Big boys take time

Time and time again this has been proven to be correct ( especially with Ruckmen) and time and time again it is ignored by many.

Time and time again this has been proven to be correct ( especially with Ruckmen) and time and time again it is ignored by many.

Unfortunately for Grundy he monstered a very weak draft class at the national championships and competed against a very weak SANFL ruck division, of whom James Meiklejohn was probably the best that year, which is saying something.. He has no football smarts, can barely take a contested mark, which is an inherent talent and isn't particularly effective as a forward. Most of these facts are the reason he slipped to pick 19 or wherever he went. He is an imposing physical specimen and a good athlete with terrific ground-level effort which has allowed him to compete and do some good things but at the moment his 43 clangers per 122 possessions is the worst ratio in the AFL and he leads the clangers per effective hitout stat amongst ruckman with daylight to the second worst. Im not saying he won't mould into a good player, but he is certainly not an incredible draft steal. Witts is a far more rounded and skilled player and it's why he is playing and why long-term he will most likely be a terrific player. He was an incredible steal.

Edited July 25, 201411 yr by goodoil

Unfortunately for Grundy he monstered a very weak draft class at the national championships and competed against a very weak SANFL ruck division, of whom James Meiklejohn was probably the best that year, which is saying something.. He has no football smarts, can barely take a contested mark, which is an inherent talent and isn't particularly effective as a forward. Most of these facts are the reason he slipped to pick 19 or wherever he went. He is an imposing physical specimen and a good athlete with terrific ground-level effort which has allowed him to compete and do some good things but at the moment his 43 clangers per 122 possessions is the worst ratio in the AFL and he leads the clangers per effective hitout stat amongst ruckman with daylight to the second worst. Im not saying he won't mould into a good player, but he is certainly not an incredible draft steal.

And is 20 years old - way too early too judge. I will agree that I don't judge anyone a "steal" or a "gun" based on glimpses of talent. Grundy may well be a steal - at the moment he isn't. ( I have been burned way too many times on flashes of talents from future guns that have shone brightly for a very brief time and fizzled out just as quickly)

The trouble with this thread is that everyone is frothing off everyone else's lather.

I will laugh my guts out if he stays a demon.

Don't know how much mirth will be in it though.

I have little doubt that Frawley is going - it all sounds so familiar to others who have gone from Dees/other clubs.

I wish he would stay.

If he goes as I predict - I would never especially boo him etc. - but he will no longer be a Melb man so he will be the enemy and we should not care about him or anything that happens to him.

Way back I didn't care that Alves and Wells went and I was rapt for them that they got to play in Premierships at North/Carlton - because they gave fantastic service to the Dees, they were right at the end of their careers and the Dees were a basket case. I still take an interest in Jarrod Rivers - probably silly of me. But if Frawley walks away from the Dees - his choice - but he should be persona non gratis as far as the MFC is concerned.

Disappointing that he's speaking to everyone else but us, but we move on. Just like Jimmy said, the AFL has set up an environment that forces young players to lie.

Best of luck Chippa, now we move on.

I'd say he's qualifying a shortlist of clubs he'd like to pursue and doesn't need to talk to us because we are already on the shortlist.

I have little doubt that Frawley is going - it all sounds so familiar to others who have gone from Dees/other clubs.

I wish he would stay.

If he goes as I predict - I would never especially boo him etc. - but he will no longer be a Melb man so he will be the enemy and we should not care about him or anything that happens to him.

Way back I didn't care that Alves and Wells went and I was rapt for them that they got to play in Premierships at North/Carlton - because they gave fantastic service to the Dees, they were right at the end of their careers and the Dees were a basket case. I still take an interest in Jarrod Rivers - probably silly of me. But if Frawley walks away from the Dees - his choice - but he should be persona non gratis as far as the MFC is concerned.

I never boo any player that leaves the Dees after he has played 100 games. You never know how good his son will turn out to be.

Disappointing that he's speaking to everyone else but us, but we move on. Just like Jimmy said, the AFL has set up an environment that forces young players to lie.

Best of luck Chippa, now we move on.

I don't think so.

He's clearly in that case either decided to go, in which case it doesn't matter whether we present to him first or not, or he's letting us have the last say before he makes his decision.

And I don't think the AFL has created this situation - it's just been a result of the natural evolution of the game, unfortunately.

There's a lot of misdirected angst towards Frawley - hate the system, not the player.

