mo64

The primary role of a coach is to get the best out of the players, so it is on Goodwin. Our gameplan hasn't changed since 2021. Our mids have always bombed it long, even in 2021. The players are devoid of confidence, and it's all on Goodwin. Under a new coach, I can see us turning things around, provided that we keep all our top end talent. If Goodwin stays, I fear that we'll have a mass exodus.

Are they in labour?

Why would anyone care about that? What about the smugness and arrogance of a large majority of our supporters on here who thought a dynasty was a given? Our demise has been through our own doing, and isn't based on the 5 losses this year. The decline started in 2022 with our list management. People on here mentioning the departures of ANB and Gus as being pivotal to our decline are delusional. Things have been rotten for some time. I couldn't care less what people outside the club are saying. It's what people within the club do about it that's important. If they sit on their hands, I can see us being a bottom 4 club for many a year. The talent is there, but whether they stay is highly unlikely.

Reminds me of the game that got Balmey sacked. Tried going small against Port and we struggled to kick 3 goals that night. Enough's enough. Time to go.

100% Correct. When you listen to great coaches across all sports, they talk about "situational" coaching based on how a game was going. During the week, Bill Belichick would show the players situations that occured across all games, and drum into the players what they needed to do in those situations. Goodwin is all about "sticking to the gameplan", and the results will come. Our loss to GWS was the hardest for me to swallow, because it was all due to coaching ineptness in the final few minutes. Since then, the confidence of the players has dropped.

This is hilarious. We were at the top of the ladder not so long ago and only managed to attract discards like Dunstan, Grundy, Hunter, Billings, Schache, Fullarton, etc. And yet when the Hawks were down the bottom, they were able to attract players who are in their best 22 like Amon, Chol, Impey, Meek, D'Ambrosia, Ginnivan, Scrimshaw. Our list managment since winning the flag has been embarrassing. But let's blame it on the media.

Nah. The story is all legit, and has nothing to do with us leaking. My source in Perth has a connection with a member of the Jackson family, and has known about it for a month. I won't go into too much detail, but let's just say that LJ returned to WA for family and lifestyle reasons. That's all been turned on it's head since being in a relationship. Someone correctly posted that LJ likes to please everyone.

Can't believe the vitriol directed at Fritsch. He's been our most reliable forward over the past 4 years, and yet some are pointing the finger at him based on 2 quiet preseason games. He's the least of our problems.

Given our injury list, Billings is a lock for rd 1, but his disposal hasn't improved from last year. Under limited pressure he kicks the ball to the opposition far too often. And Woey was pretty quiet for mine. Turner is well ahead of Jefferson at this stage. I'd love to see a forward structure with Fritsch, JVR and Turner as leading forwards, and maybe use AJ as a 2nd ruck and a bash and crash forward.

Was disappointed when we didn't draft him. He addresses a need, and I reckon he'll play a lot of senior football this year.

Was disappointed when we didn't draft him. He addresses a need, and I reckon he'll play a lot of senior football this year.

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.