26 minutes ago, Skuit said:

This. Mental scars. For all the back and forth on the relative merits of Grimes and Garland there's something about the pair that just doesn't seem to fit our current model. They may contribute but they lack aggression in demanding the ball and moving it quickly with intent. Somewhere toward the end of the third term Garland did well to find some space and mark just forward of center from a short pass. The forward line is flooded but Garland just seemed indecisive and slow to react. (Players running past on both sides?). Then kicked it laterally out of bounds in the direction of Grimes who was leading away from the ball. That was our old game plan. Probably overstating it but the whole passage at the time felt indicative of the pair not really adjusting to what we're trying to put in place.

I saw this. It was quite simply an awful kick by  Garland. Grimes was leading to the ball but it was kicked well in front of him. Garland did this under no pressure whatever--in fact it is in this situation that He tends to bugger things up

i do agree that  Garland's  value lies in his ability to play small or tall but if he continues to waste the ball he might be struggling

Gotta love the pop psychologists and pure guess work of several on this site!  "Mental scars" please! Grimes and Garland haven't been molested as children, nor done a tour of duty in a war zone... so can we ditch the pop psychology and start to assess their performances based on what they did and what we assume they were meant to do?

For example, both are back men... which generally means they're responsible for

• stopping an opposition forward, how did their opposition forward go? were they damaging?
• defensive rebound, delivering the ball forward and setting up attacking rebound, Are they implementing the game plan? are there skills ok?are they creating effective forward moves?
• as senior players (and Garland in the leadership group) there role is also to assist and guide those around them, cover for them and generally support the less experienced players (i.e. OMac, Wagner), are they doing this well? or is it impacting their effectiveness?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I put no credence in player evaluations that simply look to gain approval by regurgitating to old prejudices and group think without reference to their actual role and performance.

And I reckon we owe our players the respect to actually analyse their work objectively before we bag them out. 

23 minutes ago, Farmer said:

i didn't see the first half originally but was interested to see a suggestion that he had squibbed it in the second quarter. When I saw the replay it was plain that this was nonsense--it was a poor kick to him and was behind him as he tried to mark it. He never lacks courage. And as others have said, he can play wing or HBF .

He didn't "squib" it, but he had to mark it.

Unfortunately, Grimes lacks talent.  If you want your team to get better you need better players than Grimes, which is a shame, as he's a great guy and loves the club.  

It's just the way it is.

Love it, Grimes drops a mark and he "lacks talent", where as Hogan can drops several and it's ok as he just a bit rusty and will be fine.

And then "It's just the way it is." Yawn...

 

20 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Love it, Grimes drops a mark and he "lacks talent", where as Hogan can drops several and it's ok as he just a bit rusty and will be fine.

And then "It's just the way it is." Yawn...

 

So you think an opinion of Grimes is based on one isolated incident ?

Clever guy.

54 minutes ago, Farmer said:

What bloody rubbish!

Didnt get it as much as he usually does, but u run the tape and watch dispassionately and you will see that he didn't miss a target and many were incredibly good including a precise left foot kick to a running forward 40m away.

i didn't see the first half originally but was interested to see a suggestion that he had squibbed it in the second quarter. When I saw the replay it was plain that this was nonsense--it was a poor kick to him and was behind him as he tried to mark it. He never lacks courage. And as others have said, he can play wing or HBF .The poisonous quality of his critics was demonstrated 18 months ago. We played PA in Adelaide and nearly beat them. He buggered up one kick near the end, and it is true that it was at a critical time. But he had played all day on M White who was outstanding for PA that year and who was benched 5 minutes into the last quarter having had 3 disposals! By far his worst game, yet on this site Grimes is only remembered for the errant kick. His disposal is a darned sight better than Viney's

And you'll find the Garland and Grimes haters will just make things up.  Just look at Jnrmac's little effort yesterday on Garland.

