Jump to content

Featured Replies

21 minutes ago, roy11 said:

Long term project at a short term club

Actually the worst place the poor bloke could go.

Imagine sitting there as a player and Gold Coast reads your name out. Would be deflating.

 
 

Don’t know about Mac Andrew with his rapid rise up draft order.

One only needs to look at others who sprinted up the draft board to not deliver on expected output………………the Bontempelli’s the Oliver’s and the like 😝

Off to the Suns, surely he comes back to us in 2 years when Maxy/Brown are probably looking at winding down.

Edited by Dr. Gonzo


On 10/8/2021 at 7:54 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

 Jesus WJ it's getting a bit tiresome don't you think.. We get it, that you simply don't rate Mac Andrew at all and you'll find all avenues in justifying your argument. 

Getting sucked in to what Knightmare says is part of the issue. Let me just remind that this is the same bloke that during draft time back in 2013 had compared Christian Salem to Taylor Hunt, had at one stage rated Jake Bowey in the 40's range and openly said that Melbourne had made a mistake picking a ruckman at pick 3. It's actually unbelievable he is far off the mark each year. But it's his opinion and good on him for sticking his head out.

While he watches a lot of junior development and does have some good insight at times, he let's himself down with some uneducated opinions.

Think it's time to accept that Mac Andrew is most certainly a top 10 pick. There's enough jungle drums beating around the recruiting circles that holds enough weight that he's most certainly going to go in that top 10. He's not the top 10 best player in the land, but he's being picked on potential and scope of improvement as are all kids.

Realistically what's stopping Mac Andrew from playing 5-8 games next year? Nothing. He's certainly very capable of it, and his development and growth will go up another level once his in the AFL system.

I can see him getting games, mostly up forward with about 30-20% in the ruck. 

If Melbourne were somehow able to get into the top 10 pick then in my opinion I probably still wouldn't use a pick on him. There's far more greater need and talent that suits our list.

 

On 10/8/2021 at 9:49 PM, Elwood 3184 said:

If someone is most certainly top ten then you really have to be “certain”. There are 18 clubs and they all have at least 4 or 5 on their recruiting staff. Using your criteria, there might be more than 50 players who are top ten.

And none of that means he still would make top 10.

 

On 10/8/2021 at 9:53 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

I'm certain of it without hesitation.

If he doesn't go top 10 then quote this comment on draft night and I'll happily wear egg on my face and own up to it.

 

In fact I'll quote this myself.

Congratulations to Mac Andrew in getting drafted. Obviously clubs saw fit to rate him in the top 10 draft. Who would have thought huh..

All the best to his career and will watch with interest.

 

Scrawny and young.

Let the Suns fatten him up before he comes home.


The geniuses at the GCS have already delisted him to give them more wiggle room in the remainder of the draft. 

  • Author

Best of luck to him and he will need it up there. He sounds very level headed when interviewed and he clearly wants to succeed in a place where it’s going to be difficult for him.

That said, I don’t think he would have been a Demon under the old system where we could have matched the bid for him. I’m much happier with Van Rooyen who better suits our needs and, at this stage of the journey is far more developed for the game.

5 hours ago, faultydet said:

Scrawny and young.

Let the Suns fatten him up before he comes home.

don't say that! knowing them they will take it literally and then he'll be out of the system and a waste of a first rounder

I wouldn't bet on him coming back to Melbourne anytime soon. I have a feeling the Suns will improve quite a bit over the next couple of years and the AFL are going to assist them in every way possible to do that. People may also be underrating the character of Andrews a bit, he may be determined to stick it out  where he has landed.

The problem Mac Andrew may have at the Suns is that they want success now and they will not be patient enough with his development in the weight room and the football field. 


2 hours ago, durango said:

The problem Mac Andrew may have at the Suns is that they want success now and they will not be patient enough with his development in the weight room and the football field. 

I was wrong in believing he wouldn't be an early selection.

I agree with your post and am stunned that of all the clubs, the Suns took him, a club that needs urgent and immediate success, to keep its star players and maintain membership and financial support, let alone to ease the pressure on the Coach.

5 hours ago, durango said:

The problem Mac Andrew may have at the Suns is that they want success now and they will not be patient enough with his development in the weight room and the football field. 

He will take 3-4 years before he rucks. And that is where he’ll do his best work. Hopefully he gets homesick. 

If he was at Melbourne he would have been given time to develop and would have had a much better chance to become the best player he could be, I doubt that will happen at the Gold Coast.

Good luck at GC and remember we will always welcome you back in the future.

 

On 11/24/2021 at 11:42 PM, Whispering_Jack said:

Best of luck to him and he will need it up there. He sounds very level headed when interviewed and he clearly wants to succeed in a place where it’s going to be difficult for him.

That said, I don’t think he would have been a Demon under the old system where we could have matched the bid for him. I’m much happier with Van Rooyen who better suits our needs and, at this stage of the journey is far more developed for the game.

I agree. Under the old rules, would Melbourne have matched a bid at 5? It would have taken 19, 39 & pushed our 43 back to 50. That's not entirely accurate as no doubt we would have traded picks for 19 pre-draft to improve our points situation, but the point remains would Melbourne have rated Andrew Pick 5 less 20% (the equivalent of a combined Pick 8/9). I am glad though that he didn't go at Pick 18. I think we all would have been totally [censored]-off!

My understanding is that under COVID the AFL is now picking up the NGA costs formerly borne by the clubs which is an argument for pushing the eligibility back to 21+, but it seems to me that to allow the Bulldogs to benefit from it one year for Ugle-Hagen and then push it back so far is  extremely unfair. What about the multiple years of work put in by Melbourne and other clubs over many years pre-2020 developing these players.       


