Ben Cousins

[LostDoggy]

Appears, from a thread on a site, that we are favorite to nab Cousins, according to talk back radio.

Whats everyones thought of this?

I would take him in a heartbeat provided he comes cheap, and is over his addiction. His fitness wont be an issue because he looks after himself (physically speaking). Id say, if West retires then there would be an increase in the public perception that he would come to us.


But...

Is Footscray the best place to send a former junkie? :o

[LostDog]

yeah id take him, another recycled brownlow winner

if its a succesful project imagine the hype our club would have for out of contract champions

[Go_Dogs]

I'm not convinced he's the answer, but at the same time, if he could give us 2 good years without any baggage, I'd happily take it. Not sure that can happen though.

[1eyedog]

Take him, we have a window of opportunity in the next 3 years for a premiership, he would be the icing on an already sweet cake.

[LostDog]

i would prefer Scott Lucas

[LostDoggy]

i would prefer Scott Lucas

Lucas is a difficult one IMO. He would have a very hefty price tag from the Dons, and Cousins would seem the more 'surer' bet.

[LostDog]

So we give them skipper and someone else

[Dancin' Douggy]

So we give them skipper and someone else

Not sure that Skipper and Hefty price tag belong on the same sentence.

[The Pie Man]

Didn't think we needed midfielders 2 years ago, but we went for Aka (and thank Christ we did) so Cousins probably fits the profile. Eade seems pretty relaxed about 'history'

[westdog54]

So we give them skipper and someone else

We don't have to give 'Them' anything.

West Coast have delisted him, he's uncontracted. He'll more than likely enter the PSD.

[bulldogtragic]

First. Life sorted out and psych is happy, club is happy, coach is happy and leadership group is happy.

Second. Cost/benefit analysis.

Low ND pick or PSD pick. Moderate salary. YES.

High ND pick or high salary. NO.


With a window of three years, it could be another weapon for us a premiership winning, brownlow medalist. Nothing is without risk. But is the above process took place and he was given the green light, i'd trust Eade, Clayton, Fantasia and co.

[bulldogtragic]

i would prefer Scott Lucas
We couldn't afford him.

[Rocket Science]

No thanks Cuz.

Whatever the prospect of him being a destabilising influence, in terms of purely on-field considerations I'd suggest it's highly debatable that we actually need him.

I'm also sceptical of his capacity to perform at the level widely expected of him come 2009.

Our house is in pretty good order and heading in the right direction. Let's continue in that vein and let other teams bend over backwards to assume the inherent risk(s) in his return.

[The Coon Dog]

AFL clubs baulk at Ben Cousins' age (http://news.realfooty.com.au/sport/afl-clubs-baulk-at-ben-cousins-age-20080625-2wcu.html)

Ben Cousins' manager says an AFL comeback for the former Brownlow medallist is more unlikely than most think, with his long spell out of the game a significant hurdle.

A host of AFL clubs have counted themselves out of offering the former West Coast skipper a second chance at the top level with most citing his age as the biggest negative.

Cousins is soon expected to fill out the paperwork needed to play in either the VFL or WAFL this year, with next Monday - the midfielder's 30th birthday - also the deadline to sign on for the state leagues' 2008 seasons.

Playing at the lower level is seen as a first step to a possible return to the AFL in 2009 after he completes a 12-month suspension for bringing the game into disrepute.

To make that step, he will need to satisfy the AFL Commission that he has overcome the drug-related issues that led to his ban, then convince an AFL club that he is worth taking in the national draft.

Manager Ricky Nixon said while Cousins was "pretty close to making a decision to go forward and try to make a comeback", that did not mean he would succeed.

"I think it's a longer shot than what everyone thinks," Nixon told Melbourne's SEN radio.

"Not because he's not capable of playing, but you've got to understand he hasn't played for a couple of years really, he only played I think eight games last year.

"So by the time you play AFL football, which will be April next year, I think it's at least a couple of years since you've played AFL football.

