mo64

Silly comment. Based on our form over the past 11 weeks, we've won 5 and lost 6. Is that the form line you want from a team contending for a flag? Every week we hear Goody say that we need to get better with our connection up front. The only thing we've changed, whether it be game style of personnel, is bringing Melksham in and playing him as a defensive full forward. That's helped, but will still have massive issues with our forward synergy.

Cripps did the same thing and didn't get pinged.

Our last bad trades were in the Roos era, and quite a few involved Collingwood. Traded Howe for Ben Kennedy. Basically gave them Lynden Dunn for nothing. And we traded for Heritier Lumumba. I don't want us to add to that list.

No, bring JVR in for either of our 2 non contributing forwards in Spargo and ANB. We win enough contested ball, clearances and inside 50's to be winning games comfortably. Our dysfunctional forward entries, which are by design, should mean that Spargo and ANB should have plenty of opportunities for ground balls. They're nowhere to be seen. In the dying minutes, ANB has clean possession a metre and a half inside the boundary, and just runs over the boundary before trying to kick it. His thought process is 2 seconds behind the play. He needs to be dropped, but it won't happen.

It's definitely a win by Brown. I'm not blaming Brown. My criticism is of our one dimensional game plan even when the game is slipping away. It was a bad option. Brown was against 3 Carlton players and we were fortunate that the ball hit a Carlton player in the head. Our final goal was a result of Lever kicking the ball at right angles into the corridor. Post game, Trac said it was a shocking kick by Lever that came off, but I think Lever had the smarts to realise that Carlton would have been set up down the line.

Our coaches will see that as a win unfortunately. The only reason we won this game in the end was because Hunt chose to take the game on with his run. Oh, and no-one has mentioned how Melksham managed to take that mark amongst 3 Carlton players. If that was against the Pies, it wouldn't have happened, and we lose.

I'd bring in Bowey for Spargo. At least he knows how to find the ball and is an equally good user. We still need more potency in attack, but stubborn Goody won't make any changes.

Melksham should get dropped for zero tackles. ANB and Spargo were so dynamic with their pressure. I don't know what we'd do without them. I'm being facetious.

People keep thinking Grundy is the same player as he was in his All Australian years. His last 3 years have been as follows: 2020 - 7th in the B&F. Played every game but supposedly struggled with Covid hub. 2021 - 6th in the B&F. Team won 4 of the 20 games he played. 2020 - Played 6 games. Team won 3. Team has been 12/2 without him, and he is now considered surplus to needs. I don't see how he makes us better as a primary ruckman ahead of Max. And as a goalkicker, he averages 0.3 goals a game.

Jack Fitzpatrick.

Richmond 2017 only had Jack Riewoldt, and he's only 195cm. Lynch arrived the following year.

Webber, we appreciate your input as a medico. But I think the point that rpfc is making is that surely you would be more cautious going into round 1 with a player carrying an injury? You've had weeks to assess the injury, compared with maybe a few days once the season has commenced. The injury was a chipped cartilage. Does that type of injury heal with rest, or is surgery the only solution?

We've got forwards that can get separation, but we don't have a game plan that utilises them. Fritsch, Brown and Weid have displayed that they can get separation at times. I'm a huge critic of Weid, but his one strength is leading. Last week was the most disappointing loss of the season. I've never seen a game where one side totally obliterates the other in contested possession and clearances for a vast majority of the game, and lose. We should have been 10 goals up at the 10 min mark of the 3rd quarter. And it comes down to our one dimensional way of entering our forward 50. That fact that all our mids bomb the ball inside 50, even when they have space and time, suggests that it's a coaching directive. All season I've been hearing Goodwin and now Stafford say that we need to get better in that area, but I don't see any change in game plan. Even when we had Melksham one out against Darcy Moore, we still bombed it on his head. The fact that he didn't lead, again must have been a coaching directive. Bombing into 50 worked for part of the G/F, but we've become too predictable. We're not taking advantage of our midfield dominance, and it's not the forwards that are to blame.

We've canned the idea to get Grundy and will go with the equally talented Jake Spencer.

Kozzy was at training though, admittedly wrapped up like a mummy. But this would explain why Laurie was preferred to Chandler.

Players getting back to 100%? Are you crazy? Even the fit players are only at 75% optimal levels now. Haven't you been reading the loading thread?

McLean is a big body, and makes a contest. Weid would still be in the team if he could provide that. McLean is sitting behind Franklin, Reid, McDonald and Amartey as a tall forward. We've resorted to playing Melksham in a role to cover T Mac's absence. McLean has upside as a ruckman, whereas I could never envisage Weid playing as a pure ruckman at AFL level. Similar stats, different players.

McLean has kicked a goal in 7/8 games he's played this year. Averages close to a goal a game, and is still young and developing. A second ruck who gives us 25-30 goals a year would be invaluable. He's a big body who could give us a contest up forward, which is our game style. Only 23. A perfect fit IMO.

That's laughable. The Pies should be compensating us with a draft pick for alleviating their salary cap woes. They want Grundy out for for 2 good reasons. He's getting paid sh#tloads, and he doesn't help them win.

No.

Damn!!! I wanted to know how Mel and Steve have settled into Palazzo Del Dogga.

Correct. Max is the best ruckman in the game. So what percentage of game time does Max get as the number 1 ruck when Grundy plays? What differentiates Max to Grundy is his ability to take contested marks down back or in the forward line as a pure ruckman. Grundy is not a great contested mark. Max is also an excellent runner for his size, and can push forward or back from the contest, whereas Grundy gets from stoppage to stoppage. Max and Grundy are different players. Max is far more impactful. Why take the pre-eminent ruckman out of his best position for extended periods of the game?

The stats that Grundy accumulated under Buckley's coaching are irrelevant. For those who play Fantasy Football know that Grundy was awarded "Pig Status", an honour that's been bestowed on very few. Tom Mitchell and Tom Rockliff also received this accolade. All 3 would rack up meaningless stats win, lose or draw. Under Buckley, the Pies played a high possession game. Under McRae they play a more daring game. Grundy is excess to their needs. The only way we should be taking on a large part of his contract is if the Pies give us a 1st or 2nd rd pick. Something similar to the Will Brodie Suns/Dockers trade. If the Pies can't move Grundy's contract, they'll struggle to keep DeGoey or recruit some of their targets. I don't see why we should be giving the Pies a leg up.

For starters, the Pies aren't paying part of $700k, they're paying part of $1m+. And in 3 years time, if things don't work out for either player at their new club, Jackson would still have massive trade currency, whilst Grundy will be worth zilch. If Grundy had 2 years to run, by all means give it a shot. 5 years is a ridiculous contract to take on.

2 Premiership players (Nankervis and Lycett) who were involved in 4 out of the last 5 premierships. Your point is irrelevant.