Just now, DemonAndrew said:

Don't see how - he's not going to win centre clearances.

So you thought our kicking game was good???

We are still in desperate need of good kicks...

Good kicks, smart kicks, and clearance players.

7 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

Good kicks, smart kicks, and clearance players.

I think we've got clearance players 'Andrew', just don't think we played it smart today.

I would have put Vince on to Gibbs early in the first Q to cut his effectiveness and cut him out from going 3rd up.

However, I don't know what the agenda was in the box.

It might have been more about the learning experience.

11 minutes ago, rjay said:

I think we've got clearance players 'Andrew', just don't think we played it smart today.

I would have put Vince on to Gibbs early in the first Q to cut his effectiveness and cut him out from going 3rd up.

However, I don't know what the agenda was in the box.

It might have been more about the learning experience.

Clearly not the winning experience.

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That has to be rubbish. 

We do not have any player on $700k and for Hibbered to come in anywhere near that is an insult to our whole team! 

Just can't imagine Mahoney and co agreeing to that when they have worked so hard to 'pay what a player is worth'.  If we have offered that, it makes a mockery of our paying 'what a player is worth' policy.  Total loss of cred with the players would result and the likes of Tom Mc would have every reason to be might pi--ed off. 

 

This is the sort of garbage that gets circulated before an important game to put a young  playing group off their game. Wouldn't put anything past these bathtubs from Car or Ess

Lets just hope these druggies from Essendon can turn their life around and help us form a half back line.

3 hours ago, DemonAndrew said:

Got this from today someone involved at the bombers:

 

"Rumours swirling that Hibberd has been offered around 725k for 4 years from the Dees"

 

That better be a joke. No way he's worth close to that.

The only way that's true is if Essendon were offering him 655K a year for 4, as what I heard from a very good source was that Melbourne's offer is only 70K a year more.

Hibberd is worth about $400,000 at best per season. If he's after $700k, then go to the Suns... they will have spare room once O'Meara goes

The mail I've heard said the Bombers offer was $1.2mil over 3 years, with our offer to Hibbert being $1.7mil over 4 years. Whilst our offer isn't a massive increase in $$, the desire to leave for a fresh start & join his best mate was the overriding factor.

11 minutes ago, The O said:

The mail I've heard said the Bombers offer was $1.2mil over 3 years, with our offer to Hibbert being $1.7mil over 4 years. Whilst our offer isn't a massive increase in $$, the desire to leave for a fresh start & join his best mate was the overriding factor.

That's a far more plausible number than the other rumour in this thread.

I'm not sure why supporters get so hung up over how much players are paid anyway.  So long as players on our list aren't leaving for money, who cares how much we play the players we recruit?  

How about he just says to Essendon u faarked me over and u can get stuffed. I'm going to Melbourne and will go in the preseason draft if I have to. 

Would that work??

4 hours ago, rjay said:

I think we've got clearance players 'Andrew', just don't think we played it smart today.

I would have put Vince on to Gibbs early in the first Q to cut his effectiveness and cut him out from going 3rd up.

However, I don't know what the agenda was in the box.

It might have been more about the learning experience.

If we go by Jude Bolton's recent article, he discussed Roos' philosophy being anchored around the players working through situations going against them, rather than falling back on the coach. That would be about giving the players 'empowerment' to change momentum in games and take control themselves. I'd say this is what it was all about and has been throughout Roos' tenure. 

9 hours ago, A F said:

If we go by Jude Bolton's recent article, he discussed Roos' philosophy being anchored around the players working through situations going against them, rather than falling back on the coach. That would be about giving the players 'empowerment' to change momentum in games and take control themselves. I'd say this is what it was all about and has been throughout Roos' tenure. 

That sounds like a massive copout.

We "empowered" Roos to the tune of $1.5m per year to do a job. It takes all of a couple of seconds to pick up a phone and say "Vince to Gibbs, hard tag"

On 8/21/2016 at 11:33 AM, ProDee said:

I'll be looking at Weideman as the equivalent of this year's first rounder.  But with a year already in the system.

