Beats

TheoX, on 20 Aug 2014 - 07:24 AM, said: What's this bs Evans has come out with now? Players have to basically die before a PP will be awarded? Making it up as they go. I hope the bus to Casey doesn’t roll this weekend… P-man, on 20 Aug 2014 - 09:21 AM, said: This is where the accusations of overreaction come into play. If you remove the GWS game and convert a couple of those losses under a goal into wins, would we even be having this debate? I would suggest not. Saying you have doubts about JKH who is a first year player that has undeniably shown promise is a sign that the justifications for this are getting totally out of whack. Some faith needs to be placed in Roos' ability to develop the names that Quayle reels off. And despite this nightmare end to the season, the middle segment showed that the group is coachable. They just feel vulnerable at present with their careers on the line. I'm not defending that as a mindset, but it's a reality. Yes, we're bad, but we've seen light at the end of the tunnel at different stages this season. I know it's tough, really tough, but more patience is required. If you remove a couple of those close losses and add 5 goals to some of our losses to better teams, would we even be having this argument (would it not just be a dead certainty)? A spade is a spade. We have improved on our shizen 2013, but are no better than we were in 2012 and still are a long way off the form of our 2011 side. As you say, JKH is a first year player who has shown undeniable promise, but he is a long way off cementing himself as a regular AFL player, he has shown signs, but until he cements himself it’s fair to doubt that he will make it. I have faith in Roos to develop those names, unfortunately I have just as much faith that John Longmire can develop the likes of Membrey, Hannebery, Mitchell, Cunningham, Z.Jones, Bird, Rohan, Reid, Parker, B.Jack, Lloyd and the addition of two top 10 rated academy players over the next 2 years. Not only does one of the top teams have significantly better senior players, it has significantly better ‘development’ players as well. Add to that GWS and GC. When those teams smash us now with depeleted sides, younger lists and more talent it is hard to see us challenging for a flag in the next 10-15 years, let alone winning one.

I love this idea, it could generate plenty of additional revenue. Step 1 - the club hires a couple of full time counsellors Step 2 - they set up a full time clinic in the bowels of the MCG Step 3 - MFC members can pay a premium to get free sessions during any game at the MCG.

We should get an end of first round at a minimum (don't think we will though =/) A few interesting points on this topic: Mark Evans is apparently the one at the AFL who has sway in this decision. He was the General Manager of football operations at Hawthorn in 2004/ 2005 when the Club picked Roughead (& Buddy) and Xavier Ellis (& Beau Dowler) as PP’s. Collingwood, Hawthorn and WCE have won premierships off the back off PP’s awarded under much less stringent conditions than we currently face. The Western Bulldogs and St Kilda have also spent long periods at the top end of the ladder helped by PP’s.

Yes Stuie, it's reality. Jack Viney had 12 disposals (4 kicks) at 58% efficiency from 80% game time. Not only that, his opponent thoroughly beat him on the day. It's not just him, but his form has been pretty average over the last 8 weeks. The reality is that the whole team let us down (JV included). Thank you for providing a reasonable response, your opinion differs from mine but you don't feel the need to personally attack me/ quote me out of context/ fixate on a throwaway line/ be the other poster I've quoted. Where did you get the pressure acts stat from? It's hard to quote the stats that show him to be in our top 3 workers when they're not publicly available. Viney's game yesterday was on par with Bail's recent performances, you can pressure all you want, but if you can't do something with the ball your value is limited. Bail was dropped because despite putting on a heap of pressure, putting in 10 disposal games week in week out isn't good enough. Viney's kicking efficiency has never been flash, but his disposal over the latter half of the season has been woeful at best. I'd be interested to see where he gets the ball and what he does with it when he has it. He vary rarely (if ever) kicks long in general play. No Stuie, go on, continue to ignore the reasonable question. Post up gifs. You're so clever. People love you. You're witty. People will miss you when you're gone. When you die the papers will bear the headline 'national tragedy'. Reality is - you didn't like what I wrote, you couldn't find a logical argument to what I wrote, you resorted to subtle digs, poking holes and posting gif's. Your performance is as bad as the team's yesterday.

