Get Daniel Connors

[Ghost Dog]

Who thinks we should make a play for the discarded Tiger's midfielder?

1. The Tigers have done the hard work with him.

2. We would get him for next to nothing.
3. If it did go pear shaped, the public would understand it's his problem not ours.
4. It reflects well on us and will bring us publicity one way or another!

I say we get him and try to make him a better person. If 'teacher' McCartney is serious about his work, he can't always take the easy road. Connors would represent a challenge for him

If his recruitment was paired with a living situation where he was placed with a family or other leaders, got stuck into community work and had a steady girl, I think we could make a player out of him.

[GVGjr]

Are you not concerned about the negative impact he had on Martin? It's probably not a show stopper but it certainly needs to be considered especially with a developing list.

We have a player or two lacking intensity so I'm not that comfortable about adding someone who isn't as dedicated as we need them to be. I would want to be convinced that the downside is minimal.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Can't have enough drunks at the club. King and Grant could give him specialised coaching.

[Ghost Dog]

Can't have enough drunks at the club. King and Grant could give him specialised coaching.

Sure! We could start our own AA group!
Face it SS, the AFL is full of booze hounds.

[Ghost Dog]

Are you not concerned about the negative impact he had on Martin? It's probably not a show stopper but it certainly needs to be considered especially with a developing list.

We have a player or two lacking intensity so I'm not that comfortable about adding someone who isn't as dedicated as we need them to be. I would want to be convinced that the downside is minimal.

The issues were what he did off the field. Not on it, right? I put a positive spin in the OP to start the debate, but I'm a bit more neutral than that. GVG, do you think he would be a bigger risk than Aker or Barry?

[GVGjr]

The issues were what he did off the field. Not on it, right? I put a positive spin in the OP to start the debate, but I'm a bit more neutral than that. GVG, do you think he would be a bigger risk than Aker or Barry?

On the field he could be an above average player but off the field I would say he is a far bigger risk than either Hall or Akermanis were for us and he certainly couldn't be expected to meet their on field efforts.
Aker's mouth off the field is the problem not his actions. In other words he is a good citizen. Hall was a mature player who had shown some signs of trying to get his act together on the field. The biggest risk he posed was with sponsors.

Connors won't be a star on the field and he won't put bums on seats like the other two did.

He's worth a consideration but is he really worth the risk? The upside is just average and the downside could be a bit bigger.

[Hotdog60]

Does he come under Maccas quality young man priority. I don't think he means football skills.

[Ghost Dog]

On the field he could be an above average player but off the field I would say he is a far bigger risk than either Hall or Akermanis were for us and he certainly couldn't be expected to meet their on field efforts.
Aker's mouth off the field is the problem not his actions. In other words he is a good citizen. Hall was a mature player who had shown some signs of trying to get his act together on the field. The biggest risk he posed was with sponsors.

Connors won't be a star on the field and he won't put bums on seats like the other two did.

He's worth a consideration but is he really worth the risk? The upside is just average and the downside could be a bit bigger.

Fair call. So his ability to tick people off is going to outweigh anything he can bring to the table.

[boydogs]

A club has to have standards, GD. Can't bring someone in with 3 strikes against them and expect the rest of the squad to toe the line.

[GVGjr]

Fair call. So his ability to tick people off is going to outweigh anything he can bring to the table.

I think it neutralizes things to some extent. He might add some value or he might cause an issue or two. I suppose I'd want us to consider if we thought we could get more out of him. A lot of good players aren't given 2nd chances so why are we confident that Connors is worth being given another chance?

[anfo27]

Macca has enough challenges on his hands without adding this bloke to his list. No thanks.

[bornadog]

No thank you, we don't need someone with off field issues.

[Eastdog]

It's a risk because his got potential to be good but at the same his off field issues are a concern. Could you compare him to Cousins sort of. Cousins 'bigger name' had drug issues but was still playing. What role would he play in our side?

[SonofScray]

If he was a gun I'd say yes. But he isn't really at that level. Suggestion from people I know who've played with him is that he just has one too many screws loose.

[LostDoggy]

1. The Tigers have done the hard work with him.

2. We would get him for next to nothing.
3. If it did go pear shaped, the public would understand it's his problem not ours.
4. It reflects well on us and will bring us publicity one way or another!

.

Sorry, GD, I can't think of a worse idea.

1. It didn't work, they gave up on him.
2. You get what you pay for.
3. If he's on our list, he's our problem (and he will be a problem)
4 See #3.

Daniel Connors is damaged goods. Does not fit the desired profile, i.e. he is not a 'good person' for our club. Plough was on SEN the other day talking about drafting him at pick 57 when he was Richmond coach. Connors was All-Australian as an U18 - in the best 22 that year - and he went at 57! because of his, already well known, issues (Tigers recruiting to rival Tambling). Leopards don't change spots and this Tiger is the same; he has had uncounted chances at Punt Rd, the latest being the straw that broke the camel's back. Connors shouldn't be considered for another chance, especially from us. We should stick with the coach's mantra, and develop our own, not draft mature troublemakers.

