I think it's a great sign that everybody hates the changes.

Last week everyone was behaving like they'd just won tattsloto with the changes, and look how that turned out.

Really concerned that Brisbane will smash us in the clearances when Dawes has to come up against Leuenberger or Martin. I hope they've thought that one through?

(Maybe Jamar a late inclusion for a sore Hogan?)

Edited July 17, 201510 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

Staggering really! So this side is the "Blueprint" for success??

That's what I am reading into a "No Change" scenario from last weeks highly embarrassing affair!

Grimes - cooked, clearly not part of Goodwins plans

Toumpas - no contract on the table, can't get a game

Whose worth bringing in to the side who would improve it? Think hard about your answer.

look at it from the other direction. why are about 5 players in particular getting another game especially after being beaten by a crippled side like essendrugs?

plus what sort of message are you sending to casey who had such a convincing win?

you wouldn't have to play too well to be an improvement on certain players

edit: i don't mind some getting another chance but fmd nil changes is too rich

Edited July 17, 201510 yr by daisycutter

Its unbelievable really.

Grimes will at least give us 20-25 possessions.

Howe will give us nothing.

Quality possessions? Or sideways/backwards short chip kicks? He's not known for elite disposal.

Papers officially stamped.

Staggering really! So this side is the "Blueprint" for success??

That's what I am reading into a "No Change" scenario from last weeks highly embarrassing affair!

The 22 named are what Roos/Goodwin consider to be the best 22 available. No more mass changes, the young players have to stick it out and learn what's required together. There's enough senior players out there. I would of liked to of seen either Newton/Michie given another chance. The whole Dawes/Howe thing has been done to death.

Given the state of our list I'm not surprised we're just getting games into our youth now. The writing is well and truly on the wall for whoever isn't getting a game.

The sooner supporters realise Roos has actually come in to perform a stealth rebuild (and do it properly), the quicker people will realise we're playing the long-term game here. We won't have a list worthy of contending until Goodwin's first year as coach.

Given the state of our list I'm not surprised we're just getting games into our youth now. The writing is well and truly on the wall for whoever isn't getting a game.

The sooner supporters realise Roos has actually come in to perform a stealth rebuild (and do it properly), the quicker people will realise we're playing the long-term game here. We won't have a list worthy of contending until Goodwin's first year as coach.

Contending in 2017?

Eleventh to Ninth will be result in 2017 if we recruit well next year.

As you say the majority at Casey are either spent of were always VFL talents. IMO the only three not playing on Sunday that are AFL standard ( excluding year ended injuries ).

Contending in 2017?

Eleventh to Ninth will be result in 2017 if we recruit well next year.

As you say the majority at Casey are either spent of were always VFL talents. IMO the only three not playing on Sunday that are AFL standard ( excluding year ended injuries ).

He did say worthy of contending - it doesn't mean we will that year, it just means we are now in more of a position to do so.

Having said that, how often have we been waiting for the list to contend? You could argue that we are in much better hands than we were at the end of the last decade, but we've been stuck waiting for our list to 'contend' for a very long time.

He did say worthy of contending - it doesn't mean we will that year, it just means we are now in more of a position to do so.

Having said that, how often have we been waiting for the list to contend? You could argue that we are in much better hands than we were at the end of the last decade, but we've been stuck waiting for our list to 'contend' for a very long time.

Exactly!

Appears Demons will trade Toumpas. Maybe a direct swap with Sam Kerridge from Crows

The teams are set the form is known who wins?

IMHO I cannot pick it there are reasons to pick either.

Dees by 1 goal because they must be fired up after the crap of last Saturday and surely we cannot kick that poorly again.

Appears Demons will trade Toumpas. Maybe a direct swap with Sam Kerridge from Crows

Assumption or based on something?

Appears Demons will trade Toumpas. Maybe a direct swap with Sam Kerridge from Crows

Deck chairs again rather keep Toumpas.

