Zac Dawson rejects St Kilda's offer

thejiggingsaint · Tue 01 Nov 2011 12:24am

+1 (big time!)

Griggsy · Post: # 1171482Post **Griggsy** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 12:42am

Kosi sculpted over preseason to be a FB, Fev to FF.......*takes cover*

thejiggingsaint · Tue 01 Nov 2011 12:54am

Cheerio Zac!

Moccha · Post: # 1171496Post **Moccha** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 1:12am

Not even worth a packet of condoms

thejiggingsaint · Tue 01 Nov 2011 1:16am

That kick across goal in the 09 GF did him for mine! (plus all the stupidity in NZ!)

tweedaletomanning · Tue 01 Nov 2011 1:29am

Ok, so all together now.............

"Hit the road, ZAC, and don't you come back no more no more no more no more, Hit the road Zac, and don't you come back no more......."

thejiggingsaint · Tue 01 Nov 2011 1:33am

GOLD-ski!!!!

thejiggingsaint · Tue 01 Nov 2011 1:33am

Think I'll check out dockerland to see what they think of it all!!!

starsign · Post: # 1171525Post **starsign** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 8:18am

Good bloody riddance for mine!

samoht · Post: # 1171526Post **samoht** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 8:25am

The other thing is - if we adopt a more positive open running game plan under Watters i.e. with less flooding and covering for each other, Dawson would be exposed big time.

that's when you will see big scores kicked against him - and the lazy 14 one on one Cloke marks vs a meek/weak Zac would now be taken right in the goal square or near goal and turned into 10 goals.
Zac one on one is really like a zero on one !!

Maybe Zac's use by date is up now that RL has gone ?

dragit · Post: # 1171528Post **dragit** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 8:50am

samoht wrote:The other thing is - if we adopt a more positive open running game plan under Watters i.e. with less flooding and covering for each other, Dawson would be exposed big time.

that's when you will see big scores kicked against him - and the lazy 14 one on one Cloke marks vs a meek/weak Zac would now be taken right in the goal square or near goal and turned into 10 goals.
Zac one on one is really like a zero on one !!

Maybe Zac's use by date is up now that RL has gone ?

But Stanley would do an awesome job...

If Cloke kicks 10 on anyone as a result of a new game plan, we need a new coach.

samoht · Post: # 1171529Post **samoht** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 8:53am

dragit wrote:
samoht wrote:The other thing is - if we adopt a more positive open running game plan under Watters i.e. with less flooding and covering for each other, Dawson would be exposed big time.

that's when you will see big scores kicked against him - and the lazy 14 one on one Cloke marks vs a meek/weak Zac would now be taken right in the goal square or near goal and turned into 10 goals.
Zac one on one is really like a zero on one !!

Maybe Zac's use by date is up now that RL has gone ?
But Stanley would do an awesome job...

If Cloke kicks 10 on anyone as a result of a new game plan, we need a new coach.

Cloke would only kick 10 in a one to zero contest vs Zac !!

But if our new game plan means we consistently kick more goals than the opposition - as long as Zac isn't our FB that is and if we have good one on one players then that 10 goal scenario won't arise - so what does the coach have to do with it ?

Anyone with height would do as good a job (if not better) in a one on one contest c.f. Zac... and a developing player would further improve c.f. Zac.
Yes Stanley (just one example) would probably start higher than Zacs level (zero) and improve on that eventually !

Mr Magic · Post: # 1171532Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 9:12am

WHy do you expect us to be less 'defensive' than under Lyon?
How did Collingwood's defense play under Watters over the last few seasons?

IIRC they were always trying to free up their half backs so that Shaw/O'Brien could be used as an 'outlet' and that Maxwell could be free to go 'third man up' against good tall forwards.

Eerily similar to me to our 'team defense' under Lyon.

Dr Spaceman · Tue 01 Nov 2011 9:15am

Mr Magic wrote:WHy do you expect us to be less 'defensive' than under Lyon?
How did Collingwood's defense play under Watters over the last few seasons?

IIRC they were always trying to free up their half backs so that Shaw/O'Brien could be used as an 'outlet' and that Maxwell could be free to go 'third man up' against good tall forwards.

Eerily similar to me to our 'team defense' under Lyon.

