Jump to content

Featured Replies

17 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Do you think they’d throw Peatling in for free with Derksen?

I’m expecting Derksen to cost pocket change 

 
3 hours ago, John Demonic said:

The club didn't think it was too much for Tomlinson

The club would be wise not to repeat past mistakes.

I'd much rather bank on the ceiling of an upcoming draftee like Cooper Hynes at pick 20-25, than Peatling for five years, but will back the FD.

 

Choice between:

- 5 Year contract for Peatling

- Pick 5 for Houston

CHOOSE!


8 minutes ago, layzie said:

Choice between:

- 5 Year contract for Peatling

- Pick 5 for Houston

CHOOSE!

Neither are good deals.

Peatling has not shown enough to warrant 5 years.

I would prefer to keep pick 5 and Zac Jones and/or Parfitt on low money and 1-2 year deals.

7 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Neither are good deals.

Peatling has not shown enough to warrant 5 years.

I would prefer to keep pick 5 and Zac Jones and/or Parfitt on low money and 1-2 year deals.

I would have had 'nothing' as a third choice but I really wanted to make people choose in a forceful manner. 

39 minutes ago, layzie said:

Choice between:

- 5 Year contract for Peatling

- Pick 5 for Houston

CHOOSE!

Peatling for mine as he won’t cost us a first round pick as well. 
And he’s much much younger and fills a midfield need which is greater than our half back needs. 

 
2 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

I would prefer to keep pick 5 and Zac Jones and/or Parfitt on low money and 1-2 year deals.

Jones and Parfitt. I think I threw up a little in my mouth.

You can’t honestly think that repeating what we’ve tried with NQR DFA is the way forward??? Our depth is incredibly poor.

If Trent Rivers played a 2 month patch of games like Peatling did this year we’d be anointing him as the second coming. 

If Peatling costs us a 2nd round pick and needs a 5 year deal to get across the line so be it.

2 hours ago, layzie said:

Choice between:

- 5 Year contract for Peatling

- Pick 5 for Houston

CHOOSE!

Houston by the combined length of the Flemington, Mooney Valley, Sandown and Caulfield straights.

Houston is chronically underrated by DL posters and would be our clear 3rd best player behind Gawn and a fit and healthy Trac.


16 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Houston by the combined length of the Flemington, Mooney Valley, Sandown and Caulfield straights.

Houston is chronically underrated by DL posters and would be our clear 3rd best player behind Gawn and a fit and healthy Trac.

If that’s the case, we are nowhere near challenging and thus wasting pick 5 on Houston who would be gone by the time we challenge again.

Pick 5 all the way.

3 hours ago, layzie said:

Choice between:

- 5 Year contract for Peatling

- Pick 5 for Houston

CHOOSE!

Not super keen on giving Peatling 5 years of one decent patch of form leading into a trade but in a choice between the two I’d def go with him as it still leaves us with enough draft capital to boost our rebuild. 

1 hour ago, JJJ said:

Jones and Parfitt. I think I threw up a little in my mouth.

You can’t honestly think that repeating what we’ve tried with NQR DFA is the way forward??? Our depth is incredibly poor.

If Trent Rivers played a 2 month patch of games like Peatling did this year we’d be anointing him as the second coming. 

If Peatling costs us a 2nd round pick and needs a 5 year deal to get across the line so be it.

Rivers' AFL player rating for the last 10 games (after Petracca was injured) was 12.6. By comparison, Pealing's AFL player rating for his last 10 games (excluding where he was sub) was lower at 11.2.

To be honest, I think Rivers is better off the half back line and nobody here has been 100% convinced that he will be a midfielder in the long term because he is so good off half back and he is under less pressure to dispose of the ball in the backline.

I see Peatling as a B-Grade inside midfielder who does not have the elite pace of skill to be an A-Grade flanker or winger. 5 years is too much cap space to tie up for that type of player. Particularly one who is 24 and has limited scope for improvement.

 

On 14/08/2024 at 19:31, DubDee said:

Used as sub 9 times

cant believe the Giants treat their players so poorly. No wonder they leave

*sarks

surely the media need to run a headline on the GW$ poor culture. 

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Houston by the combined length of the Flemington, Mooney Valley, Sandown and Caulfield straights.

Houston is chronically underrated by DL posters and would be our clear 3rd best player behind Gawn and a fit and healthy Trac.

this

he's one of the best kicks in the game

we'd kill to have his skill coming off half back


1 hour ago, Demon Disciple said:

If that’s the case, we are nowhere near challenging and thus wasting pick 5 on Houston who would be gone by the time we challenge again.

Pick 5 all the way.

If our window is closed for next year with or without the hypothetical inclusion of Houston, then I'd also be keeping pick 5 rather than Houston.

The more I saw of us this year, the less confident I am of a sharp rebound to the top 4.

But to answer the question in a vacuum of trading pick 5 for Houston or giving 5 years to Peatling, it would be Houston by so far it isn't funny.

 

2 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Houston by the combined length of the Flemington, Mooney Valley, Sandown and Caulfield straights.

 

Well you have me convinced now.

Since we are talking racing, I have Struck Gold in the last today at Geelong at 5.00pm.

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

Rivers' AFL player rating for the last 10 games (after Petracca was injured) was 12.6. By comparison, Pealing's AFL player rating for his last 10 games (excluding where he was sub) was lower at 11.2.

To be honest, I think Rivers is better off the half back line and nobody here has been 100% convinced that he will be a midfielder in the long term because he is so good off half back and he is under less pressure to dispose of the ball in the backline.

I see Peatling as a B-Grade inside midfielder who does not have the elite pace of skill to be an A-Grade flanker or winger. 5 years is too much cap space to tie up for that type of player. Particularly one who is 24 and has limited scope for improvement.

Fair summation. I'd have Peatling in the 'nice to have' category, but I realistically wouldn't be giving that sort of a player a five year deal as has been mooted. 


On 26/09/2024 at 13:50, Bring-Back-Powell said:

If our window is closed for next year with or without the hypothetical inclusion of Houston, then I'd also be keeping pick 5 rather than Houston.

The more I saw of us this year, the less confident I am of a sharp rebound to the top 4.

But to answer the question in a vacuum of trading pick 5 for Houston or giving 5 years to Peatling, it would be Houston by so far it isn't funny.

 

We should be rebuilding therefore draft pics pls

 
1 minute ago, Dannyz said:

Peatling decision expected today 🤞

To...us?


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

  • 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.

    • 4 replies
  • 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.

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 216 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.

      • Like
    • 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.

      • 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? 

      • Like
    • 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?

      • Like
    • 527 replies