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

  • NON-MFC: Round 14

    Round 14 is upon us and there's plenty at stake across the rest of the competition. As Melbourne heads to Adelaide, it's time to turn our attention to the other matches of the Round. Which teams are you tipping this week? And which results would be most favourable for the Demons’ finals tilt? Follow all the non-Melbourne games here and join the conversation as the ladder continues to take shape.

    • 18 replies
  • REPORT: Collingwood

    The media focus on the fiery interaction between Max Gawn and Steven May at the end of the game was unfortunate because it took away the gloss from Melbourne’s performance in winning almost everywhere but on the scoreboard in its Kings Birthday clash with Collingwood at the MCG. It was a real battle reminiscent of the good old days when the rivalry between the two clubs was at its height and a fitting contest to celebrate the 2025 Australian of the Year, Neale Daniher and his superb work to bring the campaign to raise funds for motor neurone disease awareness to the forefront. Notwithstanding the fact that the Magpies snatched a one point victory from his old club, Daniher would be proud of the fact that his Demons fought tooth and nail to win the keenly contested game in front of 77,761 fans.

    • 1 reply
  • PREGAME: Port Adelaide

    The Demons are set to embark on a four-week road trip that takes them across the country, with two games in Adelaide and a clash on the Gold Coast, broken up by a mid-season bye. Next up is a meeting with the inconsistent Port Adelaide at Adelaide Oval. Who comes in and who goes out?

    • 127 replies
  • PODCAST: Collingwood

    I have something on tomorrow night so Podcast will be Wednesday night. The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Wednesday, 11th June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Dees heartbreaking 1 point loss to the Magpies on King's Birthday 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/

      • Like
    • 36 replies
  • POSTGAME: Collingwood

    Despite effectively playing against four extra opponents, the Dees controlled much of the match. However, their inaccuracy in front of goal and inability to convert dominance in clearances and inside 50s ultimately cost them dearly, falling to a heartbreaking one-point loss on King’s Birthday.

      • Shocked
      • Love
      • Like
    • 522 replies
  • VOTES: Collingwood

    Max Gawn has an almost insurmountable lead in the Demonland Player of the Year Award ahead of Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver and Kozzy Pickett. Your votes please; 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

      • Vomit
      • Sad
      • Clap
      • Haha
      • Like
    • 42 replies