So here is a quote from Needle after yesterdays game:

"Watching the Kangaroos play the other day I heard Scotty (Brad Scott) talking about they're now getting to the 80-plus average game mark, and they're able to go for longer. He's got his boys with some ingrained things that are really good.

"We're probably two years behind that so we've got to make sure that's ingrained [by] then."

So at the end of last year he basically culled all our 70plus players: Morton, Petterd, Bate, Moloney, Martin

And he said he wanted to bring in experience from successful clubs: Rodan, Pedderson, Gillies, Dawes and Byrnes

Only one of them got a game yesterday (I appreciate Dawes has been injured).

So what was the point of being so cut throat, which I imagine unsettled a lot of the younger kids, and then bring in guys who clearly aren't capable of getting a game even in our train wreck of a team?

And what "ingrained things that are really good" are we actually talking about - getting whipped by 10-20 goals every week surely isn't the ingrained behavoir we are are looking for???

I have no issue with those ones who were culled (Moloney wanted out). I had hesitation over Petterd but not so much now after watching him at the Tigers.

Byrnes was ordinary yesterday but overall that recruit gets a decent tick. Dawes injured. Rodan and Pedersen the jury is out though the verdict isn't looking promising (Pedo showed good signs when moved down back however), and the less said about Gillies the better. One tick, one cross, two half crosses and one yet to see. Not a great return, but when you look at the names that left, probably breaking even, plus the new guys bring experience from other clubs.

Obviously Neeld was referring to their intuition on the field when talking about things becoming "ingrained", but your point is a valid one. This team has a festering, losing culture, some of which is not Neeld's doing. But 10+ goal thumpings every week, and praising performances like the one against Brisbane, are things that are not helping to change that in any way. You can dress it up as "development" all you like but this is a team that does not know how to win games against AFL sides, and that too becomes ingrained. We are testament to that.

Just a query about the recruitment strategy. Using Rodan as an example, I believe we recruited him at around pick 80-something. Is there any benefit in picking him because he comes with a one year contract (if that's what he's on) rather than a completely new player who would be highly speculative at that same pick but be required to be offered a two year contract? In other words, is a highly speculative one year contracted player (with no long term future, but the ability to replace after one year) a better choice that a highly speculative two year contracted player (with a possible long term future)?

By all means, if my assumptions (Rodan on a one year contract and all new players on mandatory minimum two year contracts) are incorrect, please feel free to correct me.

It's quite clear that the players he brought in contributed to the type of culture Neeld wants to creat at the MFC.

The players he has let go contributed to the poor culture that we have/had, and most likely put themselves ahead of the team by resisting change.

I like the talk of "ingrained" by Neeld. He is basically saying that there are non-negotiables in successful teams, and when they get to the 80+ games mark, the players should be able to do these things instinctively, allowing them to concentrate on doing whatever it takes to win.

The President/CEO/board I believe need to decide immediately what they are going to do with Neeld. If they have no intention of keeping him at the end of his contract, it would be the best thing for the club to remove him at the end of this season. If they are satisfied with where we are heading (hard to be excited on match day, but there's more to it than that), then we could shut the media up and give him a 12 month extension right now. By the time the end of 2015 comes along, most of his team should be averaging 80+ games, which I think after a rebuild of a rebuild, we probably should allow a coach the opportunity to see it through for that period to see if they are capable of success.

It's quite clear that the players he brought in contributed to the type of culture Neeld wants to creat at the MFC.

What is quite "clear". I haven't seen any improvement that I can lay at the feet of the players he's bought in.

Did the players we let go have a poor culture? What makes you say that? Does Moloney have a "poor culture"? Won a B&F under Bailey, played for Casey under Neeld and is probably close to leading the Lions B&F under Voss.

Pick the variable?

I think that the experiment of bring in the mature aged recruits has failed to show any signs of success.

Just a query about the recruitment strategy. Using Rodan as an example, I believe we recruited him at around pick 80-something. Is there any benefit in picking him because he comes with a one year contract (if that's what he's on) rather than a completely new player who would be highly speculative at that same pick but be required to be offered a two year contract? In other words, is a highly speculative one year contracted player (with no long term future, but the ability to replace after one year) a better choice that a highly speculative two year contracted player (with a possible long term future)?

By all means, if my assumptions (Rodan on a one year contract and all new players on mandatory minimum two year contracts) are incorrect, please feel free to correct me.

Yeah, mandatory two-year contracts.

I still don't mind the Byrnes and Rodan recruitment because we are bereft of older players and getting more youth in only adds to the amount of youth we need to develop.

I understand the desire to see more young talent come in when you are at the bottom but the fact remains - our talent is young.

We are not one of those teams that needs to cycle in youth to replace aging pros - our 'pros' are kids.

Can you imagine this forum if Neeld gets a contract extension tomorrow?

Ignoring Dawes, Byrnes has been the best of a very bad bunch of experienced recruits. And he's struggled in most games apart from GWS and Brisbane.

What is quite "clear". I haven't seen any improvement that I can lay at the feet of the players he's bought in.