"But there's no doubt someone of his ability could have a much better chance than most."

While Nixon said Cousins' health was in as good a state as he had seen it, he said that returning to football even at a lower level would be a "massive step".

Carlton coach Brett Ratten was among those to rule out chasing Cousins, saying he would not be tempted by the "romance" of reuniting former Eagles captains Chris Judd and Cousins in the one midfield.

"Ben at 30 years of age doesn't fit the criteria," Ratten said.

"We're sort of going down more of a youth set-up.

"If Ben was around 25 we'd maybe have a look and do our research and sit down and have a chat about it.

"But probably where he is in his football, how much has he got left? Probably not that many years in the game."

Similar views were aired by Melbourne, Hawthorn, Essendon, North Melbourne and Port Adelaide, while Sydney, Adelaide and Fremantle also declared a lack of interest.

But Collingwood, the Western Bulldogs, Richmond, St Kilda and Geelong would not rule out the possibility of recruiting the 2006 premiership player and four-time Eagles best and fairest.

Tigers assistant coach Brian Royal said while Richmond were also on the youth path, that did not necessarily mean a veteran of Cousins' ability could not aid that process.

"You just can't say: `No, we're not going to go after Ben Cousins,'" Royal told SEN.

"Probably we'll look at it two ways, as long as he's fully rehabilitated, does he come into our midfield? Does he take the spot of one of our up-and-coming developing midfielders? That could be the case.

"Or does he come into your midfield with his experience of being a Brownlow medallist, a premiership player, a captain, does he come in and actually teach your midfielders certain aspects of the game which have helped him over the years? So you can look at both sides of things."

Betting agency Sportingbet Australia opened a market on where Cousins would play in 2009, installing the Bulldogs as favourites, ahead of Collingwood.

The agency's chief executive Michael Sullivan said the depth of quality midfielders already at the Bulldogs would mean less pressure on Cousins and the `Dogs' status as premiership contenders also added to the logic.

The Magpies were next in line on the basis of their existing connection to Cousins through former West Coast coach Mick Malthouse and former Eagles player Guy McKenna, Collingwood's head coach and assistant.

The Bulldogs and Magpies refused to comment.

[Max469]

No thanks

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I find it a little strange we'd be interested, even though there's no confirmation either way of what the club thinks about the whole thing.

We've got a good midfield as it is with Hill & Ward looking more than capable players for the near future. Higgins will be back soon too, whilst Stack is developing nicely as well.

Bringing in Cousins would slow the process of developing our younger players, something we've managed well this year IMO with Hill/Ward/Williams/Everitt.

He's certainly a good player, but even then, there's no guarantee he can keep fully fit. Needless to say, it's also a risk because of his past re; drugs. Sponsors etc. all have to come into it, as would the supporters opinions because at this stage we can't afford another drop in Membership.

As a player, Cousins would be a good get, he'd fit in nicely. However taking Cousins into your club isn't just based on his ability though, there are several other factors that come into play, and really - with the position we're in with players/sponsors/membership, I don't think we need him and it could potentially backfire big time. We need to keep drafting quality young players.

[bornadog]

Appears, from a thread on a site, that we are favorite to nab Cousins, according to talk back radio.

Whats everyones thought of this?

I would take him in a heartbeat provided he comes cheap, and is over his addiction. His fitness wont be an issue because he looks after himself (physically speaking). Id say, if West retires then there would be an increase in the public perception that he would come to us.


But...

Is Footscray the best place to send a former junkie? :o

Borgy, we had a thread on this Monday

http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=2899&highlight=cousins

[bulldogtragic]

Cooney, Griff, Cross, Boyd, Ward (Soon enough), West, Gia, Aker, Gilbee, Johno etc, etc.

Teams are struggling to tag and negate the quality of our midifelders atm due to number of high quality players. Add in Cousins and the list gets bigger. Either he gets a free run to get back into top line form (which other clubs couldn't promise) or opposition players tag him leaving another top line gun to run rampant.

