5 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

Except when T. Mac kicked 53 goals last year.

That error has been already been pointed out.

22 minutes ago, old dee said:

There were off field issues! Did Tmac kick 50. Then my error however we have not replaced Hogan's 50. We have different different views on Weid, if he cannot show more than he has in the first 3 games this year then IMO in ain't t there to show

We do. However my view has some caveats.

Sam is a straight shooting hard leading type player. He isn't a strong pack marking type player. He needs space to lead into where another player can deliver it to his advantage.

Our current game plan does not match this. We bomb it in. Lock it in. It does not suit Sam at all and it drives me nuts. If we change and start delivering into the fwd 50 with a bit more class then Sam will shine. I fear that we won't.

6 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I suppose the aim was to stop more goals than Jesse kicked.

May will be ok.

You have to be on the park Mr Leg or your contribution is as big as yours and mine.

1 hour ago, old dee said:

That is what seperates those that win flags from the MFC. We never seem to see the obvious. The Weid will never be a 50 goal a year KPF and TMac has never looked like being one either. We deleted Hogan with the hope both would make significant improvement. Hope seldom gets the result as we are seeing.

Sad, meaningful and true.

1 minute ago, BAMF said:

We do. However my view has some caveats.

Sam is a straight shooting hard leading type player. He isn't a strong pack marking type player. He needs space to lead into where another player can deliver it to his advantage.

Our current game plan does not match this. We bomb it in. Lock it in. It does not suit Sam at all and it drives me nuts. If we change and start delivering into the fwd 50 with a bit more class then Sam will shine. I fear that we won't.

Me too, we have been doing this for three years now and just a few weeks ago the coach said no need to change much from 2018. If they don't change the weid will be gone. 

3 minutes ago, BAMF said:

We do. However my view has some caveats.

Sam is a straight shooting hard leading type player. He isn't a strong pack marking type player. He needs space to lead into where another player can deliver it to his advantage.

Our current game plan does not match this. We bomb it in. Lock it in. It does not suit Sam at all and it drives me nuts. If we change and start delivering into the fwd 50 with a bit more class then Sam will shine. I fear that we won't.

Sam does take them at the apex of hands in his leap which is a strength but this does not mean that he is a pack-marking surety. However, if he could lead, almost randomly, it means that the in-comings directed at him do not need to always be in front/or chest height bullets; these in-comings could well be elevated to a reasonable extent and his vertical reach may well surprise instead of running under the bombed ball that is devoid of all intent. In packs, he is much better as a 'side-entry sprawler' with a few preparatory paces - an attribute that he used to good effect in the finals and in earlier games. 

30 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Sam does take them at the apex of hands in his leap which is a strength but this does not mean that he is a pack-marking surety. However, if he could lead, almost randomly, it means that the in-comings directed at him do not need to always be in front/or chest height bullets; these in-comings could well be elevated to a reasonable extent and his vertical reach may well surprise instead of running under the bombed ball that is devoid of all intent. In packs, he is much better as a 'side-entry sprawler' with a few preparatory paces - an attribute that he used to good effect in the finals and in earlier games. 

I think sides have woken up to that, our bomb it in does not suit him. One of two things has to change, change the game plan or change the Weid IMO the two are not compatible.

Edited April 7, 20196 yr by old dee

2 hours ago, chook fowler said:

Our recruiting has been unidimensional- big bodied contested bulls with dubious skills. Fritsch is the exception. 

Love to hear you explain how lever and KK fit into that description

9 minutes ago, Smokey said:

Love to hear you explain how lever and KK fit into that description

KK on first impressions looks slow and not all that physical.

10 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

KK on first impressions looks slow and not all that physical.

Well he ain’t exactly an unskilled contested bull is he chook. Our recruiting has not been unidimensional. 

Good thread.

I'm sorry to say but the Sparrow pick was a huge blunder for me. Absolutely gobsmacked we went for another inside contested mid when clearly our needs was for outside run and speed. I am sure he will become a good player but i just shake my head at why we thought he could compliment any further to our already growing contested mids.

Marty Hore was another pick that confused me.. another medium half back flanker?? Really!? 

Had my concerns with that drafting period at the time and nothing has changed since.

I would be surprised if our footy department overrated our list going into 2019.

3 hours ago, chook fowler said:

I think we need some new coaching blood. Wouldn’t be surprised to see a major overhaul next season. I was disappointed to see Ratten go to the Saints - he would be a good get for us.

Ditto Ratten. We need an assistant who knows Clarko Footy. Since Clarko himself has said that he likes to turn over his own assistants, let's have a lash at Yze.

3 hours ago, Redleg said:

We clearly have identified  the contested beast as our main target and have done well in that respect. What I am concerned about is that type still appears our main aim. 

we still need more of this... but in our skilled running brigade.  (wayne schimmelbusch/bryan wood...  compared to steven stretch)

3 hours ago, Redleg said:

Many on here acknowledge our lack of pace, skill and small goal kicking  forwards. Also another tall forward.

we don't need specialist small pocket players...  we need genuine  'fleet on feet'  rovers...   who are comfortable under packs,  and in front of the sticks.

3 hours ago, Redleg said:



i am not posting this to blow my own trumpet as they still may fail long term but rather to highlight a somewhat blinkered approach to our needs. 

not your trumpet  'Rl'.    But we may well be on our  6-th  sounding trumpet.

