I'll throw in one more comment about Geelong - they seem to really enjoy their football. No, it's not just because they win more often than not. The players seem to enjoy trying playing in different positions. Somehow, they seem to have the confidence to try different positions, different plays, with no fear of being dropped if something goes wrong! We should promote that culture!

Montgomery was a hard nut. He didnt quite like the notion of backward stepping unless it was a very temporary thing done whilst working out a better way forward. He was a fitness nut. The troops instead of resting were put to extra pt.

Montgomery was revered by his men, loved even.

I think the the drafting since Neeld came on board has been solid give the challenges of getting both youth and experience while turning over a stagnant and under-performing list.

Clark, Hogan, Viney, Toumpass, Dawes, Terlich, M Jones, Byrnes have all been good pick ups (too early to call on a couple), and all recruits have fully engaged in lifting the fitness level (according to pre-season reports). And have got Casey firing such that there is real pressure on places in the MFC team.

If you intend to be a hard team you need to recruit and develop hard players. Losing Morton, Gysberts, Martin, Cook and replacing them with the above boys can only improve us.

funny that it doesn't appear to have done so, then, if it "can only improve us". Difficult to see how anyone can describe our trajectory at this stage as "improvement".

I'll throw in one more comment about Geelong - they seem to really enjoy their football. No, it's not just because they win more often than not. The players seem to enjoy trying playing in different positions. Somehow, they seem to have the confidence to try different positions, different plays, with no fear of being dropped if something goes wrong! We should promote that culture!

We can promote that culture when we one day (if we one day) have players of the ilk like Johnson (200th), Enright (250th), Corey, Bartel, Kelly, Selwood, Taylor, Lonergan, - players that play for each other and who have played alongside one another for many years.

Players of immense experience with one another which our list doesn't have that luxury. The players I mention above were playing alongside each other when Daniher was coaching. Chapman was another (who didn't play tonight).

There's their experienced core and they've managed their list to a "tee" in filtering the right players with the required amount of game time over the last 2 yrs when they gradually lost premiership stars to retirement.

These players have learnt from the best and helped establish their already strong culture.

Our best players 4-5 years ago, bar Junior and Neitz weren't the right calibre of quality of Geelong's outstanding players. Our core was comparatively inconsistent and our midfield was no where near Geelong's, it still isn't.

When you have their quality, strong competitive and tactically strong mindset and their winning ways, of course you're going to enjoy playing be it different positions for tactics or giving experience to 20-30 gamers that will put them in good stead for when asked to go in a final(s).

We don't have the luxury of having a couple of players that we can keep on the list for specific games.

1- who should we have picked then?

2- some of our kids aren't ready yet

3- players are selected for differant reasons. Hudson because Jolly is near the end and most likely only play in Melbourne. We selected Byrnes for entirely differant reasons as mentioned in my post. Obviously not the most skilful getting around, but doesn't panic on field, if he influences Viney, Toumpas ect in their training preparation that is a win that will pay off in the future.

Not looking for an argument here but everyone talks about Junior and what a great leader he was, how long was he and the likes of Sylvia on the list together. I'm not saying Junior is the only one to blame, the fact your an AFL player should be motivation enough, then there's your coach and captain/ leadership group. But junior was there during a time when below par standards were seen as acceptable .Neitz was the last leader we had. Byrnes was brought in to be a much needed role model. Something we have clearly lacked.

A few points here 'Al'. On Goddard, the Pies didn't have the salary cap space to have a go at him. Cloke took up a big wack of that and coming on the back of Pendles & Swan they were sellers rather than buyers.

They are in a different position to us in that they are a premiership chance, Hudson is insurance for Jolly whilst they wait for Witts and Grundy. On last nights form Witts looked pretty good and maybe further advanced than they thought. Russell was part of the plan to get O'Brien out of the back half and up on to a wing. He, Russell had a bad one last week and got dropped.

If you are looking to pick up players to turn careers around then you should be looking at 22-24yo who have shown they can play but are struggling to make it in really good sides. You can break them free with opportunity and a bit of cash.This is more the Sydney model with Kennedy, McGlinn, Mumford, Richards and the like. We picked up a few past their use by dates and a couple of others who couldn't get a game at their previous clubs because they weren't good enough.