The future players like Mac will be hidden from the football world by encouraging players to play basketball so they can be recruited as rookie b candidates when they reach drafting age.

Edited by durango

4 hours ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I agree. Under the old rules, would Melbourne have matched a bid at 5? It would have taken 19, 39 & pushed our 43 back to 50. That's not entirely accurate as no doubt we would have traded picks for 19 pre-draft to improve our points situation, but the point remains would Melbourne have rated Andrew Pick 5 less 20% (the equivalent of a combined Pick 8/9). I am glad though that he didn't go at Pick 18. I think we all would have been totally [censored]-off!

My understanding is that under COVID the AFL is now picking up the NGA costs formerly borne by the clubs which is an argument for pushing the eligibility back to 21+, but it seems to me that to allow the Bulldogs to benefit from it one year for Ugle-Hagen and then push it back so far is  extremely unfair. What about the multiple years of work put in by Melbourne and other clubs over many years pre-2020 developing these players.       

Syd it is more than unfair for this retrospective rule to have been introduced,it is immoral .We were the only club likely affected by the rule change this year . i expect that half f the clubs  would have been happy we lost our NGA choice and the other half would have wished us to lose our first round selection as well. Poor form by the AFL to make a decision at our sole expense .

4 hours ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I agree. Under the old rules, would Melbourne have matched a bid at 5? It would have taken 19, 39 & pushed our 43 back to 50. That's not entirely accurate as no doubt we would have traded picks for 19 pre-draft to improve our points situation, but the point remains would Melbourne have rated Andrew Pick 5 less 20% (the equivalent of a combined Pick 8/9). I am glad though that he didn't go at Pick 18. I think we all would have been totally [censored]-off!

My understanding is that under COVID the AFL is now picking up the NGA costs formerly borne by the clubs which is an argument for pushing the eligibility back to 21+, but it seems to me that to allow the Bulldogs to benefit from it one year for Ugle-Hagen and then push it back so far is  extremely unfair. What about the multiple years of work put in by Melbourne and other clubs over many years pre-2020 developing these players.       

This is why the system can be dangerous for clubs. Both the dogs and Pies burnt so many picks for one player and then have not a whole lot else.

Personally I prefer having Van Rooyen and Howes as opposed to Mac Andrew and then Woewodin.

 
On 11/24/2021 at 9:43 AM, Action Jackson said:

Imagine sitting there as a player and Gold Coast reads your name out. Would be deflating.

I know! They'd be looking at the boys picked up by the PREMIERS and thinking, I wish that was me. I wish I was going to the DEMONS, the top team and PREMIERS. Some guys have all the luck.

46 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

I know! They'd be looking at the boys picked up by the PREMIERS and thinking, I wish that was me. I wish I was going to the DEMONS, the top team and PREMIERS. Some guys have all the luck.

How times have changed!!


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

  • PREVIEW: West Coast

    It was bad enough that the Melbourne Football Club created yet another humiliating scenario inside its wretched season at Marvel Stadium last Sunday, but the final insult is that it has been commanded to return to the scene of the crime to inflict further punishment on its fans this week. Incidentally, if this match preview, of a game that promises to be one of the most unattractive fixtures in the history of the game, happens to cut out of your computer screen three quarters of the way through, it’s no coincidence. I’ll be mirroring the Demons’ lacklustre effort against St Kilda from last Sunday when they conceded the largest last quarter turnaround for victory in the history of the game.

      • Clap
      • Thanks
    • 5 replies
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    When looking back at the disastrous end to the game, I find it a waste of time to concentrate on the final few moments when utter confusion reigned. Forget the 6-6-6 mess, the failure to mark the most dangerous man on the field, the inability to seal the game when opportunities presented themselves to Clayton Oliver, Harry Petty and Charlie Spargo, the vision of match winning players of recent weeks in Kozzy Pickett and Jake Melksham spending helpless minutes on the interchange bench and the powerlessness of seizing the opportunity to slow the tempo of the game down in those final moments.

      • Clap
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 9 replies
  • CASEY: Sandringham

    The Casey Demons rebounded from a sluggish start to manufacture a decisive win against Sandringham in the final showdown, culminating a quarter century of intense rivalry between the fluctuating alignments of teams affiliated with AFL clubs Melbourne and St Kilda, as the Saints and the Zebras prepare to forge independent paths in 2026. After conceding three of the first four goals of the match, the Demons went on a goal kicking rampage instigated by the winning ruck combination of Tom Campbell with 26 hitouts, 26 disposals and 13 clearances and his apprentice Will Verrall who contributed 20 hitouts. This gave first use of the ball to the likes of Jack Billings, Bayley Laurie, Riley Bonner and Koltyn Tholstrup who was impressive early. By the first break they had added seven goals and took a strong grip on the game. The Demons were well served up forward early by Mitch Hardie and, as the game progressed, Harry Sharp proved a menace with a five goal performance. Emerging young forwards Matthew Jefferson and Luker Kentfield kicked two each but the former let himself down with some poor kicking for goal.
    Young draft talent Will Duursma showed the depth of his talent and looks well out of reach for Melbourne this year. Kalani White was used sparingly and had a brief but uneventful stint in the ruck.

      • Thanks
    • 0 replies
  • PREGAME: West Coast

    The Demons return to the scene of the crime on Saturday to face the wooden spooners the Eagles at the Docklands. Who comes in and who goes out? Like moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

      • Clap
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 330 replies
  • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

    This season cannot end soon enough. Disgraceful.

      • Angry
      • Sad
      • Clap
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 484 replies
  • VOTES: St. Kilda

    Captain Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year Award from Christian Petracca, Kozzy Pickett, Jake Bowey & Clayton Oliver. Your votes please; 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

      • Like
    • 27 replies