MFC Rumours

[e25 5]

How can you include Morton and Bennell as 'Flag Core Players' when they haven't nailed down a position yet? Most supporters and probably the players themselves are confused as to what role they play from one week to the next. Morton has shown glimpses of talent playing in defense, attack and in the middle but if he continues this years form he will not be on the list in 2013. Bennell has played all year in a forward pocket but has plenty of competition there and may be asked to play a rebounding defenders role in the future. Still plenty of people not sold on either of these guys... myself included.

I see nothing wrong with them not having 'nailed down a position'.

I don't care where they play, and they are versatile enough to play in different positions which is a STRENGTH, but the effect they have on the game is what I'm concerned with.

Bennell adds pace and breaks lines.

Morton covers a lot of ground, is a penetrating kick and with time will be a very mobile target.

He will add to our ability to combat zones.

I really don't think it's rocket science to see the value in these players.

I also think to criticise them for having not found a permanent spot that they play in all the time is, quite frankly, an antiquated view.

[DeezMan 4]

How can you include Morton and Bennell as 'Flag Core Players' when they haven't nailed down a position yet?

Morton has potential galore once he hits a solid 90+ kg's.

Bennell potential also. Young and will relish his opportunities in Season 2010.

I'd add J. Viney to the "list" though...

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

So Sorry RR i am at work now, and really don't have time to read through 7 pages of Transcript. I just wanted to pass on some info.

That was already commented upon in the 10 most recent posts on the thread before you posted.

Thanks for the scoop.

[DeezMan 4]

Thanks for the scoop.

Lol.

[e25 5]

When someone invents a sarcasm font, they need to immediately get working on a condescending font.

That way, when I say LOLZ!!! people will understand what I mean.

[Red Sox 2]

I wish to coin a new term - 'Flag cores.'

I think required player can be interpreted a manner of different ways.

Whereas 'Flag Core players' are those that are vital to the MFC winning a flag in the near future. Those that form the Core of a Flag winning team.

Those players are:

Scully, Trengove, Watts, Jurrah, McKenzie, Sylvia, Grimes, Morton, Frawley, Garland, Bennell, and Petterd. I see only Jamar and Davey playing an important role out of the older players, but others will/could play periphery roles.

As for how that comes into play here; keep your hands off the above players!

Agree.

Would add Wonaeamirri, Blease, Gysberts & Tapscott into that group.

[titan_uranus 24,991]

Scully, Trengove, Watts, Jurrah, McKenzie, Sylvia, Grimes, Morton, Frawley, Garland, Bennell, and Petterd. I see only Jamar and Davey playing an important role out of the older players, but others will/could play periphery roles.

I personally wouldn't have Bennell in there yet. Yes, he's the type of player that can add something special to the team, but I'm not convinced he is as important to our flag chances as the other members of this 'flag core' group are.

The point is well made, though.

We lost last weeks game i believe because Jonesy went off.

You couldn't have a more deluded viewpoint. Jones was being absolutely slaughtered by Harvey. We were losing that battle, and getting nothing out of Jones. When he went off, we lost rotations, sure, but we put Scully onto Harvey and that worked a lot better.

[rpfc 28,380]

How can you include Morton and Bennell as 'Flag Core Players' when they haven't nailed down a position yet? Most supporters and probably the players themselves are confused as to what role they play from one week to the next. Morton has shown glimpses of talent playing in defense, attack and in the middle but if he continues this years form he will not be on the list in 2013. Bennell has played all year in a forward pocket but has plenty of competition there and may be asked to play a rebounding defenders role in the future. Still plenty of people not sold on either of these guys... myself included.

It's subjective of course, but nailing down a position when you are 20 isn't a great concern for me.

The more troubling behaviour would be how Colin Sylvia conducted himself in his early years.

I don't hear anything resembling that so i'm pleased.

And I brought up Colin to illustrate that yo don't have to be a together, ultra-professional superstar from the get-go to be a Flag Core player.

It doesn't hurt though...

[rpfc 28,380]

Agree.

Would add Wonaeamirri, Blease, Gysberts & Tapscott into that group.

I haven't seen enough exposed AFL form from the last 3, and Wonna was a close one but I need some strong form from his hamstrings in 2011.

[Keyser Söze 0]

I haven't seen enough exposed AFL form from the last 3, and Wonna was a close one but I need some strong form from his hamstrings in 2011.

Agree with that.

Aussie is good enough.

The other haven't shown anywhere near enough yet to know.

[DeeM 42]

Heard a whisper last night that Nate Jones is not Happy & is seeking Talks with DB on his Future-Hope he stays, i consider Jonesy very much Required. He is only 22, seems like he has been around a lot longer.

or maybe you heard it from the other topic, http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=22677 where i mentioned this was the case last week.

i think we can all agree that we want Jonesy, but there is more and more "whisper" floating around.

[Felix 92]

good thing this is all rumours & not true facts, otherwise MFC would have lost about 8 decent players to date

... Nearly as bad as people saying Scully will leave MFC after his 2 years are up.

[Keyser Söze 0]

good thing this is all rumours & not true facts, otherwise MFC would have lost about 8 decent players to date

... Nearly as bad as people saying Scully will leave MFC after his 2 years are up.