If the stars are aligned (and his head screwed on tight more to the point) then it could be good. Unlike other teams, we could run him off a back flank, forward pocket, wing wherever we wanted to. It would add another dimension of flexibility.

I have always been dead set against it, but with our form this year it could be a good move, if our brains trust want him after testing him. Our midfield will in time become one of the best i believe in historys books, add Cousins in and it would be right now.

With so many provisions i can't outright say do it blindly. But i suggest it is looked at very closely and should not be dismissed out of hand without due diligence in seeing if there is a benefit to our club.

And for the nay-sayers who talk about media etc, a fallen angel come good under the guidance and new spirit of the bulldogs group and gets 'high' the positivity of life and exciting times at the dogs can be very easily spun as a positive if the club trusts him to do nthe right thing. Like Aker i'm sure hehas a point to prove, i detest the guy personally, but worth seriously considering...

Especially if the cost is a low ND pick or PSD pick.

[bornadog]

Is Footscray the best place to send a former junkie? :o

Yes in a role helping others to recover. We are the community club after all.

[Drunken Bum]

Posted this on that other site, thought i would give it a run here too

Just a couple of things to ponder.

The Dogs are one of the better liked teams amongst opposition supporters and the media so there will be far less negativity and cynisism than say at a collingwood. We are well regarded when it comes to things like players staying out of trouble and having strong quality guys on our list. We have been a leader in community work and drugs are a problem that Footscray and the western suburbs has been affected by or been percieved to be affected by more than others, and i feel it is a perfect opportunity to for us as a club and a team to improve our standing, IF we do it properly, actually put work into helping Cousins, not just look at it as an opportunity to pick up a more than handy player on the cheap because he is damaged goods.

Get the spin doctors out, 'this is just as much about helping out an individual as it is about getting a player' 'we believe that the strength of our leaders at the club we can help Ben' you know the kind of thing but actually mean it too.

As far as losing sponsers go, there would be a massive increase in Bulldogs coverage through Cousins being there alone, not to mention the fact that if we dont win it this year it would certainly heighten expectations on what we could acheive next year with him in the side. I would imagine we would be far more likely to increase sposorships than lose them.

Parents of young players - sit them down and talk to them, explain to them what we are trying to do, this is the type of club we are, tell them the guidelines that Cousins will have to abide by, explain that drugs are everywhere and easily available to players regardless of whether Cousins is with us or not, and that we are being pro-active to educate our young kids, and that we will be using Cousins, someone they can relate to and has first hand experience in the matter to help with this education.

Imagine the good it could do for the image of the club if we can turn it around for Cousins. It could be massive for Footscray as a club, and that is not even taking into account what he could possibly bring to the team.

Is there a risk, of course there is, but look at it realistically people, he knows that this is it for him, he will be under strict contract guidelines and we will ACTUALLY BE PUTTING EFFORT INTO HELPING HIM. If he ____s up again, we cut him loose straight away and say 'hey we tried to help him but we cant have him being a destabalising influence on our great club so he is gone, we are still going to be there for Ben and offer to help how we can, but he is to have no more to do with any of our players, we as a club want to help him if we can but his career with us is finished'

Again i am not advocating going out and grabbing him regardless, i would want the club to firstly talk to the playing group as a priority and get their opinions on it and the club give their position on it.
Obviously speaking to Cousins to gauge whether he was serious and what he could offer and what he expected from the club, and then price and availibility and contract stipulations come into it.
All i am saying is dont just rule it out just cause of his past, this could be very beneficial to the club as a whole, the teams onfield performance and also to Ben himself.

There is a lot of water to go under the bridge yet but any club would be derelict in their duty to their fans to not even entertain the thought.

[hujsh]

GOOD
1)Brownlow
2)Cheap
3)can drop him as soon as any bad signs appear
4)"Ben Cousins...mentor to troubled youths in the Western Region"

BAD
1)Right attitude?
2)Right role model?
3)Still capable of playing?


