deanox

RE the manager starting MC did us a favour, I can only take that to mean the "confidential settlement" included not being paid the full amount of the 4th year (2015) of his contact. RE Next year's plans, I wonder if the MFC flayed the idea of Rookieing him or similar to help him adjust to AFL again but he has different ideas. I wouldn't be surprised if we are taking a cautious approach to taking him back and he may disagree. Similarly weer may not think he can core with AFL and think we can manage the situation to get over the odds compensation for him. I'll reserve my judgement. I'd rather a fit and firing MC paying for the dees but if he is only 40% to get back on the park I'd rather pick 20 for Roos to trade.

In all honesty, other than Jones we don't have a player worthy of "nailed it" so I don't think we need to even look at where they have been drafted.

I wouldn't take anyone from Essendon with the possibility of a ban hanging over their heads. Not worry the risk, safe options only. I shadowy this is one of the reasons why so many players have stayed as Essendon.

Ironically, so should the elimination final against Carlton.

I too expect that is the reality but it tends to be human nature to buy into hope. I'm just surprised no one has brought him to account. I can only assume that means no one, not even the players, believes a word he says.

Your legal nous would be appreciated here but give Dank has categorically stated that the payers have done nothing wrong and he can clear them, it seems surprising that none of them have challenged the decision in a court and subpoena'd Dank OR taken him to a civil Court for damages. Surely someone can force him to provide any evidence he claims to have.

Hogan and Clark missed the whole season. Dawes was delayed and up against it by himself for the rest of it. It is easy to forget we didn't have the forward line we planned on having.

We've put the hard yards in. May as well keep him until he notches up the 100 game father son criteria, just in case.

rpfc, this is one of the best threads on Demonland, well done keeping it up to date.

Our biggest problem imo is not working hard enough to get a uncontested possession when we have the ball. However I believe this is caused by other players not honouring leads when they are made. When someone marks it on the D50, everyone stands still. On the occasion someone runs 100 m into space for a short kick and uncontested mark that gains 25 m ground, he is usually ignored. Then eventually we kick long to a contest of stationary players. We need to improve our ball retention to "retention and forward movement". Roos has done a good job to increase or uncontested possession chains but they are often sideways and don't result in attacks. We need to learn how to hold possession while inching forward. So that our kick to a contest is in the F50, not on the centre or defensive wing. This means taking the first option when it presents and it will require an improvement on leading patterns to create space for others to lead into.

I'd take an end of first round or stay of second round. Assuming Frawley leaves, it would give us: Pick 2 Pick 3 Pick 21 Pick 22 Pick 40 Pick 58 Pick 76 I would then try and trade at least one of the first two picks for a player and a pick, even if it bumps us back to pick 15-20. The main reason is we need to bring a 8+ players in.

Everyone paid that holding the ball except the umpire. Even the Brisbane player stood the mark.

Yep, if the AFLPA want this then they must also start agreeing to player trades against their will.

Was possibly more important than a PP in the sport term, although as we are set to finish second lady again I think it is becoming clear that we could perhaps do with another leg up to help turn our list over quicker. Even a stat of 2nd round would be good value this year, allowing us to trade in a player who will have immediate impact but still draft some kids for the future.

I hadn't heard of his retirement plans. But he lives in melbourne, and was flying to Sydney. He isn't a senior assistant at Melbourne now so not sure why a new senior assistant would have bearing on his role.

Stone won't be going next year. And frankly we need to keep him longer term as much as Roos or more.

Given a couple of assistant names have been thrown around (I.e. Luke Beveridge) I'm going to raise another reason in favour of Rawlings. At the end of this year, Ross will have spent 12 months working closely with Rawlings and will know him and his work/coaching style very well. After 2 years Roos will have very good knowledge of whether Rawlings is a genuine understudy who could carry on the culture that he has started. The alternative is that Roos interviews someone and hopes that person will not talk the Roos talk but walk it. If Roos feels Rawlings is the one, then I would be much more comfortable than if we interview and hire an unknown. I'm not saying I'm rooting for Rawlings but it is clear that there may be advantageous of his appointment of he is capable.

I'm not saying it is the case, yet. But originally Roos wanted a number of candidates from whom the successor could be picked. It makes sense that the successor is a person who Roos and the club think will best be able to do the job and who embodies what is needed in a coach. Over the course of the last 12 months Roos may have come to think Rawlings could be that person. Not made a decision but may be considering him. I would much rather our next coach be able to say: He has 10 years AFL coaching experience He has 3 years of mentoring from Roos He has 3 years experience with training the list and developing culture and game plan He had the respect of the players souring the Neeld era Than not have any of the above, or be a 2 year veteran. If Roos thinks Rawlings is a good candidate, I'd much rather Rawlings than an inexperienced Hayes or Ling.

I believe he will pick a successor from within the current coaching group unless an outstanding candidate appears. Rawlings started coaching in 2007 so has 8 years experience. By all reports he has great rapport with the players. He was head VFL coach, interim AFL coach and has worked under Terry Wallace, Michael Voss, Mark Neeld and now Paul Roos. Ok, apart from Roos that isn't an outstanding list of coaches but importantly he has experience at 3 clubs under different regimes. If he is re-contracted at the end of this year, I'd be surprised if he doesn't become the one (unless an outstanding option or former Roos pupil appears). By 2017 he will have 10 years assistant experience including 3 years of Roos mentoring. If that doesn't make him an ideal candidate to continue Roos' work I'm not sure what would. A one year understudy is insufficient to learn all you can from Roos.

Clint has it nailed. The problem is when the AFL try to change the game by adding interpretations to that basic rule such as "diving on the ball constitutes prior opportunity so it must be knocked free immediately", which in itself is reasonable, however when umpires reward tackles that hold the ball to players it is broken. The easy solution is to call ball ups almost instantaneously on close scrimmages.

There is his obligatory OOF.

That's all it deserved.

If Jamar has managed to have a 10+ year AFL career with his output then Gawn will make it. The question of whether Gawn has an OK career as a solid first ruck, with maybe one or two dominant years, or whether he is a high quality ruck will, imo, come down to whether he can develop to be damaging when resting forward.

Coaches and players hate the idea because players have been training to play burst footy for 5 years. The original idea was to slow the game down and reduce injuries, with the added bonus of making an injury have less impact on the result. Imo they should either: Drop it to a 60 interchange cap and allow 4 interchange players, which would allow the interchange to be used for tactical and match up reasons. OR Change it to 2 subs.

And I'd argue that is also about luck (ie was that year a good draft). We have had the misfortune of having high picks in poor drafts. Combined with all the other arguments about development and poor drafting from pick 15 to 30 of course, but we haven't had luck at the pointy ends.