If the guys we picked up were for depth then with almost a full list in round one you need to ask why 4 depth players got a game.

R-Jay, I'm aware of the salary cap. That wasn't included in my post but is a given , the point I was trying to make is most clubs throw life lines to depth/fringe players. Just because your a powerful club doesn't mean they will work out. Sellar won't play when Dawes is fit, Fitzy, Gawn ect may not have been ready round 1, or due to Sellars pre season form in crap games he got the nod. With 18 clubs there is only so much talent to go around , we arguably got the two biggest names the last two trade periods. I am still waiting for someone to tell me who we should have selected instead. I replied to R.Flowers comment on this thread with regards to Byrnes.

Montgomery was revered by his men, loved even.

As was Rommel.

Are you trying for the post with the most rubbish Ron, or does it come naturally!

Comes naturally. Thank you Hardnut.

R-Jay, I'm aware of the salary cap. That wasn't included in my post but is a given , the point I was trying to make is most clubs throw life lines to depth/fringe players. Just because your a powerful club doesn't mean they will work out. Sellar won't play when Dawes is fit, Fitzy, Gawn ect may not have been ready round 1, or due to Sellars pre season form in crap games he got the nod. With 18 clubs there is only so much talent to go around , we arguably got the two biggest names the last two trade periods. I am still waiting for someone to tell me who we should have selected instead. I replied to R.Flowers comment on this thread with regards to Byrnes.

As a few posters have pointed out we could have upgraded Magner and picked up Hannath. Whether or not they were the right choices who knows but your question has been answered.

On the salary cap you can't just throw out a line about Collingwood not picking up Goddard without taking it into account.

Byrnes yes, but to add Roden, Gillies and Pederson is where the mistake was made. Moved on some NQR's and replaced them with more at best.

As a few posters have pointed out we could have upgraded Magner and picked up Hannath. Whether or not they were the right choices who knows but your question has been answered.

On the salary cap you can't just throw out a line about Collingwood not picking up Goddard without taking it into account.

Byrnes yes, but to add Roden, Gillies and Pederson is where the mistake was made. Moved on some NQR's and replaced them with more at best.

I'm also bamboozled by the Magner decision. And yes my question has been answered there wasn't much available.

I wasn't just throwing the Collingwood line out there , I was trying to make a point. Money won Clarke over. Money/Clarke/Neeld/Craig/Misson won Dawes over. A last chance won Chris Nights over. A chance at a flag won Q Stick, Lake, Hale, Burgoyne over. Players change clubs for differant reasons but realistically not many big names do. Even with the Pies record of fast tracking players and their A grade mids Hudson has not worked.Does this make Buckley a fool?

We agree on Byrnes. Gillies has not worked. Rodan looked good pre season- has not done well in games. Passing on knowledge might all he's got left. Someone has already pointed out Pedo was never going to be a star and may work when Dawes and Clarke are in. These players were signed for stuff all on 1-2 year contracts. With 2 news clubs the talent gets thinner, while depth is still vital come finals.

Edited May 5, 201312 yr by Al's Demons

i hate it when Greg Denham is right!!

Robbie hates it when Baghdad Bob is right. Actually, Caro was pretty right as well.

Bynes, Dawes, Pederson and Rodan were not worth picking IMO, especially if MN is taking a long term view.

yes they were. Its a part of adding some maturity, body size, & to aid in the culture shift which involved some experience going out, with fresh & not set in concrete attitudes coming in.

to change the onfield & about the club ways these things Have to happen, or change Cannot!

They, are also players that give us added depth, in the areas where the list needed support.

They are transition players mostly that will Force our kids to jump higher run harder & get bigger & stronger to achieve their games on Merit.

Dawes is a genuine longer term player, who'll eventually be our 3rd Tall leadup player, with Clark,& our young key forward... eventually I see Clark as 2nd ruck follower with Fitzpatrick switching with him in the role. & Gawn or Spencer as the No 1 Ruck.