He's going to Richmond though, isn't he?

Surely it's a done deal...

[big tuna 0]

It's subjective of course, but nailing down a position when you are 20 isn't a great concern for me.

The more troubling behaviour would be how Colin Sylvia conducted himself in his early years.

I don't hear anything resembling that so i'm pleased.

And I brought up Colin to illustrate that yo don't have to be a together, ultra-professional superstar from the get-go to be a Flag Core player.

It doesn't hurt though...

Agree, it is all subjective... I thought the rest of the players you named will be core players in our next flag (fingers crossed/touch wood). I just offered my opinnion on Morton and Bennell because I see them as more fringe players (if still on the list in 3-4 years) and not 'vital' to us winning a premiership. I think next year and beyond Bennell will get forced out of the forwardline by a fit Wonna who provides more forward pressure and gets just as many kicks and goal assists. Morton has more upside and hopefully just had a poor year because of injury... but he will no longer just be given games for development and will have to earn his position(where ever that may be) as Tappscott, Blease etc are introduced.

[Guest watts04]

Jones could be good trade bait as still has currency

We can't afford to have mckenzie, moloney and jones in the same side as too one paced and not enough tricks, sorry Nate your time might be up.

Perhaps he is seeing what a few of us already see in the future.

[sylvinator 96]

Jones could be good trade bait as still has currency

We can't afford to have mckenzie, moloney and jones in the same side as too one paced and not enough tricks, sorry Nate your time might be up.

Perhaps he is seeing what a few of us already see in the future.

I don't understand why everyone wants to trade Jones. He's a required player and the type of player every club needs. In fact, if he played for another club, we'd probably all be suggesting we target him if he was put up for trade.

Give him 2 years deal

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

I don't understand why everyone wants to trade Jones. He's a required player and the type of player every club needs. In fact, if he played for another club, we'd probably all be suggesting we target him if he was put up for trade.

Give him 2 years deal

It's got me buggered too, but if the MFC was run by this site we'd trade 12 players a year and delist 15 others.

[DeezMan 4]

It's got me buggered too, but if the MFC was run by this site we'd trade 12 players a year and delist 15 others.

Haha - so true.

It's kind of a joke. I prefer to have faith in the FD thanks.

Jones to stay at all costs.

[e25 5]

Haha - so true.

It's kind of a joke. I prefer to have faith in the FD thanks.

Jones to stay at all costs.

So which is it?

Faith in the FD, or Jones stays at all costs?

Cos they definitely aren't the same thing.

[Chook 15,012]

So which is it?

Faith in the FD, or Jones stays at all costs?

Cos they definitely aren't the same thing.

Good post. Credit where credit's due, some of your posts are actually okay, and this is one. People moan about how clubs shouldn't have delusions of sentiment, and that the FD never "owes" its' players, but in the same sentence, they want things that may not be good for the club's long-term future. This might be okay, except that they do it under the pretence of "faith in the football department" or whatever. Nathan Jones is easily good enough to play in a Premiership, but that doesn't mean that he should stay at the Club. Not only that, but just because you want to trade someone, it doesn't mean you'd be just as happy if they were delisted. Sometimes you need to trade a good player that you have for one that you need more.

Nathan Jones and Matthew Warnock are good players, who you'd never delist, but because we have a couple of their types already, we (and they, mind you) might be better off if a trade could be worked out between our club and, for example, Carlton (for Warnock) and any of the other teams who require a quality in-and-under player (which Jones is).

In short, sometimes the fact that you want to trade a player is not a sign that you disrespect their ability, but rather that you rate them highly enough that you think they can get you something you need. And we all know that what we need rarely comes cheap.

[DeezMan 4]

So which is it?

Faith in the FD, or Jones stays at all costs?

Cos they definitely aren't the same thing.

I'm under the presumption the FD would like to keep Jonesy? Surely?

[Chook 15,012]

I'm under the presumption the FD would like to keep Jonesy? Surely?

But if they did want to trade him, then presumably you'd have no complaints. Or does your faith in the Football Department only extend as far as their ability to make decisions which you like? I guess that's the point E25 is making.

[DeezMan 4]

But if they did want to trade him, then presumably you'd have no complaints. Or does your faith in the Football Department only extend as far as their ability to make decisions which you like? I guess that's the point E25 is making.

Hahaha - total ownage. Yeh fair call.

Um... hrmmm... I shall back the FD to the hilt!!!

[dee-luded 2,959]

So which is it?

Faith in the FD, or Jones stays at all costs?

Cos they definitely aren't the same thing.

If I could get a top 5 pick, I'd trade him. If we could get a great deal then Yes. If we can't get that great deal then we should keep him.

I see Jones as a small defender in the future.

[Chook 15,012]

If I could get a top 5 pick, I'd trade him. If we could get a great deal then Yes. If we can't get that great deal then we should keep him.

I see Jones as a small defender in the future.

Are you kidding!? I see the way to beat Jones as dragging him into your forward-line. Nathan Jones is one of the worst defenders I've ever seen! That's not a real criticism of him because he has so many other strengths. But a defender he is not. IMO, of course.