I'm undecided on Grimes and whilst I love the guy I think he will struggle to get a game in a full team this year.  Harmes, Bugg and Kennedy have made it hard for Grimes, Stretch and ANB and the prospect of Trengove and Petracca confuse the situation even more.  If we have a good run with injury I think Grimes will struggle because it would appear that the FD don't rate him much either.  But like Trenners I hope he can find his early career form. 

No, I think you've decided on Grimes and ignore any event that contradicts your negative fixed viewpoint on him, while highlighting any event that supports your negative fixed viewpoint on him. I.e. highlight one dropped mark, while ignoring the six marks he took. 

Edited March 15, 20169 yr by PaulRB

1 minute ago, PaulRB said:

No, I think you've decided on Grimes and ignore any event that contradicts your negative fixed viewpoint on him, while highlighting any event that supports your negative fixed viewpoint on him. I.e. highlight one dropped mark, while ignoring the six marks he took. 

I reckon PD is more flexible in his views than many.

Grimes weaknesses are his speed and his lateral movement.  He also has a "mechanical" kicking style.  He has a lot of good attributes as well but I wonder if the two weaknesses I've mentioned are deal breakers.

I'm not arguing Grimes is without flaw, but rather against viewing certain players through a fixed set of beliefs that may now be obsolete.

All players on our list are being developed and are working there asses off to become better players. They all believe that they can get better.

To allow some players the possibility of improving while condemning other players as incapable of improving is illogical and disrespectful to the player, who in this case is also a former Captain of our club.

It has more to do with the supporter peddling the fixed belief, and then highlighting examples that validate the belief, wanting to get an ego boost by being seen to be "Right"... irrespective of the current facts.

Edited March 15, 20169 yr by PaulRB

I don't trust Grimes. Makes too many mistakes and is slow to react. I dont think he has done anything to deserve a round 1 start.

12 hours ago, rjay said:

I think Pedders could be the one to miss...

GWS will miss Cameron and maybe Patton, they will go in shorter than is normally the case. Their game plan seems to be built a lot on run from defence. I would have Harmes in with Kennedy, Bugg and Frost to provide the the defensive pressure. Pedders doesn't bring this to the table.

I'd disagree, simply because i think the height of the GWS defense is something we could expose, Peders is a decent contested mark and good enough to demand attention plus he's reasonable around the ground as a back up ruck.

31 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

it has more to do with the supporter peddling the fixed belief, and then highlighting examples that validate the belief, wanting to get an ego boost by being seen to be "Right"... irrespective of the current facts.

Little known fact, this is the official Demonland motto...

 

26 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

I'm not arguing Grimes is without flaw, but rather against viewing certain players through a fixed set of beliefs that may now be obsolete.

All players on our list are being developed and are working there asses off to become better players. They all believe that they can get better.

To allow some players the possibility of improving while condemning other players as incapable of improving is illogical and disrespectful to the player, who in this case is also a former Captain of our club.

It has more to do with the supporter peddling the fixed belief, and then highlighting examples that validate the belief, wanting to get an ego boost by being seen to be "Right"... irrespective of the current facts.

I know exactly what you're saying but a view of a player develops over a period of time and changes as that player changes.  Some observers change more slowly than others and a smaller group are too proud to change.

Grimes does have a history of "bloopers" and I can understand people having concerns about that.  When you say "to allow some players the possibility of improving while condemning others" probably misses the point.  Demonland doesn't "allow some players the possibility of improving" we just commentate on what we see, and of course we only see a fraction of what the FD sees and knows.  It's the FD that evaluate the players and they will make the decision and unless you're like Biffen who thinks a comment or two on our situation from outside the club will panic us into making decisions (and we know that's just dumb) you can relax about the views expressed on DL. 

 

42 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

I'm not arguing Grimes is without flaw, but rather against viewing certain players through a fixed set of beliefs that may now be obsolete.