That's exactly why that decision was made last year, clearly it was felt that We needed a young foil for Hogan and Weideman was more talented than any of the key talls in this years draft, personally very happy with the outcome there. 

2 hours ago, faultydet said:

That sounds like a massive copout.

We "empowered" Roos to the tune of $1.5m per year to do a job. It takes all of a couple of seconds to pick up a phone and say "Vince to Gibbs, hard tag"

I think the onus was upon the players collectively to make that decision and move, and they failed to make it...
On reflection, they will be aware of the error of their ways and will likely make the correct decision next time.
How else will they learn to make the moves themselves, if not by being empowered to do so?

It's how the Hawthorns and Geelongs have maintained their longterm dominance.
They don't wait for the coach to make the move - Burgoyne goes into the centre square, or Bartel moves to play loose in the backline when they sense it is needed.

11 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

I think the onus was upon the players collectively to make that decision and move, and they failed to make it...
On reflection, they will be aware of the error of their ways and will likely make the correct decision next time.
How else will they learn to make the moves themselves, if not by being empowered to do so?

It's how the Hawthorns and Geelongs have maintained their longterm dominance.
They don't wait for the coach to make the move - Burgoyne goes into the centre square, or Bartel moves to play loose in the backline when they sense it is needed.

Mach, if Roos was prepared to lose a game that would see us miss our first opportunity at finals for a decade, just to see if the players would make a move themselves, I would be seriously pizzed.

It doesn't take an entire game to know they are not going to make the move themselves, and we have video reviews for just that thing anyway. To me, winning was the only thing that mattered yesterday. It wasn't a classroom day, it was a day to get the points. Nothing more, nothing less.

12 hours ago, DemonOX said:

How about he just says to Essendon u faarked me over and u can get stuffed. I'm going to Melbourne and will go in the preseason draft if I have to. 

Would that work??

I'm thinking there has to be "some semblance" of genuine effort. And we must not forget the "relics" of player managers are money grabbing scumbags within a greedy rampant industry that make up the rules as they go. They would also be in the close social contact framework of the AFL and Players union (no dispersion on real unions) sorry lapdogs.     So it would be all about appearances.

1 minute ago, faultydet said:

Mach, if Roos was prepared to lose a game that would see us miss our first opportunity at finals for a decade, just to see if the players would make a move themselves, I would be seriously pizzed.

It doesn't take an entire game to know they are not going to make the move themselves, and we have video reviews for just that thing anyway. To me, winning was the only thing that mattered yesterday. It wasn't a classroom day, it was a day to get the points. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know it's part of an apprenticeship, but I think you're overly excited about playing finals and just making up the numbers.  Half the competition play finals.  Ordinary sides play finals.  How have those 3 straight years of finals helped Richmond ?

I think it's a blessing in disguise to not play finals this year.  There will be a drive over summer that will hold this group in good stead for 2017. 

6 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I know it's part of an apprenticeship, but I think you're overly excited about playing finals and just making up the numbers.  Half the competition play finals.  Ordinary sides play finals.  How have those 3 straight years of finals helped Richmond ?

I think it's a blessing in disguise to not play finals this year.  There will be a drive over summer that will hold this group in good stead for 2017. 

Just as so many here would have said it's a blessing in disguise to have lost our first final, should we have made it through.

Give a team hope and they can perform wonders. But to resist making changes yesterday that seemed to have a massive effect on the outcome, was not good enough imo. (if that's what actually happened.)

And every team seems to make up the numbers if they finish 8th. That's about where we will finish next year, unless some teams implode. I wont be thinking it was good to just miss out again, if that's what happens.

I was also hanging on to the finals hope for things like memberships etc. We need every boost we can get, to reach where we all aspire.

 

*maybe mods can move all of this talk, so we dont ruin the Hibberd thread.

Edited August 22, 20169 yr by faultydet

Just now, faultydet said:

Just as so many here would have said it's a blessing in disguise to have lost our first final, should we have made it through.