[Eastdog]

If he was a gun I'd say yes. But he isn't really at that level. Suggestion from people I know who've played with him is that he just has one too many screws loose.

So in other words just not worth the risk.

[Remi Moses]

No thanks .
At least we haven't had the perennial get Fevola thread

[bulldogtragic]

Would rather a case of bubonic plague.

[Desipura]

I would rather have Jimmy Connors.

[Remi Moses]

I would rather have Jimmy Connors.

I'd rather have Dennis Connors. ( or is it Connor?)

[bornadog]

If he was a gun I'd say yes.

He would still be at Richmond if he was.

[ReLoad]

Fails the Dickhead test.

[1eyedog]

I was waiting for this:rolleyes:

Can we for once in our history not act like a bunch of groupies whenever a player gets axed/leaves another club?

His best from his worst is so far apart it's not funny, let alone all the social attachments that come with him.

[Sedat]

The idea shouldn't be thrown out carte blanche without our list manager considering it and assessing the pros and cons at the end if the season. He'll either screw up one last time or he'll be an astute Moneyball selection. Somebody will roll the dice and get him because foot skills are critical in the modern game, and whoever does get him will pay the princely sum of 12 months' minimum wages and (worst case) the current spot on the list of someone about to be delisted (more than likely he'll only cost a rookie pick). In terms of the Dogs, think Mulligan's spot on the senior list or Redpath's spot on the rookie list - not exactly betting the farm.

If true, his indiscretion this week was incredibly minor in isolation, and the bloke made a vow to rid himself of the booze 12 months ago (which he's stuck to according to Richmond). The Tigers had to cut him because he was on last chance saloon. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't get him, but we certainly should do our due diligence if we think he possesses the skills set that is currently lacking in our list and that he is serious about changing his life habits and dedicating himself to his AFL career. Underachieving players who have talent and who are in his age profile are what we should be looking at to address holes on our list and remain competitive - our list is imbalanced enough in the 23-27yo bracket as it is.

[Ghost Dog]

This is reasoned stuff Sedat.
I really want no stone unturned to find the best options available going forward. IF this means we have to take a risk, so be it. He maybe a spud or worse, a bad news story, but if other clubs are going to, can we not at least do some legwork and add up the sums?

[Bumper Bulldogs]

No thanks wouldn't even consider a rookie pick for him. From memory Sherman, Grant a few others have had a few issues and are k
Lead astray at times. I wouldn't ask a senior player to waste any time looking after him when they can be teaching a good kid who is doing everything right.

Rocket had this one right with the "No #%^head" policy

[azabob]

Rocket had this one right with the "No #%^head" policy

Except when they could play, players such as Aker.

[Bumper Bulldogs]

Except when they could play, players such as Aker.

Aren't we all guilty of this:D

[azabob]

Aren't we all guilty of this:D

Yes! For sure!

[LostDoggy]

I'd rather have Dennis Connors. ( or is it Connor?)

Dennis Connor!!

[stefoid]

The idea shouldn't be thrown out carte blanche without our list manager considering it and assessing the pros and cons at the end if the season. He'll either screw up one last time or he'll be an astute Moneyball selection. Somebody will roll the dice and get him because foot skills are critical in the modern game, and whoever does get him will pay the princely sum of 12 months' minimum wages and (worst case) the current spot on the list of someone about to be delisted (more than likely he'll only cost a rookie pick). In terms of the Dogs, think Mulligan's spot on the senior list or Redpath's spot on the rookie list - not exactly betting the farm.

If true, his indiscretion this week was incredibly minor in isolation, and the bloke made a vow to rid himself of the booze 12 months ago (which he's stuck to according to Richmond). The Tigers had to cut him because he was on last chance saloon. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't get him, but we certainly should do our due diligence if we think he possesses the skills set that is currently lacking in our list and that he is serious about changing his life habits and dedicating himself to his AFL career. Underachieving players who have talent and who are in his age profile are what we should be looking at to address holes on our list and remain competitive - our list is imbalanced enough in the 23-27yo bracket as it is.

Looking at the list it is no longer so imbalanced in that age bracket, its just that most of them cant play. the 'hole' has been filled with Vez, Sherman, DJ, Moles, Picken, Marcovic, Dickson and Austin. Plus Grant, Wood, Addison, Skinner, Mulligan, Higgins, Griffen Williams, Minson and Cooney are old enough now to be in the 'hole'

If you look at that list, its no wonder they gave Addison another contract.

[AndrewP6]

Dennis Connor!!

Conner.

***Stop it Andrew, you're on holiday!***