All players on our list are being developed and are working there asses off to become better players. They all believe that they can get better.

To allow some players the possibility of improving while condemning other players as incapable of improving is illogical and disrespectful to the player, who in this case is also a former Captain of our club.

It has more to do with the supporter peddling the fixed belief, and then highlighting examples that validate the belief, wanting to get an ego boost by being seen to be "Right"... irrespective of the current facts.

Spare us the psychobabble.

My views have evolved over years of watching the guy.  He's a solid servant, but if you want your club to improve, if you want your club to win a flag, you need better players than Grimes.  He's good depth, but in my view no longer "best 22".

His skill execution under pressure is poor, which is why you see the "bloopers" Bob refers to and most importantly he's not a great decision maker.  Oliver has played 3 practice matches and already you can see the skill in heavy traffic and the elite footy nous.  It's called "talent".  Not all players will have Oliver's talent, but in the "degrees" stakes, Grimes falls too far short.  Naturally, if I'm wrong, you'll see him in the best 22.  You don't have long to wait.

Btw, I'm not offended that you disagree with me.  You taking offence is strange, but your choice.

I don't believe Grimes showed enough in the NAB challenge to be considered best 22, having said that given the introduction of the interchange cap, and we saw against the saints how tired players were, i think Grimes might be helped by the fact he's a bit more seasons and capable of running out a game like that then one of the younger blokes imo

1 hour ago, PaulRB said:

Gotta love the pop psychologists and pure guess work of several on this site!  "Mental scars" please! Grimes and Garland haven't been molested as children, nor done a tour of duty in a war zone... so can we ditch the pop psychology and start to assess their performances based on what they did and what we assume they were meant to do?

 

Our senior coach was the one who brought it up. And it's not about shell-shock or PTSS but a lack of instinct, aggressive desire or trust in our ball movement based on what they experienced and how they were forced to play (and learn and develop) in the past. I said they contribute but we need more going forward than assertions of defensive accountability (no mention here of the damaging clangers). 

57 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

I'm not arguing Grimes is without flaw, but rather against viewing certain players through a fixed set of beliefs that may now be obsolete.

All players on our list are being developed and are working there asses off to become better players. They all believe that they can get better.

To allow some players the possibility of improving while condemning other players as incapable of improving is illogical and disrespectful to the player, who in this case is also a former Captain of our club.

It has more to do with the supporter peddling the fixed belief, and then highlighting examples that validate the belief, wanting to get an ego boost by being seen to be "Right"... irrespective of the current facts.

And to think everyone is so rigid in their prejudice and can't make an objective assessment due to egotistical blinding ignores the praise for M. Jones and Watts over the preseason and suggests perhaps you have mental scars from being on Demonland for too long.

When Grimes first started he was a handy half back flank who would play on a half forward flank, use his height (he was tall for a flanker then) and work rate to intercept mark away from that opponent. Then he'd run off and guys like Rivers or Cam Bruce would get him the ball and he'd kick it out to the next player and away we went. He was a decent back flanker. He missed some time with injuries and the forward pressure started to make life harder for back flankers without accurate kicks.

Then Mark Neeld came in and preseason was about getting super fit to run hard and defend. His reward for that was the captaincy. Lacking fit midfielders Jack was thrown in to the middle without any training in clearance play. He ran hard, tackled pretty well and had some decent games. But again more injuries and no real improvement.

He returned to the back flank under Roos and eventually shed the captaincy. He still worked hard and took some marks, but his skills just weren't picking up fast enough to keep up with the modern game. His only option was safe sideways footy. 

So now he's send to the wing where he can use his best remaining AFL attribute which is his ability to run. Plus his ability to read the play will help him position well to be the outlet for the backline. A decent mark as well so he can retain possession. Hopefully he can then get the ball out in space and move it on to the right target without being under such presssure. Plus he'll defend well, although a lack of pace off the mark might be exposed.