Did the players we let go have a poor culture? What makes you say that? Does Moloney have a "poor culture"? Won a B&F under Bailey, played for Casey under Neeld and is probably close to leading the Lions B&F under Voss.

Pick the variable?

I think that the experiment of bring in the mature aged recruits has failed to show any signs of success.

Agree. Aside from Dawes who is uninjured and unproven, the mature age recruits have delivered little to MFC onfield but I am sure they are nice blokes off it. Sellars, Rodan, Pedersen and Byrnes

have been lack lustre and disappointing.

I think we lost more on field without Moloney and Rivers.

Can you imagine this forum if Neeld gets a contract extension tomorrow?

Ignoring Dawes, Byrnes has been the best of a very bad bunch of experienced recruits. And he's struggled in most games apart from GWS and Brisbane.

The fact that Byrnes has been prominent against the 16th side and 18th schoolboys side says heaps where his performance has been. Been invisible against any other side.

Given we gave Schwab a 3 year contract during an AFL investigation into the propriety of the FD operations and then sacked him 3 months later, its not impossible that Neeld gets an extension.

The only recruit I have any issue with is Pedersen. I said it at the time and I still think that we paid way too much for an ordinary player. He's shown he's not really good enough for AFL and he doesn't have any of the qualities the others bring in terms of leadership and experience.

Byrnes has been exactly what we wanted him to be in the senior side. He is setting the example on how to play at the top level. He does all the hard things that most of our team don't seem to know how to do.

Dawes has been injured, obviously, but we know he can play.

Rodan was always going to be a bit player, but he has provided great leadership around the club and t training, in particular working with Viney on his stoppage work. I also saw someone comment that providing a good example at Casey is worthless. I would disagree given that this is where most of our developing players are at the moment. He is helping to ensure that they are learning the right way to do things.

The only recruit I have any issue with is Pedersen. I said it at the time and I still think that we paid way too much for an ordinary player. He's shown he's not really good enough for AFL and he doesn't have any of the qualities the others bring in terms of leadership and experience.

Byrnes has been exactly what we wanted him to be in the senior side. He is setting the example on how to play at the top level. He does all the hard things that most of our team don't seem to know how to do.

Dawes has been injured, obviously, but we know he can play.

Rodan was always going to be a bit player, but he has provided great leadership around the club and t training, in particular working with Viney on his stoppage work. I also saw someone comment that providing a good example at Casey is worthless. I would disagree given that this is where most of our developing players are at the moment. He is helping to ensure that they are learning the right way to do things.

Yep I agree. That said we had a hole in the list for a mature body ruck/forward. Dawes can't ruck. Clark shouldn't until he's got help in the forward line. Martin needed to go he was bit of a waste and Fitzpatrick and Gawn had injury worries.

I say it a lot but in a better side you can carry a Pedersen I think.

The one I have most trouble with is Gillies. Pedersen at least looks like he might have a crack and play a few different positions. Gillies just looks miles off AFL level.

I say it a lot but in a better side you can carry a Pedersen I think.

We're not a "better side" and we never were. With Dawes and Clark out Petersen couldn't get a game. What does that say about him?

He's a bust.

This may be my red & blue goggles talking but I still reckon that if we can keep the nucleus of this group together we could have something special on our hands and could be well and truly back playing finals by 2015 and grab a flag by about 2017. By the end of the 2017 season (along way off I know) the make up of some of our list could look like:

PLAYER/AGE/GAMES PLAYED (APPROX)/ROLE

J. Hogan, 22, 90, Hopefully the new Jono Brown/Wayne Carey pf the comp as our dominate CHF.

N. Jones, 29, 250, I reckon he's already become as good as say Brad Sewell and is still young enough to even get better.

J. Watts, 26, 170, Can still become our Brendon Goddard and be a real utility playing forward/back/wing. Question is will he?

J. Toumpas, 23, 100, Midfield/Half back. I can see him playing the Heath Shaw role personally.

C. Dawes, 29, 180, Big beast of a FF but to be mor a decoy to Hogan like Longmire was to Carey.

J. Viney, 23, 110, In and under midfielder and clearance king, Sam Mitchell version 2.0

J. Frawley, 29, 220, We know he has the ability. Has the size, speed and agility to be one of the great Full Backs.

J. Trengove, 26, 170, Midfielder/Half forward. Once he gets his match fitness and confidence back I still reckon he has the ability to be our own Jimmy Bartel.

M. Clark, 29, 200, Once Hogan comes into this size Mitch could become the nest no 2 ruckman/forward in the comp.

D. Terlich, 27, 110, Our own Josh Hunt but I reckon Terlich is harder.

S. Blease, 26, 130, To be part of our midfield rotation and play forward and half back. Bleasey could be our real game breaker like Chris Yarran or Leon Davis of old.

B. Stretch, 20, 50 (Future F/S) Obviously can't be drafter until the end of 2014 season but I'm optimistic he could become a small utility ala Chance Bateman

C. Garland, 29, 200, Vital role of 3rd tall defender who can also play small. To keep the Geelong comparisons going see Andrew Mackie.