Similar points in Good and Bad as he can go either way in many areas.

Do I want to take him? I'd be happy to leave him but can see his upside

[LostDoggy]

Eade said on the news we are not interested. Looks like hes Collingwoods for the taking.

[FrediKanoute]

A Big No from me!!

I just don't think we need or want him around the place. Sometimes there are more important things than winning a game of football and whilst Cousin's may (and is a BIG may) ad something that we currently lack I think there are also a lot of problems he will bring.

Focus on Cousin's drug problem is the tip of the iceberg IMO. This is a guy who was club captain of a GF team and it still wasn't enough for him. He has seen a close mate die as a result of drugs has he himself gone to great lengths to avoid taking responsibility for his drug problem. Does anyone honestly believe that Cousins has overcome his drugs problem? I don't.

Some people draw an analogy of Cousins with Aka and the success that he has been especially this year. The situation which delivered Aka to the WB's is completely different to the situation which could deliver Cousins. I suspect that Cousins has fallen out of love with the game of football. The same cannot be said of Aka who in reality had fallen out of love with Brisbane. I honestly don't think that we could offer Cousins anything that he would want and talk of having him "teach the evils of drugs" to youngsters in the Western Suburbs is a pipedream because I doubt Cousins is the type of guy who would or could do that.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Judging by his interview, he's;

a) Not ready to resume playing football yet.
b) No guarantee to be trouble free.
c) Still (and understandably) dealing with his issues.

Unless he found a dramatic turnaround, I'd be surprised if any club would pursue him based on the interview tonight IMHO.

[LostDoggy]

I would say no, but not because of anything against Ben per se. I watched his interview, and he was a lot more open and honest than he had been the whole time he was still on West Coast's list. It looks like he knows that footy is not a priority right now, more a safe, familiar space that he can hang out in and work out his issues without the crazy pressure of being one of the best players in a celebrity hungry two team town.

Melbourne will be good for Ben -- we're a lot more relaxed and cosmopolitan here, and while we're footy crazy, we also have ten teams, five hundred odd current AFL players, and a whole lot more retired ones. The media spotlight will be shared somewhat -- ie. it will shine on him for a while, then move on to other things pretty quickly.

I was a huge critic of Ben and West Coast putting their head in the sand to win premierships at any cost, but now that he is off the list and looking like he has finally (finally!) started to own the issue personally, I really wish him all the best.

So I say no purely from a footy perspective -- risk/benefit analysis says the potential benefits he may bring can be procured elsewhere at lower risk. From a club perspective however, if he were to approach the club for help I would like to think that we would bend over backwards to accept him. It would be great to see Ben run around in a Willy jumper and an older, wiser Ben end up on our coaching staff in an advisory role down the track. But a lot or water has to go under the bridge in the meantime, and he has other priorities apart from professional footy -- and he finally sounds like he knows it.

ps. maybe I'm being naive and he's just angling for a return to the big-time, but I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, for now, that he is serious about his recovery. If he's serious, I won't be surprised if he never returns to play AFL. It won't be the worst thing in the world.

[LostDoggy]

When he says hes still dealing with his addiction does that mean he is still using? Ive never been addicted to anything but surely if you had a line of coke in front of you, you would think of the ramifications and consequences and not do it. Or you just wouldnt find yourself in those situations in the first place anyway.

[1eyedog]

When he says hes still dealing with his addiction does that mean he is still using? Ive never been addicted to anything but surely if you had a line of coke in front of you, you would think of the ramifications and consequences and not do it. Or you just wouldnt find yourself in those situations in the first place anyway.

It likely means he is having serious withdrawal symptoms and it is likely very difficult for him to be social and not be taking drugs. I think by the end he was pretty much using 24 hours a day (he was arrested in the middle of the day off his head). When you use that much being high becomes normal and when you have to straighten out you really struggle, sometimes for years.

