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

  • REPORT: Hawthorn

    There was a time during the current Melbourne cycle that goes back to before the premiership when the club was the toughest to beat in the fourth quarter. The Demons were not only hard to beat at any time but it was virtually impossible to get the better them when scores were close at three quarter time. It was only three or four years ago but they were fit, strong and resilient in body and mind. Sadly, those days are over. This has been the case since the club fell off its pedestal about 12 months ago after it beat Geelong and then lost to Carlton. In both instances, Melbourne put together strong, stirring final quarters, one that resulted in victory, the other, in defeat. Since then, the drop off has been dramatic to the point where it can neither pull off victory in close matches, nor can it even go down in defeat  gallantly.

      • Clap
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 0 replies
    Demonland
  • CASEY: Footscray

    At twenty-four minutes into the third term of the game between the Casey Demons and Footscray VFL at Whitten Oval, the visitors were coasting. They were winning all over the ground, had the ascendancy in the ruck battles and held a 26 point lead on a day perfect for football. What could go wrong? Everything. The Bulldogs moved into overdrive in the last five minutes of the term and booted three straight goals to reduce the margin to a highly retrievable eight points at the last break. Bouyed by that effort, their confidence was on a high level during the interval and they ran all over the despondent Demons and kicked another five goals to lead by a comfortable margin of four goals deep into the final term before Paddy Cross kicked a couple of too late goals for a despondent Casey. A testament to their lack of pressure in the latter stages of the game was the fact that Footscray’s last ten scoring shots were nine goals and one rushed behind. Things might have been different for the Demons who went into the game after last week’s bye with 12 AFL listed players. Blake Howes was held over for the AFL game but two others, Jack Billings and Taj Woewodin (not officially listed as injured) were also missing and they could have been handy at the end. Another mystery of the current VFL system.

      • Thanks
    • 0 replies
    Demonland
  • PREGAME: Brisbane

    The Demons head back out on the road in Round 10 when they travel to Queensland to take on the reigning Premiers and the top of the table Lions who look very formidable. Can the Dees cause a massive upset? Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 106 replies
    Demonland
  • PODCAST: Hawthorn

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 12th May @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Demons loss to the Hawks. 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. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.

      • Clap
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 43 replies
    Demonland
  • POSTGAME: Hawthorn

    Wayward kicking for goal, dump kicks inside 50 and some baffling umpiring all contributed to the Dees not getting out to an an early lead that may have impacted the result. At the end of the day the Demons were just not good enough and let the Hawks run away with their first win against the Demons in 7 years.

      • Clap
      • Love
      • Like
    • 345 replies
    Demonland
  • VOTES: Hawthorn

    After 3 fantastic week Max Gawn has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award from Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Kade Chandler and Ed Langdon who round out the Top Five. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

      • Thanks
    • 32 replies
    Demonland