T. McDonald, 25, 140, Is currently a bit out of form and needs to work on his disposal, but has the desire and ability to become a top CHB.

J. Grimes, 28, 170, Love how he's coming along and will rotate through the midfield and off half back. If he can become 80% of the player Hodge is we're in good hands.

M. Evans, 25, 120, Midfielder/Half forward rotation. I can see a bit of Leigh Montagna in Pickles. Could be one of those gems to come off the rookie list.

D. Kent, 23, 110, Forward/Midfielder, think he'll play mainly as a forward but stints on a wing. See Adam Schneider.

L. Tapscott, 26, 140, To settle as a defensive half forward in the Campbell Brown mould but with far more ability.

M. Gawn, 25, 120, The new Aaron Sandilands. Need I asy more about Maxy!

J. Howe, 27, 150, I can actually see Howe and Watts playing as interchanging utilities that can play anywhere and be real weapons for us. Howe will/is his own player.

R. Taggert, 24, 90, I have a lot of excitment about Rory, he could be anything and will rotate through the midfield and half forward I expect.

R. Bail, 29, 150, I reckon Bail will become our main midfield tagger due to his running ability and potential to hurt the other way more then McKenzie. Ala Heath Hocking.

Obviously we'll draft others and could pick up other in free agency and trades, but this just shows that given enough time and enough experience to these players we should be in a position to challenge soon enough as long as we can keep them together and set up the right environment for them.

Where do you buy those strong goggles TD?

I note you haven't listed a coach...........

Where do you buy those strong goggles TD?

My old man picked them up, he didn't say where but he said he got them sometime between 1965-1986. By god they're coming in handy!

I note you haven't listed a coach...........

Haha, I'd like to see Neeld see it through but it's doubtful the way things are going.

Where do you buy those strong goggles TD?

I note you haven't listed a coach...........

You two can be as dismissive as you want but the bulk of our improvement will come from those listed.

There is no Superhero out there to wait for. Gradual improvement by many of the players we have on the list is how we will improve.

Can you imagine this forum if Neeld gets a contract extension tomorrow?

Ignoring Dawes, Byrnes has been the best of a very bad bunch of experienced recruits. And he's struggled in most games apart from GWS and Brisbane.

If Neeld got a contract extension, we'd lose a lot of fans nation wide.

The guy is beyond average.... I had my young blokes Demons up until this year, then I said you can support who you want.

I don't expect them to put up with this side, I will - but they shouldn't have to.

Hopefully Jackson can get some appointments right and we can get back on track.

RPFC, think you are wrong about the 2 year mandatory contract, pretty certain Prismall knocked Port back as he wasn't prepared to move interstate for a one year contract.

As for being 2 years behind North, they finished 9th 2 years ago....

I think Neeld will get another contract, just not quite yet. It has always been a three year plan. He's always told us that it will be three years before the team is fit and strong enough for what he wants them doing. I accept that we are not looking good right now, and like everyone else I had higher expectations of what we would be producing, but I think that judgement has to be reserved until we see what his end product looks like. There have been plenty of other successful coaches who started off really badly. The idea that every side is going to instantly turn around like PA have done is delusional. The big power sides all had their slumps and calls for the coaches to be sacked. The difference is that they toughed it out and let the coach finish what he started. We need to do the same.

As for being 2 years behind North, they finished 9th 2 years ago....

Are you sure it wasn't Richmond?

For the record in case anyone was wondering, Richmond are currently 9th.

They have a sameness about them....

Are you sure it wasn't Richmond?

For the record in case anyone was wondering, Richmond are currently 9th.

They have a sameness about them....

As to we, unfortunately...

As to we, unfortunately...

Touche`

If we are 2 years behind where North are now, does that mean Neeld is expecting to make finals next year? because North did last year so that would make sense?

alot would have to go right for us.

What is quite "clear". I haven't seen any improvement that I can lay at the feet of the players he's bought in.

Did the players we let go have a poor culture? What makes you say that? Does Moloney have a "poor culture"? Won a B&F under Bailey, played for Casey under Neeld and is probably close to leading the Lions B&F under Voss.

Pick the variable?

I think that the experiment of bring in the mature aged recruits has failed to show any signs of success.

What people seem to forget regarding the mature age players Neeld bought in is he did it to help the young players he recruited. In the senior players he moved on he saw a bunch of players who didn't understand or know what it took to win a Premiership. In Byrnes, Dawes and to a lesser extent Gillies and Rodan he saw guides. He didn't see stars to improve us this year. He saw players to help around the club and help transform our club into a Premiership possibility. Looking at his recruits this year I'd say he's done a good job of transforming our playing group.

... and praising performances like the one against Brisbane, are things that are not helping ...

Except that no-one praised the performance against Brisbane. As Rawlings' said on the team chat last week, the entire coaching staff were really disappointed with the lack of effort against Brisbane, especially in the second half.

Also, as Craig pointed out last week, there are no limitations (or excuses) being given to the players.