Exactly.

More attacking doesn't necessarily mean the back half will be less defensive.

samoht · Post: # 1171534Post **samoht** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 9:16am

But what happened vs Hawkins ? who managed to isolate himself vs Reid !!

That one on one (actually more like one on zero) contest decided the game !

bobmurray · Post: # 1171535Post **bobmurray** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 9:17am

He hasn't officially gone yet......it's only a dummy spit for more cash so far

Moccha · Post: # 1171537Post **Moccha** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 9:30am

Maybe St.Kilda is rejecting Zac Dawson's offer?

Mr Magic · Post: # 1171540Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 9:45am

samoht wrote:But what happened vs Hawkins ? who managed to isolate himself vs Reid !!

That one on one (actually more like one on zero) contest decided the game !

So are you suggesting that Watters will 'throw out' his defensive gomeplan of the previous few years because of what happened on GF day?

Maybe, just maybe their loss in the GF had more to do with their inability to get first use of the footy at clearances?
Maybe the fact that Jolly was unable to jump at ruck contests (due to injury) and hence give their midfielders the armchair ride he did in GF2 of 2010?
Maybe the fact that the Geelong midfield got completely on top and kept pumping the footy forward had a lot to do with it?

I believe you're analysis is too simplistic on this - Hawkins outmuscling Reid was not the primary reason, rather the 'end result'.

Eastern · Post: # 1171548Post **Eastern** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 9:52am

Well, if Scotty is looking at recruiting a few "Half Back Flankers" to replace Zac he could do worse than look at a few of the names on this board

!!

samoht · Post: # 1171549Post **samoht** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 9:54am

Collingwood's back line is where the side gets most of its attack and run from they keep things a lot more open and free running than us... they don't run as many players back into it, it's more about run, bounce, dash, kick the ball long and moving it quickly out of defense and turning it into attack.
More of the quick counter strike - and a lot less of the slow chipping and thinking music than us.

Cloke was looking like the end result until Lonergan was moved onto him
and then Hawkins became the end result.

Mr Magic · Post: # 1171553Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 10:00am

samoht wrote:Collingwood back line is where the side gets most of its attack and run from they keep things a lot more open and free running than us... they don't run as many players back into it, it's more about run, bounce, dash, kick the ball long and moving it quickly.

Myybe,
but it's all about being a 'team defense', IMO.
And as such they along with all the top teams look to help out their fellow defenders whenever necessary.

So therefore the crap (IMO) about Zac being a complete dud/spud in this thread is nothing more than nonsense.

We've aparently got salary cap problems.
Why would we want to throw valuable money (watever the amount) at a complete dud/spud?

Obviously Pelchen, Watter s and whoever else is involved in our List decsions think he is more valuable than the dud/spud many experts oin here think he is.

I'm suspect they'll be unhappy to lose him to a rival because of money.

Furphy · Post: # 1171554Post **Furphy** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 10:00am

More room in our salary cap

dragit · Post: # 1171555Post **dragit** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 10:03am

samoht wrote:Zacs level (zero)!

Do you ever wonder why you are ridiculed on here so often?

We get it, you don't like Zac, obviously heaps of people don't, but you are sounding like a 5 year oldâ€¦

It's been pointed out that he is one of highest accumulator of votes throughout finals, which makes your constant dribble all the more inaneâ€¦

samoht · Post: # 1171557Post **samoht** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 10:05am

Furphy wrote:More room in our salary cap

and also it'll move our focus on developing other players that will probably start from where Zac is and then should hopefully improve on him.

samoht · Post: # 1171558Post **samoht** » Tue 01 Nov 2011 10:09am

dragit wrote:
samoht wrote:Zacs level (zero)!
Do you ever wonder why you are ridiculed on here so often?

We get it, you don't like Zac, obviously heaps of people don't, but you are sounding like a 5 year oldâ€¦

It's been pointed out that he is one of highest accumulator of votes throughout finals, which makes your constant dribble all the more inaneâ€¦

Who ridiculed me ? .. people disagree with me that's fine as long as they don't misrepresent me.

So is he worth $300,000- and are you happy with his one on one work as the more mature adult ?

What's inane is ignoring his deficiencies... and all the dribble on how we will flounder without him.