6 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

When the Footy Dept consider then ready for exposure at AFL level then they will play, the FD think OMac is, get over it

Do you know what Demonland is?

2 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Do you know what Demonland is?

1984...and Satyriconhome is Big Brother.

 

For comparison. Weedwho can play and has made impact already, good football sense etc but like O Mac needs a bit of meat and a little more capacity for AFL.  We cry out for that other fwd.. Weed continues in the Magoo's. Now this observation isn't about the right or wrong of that only the opposite is occurring at the other end !

Makes no sense to me

15 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Do you know what Demonland is?

Gee don't get me started on an answer to that question Clint, I could fill pages, to paraphrase the psychiatrist in Fawlty Towers "there is a whole convention agenda here"

A basic premise is that it is a public forum, and as such is open to a poster/person who has a particular opinion repeating it ad infinitum in the hope it will eventually wear down fellow posters to such an extent that they will  agree with it. It is also a forum where other posters may have differing opinions and as long as they are able to lucidly express why they have that opinion, they should be able to express it, without opening themselves up to denigration or ridicule (take note the Stigga)

You think OMac shouldn't be in the team at present, fine, we know, and you have expressed why you think that, I, for one, don't agree, my reasoning, we need a replacement for Lynden Dunn, the sooner we get the experience into Oscar for one, the better, the FD seems to be of this opinion as well

Edited June 5, 20169 yr by Satyriconhome

what about the groups within the groups. they're the ones you need to keep your eyes on 

17 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

If that's the case, why aren't we playing Weideman and Hulett as well?

Exactly. Didn't see this before posting. Very valid point for mine

9 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

Now where have I heard that before?

You've heard it plenty of times before, but it doesn't make it any less true.

When you see figures like Melbourne's total list experience being 2268* games as opposed to Hawthorn's 3377* or North Melbourne's 3993*, or Melbourne's average age being 22.3 years and games played 30, do really think we can just get up there and match it with other teams? It's a process that will still take time.

Impatience leads to rash decisions and reliance on old structures and habits, not building a solid foundation, which is what the coaching staff are trying to do. 

The difference in the past has been the quality of the list. I bleieve the quality now exists and is a quantum leap over a few years ago, but the experience doesn't. I want to follow the Bulldogs and the Giants into the finals for sustained results, not have another false dawn, take shortcuts and end up like the Tigers.

We will pass teams like Hawthorn on the way up soon enough, but continual negativity about not winning and the mistakes made by young players, rather than positivity about making progress, doesn't help.

Maybe the 'veil of negativity' is yet to be really lifted.

* Total list experience at the start of 2016

17 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

When the Footy Dept consider them ready for exposure at AFL level then they will play, the FD think OMac is, get over it

OMac  had been making nowhere near the impression on games that Weed has. Hullett has a body for the big-time . Oscar  the opposite. 

Edited June 5, 20169 yr by beelzebub

So our big problem is defence, but you want to give experience to two more forwards?

8 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

OMACs had been making nowhere near the impression be on games that Weed has. Hullett has a body for the big-time . Oscar  the opposite. 

They are being ultra cautious with the Weed, which we should be grateful for long term, Hulett until he was drafted had played 2 competitive games of junior footy in 18 months, he is a work in progress, you can't win on this site, posters whinging and whining about development and now when we are getting it right, it is still wrong, OMac is going to be a  defender in the AFL, the only way to get experience playing on AFL standard forwards is in the AFL. 

Edited June 5, 20169 yr by Satyriconhome
bloody smartphone

1 minute ago, mauriesy said:

So our big problem is defence, but you want to give experience to two more forwards?

That implies one or the other. The very point is why not both then. 

If you decree pain for gain let Weed or Hullett try their hand at the Dawes role . Same did no ?

3 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

So our big problem is defence, but you want to give experience to two more forwards?

Defence wasn't our short straw til wheels fell off.

On 28 May 2016 at 3:20 PM, picket fence said:

He is without doubt a poor excuse for an AFL Player, Slow, lacks awareness in short Shithouse and his Brother is not far behind!!

But I also Blame the selection comittee to which also should share Blame, In What Universe do they think He is an AFL Footballer?