[LostDoggy]

It likely means he is having serious withdrawal symptoms and it is likely very difficult for him to be social and not be taking drugs. I think by the end he was pretty much using 24 hours a day (he was arrested in the middle of the day off his head). When you use that much being high becomes normal and when you have to straighten out you really struggle, sometimes for years.

incorrect. He wasnt. He was charged with prescription drugs, charges were dropped.

[Twodogs]

incorrect. He wasnt. He was charged with prescription drugs, charges were dropped.




Correct. He had valium pills in his possession. If it had been the liquid form of valium he would have been charged with possesion of a presription drug without a prescription, which is a fairly minor offence anyway.

[Twodogs]

When he says hes still dealing with his addiction does that mean he is still using? Ive never been addicted to anything but surely if you had a line of coke in front of you, you would think of the ramifications and consequences and not do it. Or you just wouldnt find yourself in those situations in the first place anyway.



Not neccesarily. An addiction is a lifelong problem. Whether you're using or not, you're always succeptable to using in a problematic way. That's the big difference.


I'm an addict and I always will be-it means that I have to be really careful what I find myself exposed to. I cant see certain people, I cant go certain places and I have to get the hell out of Dodge if some substances rear their ugly head. The bigt difference between you and me Matt is you might do a line, party for a while and then forget all about it. If I did one then it wouldnt stop at one, it'd become two, three and then the next thing I cant face life without it-it becomes the most important thing in my life and I lose all sense of perspective. I wouldnt be off my head either I'd just be maintaining.

[bornadog]

Addiction to anything is hard to understand unless you have experienced it before. I guess we are all addicted to something but the extent and the type of addiction and how you can deal with it, is what shapes our lives.

For me one of the things that would stop me from drafting Ben is his age and how he performs next year when he is turning 31. I would rather go down the youth policy as we have some of the best midfielders in the AFL.

If Scotty West doesn't retire we will have West 34 years old, Aker 31, Johnno 31 all capable of playing midfield.

[LostDoggy]

Not neccesarily. An addiction is a lifelong problem. Whether you're using or not, you're always succeptable to using in a problematic way. That's the big difference.


I'm an addict and I always will be-it means that I have to be really careful what I find myself exposed to. I cant see certain people, I cant go certain places and I have to get the hell out of Dodge if some substances rear their ugly head. The bigt difference between you and me Matt is you might do a line, party for a while and then forget all about it. If I did one then it wouldnt stop at one, it'd become two, three and then the next thing I cant face life without it-it becomes the most important thing in my life and I lose all sense of perspective. I wouldnt be off my head either I'd just be maintaining.

Ahh yep i get ya. Thanks mate.

[Twodogs]

Ahh yep i get ya. Thanks mate.




No wuckas mate. I kind of liken it too a brain problem-people like me just cant say 'that's enough'-we just have to keep going and going.

[1eyedog]

Not neccesarily. An addiction is a lifelong problem. Whether you're using or not, you're always succeptable to using in a problematic way. That's the big difference.


I'm an addict and I always will be-it means that I have to be really careful what I find myself exposed to. I cant see certain people, I cant go certain places and I have to get the hell out of Dodge if some substances rear their ugly head. The bigt difference between you and me Matt is you might do a line, party for a while and then forget all about it. If I did one then it wouldnt stop at one, it'd become two, three and then the next thing I cant face life without it-it becomes the most important thing in my life and I lose all sense of perspective. I wouldnt be off my head either I'd just be maintaining.

That's very true. I have an addictive personality, so need to control my intact of alcohol and certain people these days, but in the past, it was worse things.

[Twodogs]

That's very true. I have an addictive personality, so need to control my intact of alcohol and certain people these days, but in the past, it was worse things.



Thankfully alchohol or gambling have never been a problem for me. I just dont know how I'd go if my addictions were state sanctioned.

[DOG GOD]

no thanks...