Feel that one of the messages from the "no change" is that they not only need to play, but they need to play TOGETHER. Dawes, Howe and Hogan have played how many matches together ... 3 or 4? Constant changes don't help, we/they need consistency.

Not unhappy, don't see how anyone at Casey would make a difference. They've all had their chances and been found wanting. Play this lot until the injured players start coming back in, then perhaps look at giving Hunt or even O Mac a run towards the end of the season.

Howe, whether we like it or not, will play for the rest of the season. This will be done so we can say come trade time that he is a valued member of our starting 22. Trying to lure out maximum value at the trade table.

I tend to agree with you in that that is reason why this is happening

I disagree however with the reason

I would prefer to win matches and not contribute to a culture where peahearts get games for free

The strategy worked a treat with Frawley but this is different

As if Aidan Riley would make a lick of difference to the side. Same goes for Grimes and Jamar.

None of the three mentioned seriously make us any better so we may as well go with what we have. It's not getting any better for the time being.

I would say we are still 5 short of our best 22 (inc. LTIs) and possibly 6 with Pedersen. However, this type of injury list is now about league-standard so we can't really excuse them too much

I would say we are still 5 short of our best 22 (inc. LTIs) and possibly 6 with Pedersen. However, this type of injury list is now about league-standard so we can't really excuse them too much

I'd agree we are 5 to 6 short of our best 22, and if we can add 2-3 more to that best 22 in the off season and keep most of them on the park then we are a 9-12 ladder side.

The problem right now is that the blokes running around down at Casey aren't up to it and don't improve the side. Miche, Riley, even Newton... they don't improve us. They are blokes who don't have the tank to run out games and, too often, they aren't two way players because of this. Roos won't play them for that reason. I think Newton can become that sort of player in time but the other two won't make it.

I'd agree we are 5 to 6 short of our best 22, and if we can add 2-3 more to that best 22 in the off season and keep most of them on the park then we are a 9-12 ladder side.

The problem right now is that the blokes running around down at Casey aren't up to it and don't improve the side. Miche, Riley, even Newton... they don't improve us. They are blokes who don't have the tank to run out games and, too often, they aren't two way players because of this. Roos won't play them for that reason. I think Newton can become that sort of player in time but the other two won't make it.

One thing I have been doing for a while is to look at the 22 prior to a game and count how many players I don't have full confidence in to play a game of AFL standard footy. If a player has had a rubbish season incontrast to seasons prior he still gets NQR cos its about form.This applies also if we are talking about kids who may very well look the kids but are unlikely to have a genuine impact. The higher the NQR factor the higher our chance of losing (obviously). This week, bolded NQRs:

Colin Garland , Lynden Dunn, Neville Jetta

Jeremy Howe, Tom McDonald, Billy Stretch

Daniel Cross, Bernie Vince, Heritier Lumumba

Aaron Vandenberg, Chris Dawes, Jeff Garlett

Angus Brayshaw, Jesse Hogan, Jack Watts

Max Gawn, Nathan Jones, Jack Viney

Dom Tyson, Jay Kennedy-Harris, Alex Neal-Bullen, James Harmes

That's exactly half at 11, which worries me about our future, even though 6 of the 11 are still very young

Edited July 17, 201510 yr by Curry & Beer

One thing I have been doing for a while is to look at the 22 prior to a game and count how many players I don't have full confidence in to play a game of AFL standard footy. If a player has had a rubbish season incontrast to seasons prior he still gets NQR cos its about form.This applies also if we are talking about kids who may very well look the kids but are unlikely to have a genuine impact. The higher the NQR factor the higher our chance of losing (obviously). This week, bolded NQRs:

Colin Garland , Lynden Dunn, Neville Jetta

Jeremy Howe, Tom McDonald, Billy Stretch

Daniel Cross, Bernie Vince, Heritier Lumumba

Aaron Vandenberg, Chris Dawes, Jeff Garlett

Angus Brayshaw, Jesse Hogan, Jack Watts

Max Gawn, Nathan Jones, Jack Viney

Dom Tyson, Jay Kennedy-Harris, Alex Neal-Bullen, James Harmes

That's exactly half at 11, which worries me about our future, even though 6 of the 11 are still very young

I count 13 of those types on the Lions team

And you are being way too harsh on Garland who is rarely beaten

Same with Gawn and Tyson

Edited July 17, 201510 yr by hogans_heroes

Assumption or based on something?