I think it's the right move and he'll be good wing depth. But the bad flaws in his game are still there. Besides the average kicking skills (which aren't the worst for a wingman) it's his lack of awareness that really lets him down. He was outmarked 3 times on Sunday waiting for the ball instead of going hard at it and we know about his infamous hospital handballs.

The reality is his prime development years were wasted running laps, injured or burdened by leadership. His kicking has improved since 2014 but I just don't think he'll get the awareness back (if he ever had it). 

If they pick him I'll live with some mistakes knowing at least he works on them and the coaches have devised a role to hopefully suit his game. That's the best we can hope for.

Are we discussing Grimes again.....

This might be unpopular but i am not sure Brayshaw should come straight back in, he's best 22 in my opinion but like all young players i'd like to see him build some form through Casey for a week or two, the team that's just played has won three in a row, so keeping unforced changes to a minimum would be my plan i think

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Little known fact, this is the official Demonland motto...

 

You're just the man for little known facts Stu.

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

Our senior coach was the one who brought it up. And it's not about shell-shock or PTSS but a lack of instinct, aggressive desire or trust in our ball movement based on what they experienced and how they were forced to play (and learn and develop) in the past. I said they contribute but we need more going forward than assertions of defensive accountability (no mention here of the damaging clangers). 

Our coach made a general throw away statement about the broad culture at the MFC, in which there was no reference to Grimes. You've taken it and applied it to a player 6+ months later and now attribute it to Roos... 

Did I miss Roos coming out after the NAB cup and saying Grimes was still carrying mental scars!?

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

And to think everyone is so rigid in their prejudice and can't make an objective assessment due to egotistical blinding ignores the praise for M. Jones and Watts over the preseason and suggests perhaps you have mental scars from being on Demonland for too long.

Never said "everyone" i said "some", and the capacity for M Jones and Watts to play outside of the boxes many have them in simply highlights how much can change in a pre-season and that any player can improve.

My key point which you've chosen to ignore is that your evaluation of Grimes based on these three Nab cup games is wrong, does not align with his stats, and has been made without any awareness as to his role or how well he played his man. It simply derives from old fixed viewpoints. 

Its interesting to me that INSTEAD of looking at his stats, who he played on, etc... to actually explore if he's playing better or worse, you simpy restate your negative belief and pull bizarre references in to "argue" your case... Its like you'd be pleased for him to be limited, scarred, etc... because then you'd be right! 

 

Edited March 15, 20169 yr by PaulRB

And Grimes probably didn't even play when the mental scars issue was raised. Let's talk more directly to the point. I don't believe he has the attributes to help us improve as a team. The points cited were a lack of urgency and intensity and I furthered this to make a point on perhaps his inability to adapt to our evident new game plan. You're asking me to look at his stats over the NAB as to defensive accountability. You're right - I never really addressed this point because I don't trust stat-sheets and find it hard to draw overall defensive conclusions without attending the game. What I see is a game-plan devised around quick movement out of defense, a high press and frantic defensive forward pressure. I don't see him being able to contribute in this manner and when the ball gets out the back I think he'll struggle to get back and shut-down. I was highly critical of Lumumba last season but would like to see him back in the team because I feel he has the attributes to contribute to overall team success going forward.

 

 

Hey Skuit, it cool you believe that about Grimes and his potential (or lack of). I guess I see so many unknowns in what you're saying (about how Grimes is adapting to the evolved game style, about what role he's being trained to fill in this new style, and if he's doing well or not, etc...) that I am uncomfortable being as sure of his uselessness as you. 

I prefer to hold judgements until it's clear, let things play out with the pre-season and then settle over the first couple of months of the season proper, before stamping papers.

Inevitably if he's not playing well enough he will be overtaken by players that are playing better.

But I'd prefer to be patient, respectful and caring in that process, especially with a young man who's given his heart and soul to this club in trying times. Shitty times that were not of his making.