Surely this year after losing Clark and being in the bottom 4 for the past 8 years, we are in line for a PP... So we could possibly end the year with picks 3,4 and 5... Seems fair to me, though the AFL aren't in to being fair...

Agree. Have said that on here a few times.

We were predicted by Mark Evans in his explanation for not giving us a PO last year, to be getting Clark back ( didn't happen ), getting Hogan in the side ( didn't happen ), Toumpas and Watts to improve ( didn't happen ), start to climb the ladder ( didn't happen ) and on top of this lost the experienced Sylvia the 4th player to leave us recently under new rules, Rivers, Moloney and that number 1 pick of a couple of years back and now possibly will lose an AA experienced Full Back, the 5 th player to leave, making us less experienced than last year . Add to that another year, being year number 9 at the bottom of the ladder.

Surely we qualify now for a PP.

Agree. Have said that on here a few times.

We were predicted by Mark Evans in his explanation for not giving us a PO last year, to be getting Clark back ( didn't happen ), getting Hogan in the side ( didn't happen ), Toumpas and Watts to improve ( didn't happen ), start to climb the ladder ( didn't happen ) and on top of this lost the experienced Sylvia the 4th player to leave us recently under new rules, Rivers, Moloney and that number 1 pick of a couple of years back and now possibly will lose an AA experienced Full Back, the 5 th player to leave, making us less experienced than last year . Add to that another year, being year number 9 at the bottom of the ladder.

Surely we qualify now for a PP.

Just can't see it happening.

And I don't think the AFL has created this situation - it's just been a result of the natural evolution of the game, unfortunately.

And really players have been moving around for ever and a day -almost always because of money and/or premiership glory. In the 70's there were big players moving all over the place. As JBFossil notes there was Alves and Wells, half of Melbourne's side were from other clubs (Fowler, Big Carl etc) , Norths premierships were built on bought players. Possibly the biggest was Wade who was (and remains) a Cats legend. Carmen, McKenna and Byrne were other examples from the 70's and there were heaps more.

In the 80's there were also lots of big name moves - Moore and Templteon being two Melbourne examples. Ryhs Jones, Williams and many others. Easy to forget Brereton went to the Swans and McGuan went to Carlton of all clubs.

Loyalty has never been as strong as the current dialogue suggests

We could realistically finish last again as depressing as that is, surely if the AFL considers that we might well finish last, we have lost Clark, and will more than likely also lose frawley,

I think we have the case to strongly push for a pick, just a question of if they're willing to give us one given our past

We have no hope of getting a pick, we have improved even if we finish last, which I don't think we will. Losing margins are way down, we have won more games and very easy to argue we could very easily have won between 3-6 more games.

The priority pick is just about dead, you would want to be a truly awful side to ever get one again

I have no idea where he is going but my gut instinct tells me he is gone.

I did hear Nathan Buckley on AFL 360 - he was asked about Frawley.

His reply was so stilted, fumbled and basically poor that I am now convinced on one of two possibilities

1/ Frawley is signed, sealed and delivered to Collingwood; or

2/ Buckley is in desperate need of a course on how to handle fairly simple questions from the media.

http://youtu.be/fkvULKM8Gek

About the 21:45 mark.

My read is that Buckley is heavily into Frawley, thinks he's a big chance, and completely didn't expect anyone to know about it.

Circumventing the manager in secrecy?

Can't read anything more into it.

Wouldn't say there's any clear indication Frawley is signed.

Agree. Have said that on here a few times.

We were predicted by Mark Evans in his explanation for not giving us a PO last year, to be getting Clark back ( didn't happen ), getting Hogan in the side ( didn't happen ), Toumpas and Watts to improve ( didn't happen ), start to climb the ladder ( didn't happen ) and on top of this lost the experienced Sylvia the 4th player to leave us recently under new rules, Rivers, Moloney and that number 1 pick of a couple of years back and now possibly will lose an AA experienced Full Back, the 5 th player to leave, making us less experienced than last year . Add to that another year, being year number 9 at the bottom of the ladder.

Surely we qualify now for a PP.

The club will apply for a PP and has a strong case for it. Personally, I don't think we'll receive an early PP, however we may be a shot at an end of first round/ second round PP. Either that or the PP is well and truly dead and the AFL should label it that way.