So a Forwardline of Hogan, Clark, Dawes with Howe/Watts off a flank switching thru the R/Rover roles, & Byrnes/???? small forward....

Pederson, its too soon to say anything really, after coming into a baptism of fire... I still think he has something to offer & lots of growth in him. still far too soon to say.

Who would you have in ahead of Byrnes?

Last day at the office I reckon.

Last day at the office I reckon.

Constructive.

As was Rommel.

A better commander, did so much with little supply and inferior numbers and lots of tactical nous. A positive was that he was involved in one of the plots to kill Hitler but I am obviously off topic now.

Anyway today will be an interesting test for Neeld. I think we will be competitive and lose by a lot less than people think, but we will lose. No expectations of winning, no disappointment.

Anyway today will be an interesting test for Neeld. I think we will be competitive and lose by a lot less than people think, but we will lose. No expectations of winning, no disappointment.

That's because we're still developing, including the coach.

Everyone needs to sit back and be more objective about the entire situation.

1- who should we have picked then?

2- some of our kids aren't ready yet

3- players are selected for differant reasons. Hudson because Jolly is near the end and most likely only play in Melbourne. We selected Byrnes for entirely differant reasons as mentioned in my post. Obviously not the most skilful getting around, but doesn't panic on field, if he influences Viney, Toumpas ect in their training preparation that is a win that will pay off in the future.

Not looking for an argument here but everyone talks about Junior and what a great leader he was, how long was he and the likes of Sylvia on the list together. I'm not saying Junior is the only one to blame, the fact your an AFL player should be motivation enough, then there's your coach and captain/ leadership group. But junior was there during a time when below par standards were seen as acceptable .Neitz was the last leader we had. Byrnes was brought in to be a much needed role model. Something we have clearly lacked.

I actually mentioned that in a post, just above the one you responded to.

Robbie hates it when Baghdad Bob is right. Actually, Caro was pretty right as well.

Not true Fanbob I'm happy to acknowledge any post I think is on the money.

Hell, before I insulted him TimD use to like some of my posts.

I'm also bamboozled by the Magner decision. And yes my question has been answered there wasn't much available.

I wasn't just throwing the Collingwood line out there , I was trying to make a point. Money won Clarke over. Money/Clarke/Neeld/Craig/Misson won Dawes over. A last chance won Chris Nights over. A chance at a flag won Q Stick, Lake, Hale, Burgoyne over. Players change clubs for differant reasons but realistically not many big names do. Even with the Pies record of fast tracking players and their A grade mids Hudson has not worked.Does this make Buckley a fool?

We agree on Byrnes. Gillies has not worked. Rodan looked good pre season- has not done well in games. Passing on knowledge might all he's got left. Someone has already pointed out Pedo was never going to be a star and may work when Dawes and Clarke are in. These players were signed for stuff all on 1-2 year contracts. With 2 news clubs the talent gets thinner, while depth is still vital come finals.

Hudson has done exactly what he was brought in to do, fill the space left if Jolly is injured. He did ok and has worked and will if needed in the future.

...but I get your point about what was available and in that case Byrnes and Dawes would have been enough to bring leadership and experience, Magner upgraded and someone like a Hannath.

Last day at the office I reckon.

Why? What's changed? Last week we had a crap list against an average side, this week we've got an even worse list against a better side.

I don't really know why people expect him to be gone week to week at this stage. If he's going its not going to be before mid year.

Would be amazing if Neeld led the Demons to an improbable win today over Carlton and stuck it up the naysayers (including me)

Not true Fanbob I'm happy to acknowledge any post I think is on the money.

Hell, before I insulted him TimD use to like some of my posts.

I still do - and for the record am appalled at the treatment you've received from Schwab and connolls. It strikes me as a basic function: if you have a group that gives you money, then keep them sweet. Bizarre for them not to. Says a lot about how they see the foundation heroes imo.

Would be amazing if Neeld led the Demons to an improbable win today over Carlton and stuck it up the naysayers (including me)

I'd be rapt to be 101 points wrong.

Constructive.

Yep, it was a cheap shot but how many more 100 point losses is the senior coach afforded?