Sorry to nitpick, the rest of the post was pretty spot on - you only have to use 3 picks in the ND, not take a minimum of 3 (new)draftees - you could take 2 picks and upgrade Jetta if we were only making 3 list changes.

Kent could be that guy, he has a bit of spirit about him.

I'm feeling slightly paranoid because my boss is a Melbourne supporter and he has used 2 of the 3 adjectives above to describe me previously - All I had last night was mangoes and rum, if you find a sloppy surprise in your top left drawer tomorrow morning then I guess we should have a face to face conversation.... But seriously, if you've been searching for 8 months and haven't found a suitable replacement for 'lazy' in the current job climate there's every chance you're expecting above average performance for below average conditions... Edit: Just in case you read it Dave, that was a joke. The real surprise is on your carpet.

Kent and Gawn did that yesterday, Kent had one of their players in a headlock and Gawn was getting stuck in to Devon Smith(?) during the 3rd quarter, the smallish melee resulted in a 50 (Jack Watts was on the mark, the kick went from 5m out on an angle to on the goal line). They didn't show it on TV but it was nice to see someone have a crack at Devon Smith (who is fast becoming my most hated player in the AFL - lippy little SH*T).

No you're right. We should accept a standard less than mediocre from one of our brightest prospects. Giving him a run in the 2's to get some form/ confidence wouldn't hurt. You've focused on the throwaway line on who should replace him, rather than the below par performances he has given over the 2nd half of the season. I'd like to come and live in your world of sunshine and happiness. Edit: as I asked before, on his current form does he deserve to play week in week out?

A) it's an improvement B) Viney should be part of that run and spread C) I don't want to see another young player go backwards D) I'd rather see farewell games for the likes of a jordie/ Nicho than gift Viney games E) he can't kick or handball with accuracy or consistency There's a lot of things to like about Viney, but on his form, do you think he should be getting a game?

The point of my op wasn't to blame Viney, it was to highlight just how shocking his disposal is. He needs time in the VFL to get some confidence back. We can't gift games to players who average less effective disposals than handballs.

Disclaimer – still in emotional despair after attending the match yesterday. Jack Viney has managed to avoid the blowtorch so far. His second half of the season has been average (at best) and his game today was utterly shocking (12 disposals, 58.3% de). When Roos talks about players missing handballs he is talking about Jack Viney (among others). I do not know whether he is low on confidence, carrying an injury or simply a young player getting tired, but the following stats just aren’t good enough: Over the last 8 weeks (averages): Kicks – 8 pg Handballs – 9.5 pg Disposals – 17.5 pg Disposal efficiency – 62.3% You look at those stats and say, hmm he’s young, it’s his 2nd season give him a rest, but let’s dig a little deeper. Effective disposals – 10.875 Inneffective/ clangers – 6.75 Clearances – 3.375 With clearances counting as an effective disposal, when you subtract his clearances from effective disposals he averages 7.5 effective disposals per game. Feel free to re-read that. He averages 10.875 effective disposals per game, excluding clearances he averages 7.5 effective disposals in general play per game. Yesterday he had 4 clearances in his 12 disposals (4 kicks/ 8 handballs), he had 7 effective disposals, he had 3 effective disposals that weren’t clearances. Now let’s go with the relatively safe assumption that the majority of his clearances are kicks, to simplify the numbers above let’s say he averages 3.5 per week, 2 are kicks, 1.5 are handballs. That would leave the following averages: Kicks (in general play) – 6 pg Handballs (in general pay) – 8 pg Disposals (excl. clearances) – 14 pg Disposal efficiency (in general play) – 52.6% Effective disposals (in general play) – 7.5 pg In general play, over the last 8 weeks, Jack Viney has averaged less effective possessions than handballs. Yeah, he's not the only one stinking it up. Yeah, he's young. Yeah, he goes in hard. Yeah, he is the future. Yeah, if we had better midfield support he would do better. But, those stats don't stack up, send him back to the VFL for the last 2 weeks to get some confidence back. Despite his obvious flaws, it's hard to argue that McKenzie would have contributed less than Viney did yesterday, give him (or anyone else) a 2 week farewell as a thank you for his service to the club.