Last year the basis for the decision was that the list did not reflect our performance due to two prime factors (developing players + injuries), this year our ladder position truly reflects our list. FFS, we have won 36 of the last 171 games, annualising that figure suggests that we will win one more game for the year, leaving our total at 37 wins from 176 games (8 seasons), an average of 4.5 wins per season, or alternatively, a winning percentage of 21%.

As a comparison, the only team with a lower winning percentage than us over the last 8 years is GWS (12.4%), Gold Coast has an annualised winning % of 30%. I’ve compared our last 8 seasons to teams in a similar position to us currently (cbf doing it for Richmond/ Carlton) – WB (47%), Brisbane (38.9%), St K (52.9%).

The AFL stated that we had a group of highly talented youngsters that were developing, and said that we had a successful 2012 draft due to the amount of games played by 2012 draftees. Players listed in the article as talented and developing - Watts, Toumpas, Trengove, Tapscott, Blease, Barry, Grimes, Hogan, Viney, M.Jones, Terlich and Kent. Of the 12 players listed only 4 (Watts, Grimes, Viney and M.Jones) have played regular top level footy, with Hogan being the only one to suffer a serious injury.

The AFL expected that a number of injured players were due to return - Clark (4 games), Dawes (12 games), Frawley (was playing injured). Injuries have been similar this year (Trengove, Hogan & Spencer), although the players this year are arguably less important to the teams success.

Yes we have improved, however the stats above speak for themselves. It’s also likely we will have lost 2 players in the 2014 leadership group in the prime of their careers. Although it depresses me, it’s hard to make a case that we will be much better next season (which is what the AFL alluded to in not giving us a PP last season).

Articles about the AFL’s decision:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-23/no-priority-pick-for-demons

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-22/dees-priority-pick-in-doubt

Buckley was rude, coy, and downright patronising to the bloke sitting next to him.

The bloke sitting next to him was Mark Robinson so I would be the same.

I wouldn't take much notice of that exchange.

The club will apply for a PP and has a strong case for it. Personally, I don't think we'll receive an early PP, however we may be a shot at an end of first round/ second round PP. Either that or the PP is well and truly dead and the AFL should label it that way.

Last year the basis for the decision was that the list did not reflect our performance due to two prime factors (developing players + injuries), this year our ladder position truly reflects our list. FFS, we have won 36 of the last 171 games, annualising that figure suggests that we will win one more game for the year, leaving our total at 37 wins from 176 games (8 seasons), an average of 4.5 wins per season, or alternatively, a winning percentage of 21%.

As a comparison, the only team with a lower winning percentage than us over the last 8 years is GWS (12.4%), Gold Coast has an annualised winning % of 30%. I’ve compared our last 8 seasons to teams in a similar position to us currently (cbf doing it for Richmond/ Carlton) – WB (47%), Brisbane (38.9%), St K (52.9%).

The AFL stated that we had a group of highly talented youngsters that were developing, and said that we had a successful 2012 draft due to the amount of games played by 2012 draftees. Players listed in the article as talented and developing - Watts, Toumpas, Trengove, Tapscott, Blease, Barry, Grimes, Hogan, Viney, M.Jones, Terlich and Kent. Of the 12 players listed only 4 (Watts, Grimes, Viney and M.Jones) have played regular top level footy, with Hogan being the only one to suffer a serious injury.

The AFL expected that a number of injured players were due to return - Clark (4 games), Dawes (12 games), Frawley (was playing injured). Injuries have been similar this year (Trengove, Hogan & Spencer), although the players this year are arguably less important to the teams success.

Yes we have improved, however the stats above speak for themselves. It’s also likely we will have lost 2 players in the 2014 leadership group in the prime of their careers. Although it depresses me, it’s hard to make a case that we will be much better next season (which is what the AFL alluded to in not giving us a PP last season).

Articles about the AFL’s decision:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-23/no-priority-pick-for-demons

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-22/dees-priority-pick-in-doubt

Thank you for a very informative 35th post! Keep it up.

The club will apply for a PP and has a strong case for it. Personally, I don't think we'll receive an early PP, however we may be a shot at an end of first round/ second round PP. Either that or the PP is well and truly dead and the AFL should label it that way.

Last year the basis for the decision was that the list did not reflect our performance due to two prime factors (developing players + injuries), this year our ladder position truly reflects our list. FFS, we have won 36 of the last 171 games, annualising that figure suggests that we will win one more game for the year, leaving our total at 37 wins from 176 games (8 seasons), an average of 4.5 wins per season, or alternatively, a winning percentage of 21%.

