Jump to content

Featured Replies

I not as much interested in Hill or Bennell but who we are going after to fill our KPF vacancy?

I am not hearing much other than J Jenkins who just had fisticuffs with his coach apparently and I have never rated.

Surely there are other candidates.

 

So we have Pick 2 and pick 21ish .. is the best case scenario for us Anderson then Langdon, and also maybe trying to get another pick somewhere in the second round?

10 minutes ago, Kent said:

I not as much interested in Hill or Bennell but who we are going after to fill our KPF vacancy?

I am not hearing much other than J Jenkins who just had fisticuffs with his coach apparently and I have never rated.

Surely there are other candidates.

Not sure if I'd label it a vacancy as such, but more a need for quality depth maybe?

Looking at our list demographic talent-wise, my guess would be we'd need to either draft or free agent a KPF. I haven't kept a close eye on the draft this year as I didn't think I'd need to (classic Melbourne), but as far as free agent KPF options go there's:

Levi Casboult. Adam Tomlinson (probably more wing, but could play KPF). Justin Westhoff. Ryan Schoenmakers.

That's going by the most recent list I could find anyway. Not a lot to choose from, but one of those could be ok. I'm sure there's other FA options that I haven't seen or don't know much about though.

 
20 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Not sure if I'd label it a vacancy as such, but more a need for quality depth maybe?

Looking at our list demographic talent-wise, my guess would be we'd need to either draft or free agent a KPF. I haven't kept a close eye on the draft this year as I didn't think I'd need to (classic Melbourne), but as far as free agent KPF options go there's:

Levi Casboult. Adam Tomlinson (probably more wing, but could play KPF). Justin Westhoff. Ryan Schoenmakers.

That's going by the most recent list I could find anyway. Not a lot to choose from, but one of those could be ok. I'm sure there's other FA options that I haven't seen or don't know much about though.

so who then is our main man?

SW who cant hold his place  and is still developing  or TMac who really is  a second tall who struggles against the best defenders

Surely we need a key forward who can mark  contest and Kick goals regularly

This year has shown me that we certainly have a vacancy

 

18 minutes ago, Kent said:

so who then is our main man?

SW who cant hold his place  and is still developing  or TMac who really is  a second tall who struggles against the best defenders

Surely we need a key forward who can mark  contest and Kick goals regularly

This year has shown me that we certainly have a vacancy

I still believe TMac and Weid can be our main men up forward. Both have had horror years carrying existing injuries and then copping more. Not saying they will be the best combo in the league, but with full fitness and better delivery from a tweaked game plan and more outside players will make a big difference to their effectiveness. I'm all for us adding to our key forward stocks, I just don't think we need to chase a high-priced star to make it work well enough for us to challenge.

  • Demonland changed the title to The Brad Hill Thread

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Not sure if I'd label it a vacancy as such, but more a need for quality depth maybe?

Looking at our list demographic talent-wise, my guess would be we'd need to either draft or free agent a KPF. I haven't kept a close eye on the draft this year as I didn't think I'd need to (classic Melbourne), but as far as free agent KPF options go there's:

Levi Casboult. Adam Tomlinson (probably more wing, but could play KPF). Justin Westhoff. Ryan Schoenmakers.

That's going by the most recent list I could find anyway. Not a lot to choose from, but one of those could be ok. I'm sure there's other FA options that I haven't seen or don't know much about though.

we really just need extra depth for a year or 2. i reckon Weid is going to come through really strongly in that time. it's why i don't mind the idea of Roughy one year transition into coaching. even if he hardly played he could teach Tom and Sam about forward craft

8 minutes ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

we really just need extra depth for a year or 2. i reckon Weid is going to come through really strongly in that time. it's why i don't mind the idea of Roughy one year transition into coaching. even if he hardly played he could teach Tom and Sam about forward craft

I love the idea of Roughy as a forwards coach, but reckon he's pretty much cooked playing wise. Guess it depends on what else happens with our list though I guess.

Jenkins.....please NO

we need pace and class and pace and class and pace and class

 

Third hand info, so take it as you will from an anonymous guy on the internet, but have heard we won't be getting Hill. Apparently the club rates the talent we can get with our first pick this year higher than Hill, and Freo are at the moment expecting a high first round pick.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Third hand info, so take it as you will from an anonymous guy on the internet, but have heard we won't be getting Hill. Apparently the club rates the talent we can get with our first pick this year higher than Hill, and Freo are at the moment expecting a high first round pick.

 

This makes me happy.


2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

This makes me happy.

Why happy? It means we don’t rate our list to push for a premiership and go for a top up with Hill. Means we are going back to the draft/drawing board.

5 minutes ago, olisik said:

Why happy? It means we don’t rate our list to push for a premiership and go for a top up with Hill. Means we are going back to the draft/drawing board.

Or it means we're being reasonable about the relative cost of talent.

41 minutes ago, olisik said:

Why happy? It means we don’t rate our list to push for a premiership and go for a top up with Hill. Means we are going back to the draft/drawing board.

Or it means the player we think will be there at pick 2 will be too good to trade away the pick for Hill.

Pretty simple really.

1 minute ago, Moonshadow said:

Or it means the player we think will be there at pick 2 will be too good to trade away the pick for Hill.

Pretty simple really.

Pick 3*


Personally I would like to see us draft Rowell at pick 2. Trade out Viney and try use what we get for him as leverage to get Hill in.

25 minutes ago, olisik said:

Personally I would like to see us draft Rowell at pick 2. Trade out Viney and try use what we get for him as leverage to get Hill in.

I thought you said it was pick 3....

Hedging your bets?

18 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

I thought you said it was pick 3....

Hedging your bets?

It most likely will be. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see us get 2 and draft Rowell with it. Not that hard to understand is it


2 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

2020 MFC 1st round pick for

Brad Hill and 2019 Freo 3rd rounder (around pick 44). 

Hill isn’t worth pick 1

Dees need pace. Dees need skills. Hill has both.  If we get Brad Hill, then Stephen Hill May also get convinced to come also as a free agent. That’s why paying a little overs. 

23 minutes ago, olisik said:

It most likely will be. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see us get 2 and draft Rowell with it. Not that hard to understand is it

Exactly.

*Anderson

 
2 hours ago, olisik said:

Why happy? It means we don’t rate our list to push for a premiership and go for a top up with Hill. Means we are going back to the draft/drawing board.

Push for premiership? Mate we are 5 to 7 years off contending at a grand final. Our list has many holes that needs to be regenerated by fresh talent.

Start that off by picking Noah Anderson who will be twice the player Brad Hill is.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Push for premiership? Mate we are 5 to 7 years off contending at a grand final. Our list has many holes that needs to be regenerated by fresh talent.

Start that off by picking Noah Anderson who will be twice the player Brad Hill is.

I think Ando will go pick 1


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 134 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 418 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Thanks
    • 47 replies