Give a team hope and they can perform wonders. But to resist making changes yesterday that seemed to have a massive effect on the outcome, was not good enough imo. (if that's what actually happened.)

And every team seems to make up the numbers if they finish 8th. That's about where we will finish next year, unless some teams implode. I wont be thinking it was good to just miss out again, if that's what happens.

I was also hanging on to the finals hope for things like memberships etc. We need every boost we can get, to reach where we all aspire.

It would have been nice and in no way do I think Roos thought he was compromising a win, but for me it would have been small fry in the bigger picture.

1 minute ago, ProDee said:

It would have been nice and in no way do I think Roos thought he was compromising a win, but for me it would have been small fry in the bigger picture.

I would love to have known if Goody would have done something different yesterday.

Anyway, next weeks game is a dead rubber. Character test for the team. Will they turn up, or have their heads spinning for mad monday?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/melbourne-demons-will-ramp-up-michael-hibberd-interest-at-end-of-season-20160821-gqxvmj.html

Not to sure what to make of this: "Goodwin... said it was too early to say Hibberd would wind up under his purview once more...He hasn't made the decision where he wants to go yet...We'll have those discussions at the end of the year...If he fits and he wants to come and wants to be a part of it, he'd be a good asset."

I'm glad Goodwin's comment is non-committal as I smell a rat!  I reckon Paul Connors advised Hibberd to not nominate a club so he can involve another club and force us to offer a higher trade to EFC than we want.  (Connors did a deal with EFC to not take his players away as DFA's).

I heard Lloyd say yesterday (because we paid 23 for Melksham) Hibberd is worth pick 20, effectively a 1st rnd pick (aft Academy player picks).  I'm expecting all the Ess media fan boys to trot out the same line, again with the intent to force our hand to offer a higher trade than we want.

They know we overpaid for Melksham last year and are trying to strong-arm us into the same for Hibberd. 

The pressure is building.  Stay strong Dees - 'Take It Or Leave It' has to be our stand!

 

Edited August 22, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

5 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/melbourne-demons-will-ramp-up-michael-hibberd-interest-at-end-of-season-20160821-gqxvmj.html

Not to sure what to make of this: "Goodwin... said it was too early to say Hibberd would wind up under his purview once more...He hasn't made the decision where he wants to go yet...We'll have those discussions at the end of the year...If he fits and he wants to come and wants to be a part of it, he'd be a good asset."

I'm glad Goodwin's comment is non-committal as I smell a rat!  I reckon Paul Connors advised Hibberd to not nominate a club so he can involve another club and force us to offer a higher trade to EFC than we want.  (Connors did a deal with EFC to not take his players away as DFA's).

I heard Lloyd say yesterday (because we paid 23 for Melksham) Hibberd is worth pick 20, effectively a 1st rnd pick (aft Academy player picks).  I'm expecting all the Ess media fan boys to trot out the same line, again with the intent to force our hand to offer a higher trade than we want.

They know we overpaid for Melksham last year and are trying to strong-arm us into the same for Hibberd. 

The pressure is building.  Stay strong Dees - 'Take It Or Leave It' has to be our stand!

 

We wont. We never do.

I can see it being next years first pick. I think he will let his strong personal relationship with Hibberd cloud his judgement.

Hope I'm wrong, but I don't expect to be.

This years second rounder should be more than enough.

2 minutes ago, faultydet said:

We wont. We never do.

I can see it being next years first pick. I think he will let his strong personal relationship with Hibberd cloud his judgement.

Hope I'm wrong, but I don't expect to be.

This years second rounder should be more than enough.

I fear that as well!  It just sickens me that we would help them climb the ladder by being muscled into overpaying for their players.

And at some point we need to take a stand or we will forever be done over on trade deals. 

13 hours ago, A F said:

If we go by Jude Bolton's recent article, he discussed Roos' philosophy being anchored around the players working through situations going against them, rather than falling back on the coach. That would be about giving the players 'empowerment' to change momentum in games and take control themselves. I'd say this is what it was all about and has been throughout Roos' tenure. 

Clearly not working?