were we too quick to get rid of goose?

lendog heaven · Tue 16 Mar 2010 10:33pm

we rookied zac last year as back up to an injured goose and an injury prone max-they're both now gone and with sam going down it's obvious we've got no depth up back - goose looks to be travelling ok up north - maybe we didn't think it thru this year? just a thought.....

Spinner · Post: # 893194Post **Spinner** » Tue 16 Mar 2010 10:33pm

Maybe.

degruch · Post: # 893197Post **degruch** » Tue 16 Mar 2010 10:37pm

Confusion...can someone clear this up. There's been a lot of tubthumping about the club 'getting rid of' Goose, but I was under the impression he was offered a contratc, turned it down and elected to move on. All of which is fair and above board for all parties. Is this correct?

saintbrat · Post: # 893199Post **saintbrat** » Tue 16 Mar 2010 10:39pm

In my naive opinion-
Much as I was saddened to see Matty Go and would have loved to see him stay- his ' clubman ship" was great.

he had not starred at Sandy- rarely got into BOG and despite playing most of the year he barely scored more votes in their B&F than bally who played 3 games.

he had a few good games and a couple of rippers at Full forward-
But for every game he played and kicked one of his long bombs
he would have another where he would be cross with himself because he would virtually miss compeltely or kicks would go astray- or little distance.

so sad to see the injury cruel his career.

Bernard Shakey · Tue 16 Mar 2010 10:41pm

No we were not to quick to get rid of Goose and no we didn't offer him a contract.

Goose decided his best interests were served by finding a new place to play football. Personally I think he will enjoy playing footy in the QAFL.

degruch · Post: # 893202Post **degruch** » Tue 16 Mar 2010 10:44pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:No we were not to quick to get rid of Goose and no we didn't offer him a contract.

Goose decided his best interests were served by finding a new place to play football. Personally I think he will enjoy playing footy in the QAFL.

Fair enough, and fair enough. Personally, I can't weep too many tears over a guy who was good in 2005, but now plays reserves. I liked Goose though, who didn't? Good luck to him elsewhere, but with our backline, he didn't seem to have a spot.

Dr Spaceman · Tue 16 Mar 2010 11:09pm

degruch wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:No we were not to quick to get rid of Goose and no we didn't offer him a contract.

Goose decided his best interests were served by finding a new place to play football. Personally I think he will enjoy playing footy in the QAFL.
Fair enough, and fair enough. Personally, I can't weep too many tears over a guy who was good in 2005, but now plays reserves. I liked Goose though, who didn't? Good luck to him elsewhere, but with our backline, he didn't seem to have a spot.

Agree totally.

Love the bloke and wish him nothing but the best. But if he was to have a future at a club which came very close to a Premiership then he really needed to be tearing it up at Sandy, regardless of whether there was a spot for him in the 2009 Saints side.

One Eyed Saint · Tue 16 Mar 2010 11:12pm

No, but it highlights the faith RL has in Zac

Let's hope Zac stays fit and finds some form (very quickly)....

degruch · Post: # 893224Post **degruch** » Tue 16 Mar 2010 11:16pm

One Eyed Saint wrote:No, but it highlights the faith RL has in Zac

Let's hope Zac stays fit and finds some form (very quickly)....

I can remember Max having a few shockers in his time (especially early on) too. How many games has Zac Dawson played? If he'd never played a game for Hawthorn, he would have taken out the Rising Star last year.

Moods · Post: # 893226Post **Moods** » Tue 16 Mar 2010 11:25pm

Doesn't matter how poorly Zac plays, goose was never going to replace him. Good decision by the club, and I like everyone else was sad to see his demise. He is not or was not the answer to our depth problems. Wish him well in Brisbane but I will be VERY surprised if he plays more than 6 games there this year.

SainterK · Post: # 893229Post **SainterK** » Tue 16 Mar 2010 11:32pm

It would of been good for Goose and for us, if he hadn't been injured and played his 100th last year. It seems it the unknown factor that troubles some, that there was no recent indication on his form at a senior level.

That being said, so many posters whose opinion I respect on here, have painted a pretty clear picture of his form in the VFL last year and his limitations.

Hope he finds he fits into some kind of role at Brisbane.

barks4eva · Post: # 893242Post **barks4eva** » Wed 17 Mar 2010 12:27am

saintbrat wrote:In my niave opinion-
Much as I was saddened to see Matty Go and would have loved to see him stay- his ' clubman ship" was great.

he had not starred at Sandy- rarely got into BOG and despite playing most of the year he barely scored more votes in their B&F than bally who played 3 games.

he had a few good games and a couple of rippers at Full forward-
But for every game he played and kicked one of his long bombs
he would have another where he would be cross with himself because he would virtually miss compeltely or kicks would go astray- or little distance.

so sad to see the injury cruel his career.

Summed up perfectly, what you call a naive opinion, just happens to be a very perspicacious one IMHO!