Not playing and no contract.

Howe, whether we like it or not, will play for the rest of the season. This will be done so we can say come trade time that he is a valued member of our starting 22. Trying to lure out maximum value at the trade table.

Last year Roos played Chip forward. This was done to prepare the defence for "life after". Dunn had a stellar first half of the season before dropping off then steadying somewhat. TMac having a similar year. Also with Hogan out we needed to try and compete to some extent.

This year if Pedo and Frost weren't injured Roos could entertain the idea of dropping Howe. Howe is a seasoned player, clubs aren't stupid, they know what he brings to the table. If anything playing Toumpas is lowering his trade value.

I wonder whether Jamar is playing so we get the best out of Gawn, rather than the best out of Jamar. Gawn has clearly dominated games early but struggles as the game progresses. With some occasional proper support (which none of Dawes, Pedersen or Frost can really provide, but Jamar can), Gawn may be able to dominate a game for its entirety. And that may make a complete difference to the whole team's performance.

Or get the best out of both? I casually floated the idea of Jamar as a second ruck recently in a roundabout manner and after meeting some strong opposition my position has suddenly become further entrenched in true Demonland fashion. My newly stubborn standpoint as follows:

Good teams manage to successfully transition their long-service rucks into secondary roles over time. Jamar has not once in the past decade been given the opportunity to play just the minor portion of a game in the center. He's statistically a better goal-kicker and contested mark inside 50 from less opportunity on average than Spencer and offers greater variety and experience in the ruck as a back-up to Gawn. He picked up an extraordinary 25 possessions for a ruckman on a stupidly wet day at Casey on the weekend and should be treated like anyone else on the list as to form-lines displayed in the seconds. Above all, our ruck reserves aren't yet ready and our depth in the department going forward is a concern without a ready replacement or the Russian on board for next year (subject to poaching if entirely starved of opportunities).

I'm still anticipating (hoping?) Dawes as a late withdrawal with Mark to come in.

# And I expect full-well he'll entirely [censored] it up if actually given the chance.

Edited July 17, 201510 yr by Skuit

Not playing and no contract.

So assumption then? No worries.

One thing I have been doing for a while is to look at the 22 prior to a game and count how many players I don't have full confidence in to play a game of AFL standard footy. If a player has had a rubbish season incontrast to seasons prior he still gets NQR cos its about form.This applies also if we are talking about kids who may very well look the kids but are unlikely to have a genuine impact. The higher the NQR factor the higher our chance of losing (obviously). This week, bolded NQRs:

Colin Garland , Lynden Dunn, Neville Jetta

Jeremy Howe, Tom McDonald, Billy Stretch

Daniel Cross, Bernie Vince, Heritier Lumumba

Aaron Vandenberg, Chris Dawes, Jeff Garlett

Angus Brayshaw, Jesse Hogan, Jack Watts

Max Gawn, Nathan Jones, Jack Viney

Dom Tyson, Jay Kennedy-Harris, Alex Neal-Bullen, James Harmes

That's exactly half at 11, which worries me about our future, even though 6 of the 11 are still very young

I see where you are coming from, but it's hardly fair to call Stretch, ANB and Harmes as possible NQR players. Tyson, JKH and McDonald are also stiff. They may not be the players we want them to be but they certainly have plenty of time on their side to prove they are, and most of them have shown that they can do it.

So assumption then? No worries.

I see where you are coming from, but it's hardly fair to call Stretch, ANB and Harmes as possible NQR players. Tyson, JKH and McDonald are also stiff. They may not be the players we want them to be but they certainly have plenty of time on their side to prove they are, and most of them have shown that they can do it.

No worries alright. Next weeks changes - Grimes, Jordie, Toump