I still can't see the fascination with Grundy - and never have.

I don't have a fascination with him goodoil, however he has played a few good games so far, got a decent build and is very young still. Had a rising star nomination last year, not that that means a lot. He's also played a few very average games where he's looked out of his depth. On the whole I like the look of his potential and though he might've gone at pick 5 or 6 in the draft instead of 18. Probably not good to be the no 1 ruck in second year.

I know you have your theory, and I will never change your view on that. And it'll be another thing that you and I disagree on that neither of us will ever have proof that one is right and the other wrong.

I would have thought that the fact that a one-off player like Viney was taken at pick 26 is all the proof that you or anyone would need that a deal was done.

Not exactly draft-tampering, but some very slick moves off the ball to make it all happen.

they said that about kreuzer after he had a couple of good games.

all players are a waiting game until theyve played 70 games.

yep. Jamar, debuted 2003 and did nothing until 2010.. played 73 games in those first seven seasons

You were the one having a go at me for having this view in the days leading up that event weren't you?

As soon as that Mini-Draft process began - the deal was done. Which means it was pre-agreed. And considering that if GC forced us to use Pick 3 GWS would not have got it, I find it entirely plausible that GWS told GC to not bid for Viney for it would either cost them Pick 3 from us or cost their deal for Martin with Pick 2.

You won't find people saying this was how it played out but clubs don't give other clubs an even break - without dealing for Hogan I am sure that the two clubs below us who have nothing to lose by bidding for Viney - would have bidded for Viney.

I would have thought that the fact that a one-off player like Viney was taken at pick 26 is all the proof that you or anyone would need that a deal was done.

Not exactly draft-tampering, but some very slick moves off the ball to make it all happen.

Here's how it was;

GWS - Pick 1

GC - Pick 2

MFC - Pick 3 & 4

-Father and Son happened before trading of picks

-Whitfield was a clear number 1 pick in anyones book. GWS would not have "risked" losing him by nominating Viney for their first pick. Whitfield would've then slipped through to the Gold Coast, unless they rated him higher than Martin, which is unknown. For me, there was too much to lose for GWS to play games with pick 1, especially before any trades had taken place.

-Gold Coast then had to decide what their pick 2 was worth - potentially Viney (if they played games and we called their bluff), or Jack Martin (with the knowledge that they would liely gain him through the mini draft with their pick 2. Martin was a clear standout in that choice. Martin was a clear standout in the minidraft too.

It is/was clearly in the best interests of both GWS and GC not to bid on Viney. They had more to lose because of the reasons I mentioned above.

And bing - there were only two ways that Viney couldn't go for anything other than pick 26, and both sides chose not to allow it. Prearranged? Why would GWS give us a gift like that? They were always likely to get Pick 2 from the GC for Martin. They had no reason to do us favours.

We will never know, but the "prearrangement" is equally as plausible as my scenario. Trying to suggest otherwise is ignorant, arrogant and just plain wrong.

Here's how it was;

GWS - Pick 1

GC - Pick 2

MFC - Pick 3 & 4

-Father and Son happened before trading of picks

-Whitfield was a clear number 1 pick in anyones book. GWS would not have "risked" losing him by nominating Viney for their first pick. Whitfield would've then slipped through to the Gold Coast, unless they rated him higher than Martin, which is unknown. For me, there was too much to lose for GWS to play games with pick 1, especially before any trades had taken place.

-Gold Coast then had to decide what their pick 2 was worth - potentially Viney (if they played games and we called their bluff), or Jack Martin (with the knowledge that they would liely gain him through the mini draft with their pick 2. Martin was a clear standout in that choice. Martin was a clear standout in the minidraft too.

It is/was clearly in the best interests of both GWS and GC not to bid on Viney. They had more to lose because of the reasons I mentioned above.

And bing - there were only two ways that Viney couldn't go for anything other than pick 26, and both sides chose not to allow it. Prearranged? Why would GWS give us a gift like that? They were always likely to get Pick 2 from the GC for Martin. They had no reason to do us favours.

We will never know, but the "prearrangement" is equally as plausible as my scenario. Trying to suggest otherwise is ignorant, arrogant and just plain wrong.

3 things..

Getting Viney at 26 was a massive win for us.

Off loading Scully and getting generous compo, massive win for us.

Dom Tyson/Salem trade, massive win for us.

Those are 3 things that have gone right for us.

Once Hogan performs, Viney tears it up and Salem shows how good he is, it will look like a great couple of years drafting.

We didn't need a PP last year, I'd of taken it though. But our list is starting to look dangerous.

