Making a play for Simon Black?

The Linton Street Flash · Sat 23 Oct 2010 10:24pm

Only caught the tale end of it today on SEN but I think Hutchinson and Pickering were saying something about the saints going for black - is this true?

SaintSimmo · Sat 23 Oct 2010 10:33pm

Simon or Aaron???
That would be huge news if it is Simon and it is true.
I don't see why a 31 year old would want to change club after being a lion all his career.

saintbrat · Sat 23 Oct 2010 10:37pm

was along the lines of the Saints 'Should have' gone for Black and was in the conversation on the Lions and where they are at- and that a fresh start for the most decorated Lion would have been good and IF the saints could have fitted him them would have been a good fit

Stephen Theodore · Sun 24 Oct 2010 9:16pm

What a complete load of waffle.

Simon Black has signed for one year at Brisbane........

linz · Post: # 1018822Post **linz** » Sun 24 Oct 2010 9:44pm

It's that time of year where speculation is rife without truth. Everyone is footy starved.

gringo · Post: # 1018873Post **gringo** » Mon 25 Oct 2010 9:16am

I think all they are alluding to is that Simon Black is going to spend his last couple of years at a rebuilding club with limited motivation. Saints grab him he plays for a realistic chance at another flag. Goes down as a possible 4 times premiership player instead of a guy who retires at the bottom of the ladder.

St Ick · Post: # 1018947Post **St Ick** » Mon 25 Oct 2010 4:04pm

Very speccy, but definitely one I'd prefer to entertain compared to the usual Fisher, Cloke, Fevola, Miller nonsense on here... even for a 31 year old he is all class!

saintbrat · Post: # 1019047Post **saintbrat** » Mon 25 Oct 2010 9:51pm

would have preferred Black to this suggestion

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/l ... 5943427553

sainterinsydney · Mon 25 Oct 2010 10:38pm

Enough with broken down players from other clubs--even if they were once a brownlow medalist. I want our team to play the kids! Give Steven, Stanley, Smith, Armo, Walsh Lynch etc. a go.

Moccha · Post: # 1019109Post **Moccha** » Tue 26 Oct 2010 10:12am

We really need to get a guy like Johnstone!

Dirt cheap and he looks it too

Stephen Theodore · Tue 26 Oct 2010 11:28am

Front runner with no defensive ability.

Dont need him.

Moccha · Post: # 1019202Post **Moccha** » Tue 26 Oct 2010 3:47pm

Stephen Theodore wrote:Front runner with no defensive ability.

Dont need him.

need him big time

Sainternist · Tue 26 Oct 2010 3:49pm

Moccha wrote:We really need to get a guy like Johnstone!

Dirt cheap and he looks it too

Moccha, I'm curious to know why you think Johnstone would fit into RL's game plan?

Moccha · Post: # 1019208Post **Moccha** » Tue 26 Oct 2010 3:53pm

Sainternist wrote:
Moccha wrote:We really need to get a guy like Johnstone!

Dirt cheap and he looks it too
Moccha, I'm curious to know why you think Johnstone would fit into RL's game plan?

I don't but I just like stirring the ignorant ones. We should stay away from all recycled players unless they can give us 10 years of service

Sainternist · Tue 26 Oct 2010 3:58pm

Moccha wrote:We should stay away from all recycled players unless they can give us 10 years of service

Definitely with you there.

plugger66 · Post: # 1019221Post **plugger66** » Tue 26 Oct 2010 4:18pm

Moccha wrote:
Sainternist wrote:
Moccha wrote:We really need to get a guy like Johnstone!

Dirt cheap and he looks it too
Moccha, I'm curious to know why you think Johnstone would fit into RL's game plan?
I don't but I just like stirring the ignorant ones. We should stay away from all recycled players unless they can give us 10 years of service

So we shouldnt have got MG and also I wish they hadnt but under that criteriia the pies wouldnt have got Ball or Jolly either.

Sainternist · Tue 26 Oct 2010 4:25pm

plugger66 wrote:
Moccha wrote:
Sainternist wrote:
Moccha wrote:We really need to get a guy like Johnstone!

Dirt cheap and he looks it too
Moccha, I'm curious to know why you think Johnstone would fit into RL's game plan?
I don't but I just like stirring the ignorant ones. We should stay away from all recycled players unless they can give us 10 years of service
So we shouldnt have got MG and also I wish they hadnt but under that criteriia the pies wouldnt have got Ball or Jolly either.

Obviously, there are going to exceptions to criteria. MG was going cheap, so we virtually had nothing to lose. Also, it has been documented that the Filth had an eye on Luke's bollock for some time. Not many teams are going to pass on premiership ruckman like Jolly.

I think Moccha is pretty saying "no hacks, please". Johnstone is definitely in that category.

plugger66 · Post: # 1019227Post **plugger66** » Tue 26 Oct 2010 4:29pm

Sainternist wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Moccha wrote:
Sainternist wrote:
Moccha wrote:We really need to get a guy like Johnstone!