 

2 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

They are being ultra cautious with the Weed, which we should be grateful for long term, Hulett until he had been drafted had played 2 competitive games of junior footy in 18 months, he is a work in progress, you can't win on this site, posters whinging and whining about development and now when we are getting it right, it is still wrong, OMac is going to be a  defender in the AFL, the only way to get experience playing on AFL standard forwards is in the AFL. 

Some common sense on here, thank god

Why more cautious with Weed than OMac The former has vastly  superior awareness and position sense.

Goose ... Gander 

7 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

They are being ultra cautious with the Weed,

Then let's be ultra cautious with Oscar McDonald as well.

Just now, Clint Bizkit said:

Then let's be ultra cautious with Oscar McDonald as well.

Weed is in his 1st year and hardly played at all last year.  

10 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

You've heard it plenty of times before, but it doesn't make it any less true.

When you see figures like Melbourne's total list experience being 2268* games as opposed to Hawthorn's 3377* or North Melbourne's 3993*, or Melbourne's average age being 22.3 years and games played 30, do really think we can just get up there and match it with other teams? It's a process that will still take time.

Impatience leads to rash decisions and reliance on old structures and habits, not building a solid foundation, which is what the coaching staff are trying to do. 

The difference in the past has been the quality of the list. I bleieve the quality now exists and is a quantum leap over a few years ago, but the experience doesn't. I want to follow the Bulldogs and the Giants into the finals for sustained results, not have another false dawn, take shortcuts and end up like the Tigers.

We will pass teams like Hawthorn on the way up soon enough, but continual negativity about not winning and the mistakes made by young players, rather than positivity about making progress, doesn't help.

Maybe the 'veil of negativity' is yet to be really lifted.

* Total list experience at the start of 2016

A cheap shot.

What I am seeing is another round of culling blokes with 100-200 games experience because they are 'not good enough for the future' and bringing in a raft of kids.

My personal view too is that these kids are the best batch we've had, but that's not the point.

We are sacrificing wins here and now, this season, in a season where we are trying to keep Hogan and Tom McDonald and entice across players like Prestia and Hurley.

If we put 10-11 wins on the board, we might have a chance of getting them.

But no A-grader in their right mind is going to fall for this continual development rubbish and be sold on the story that maybe, in a few years, we will have a finals team for them to play in.

When will we learn???

Just now, Clint Bizkit said:

Then let's be ultra cautious with Oscar McDonald as well.

The Weed has had a couple of games off already and he is only playing at Casey, so it is the FD being cautious with him, not me, he also needs to learn how to be the complete forward which you need to be these days, true he is a gifted footballer (I have seen him live) but he also needs to learn how to defend. Listen to Roos he has already stated that about 'young footballers'

Oscar is a defender, he needs experience playing against AFL standard forwards, you don't get that in the VFL

19 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Gee don't get me started on an answer to that question Clint, I could fill pages, to paraphrase the psychiatrist in Fawlty Towers "there is a whole convention agenda here"

A basic premise is that it is a public forum, and as such is open to a poster/person who has a particular opinion repeating it ad infinitum in the hope it will eventually wear down fellow posters to such an extent that they will  agree with it. It is also a forum where other posters may have differing opinions and as long as they are able to lucidly express why they have that opinion, they should be able to express it, without opening themselves up to denigration or ridicule (take note the Stigga)

You think OMac shouldn't be in the team at present, fine, we know, and you have expressed why you think that, I, for one, don't agree, my reasoning, we need a replacement for Lynden Dunn, the sooner we get the experience into Oscar for one, the better, the FD seems to be of this opinion as well

This exasperated, world-weary, holier-than-thou tone is very wearing on the rest of us.

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

The Weed has had a couple of games off already and he is only playing at Casey, so it is the FD being cautious with him, not me, he also needs to learn how to be the complete forward which you need to be these days, true he is a gifted footballer (I have seen him live) but he also needs to learn how to defend. Listen to Roos he has already stated that about 'young footballers'

Oscar is a defender, he needs experience playing against AFL standard forwards, you don't get that in the VFL

Tripe.

To follow your argument through, you don't get experience playing as a forward against AFL standard defenders, either, so Weidemann should play AFL to learn, not VFL.