While we're on the topic:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/how-the-suns-and-giants-got-the-best-of-both-worlds-20140515-zrdns.html

We will never know, but the "prearrangement" is equally as plausible as my scenario. Trying to suggest otherwise is ignorant, arrogant and just plain wrong.

Excuse me, but you were not calling my theory 'plausible' at all, and now you equate what I say with what you say and tacitly call me ignorant and arrogant for believing me 'plausible' scenario?

If they are 'equally as plausible' you just called yourself ignorant and arrogant, Billy.

Who on here thinks Hogens going to play one season then head back to WA.

Who on here thinks Hogens going to play one season then head back to WA.

OMG Einstein - you must the very person to ever post that?

I'm struggling to find where in that thread that you warned us that he'd suffer a season threatening back injury in his first season on the senior list.

Come on nasher, surely you have a phd in hindsight too. I thought they were giving them out.

Still cannot wait for Jesse's debut. I think the extra time helps him mature. The 2014 season is now passed as Jesse would need 8-10 weeks running and gym work.

2015 on the horizon for round 1.

Here's how it was;

GWS - Pick 1

GC - Pick 2

MFC - Pick 3 & 4

etc.

The big fallacy in your argument is that GC didn't have to take Viney, they only had to bid on him ... knowing full well, as every man and his dog did, that Melbourne would take him at 3 (or 4) if we had to.

The consequences of your assumption are then also fallacious. GC didn't have to choose between Martin and Viney - we would have taken Viney F/S at pick 3 in response to their bid. The choice for GC would have been between Martin (mini-draft) and O'Rourke or Toumpas … which is a fairly cut and dried choice I would have thought.

Just one of those win-win-win deals. (But not in front of the children.)

On what basis?

I'm not discounting the possibility, but other than size, second effort and aggression (oft-misplaced) what does he bring to the table? He can't take a mark, doesn't have a football brain and gives away too many unnecessary free kicks. As I've stated in other posts, he is statistically the worst first ruckman in the competition, so please enlighten as to what he brings to the table?

He is streets ahead of a 2012 AA ruckman in footy smarts who is being talked up as a potential 1 million pa player. whilst he has deficiencies Grundy IMO will succeed because he loves a contest and has half a footy brain which will see him succeed and supersede his dreadlocked overhyped opponent

While we're on the topic:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/how-the-suns-and-giants-got-the-best-of-both-worlds-20140515-zrdns.html

VERY good article by Emma, that is a bit of vintage material, she's winding the clock back with this one.

Good on you girl.

I think it signals how well placed we are if Toumpas can become a player, not that all hinges on that - but we'd be well ahead with those trades.

Gee we dodged a bullet offloading Scully. He just hasn't got it, I'd go as far to say, if Scully wasn't a left footer - he'd struggle to get a game.

There is a romanticism about 'lefties' in the AFL, the way they move, such grace.. Tom Scully is anything graceful, he is rigid, robotic, rushed and one paced - flat out, no composure at all.

The big fallacy in your argument is that GC didn't have to take Viney, they only had to bid on him ... knowing full well, as every man and his dog did, that Melbourne would take him at 3 (or 4) if we had to.

The consequences of your assumption are then also fallacious. GC didn't have to choose between Martin and Viney - we would have taken Viney F/S at pick 3 in response to their bid. The choice for GC would have been between Martin (mini-draft) and O'Rourke or Toumpas … which is a fairly cut and dried choice I would have thought.

Just one of those win-win-win deals. (But not in front of the children.)

Personally, I can't see any need for this "prearranged deal" theory, which is the whole point of this discussion. GC and GWS would've known that there was potential risk. Whitfield was a clear number 1 pick, and Martin was a clear number 1 pick in the minidraft, and if he were eligible for the ND, possibly would've been the standout number 1 or 2. Viney wasn't in the top 2, so GC and GWS had to decide if they were willing to take the risk. Clearly, they weren't, which I put down to common sense rather than a "prearranged deal".

Fact - unless someone has insider info, we have no idea if we would've taken Viney at 3, especially if the option was there to get Jack Martin through the minidraft

Fact - prearranged deals are considered draft tampering which has huge implications

Fact - we were in the middle of the tanking saga. Why on earth would we put ourselves in a position of doing something else "illegal" and potentially opening ourselves up for a whole new pile of crap down the track?

Sometimes things just happen because of logic, rather than hidden theories.

VERY good article by Emma, that is a bit of vintage material, she's winding the clock back with this one.

Good on you girl.

I think it signals how well placed we are if Toumpas can become a player, not that all hinges on that - but we'd be well ahead with those trades.

Gee we dodged a bullet offloading Scully. He just hasn't got it, I'd go as far to say, if Scully wasn't a left footer - he'd struggle to get a game.