Dirt cheap and he looks it too
Moccha, I'm curious to know why you think Johnstone would fit into RL's game plan?
I don't but I just like stirring the ignorant ones. We should stay away from all recycled players unless they can give us 10 years of service
So we shouldnt have got MG and also I wish they hadnt but under that criteriia the pies wouldnt have got Ball or Jolly either.
Obviously, there are going to exceptions to criteria. MG was going cheap, so we virtually had nothing to lose. Also, it has been documented that the Filth had an eye on Luke's bollock for some time. Not many teams are going to pass on premiership ruckman like Jolly.

I think Moccha is pretty saying "no hacks, please". Johnstone is definitely in that category.

Well why get Peake then? I reckon Peake makes Johnstone look like BJ in the way they use the ball.

Moccha · Post: # 1019228Post **Moccha** » Tue 26 Oct 2010 4:31pm

plugger66 wrote:
Sainternist wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Moccha wrote:
Sainternist wrote:
Moccha wrote:We really need to get a guy like Johnstone!

Dirt cheap and he looks it too
Moccha, I'm curious to know why you think Johnstone would fit into RL's game plan?
I don't but I just like stirring the ignorant ones. We should stay away from all recycled players unless they can give us 10 years of service
So we shouldnt have got MG and also I wish they hadnt but under that criteriia the pies wouldnt have got Ball or Jolly either.
Obviously, there are going to exceptions to criteria. MG was going cheap, so we virtually had nothing to lose. Also, it has been documented that the Filth had an eye on Luke's bollock for some time. Not many teams are going to pass on premiership ruckman like Jolly.

I think Moccha is pretty saying "no hacks, please". Johnstone is definitely in that category.
Well why get Peake then? I reckon Peake makes Johnstone look like BJ in the way they use the ball.

Cmon give or take. Maybe if they they're bloody good players then of course you'd take them for 3 yrs but let's leave the hacks alone

plugger66 · Post: # 1019229Post **plugger66** » Tue 26 Oct 2010 4:33pm

Moccha wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Sainternist wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Moccha wrote:
Sainternist wrote:
Moccha wrote:We really need to get a guy like Johnstone!

Dirt cheap and he looks it too
Moccha, I'm curious to know why you think Johnstone would fit into RL's game plan?
I don't but I just like stirring the ignorant ones. We should stay away from all recycled players unless they can give us 10 years of service
So we shouldnt have got MG and also I wish they hadnt but under that criteriia the pies wouldnt have got Ball or Jolly either.
Obviously, there are going to exceptions to criteria. MG was going cheap, so we virtually had nothing to lose. Also, it has been documented that the Filth had an eye on Luke's bollock for some time. Not many teams are going to pass on premiership ruckman like Jolly.

I think Moccha is pretty saying "no hacks, please". Johnstone is definitely in that category.
Well why get Peake then? I reckon Peake makes Johnstone look like BJ in the way they use the ball.
Cmon give or take. Maybe if they they're bloody good players then of course you'd take them for 3 yrs but let's leave the hacks alone

That is my point with Peake. I agree with you but he really just about comes under the hacks criteia especially if Johnstone does.

SainterK · Post: # 1019231Post **SainterK** » Tue 26 Oct 2010 4:37pm

At least Peake has three years on the right side of 30, Johnstone will be 31 in 2011.

plugger66 · Post: # 1019235Post **plugger66** » Tue 26 Oct 2010 4:48pm

SainterK wrote:At least Peake has three years on the right side of 30, Johnstone will be 31 in 2011.

Doesnt change his ability though.

SainterK · Post: # 1019236Post **SainterK** » Tue 26 Oct 2010 4:53pm

plugger66 wrote:
SainterK wrote:At least Peake has three years on the right side of 30, Johnstone will be 31 in 2011.
Doesnt change his ability though.

Well to be fair, Peake was some insurance that Ross took out for Lovett...

Doesn't alter the fact that if we didn't take Cousins, I can't see why we'd take Johnstone given his age.

plugger66 · Post: # 1019237Post **plugger66** » Tue 26 Oct 2010 4:57pm

SainterK wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
SainterK wrote:At least Peake has three years on the right side of 30, Johnstone will be 31 in 2011.
Doesnt change his ability though.
Well to be fair, Peake was some insurance that Ross took out for Lovett...

Doesn't alter the fact that if we didn't take Cousins, I can't see why we'd take Johnstone given his age.

What do you mean Peake was insurance for Lovett. i doubt that. I would think he was hoping both would play unless we are now into wasting picks for the sake of it. Anyway i think we should get anyone whatever there age if they can help next year win a flag as we only have 2-3 years left. Doubt Johnstone will help but I couldnt give a stuff about age.

stinger · Post: # 1019240Post **stinger** » Tue 26 Oct 2010 5:16pm

plugger66 wrote:I couldnt give a stuff about age.

why so hung up on mine then albert????