Jump to content

Mac Andrew

Whispering_Jack
in Melbourne Demons

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.

  • Quote
    • Sad 3
     
     

    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 😝

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

    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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Shocked 1

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Love 1
     

    Scrawny and young.

    Let the Suns fatten him up before he comes home.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Love 1

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

  • Quote
    • Haha 6
    • 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.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
    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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 4

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
    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.       

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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 .

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Angry 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 5
     
    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.

  • Quote
    • Love 1
    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!!

  • Quote

    • 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...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

      It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

        • Sad
        • Like
      • 719 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Collingwood

      It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
      The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
      Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

        • Like
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • 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.

      • 216 replies
      Demonland

    • 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.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • 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.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • 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? 

        • Like
      • 4 replies
      Demonland
    View All