666 is delivering space to play in...   and from this is the need for  man-on-man  contested footy players.    This is where our key-talls are struggling. OMc/Frost

 

Building your list and culture,  you have to start bare,  and build the base first,  with contested beasts,  to set the tone into the culture...  set it in stone.  

Then add the other parts,  like your outside  players, who have to also show, that contested, courageous play.

 

Having this culture set in stone shows newbies what the standards are,  to be expected....   so show the courage or fu@# off.    no more gysberts mortons bennells etc

 

Contested Beasts,  does not mean Neanderthal in-under types......     It's an attitude, a brand you bring, and play by.    The sort of players that Jeans/Sheedy loved. 

 

eg:-  Antrobus,  Clarko himself,  Glenn Archer,   Max Rooke,  Wayne dominator Johnston,  Wayne Harmes,  Peter Daicos,  Bruce Doull,   Robert Flower....    not too many Neanderthals in there, I would think.

 

But ALL contested Beasts.   Every last one of them.

 

None would not commit under fierce heat.    This, is a contested-beast.

Issue for me is we seem to lose every trade.

paid overs for Lever

got unders for Hogan

got unders for Kent

paid overs for May

 

Compared to when you look at teams like Essendon who can bring in Saad, Smith and Stringer in one off season, or Hawks to can pickup Scully for pick 85. We consistently seem to come out worse for wear due to Mahoney poor negotiation skills.

 

We have well and truly lost the Tyso/Salem for Kelly trade now to.

Edited April 7, 20196 yr by olisik

I have issues with the notion that we should not have taken an inside bull and should instead have taken an outside runner.

It is much easier to teach an inside bull how to get and use the footy in the AFL than it is to teach an outside runner how to get an use the footy in the AFL when it's hot.

I'm not against outside runners, and I agree we need link-up pace from half back to half forward. That's why we had a big go at Gaff. 

But if you are picking youngsters in the draft and there is no obvious gun runner available (in Sparrow's case, around pick 27), pick the bull.

4 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

Jordon has skill.

Chandler and Bedford have pace.

Unfortunately Neitschke is injured.

Hore was the real blunder should have went  gone for someone like Hind.

Keep it grammatical please.

49 minutes ago, olisik said:

Issue for me is we seem to lose every trade.

paid overs for Lever

got unders for Hogan

got unders for Kent

paid overs for May

 

Compared to when you look at teams like Essendon who can bring in Saad, Smith and Stringer in one off season, or Hawks to can pickup Scully for pick 85. We consistently seem to come out worse for wear due to Mahoney poor negotiation skills.

 

We have well and truly lost the Tyso/Salem for Kelly trade now to.

Demons wouldn't have taken Kelly with that pick. Can't remember who they would have taken instead, but it wasn't Kelly.

4 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

No one could see T.MAC having the year that he's had. Weid needs time.

Exactly, TMac will be back, and Weideman only needs to get his hands on it 10 times a game, he can kick goals

3 minutes ago, bingers said:

Demons wouldn't have taken Kelly with that pick. Can't remember who they would have taken instead, but it wasn't Kelly.

Jack Billings, I think.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Good thread.

I'm sorry to say but the Sparrow pick was a huge blunder for me. Absolutely gobsmacked we went for another inside contested mid when clearly our needs was for outside run and speed. I am sure he will become a good player but i just shake my head at why we thought he could compliment any further to our already growing contested mids.

Marty Hore was another pick that confused me.. another medium half back flanker?? Really!? 

Had my concerns with that drafting period at the time and nothing has changed since.

Sorry, I love your passion for the club, but I can't stand it when people change their tune on drafting.

This was you on draft day when we drafted Sparrow:

On 11/23/2018 at 12:35 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

Solid unit with speed.. do like!

And this was you after we took Hore:

On 11/23/2018 at 2:06 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

Great prospect who the dees have been tracking for 3 years now. They were so close to selecting him last year but had no rookie spots.

Please don't make it sound like you thought Sparrow and Hore were bad calls at the time. On the contrary, you liked the look of both.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Good thread.

 

Thanks.

1 hour ago, olisik said:

Issue for me is we seem to lose every trade.

paid overs for Lever

got unders for Hogan

got unders for Kent

paid overs for May

 

Compared to when you look at teams like Essendon who can bring in Saad, Smith and Stringer in one off season, or Hawks to can pickup Scully for pick 85. We consistently seem to come out worse for wear due to Mahoney poor negotiation skills.

 

We have well and truly lost the Tyso/Salem for Kelly trade now to.

Unders for Kent?

He hardly gets on the park and rarely achieved anything in his time here.

Unders for Hogan?

You couldn't stand him last year.

Overs for May?

How would you know? He's played one game!

You really are something else.

5 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Unders for Kent?

He hardly gets on the park and rarely achieved anything in his time here.

Unders for Hogan?

You couldn't stand him last year.

Overs for May?

How would you know? He's played one game!

You really are something else.

He's a dead set muppet. I remember him wanting to get rid of Hogan at any cost throughout the year. 

Dont know why we act surprised though.

24 minutes ago, bingers said:

Demons wouldn't have taken Kelly with that pick. Can't remember who they would have taken instead, but it wasn't Kelly.

This is a silly argument to make in a recruitment thread. It's a recruitment error that our recruiters couldn't identify the talent that Kelly had and passed him up on 2 occasions.

 

3 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

He's a dead set muppet. I remember him wanting to get rid of Hogan at any cost throughout the year. 

 

By the end of the season the FD agreed with him.