mo64

If that's the case then about 30,000 members are ineligible to vote. We must have a lot of pets as members.

Just doing a quick maths calculation, and assuming that all voters would have endorsed Steven Smith, is it only members who have renewed for 2025 who are eligible to vote? Doing the maths, 23% of eligible voters voted, and Steven Smith received 8.3k, that puts our membership tally at around 36k. This aligns with the recently updated membership tally on Demonland. Our membership for 2024 was 67k, which means a lot of 2024 members weren't eligible to vote in a 2024 election. It doesn't bother me because my membership rolls over, but I'm curious if this is the case.

It's pretty damning that since we traded for him, we've drafted 2 players to play the same role as a forward 2nd ruck. Whilst he was underwhelming at Casey, I would have given him a game or two late in the year to see what he had to offer. I'd love to be proven wrong, because we are crying out for a capable ruck/forward, but I don't think Fullarton will be the answer.

Didn't see the point of re-signing Hore as a rookie. Petty and Turner can play back if the need arises, and we have ample key forwards on our list to replace them. Hore is 29 and had an injury interrupted season. Can't see any upside in the player we previously delisted. From what I saw of the Werribee finals, Henderson looks like a real talent, whilst Johnson didn't look AFL level. Our list management continues to be puzzling.

That's ridiculous. You don't waste a list spot for that. It's not the 70's VFA comp.

Statistically he's a key forward / ruckman who doesn't kick many goals, low possessions and seems too short to be a genuine ruckman. At 24, it's hard to get enthused by the pick. I'd rather we picked Henderson.

Bingo!!! The best mids currently in the AFL come in all shapes and sizes. Butters and Daicos are different to Bont and Cripps. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Bont probably gets caught with the ball more than any mid, but is arguably the best player in the comp. If Langford turns out to be a 20-30 goal a season mid due to his aerial ability, I couldn't care less how fast he can run a 20m sprint.

The resident armchair draft experts on here wanted to use picks 5 or 9 on Harry Armstrong. As it's turned out, we could have kept our future 1st, and almost got him him with our original pick 28.

I'm just relieved that we picked up 2 mids. Based on his physique, I wasn't expecting Windsor to play from the get go. Hopefully LIndsay can do the same.

Your scenario is the exact reason why I'm questioning the idea of splitting pick 9. I'll concede that moving up from pick 28 would have been difficult. But essentially we are trading our future 1st and a raft of 3rd round picks for pick 13 or 14. That's a terrible trade. I've seen these sort of deals done on NBA Draft Night, and more often than not, they end up badly for the team that gets too cute.

You haven't answered my question. What high end picks do you seriously think a club will give up for pick 9? We acquired pick 9 assuming there'd be elite talent in the top 10. If we liked players that are projected to go late in the 1st round, we had pick 28 which we could have upgraded with the bunch of 3rd rounders that we gave away.

No club is going to do that deal.

Why in the world would we split pick 9? At best it will get us a pick in the early teens and another in the early 20's. We gave up our future 1st (potentially a top 5 pick next year) plus a raft of 2nd and 3rd picks. Those bundled picks could have netted us a result that is not dissimilar to splitting pick 9. Over the past two trade periods, we've been a benevolent club to the Suns and the Bombers.

I picked up on that as well. but I've heard plenty of players declare their love for a club, only to leave. Pretty sure LJ declared his love for the club. Trac's contracted long term and we'll do what's best for the club.

It depends on whether Richardson's mentor is a paid by the MFC. The club doesn't have unlimited wealth, and it gets to the point where paid officials need to do their job, or the club needs to find someone who can.

I'll hazard a guess and say that the off-field cultural issues with the players frustrated Goody, and he felt that he needed to be harder on the players. Rather than Goody being the bad cop, the review concluded that Richardson failed in his responsibility in handling the off-field issues. If Richardson needs a mentor, then he needs to be replaced.

Are you Brad Green's ghostwriter? 😁

I just hope that Nathan Jones has the balls to challenge Goodwin's way of thinking. It would be nice to see something different to the "bomb long down the line" strategy.

I'm curious to know how many of these players have you seen live in action? I take opinions on here with a grain of salt. Cal Twomey, who I have utmost respect for, was asked on Gettable who he thought was his certainties for a Top 10 selection. He listed the top 5 mids + Tauru. He then listed 5-6 players who are likely to be in the mix for a top 10 selection, and Harry Armstrong wasn't one of them. I get the impression that he doesn't rate him as highly as some Demonlanders, although he expects a club like St. Kilda to take him based on needs rather than best available.

Spot on with the best 23. And it solidifies my belief that we need 2 midfielders in this draft. Our list is totally imbalanced. We have an element of key forward depth in Melksham, Fullarton, Jefferson and Kentfield, but where is the midfield depth? Woey and Laurie haven't set the world on fire, whilst Brown is unproven and Billings isn't up to it. It also shows how poor our list managment has been recently. Aside from Melksham and Campbell who are 33, I have no confidence in any of the depth players to fulfill a role in our starting 23.

There's a vast difference between acquiring a player like Derksen with pick 999, and spending a top 10 pick on a KPF. We may perceive Derksen as playing the role that we thought Fullarton would play. Our inability to acquire him should have no bearing on our draft plans. A new KPF isn't going to make an impact for 2-3 years, whereas Derksen should be physically capable.

I don't rate the 2024 versions of Jack Macrae and Caleb Daniel. Just like I didn't rate the 2022 version of Lachie Hunter, and was totally against trading for him. Being premiership players from a bygone era is irrelevant. Clubs need to move on from past deeds. Sadly we have been slow in that area.

Gimme a break. He was playing at Casey in 2023.

I'm not a Luke Beveridge fan but the only player of note they have lost was Bayley Smith, and he's been a problem child at the club. The rest were playing VFL footy at some stage. Goody may have a good rapport with the players but that may cloud his judgement. Some of the player extensions have been questionable. And I won't go into our club culture issues, because I'm sure you'll defend it to the hilt.

When you look at the Premiership teams of recent years, the best key forward in each team was recruited from another club: Daniher, Cameron, Ben Brown, Lynch. In the case of Collingwood, Mihocek was a mature age recruit whilst McStay was out injured. And GWS were a contender this year with Hogan also fitting the criteria. Harry Armstrong doesn't strike me as a Jeremy Cameron or Buddy Franklin level talent. Get a mid in who can make an impact next year, and if JVR, Petty, Turner or Jeffo aren't up to it, then target a key forward from another club when the need arises.