As a comparison, the only team with a lower winning percentage than us over the last 8 years is GWS (12.4%), Gold Coast has an annualised winning % of 30%. I’ve compared our last 8 seasons to teams in a similar position to us currently (cbf doing it for Richmond/ Carlton) – WB (47%), Brisbane (38.9%), St K (52.9%).

The AFL stated that we had a group of highly talented youngsters that were developing, and said that we had a successful 2012 draft due to the amount of games played by 2012 draftees. Players listed in the article as talented and developing - Watts, Toumpas, Trengove, Tapscott, Blease, Barry, Grimes, Hogan, Viney, M.Jones, Terlich and Kent. Of the 12 players listed only 4 (Watts, Grimes, Viney and M.Jones) have played regular top level footy, with Hogan being the only one to suffer a serious injury.

The AFL expected that a number of injured players were due to return - Clark (4 games), Dawes (12 games), Frawley (was playing injured). Injuries have been similar this year (Trengove, Hogan & Spencer), although the players this year are arguably less important to the teams success.

Yes we have improved, however the stats above speak for themselves. It’s also likely we will have lost 2 players in the 2014 leadership group in the prime of their careers. Although it depresses me, it’s hard to make a case that we will be much better next season (which is what the AFL alluded to in not giving us a PP last season).

Articles about the AFL’s decision:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-23/no-priority-pick-for-demons

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-22/dees-priority-pick-in-doubt

Good post.

Funny, we'll not so funny thing is that they can use the same reasoning that they used last year to deny us a PP, again this year.

PP is dead. We'll it is for us anyway. We have squandered so many 1st round picks one could argue we are in this mire from our own incompetence. Does that mean we don't deserve another PP? Hard to say. One thing is for sure though, if any team needs one it's us and if we're denied one and another team is deemed worthy I'll be [censored]. Would it surprise me? Unfortunately not really.

Although a PP will help we need to become more ruthless ands efficient with the picks we have. Need to find more bargain 2nd rounders ala Mcdonald and Howe and we need to keep nailing our first rounders.

We will be the ones responsible for digging ourselves out of the hole we dug- no more AFL assistance in the form of free picks.

I think the PP will be activated if this year for us if we are in same category as Lions and Saints.

The AFL will be very keen to help out Brissie (who's list is in really bad shape), so-so about helping Saints, and getting over us being perennial losers.

If we're smart we'd align with Saints and Lions to petition the AFL for a PP at end of first round... Eddie shouldn't mind that too much.

Good point earlier Nutbean about not booing anyone who leaves but has played 100 games - father/son pick.

Please if he goes which seems highly likely - no booing BUT he will be persona non gratis re MFC.

Agree AFL created the probelm introducing Free Agency.

Never forgiven Gerard Healy for going - got his right wack when the Dees smashed Healy and his Swans in the 87 finals (go Robbie Flower) - and Healy can jump in the lake as regards saying who is best to succeed Roos - tho I wouldn't knock Clarkson back. (remember Clarkson kicking the winning goal against the Dees for North in his first game - then he ended up at the Dees as well as knocking Ian Aitken out cold in the battle of Britain (Kangas v Carlton) post season at The Oval - and Dees went on to be World Champions).

Evans doesnt like us... dont get any hopes up about a PP

Good post.

Funny, we'll not so funny thing is that they can use the same reasoning that they used last year to deny us a PP, again this year.

PP is dead. We'll it is for us anyway. We have squandered so many 1st round picks one could argue we are in this mire from our own incompetence.

What team gets into this without it being 'their own incompetence'?

This argument is without validity; whether you don't pick well, or trade away good players, or have them leave, or delist competent pros, or 'top up' with compromised players, or have a series of poor coaches, or improperly develop players for years - it is that team that 'brought it on themselves.'

St Kilda are bottoming out by trading their best players for picks, retiring players and playing a great number of young players after having a coach for years that recruited a great number of recycled players instead of developing young players. How can one differentiate the two?

The argument that we 'have screwed up our chances' isn't an argument against us getting more chances, it is an argument FOR us to get more chances and nuts to our competitors who benefitted from our incompetence and are now trying to not give a sucker an even break.

Buckley was rude, coy, and downright patronising

So nothing different to his usual demeanour then RPFC??

Where does it end though? How many leg ups do you give to a failure? How do you teach a fool responsibility and instill dependence when you keep giving charity to fix their mistakes?