I disagree with the premise, anyway. No matter how out of of form Travis Cloke is, he's definitely an AFL standard forward players like O-Mac could be learning against. I'm sure there are others.

3 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

This exasperated, world-weary, holier-than-thou tone is very wearing on the rest of us.

Don't read it then, doesn't bother me, just expressing an opinion, which is what you have just done, and I provided a solution which may be mutually beneficial to both of us, any input on the OMac debate?

45 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

There is another group here that believes getting some games into quality but inexperienced kids is better in the long term than playing experienced but average players in the short term.

It's got nothing to do with 'not wanting to win', or 'reverting to Mark Neeld or Dean Bailey', or 'mediocrity', or 'accepting losing'. It's got everything to do with building a solid playing group in the next few years, when our real chance for a premiership occurs (which let's face it won't be in 2016 or probably 2017). Like everyone, I'd like to play finals this year, but I still have my sights set on future ambitions. I don't want to be Richmond and become a shooting star, only to have it all crash down to earth because of delusions about progress and the state of the list.

Short-term pain for long-term gain.

I think Oscar has the ability to be a great player.  A better kick than Tom IMO, & seems to have better touch.

He needs to string a number of games together to get into a groove & show where he is at.

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

Don't read it then, doesn't bother me, just expressing an opinion, which is what you have just done, and I provided a solution which may be mutually beneficial to both of us, any input on the OMac debate?

Yes.

2 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

Tripe.

To follow your argument through, you don't get experience playing as a forward against AFL standard defenders, either, so Weidemann should play AFL to learn, not VFL.

I disagree with the premise, anyway. No matter how out of of form Travis Cloke is, he's definitely an AFL standard forward players like O-Mac could be learning against. I'm sure there are others.

 

7 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

A cheap shot.

What I am seeing is another round of culling blokes with 100-200 games experience because they are 'not good enough for the future' and bringing in a raft of kids.

My personal view too is that these kids are the best batch we've had, but that's not the point.

We are sacrificing wins here and now, this season, in a season where we are trying to keep Hogan and Tom McDonald and entice across players like Prestia and Hurley.

If we put 10-11 wins on the board, we might have a chance of getting them.

But no A-grader in their right mind is going to fall for this continual development rubbish and be sold on the story that maybe, in a few years, we will have a finals team for them to play in.

When will we learn???

 

3 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

Tripe.

To follow your argument through, you don't get experience playing as a forward against AFL standard defenders, either, so Weidemann should play AFL to learn, not VFL.

I disagree with the premise, anyway. No matter how out of of form Travis Cloke is, he's definitely an AFL standard forward players like O-Mac could be learning against. I'm sure there are others.

Led the debating society at college I see

Didn't read my post thoroughly though, I am looking forward to seeing the Weed play at AFL level, but also realise that as a young player he needs to learn the defensive traits that are a must these days, posters are bemoaning the lack of pressure in the oppositions 50 already, so if the Weed doesn't have these traits and gets a game, does he add to the perceived lack of pressure that is there at the moment?

OMac needs weekly exposure to AFL standard forwards

21 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

You've heard it plenty of times before, but it doesn't make it any less true.

When you see figures like Melbourne's total list experience being 2268* games as opposed to Hawthorn's 3377* or North Melbourne's 3993*, or Melbourne's average age being 22.3 years and games played 30, do really think we can just get up there and match it with other teams? It's a process that will still take time.

Impatience leads to rash decisions and reliance on old structures and habits, not building a solid foundation, which is what the coaching staff are trying to do. 

The difference in the past has been the quality of the list. I bleieve the quality now exists and is a quantum leap over a few years ago, but the experience doesn't. I want to follow the Bulldogs and the Giants into the finals for sustained results, not have another false dawn, take shortcuts and end up like the Tigers.

We will pass teams like Hawthorn on the way up soon enough, but continual negativity about not winning and the mistakes made by young players, rather than positivity about making progress, doesn't help.

Maybe the 'veil of negativity' is yet to be really lifted.

* Total list experience at the start of 2016

You've posted more lately and with great distinction.  All power to you.  You've more energy than me. 

Sadly you won't get anywhere.  Haters just want to hate.