Con Gorozidis · Wed 17 Mar 2010 3:20am

well the question here is:

CAN WILL JOHNSON PLAY???

cos will johnson was the one that took gooses spot as back up tall defender.

and if will johnson is worse than goose then we erred. If will johnson is better than goose we are in front.

barks4eva · Post: # 893251Post **barks4eva** » Wed 17 Mar 2010 3:26am

Con Gorozidis wrote:well the question here is:

CAN WILL JOHNSON PLAY???

cos will johnson was the one that took gooses spot as back up tall defender.

and if will johnson is worse than goose then we erred. If will johnson is better than goose we are in front.

I've got a feeling Willy Johnson goes in hard and the more hardness the better because he will certainly be coming up against stiff opposition!

plugger66 · Post: # 893256Post **plugger66** » Wed 17 Mar 2010 7:01am

Con Gorozidis wrote:well the question here is:

CAN WILL JOHNSON PLAY???

cos will johnson was the one that took gooses spot as back up tall defender.

and if will johnson is worse than goose then we erred. If will johnson is better than goose we are in front.

Is he worse than a guy who didnt play a senior game last year. i doubt it. Is he better. Who knows but he is about 6 years younger and has no ongoing injuries. Worth the gamble.

borderbarry · Wed 17 Mar 2010 10:16am

Still disappointed Goose didnt get his 100th game last season. Who knows, he might end up having 5 sons, all stars.

saintlee · Post: # 893368Post **saintlee** » Wed 17 Mar 2010 12:50pm

Goose was great in '04-'05.....he will never be the same IMO

He may go alright up in Qld...but I think he is too slow and cumbersome to be effective these days.

stinger · Post: # 893371Post **stinger** » Wed 17 Mar 2010 12:54pm

lendog heaven wrote:we rookied zac last year as back up to an injured goose and an injury prone max-they're both now gone and with sam going down it's obvious we've got no depth up back - goose looks to be travelling ok up north - maybe we didn't think it thru this year? just a thought.....

yep...we did...imhfo....

Dr Spaceman · Wed 17 Mar 2010 1:57pm

stinger wrote:
lendog heaven wrote:we rookied zac last year as back up to an injured goose and an injury prone max-they're both now gone and with sam going down it's obvious we've got no depth up back - goose looks to be travelling ok up north - maybe we didn't think it thru this year? just a thought.....
yep...we did...imhfo....

A couple of weeks back we had defenders coming out of our behinds. As well as last year's blokes we had others who could either fill the key back possies or at least release others to do so. Names like Geary, Dempster & Johnson plus rookies like Gaertner etc etc. Now one bloke goes down, and will miss a few weeks and suddenly we can't field a side!

The reality is that we should have kept Goose for depth no more than we should have kept X for midfield depth or Eljay Connors for forward depth.

No one knew Sammy would get injured and in any event, there's no guarantee it would have helped Goose get a gig in the ones.

IMHO we'll easily be able to cover Sammy until the ankle's right to go

Moccha · Post: # 893431Post **Moccha** » Wed 17 Mar 2010 2:16pm

Nah he was too slow to move

stinger · Post: # 893445Post **stinger** » Wed 17 Mar 2010 3:01pm

russell holmesby seems to agree...in this week's 'inside football' he writes"with the benefit of hindsight,matt maquire could have been better value that filling his vacancy with an untried kid"

plugger66 · Post: # 893447Post **plugger66** » Wed 17 Mar 2010 3:08pm

stinger wrote:russell holmesby seems to agree...in this week's 'inside football' he writes"with the benefit of hindsight,matt maquire could have been better value that filling his vacancy with an untried kid"

He is a supporter with an opinion. Doesnt have any more credibility than people on here who think Goose should have gone.

stinger · Post: # 893451Post **stinger** » Wed 17 Mar 2010 3:14pm

plugger66 wrote:
stinger wrote:russell holmesby seems to agree...in this week's 'inside football' he writes"with the benefit of hindsight,matt maquire could have been better value that filling his vacancy with an untried kid"
He is a supporter with an opinion. Doesnt have any more credibility than people on here who think Goose should have gone.

did i say anything to the contrary....?

plugger66 · Post: # 893453Post **plugger66** » Wed 17 Mar 2010 3:15pm

stinger wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
stinger wrote:russell holmesby seems to agree...in this week's 'inside football' he writes"with the benefit of hindsight,matt maquire could have been better value that filling his vacancy with an untried kid"
He is a supporter with an opinion. Doesnt have any more credibility than people on here who think Goose should have gone.
did i say anything to the contrary....?

Did i say you did?

stinger · Post: # 893454Post **stinger** » Wed 17 Mar 2010 3:16pm

no......i happen to agree with everybody being entitled to an opinion......russell does however....have more credibility with me that certain posters on here...present company excepted of course.....

were we too quick to get rid of goose?

were we too quick to get rid of goose?

Re: were we too quick to get rid of goose?

Re: were we too quick to get rid of goose?