him for what he cost us, as a player I find him 'meh', but not hate-worthy.
I'd be happy when he's off our list though, he creates to much bad blood and memories.
I only don't like him for what he cost us, as a player I find him 'meh', but not hate-worthy.
I'd be happy when he's off our list though, he creates to much bad blood and memories.
Leysy Days said:
Amazingly true.
Any pick we can get under 60 is a good result, shoot I would pay %33 of his wage. Cannot understand how people could honestly expect more from Sanchez. He is no better or worse then he was at the Dogs. We just over rated his ability far too highly.
I wanted the Saints to win today but today was a small victory for the Tiges because it will increase the Saints desire to be active in the trade period.
And you never know, looking at Clarke's game today they might want Sanchez as a potential replacement, or at least put enough pressure on Calrke's spot he might start putting his body on the line.
And you never know, looking at Clarke's game today they might want Sanchez as a potential replacement, or at least put enough pressure on Calrke's spot he might start putting his body on the line.
TigerAZZ said:
Pulease.
How much time did McMuffin spend at Coburg this year?
Surely it's apparent to you that the player is an absolute spud!
Tigers of Old said:Pulease.
How much time did McMuffin spend at Coburg this year?
Surely it's apparent to you that the player is an absolute spud!
They were obviously trying to give him airtime to boost his trade potential. What other reason could their be for him not playing at Coburg. Certainly not form.
Col.W.Kurtz said:
Agree Col. I actually think I found a guy who is softer than McMuffin yesterday!
Hi Raph!
Why any club would want to trade for one of the softest, non-contact footballers ever to play AFL is beyond me. If St Kilda want him, they can have him.
It would be a miracle if McMahon could ever make a meaningful contribution at any club - he is useless.
It would be a miracle if McMahon could ever make a meaningful contribution at any club - he is useless.
the claw said:
The stats in this case clearly shows that McMahon is not a clanger king as suggested. For uncontested possession and disposal McMahon is quite good and on top of it, he has quite a high percentage of long kicks compared to other backmen who chip it around to pump up their value. The result of error in terms of cost to the team is a different thing and maybe McMahon's errors are more costly but per possession McMahon is well down the list of clangers. As mentioned the real issue with McMahon is his lack of harness, tackling, chasing etc.
I can see why Saints might be interested in McMahon but not sure that they'd give up more than a 3rd pick (or maybe a pick upgrade).
Tigers2011 said:
If McMahon was traded to the Saints he would contribute a lot IMO... to the RFC ;D
Interesting to read Lyon has said the Saints will go out and trade for talent and for all the dislike McMahon gets on here I have no doubt the Saints will look at him. Whether he gets us a pick inside the second round is debateable. Lets just hope that our people are working this trade very hard and are able to squeeze as much out of any deal as possible.
Tigers2011 said:
This is very nearly word-for-word what a friend of mine (Doggies faithful) said to me a couple of years ago while laughing a
That said, if the marketing team down at Tigerland can put together a highlight package, maybe dress him in one of those muscle suits and re-edit that attempted Franklin tackle to make him look more like Tarzan and less like Sanchez the pool cleaner....maybe we can pull off the bluff of the century.
Baloo said:
I don't think McMahon is soft so much as his body doesn't allow him to execute tackles, the mind is willing but the flesh is weak. As WT said, believe it or not, Raf is probably softer
davidrodan said:
Heh heh.
If we could get pick 33 out of them - that would be acceptable. Pick 49? May be worth it for some one like Daw.
Col.W.Kurtz said:
Come on Kernel, if Nahas can be the 2nd most effective tackler at the Tigers then McMahon can do it. Some players arent as good as others at certain skill aspects but it is clear that McMahon chooses not to put his body on the line. Not every player in a team is designated to put their body on the line though. But they should do the team thing when the occasion arises.