There is a romanticism about 'lefties' in the AFL, the way they move, such grace.. Tom Scully is anything graceful, he is rigid, robotic, rushed and one paced - flat out, no composure at all.

Really?

All she did was recount all the future picks GCS & GWS have stockpiled.

Hasn't that always been bleedingly obvious?

Maybe not to some...

Grundy will be one of the dominant Rucknan in the comp for the next 10 years

Like Josh Fraser was going to be.....

Personally, I can't see any need for this "prearranged deal" theory, which is the whole point of this discussion. GC and GWS would've known that there was potential risk. Whitfield was a clear number 1 pick, and Martin was a clear number 1 pick in the minidraft, and if he were eligible for the ND, possibly would've been the standout number 1 or 2. Viney wasn't in the top 2, so GC and GWS had to decide if they were willing to take the risk. Clearly, they weren't, which I put down to common sense rather than a "prearranged deal".

Fact - unless someone has insider info, we have no idea if we would've taken Viney at 3, especially if the option was there to get Jack Martin through the minidraft

Fact - prearranged deals are considered draft tampering which has huge implications

Fact - we were in the middle of the tanking saga. Why on earth would we put ourselves in a position of doing something else "illegal" and potentially opening ourselves up for a whole new pile of crap down the track?

Sometimes things just happen because of logic, rather than hidden theories.

Fact - Everyone in the football world knew we taking him - we even signed him to a laughable 5 year contract (well done Schwabby) in 2010: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/jack-viney-commits-to-demons/story-e6frf9jf-1225959360745

GWS and GC could have made us pay with Pick 3 - they didn't.

Why didn't they?

Because we wouldn't have met their bid with Pick 3? We were always going to take the 'brick with eyes' especially with another pick right behind 3.

So why didn't they bid?

They would lose nothing. There is no risk if you know a team will take a player.

GWS wanted 1, 2, and 3. GC wanted in on the mini-draft.

GWS decide who gets what pick - so GC better behave themselves if they want Martin. GC did and we all get what we want.

Your theory rests on The Greater Football World believing we wouldn't take Viney at 3 and, to me, that is absurd; he was touted to be a demon for years, we brought him down to break his jaw at Casey in 2012, and we even had a 'contract' with him for some stupid reason from 2010 to 2015.

Just noticed this in the following article on Real Footy Demons Improvements Lift Spirits:

...In more promising news for the Dees, young forward Jesse Hogan, who has battled a back complaint this season, is likely to return to training this week after a two-week holiday at home in Perth.

“Obviously being the promising young player he [Hogan] is, he’s going to be a very good player, we just want to make sure he gets 100 per cent right before we push him back into it,” Fitzpatrick said.

“He’s back at the club now and hopefully he can build up and see how he goes.”

Just noticed this in the following article on Real Footy Demons Improvements Lift Spirits:

...In more promising news for the Dees, young forward Jesse Hogan, who has battled a back complaint this season, is likely to return to training this week after a two-week holiday at home in Perth.

thats great to hear

A discussion like. "You can pick the brick, have him for 2 years then he will come home. Then we can pick (Whitfield/Martin/O'Rourke) and have them both. Is it worth the risk?" Could have taken place.

Nic Nat told Melbourne recruiters when asked how he would feel about being drafted by MFC. "It's only for two years the I can go home".

These comments could be considered compromising the draft, they do take place and more regularly than many would think..

A discussion like. "You can pick the brick, have him for 2 years then he will come home. Then we can pick (Whitfield/Martin/O'Rourke) and have them both. Is it worth the risk?" Could have taken place.

Nic Nat told Melbourne recruiters when asked how he would feel about being drafted by MFC. "It's only for two years the I can go home".

These comments could be considered compromising the draft, they do take place and more regularly than many would think..

You say that like it is fact - is it?

First, second or third hand knowledge?

I feel a strange sense of de ja vu but I see no reason to believe he is gone. Why are so many so quick to this judgement?

We are a different club. I feel like we are 9 rounds old.

You say that like it is fact - is it?

First, second or third hand knowledge?

I feel a strange sense of de ja vu but I see no reason to believe he is gone. Why are so many so quick to this judgement?

We are a different club. I feel like we are 9 rounds old.

You say that a deal was done like it is fact, RP. Is that first, second or third hand knowledge?

Yawn...

Ruckman usually take 5-6 years to perform consistantly and develop physically, he walked in and is ready to go, great physical attributes, good around the ground and is only going to get better, to write him off after already locking down a spot in the pies side who look close to top 4 within one year shows he is doing something right

Gawn will be twice the ruckman/forward that Grundy ever could be. If you don't believe me, watch him towel him on GB.