I didn't say he hadn't established himself, I said that he hadn't established himself in a position. In this context the definition I attribute to 'established' is consistent AFL level performances, which hasn't happened throughout his career. I want what you want, Jack Watts to be a consistent and effective AFL quality player. I've given up on him being a star and would be quite happy if he was to have a similar career trajectory to Dunn. I would like to see us draft some players who will give him pressure for his spot - Who do we have in the VFL that could play Jack's role? Is he competing with the likes of Blease/ Strauss for a spot? I'm going to stick by the comment that he's getting games due to a lack of depth rather than good/ consistent performances.

The assessment of Evans was brutal and it's a continuing theme in the VFL reviews - if he wasn't contracted he'd be a lock to be de-listed.

We'll have to agree to disagree, in my opinion, Watts has shown nothing to put himself "well ahead" of Lynden at this point in his career. The assessment of Dunn above is equally true of Watts - has failed in multiple positions, has serious flaws in his game, hasn't established himself in a position 6 years in to his career. If we had any form of depth that could hit a target he would have been dropped multiple times this year. All that the comment quoted has done is effectively lower my expectations of Watts from a potential Brendan Goddard to a potential Lynden Dunn.

I respectfully disagree with that - what are you basing it on? http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?tid1=12&pid1=3107&tid2=12&pid2=1498&type=A&fid1=O&fid2=O Dunn was playing as a KPF (remember those stupidly long run ups) or a tagger, Watts is a wing/ loose man in defence atm (not really sure what you would classify his position as atm). Averaging 3 possessions more per game and all other stats are pretty much the same. Hard to say Watts is ahead based on those stats.

Giant defenders are creeping in at the same rate as giant forwards - Carlisle, Rory Thompson (GC), Roughead (WB version)

The difference with Goddard is that he was always a competitive beast/ had mongrel. I wasn't surprised in the slightest, Footywire doesn't copy well to this format, but he doesn't stack up well against many. Based on this season (which I think we all agree has been Watts best season...) Watts has the following average stats: 17.5 disposals, 5.0 marks, 2.6 tackles, 0.6 goals Stars of the comp at the same age: Goddard - 23.4 disposals, 7.9 marks, 2.0 tackles, 0.5 goals Dangerfield - 23.3 disposals, 4.2 marks, 3.2 tackles, 1.6 goals Rockliff - 27.4 disposals, 4.5 marks, 5.1 tackles, 0.3 goals Gibbs - 21.9 disposals, 5.2 marks, 4.1 tackles, 0.4 goals Judd - 25.9 disposals, 2.6 marks, 4.9 tackles, 1.3 goals Pendlebury - 29.7 disposals, 4.2 marks, 6.0 tackles, 1.0 goal At the same age Goddard and Gibbs were playing similar roles/ positions and are probably the best comparisons of those I could be bothered to research.

If you said choose between Mitchell and Reid or Shiel it would be Mitchell + Reid, if you said choose one of the 3 it would be Shiel by a mile. He's capable of the same numbers as Mitchell while being a lot more damaging (plays inside and out, better disposal, faster etc etc.).

I would think that picks 3&4 can attract better value than a 3rd tall, a mid playing 2nds (albeit in the best side in the comp) and a 30year old with a history of serious injuries. Looking at past trades as a way of comparing values: Reid - Dawes (pick 20 and a swap of late picks in MFC's favour) - at the same age Dawes had less games and more goals in a team just as successful. Reid may be worth a touch more Malceski - Heath Shaw (taylor adams), Andrew Lovett (p16) - hard to find a comparable for Malceski, Shaw and Lovett are the closest I could find in the last 5 years, both were younger a few years younger than Malceski when traded, Malceski is probably worth a bit less due to his age. Mitchell - Josh Caddy (first round compo (after 1st pick) and 3rd rounder) - it's hard to find a comparable for Mitchell, Caddy is probably the closest, however he had asked to be traded to Geelong, as such he may have been worth more on the open market... probably around pick 8-15 or so. Based on the comparables and my thoughts - Reid = pick 15-20ish, Malceski = pick 25-30ish and Mitchel = pick 8-15. Frawley compo + our 2nd round is probably about the mark for those 3.

While not perfect, supercoach scores are a good way of judging a players impact on the game. Watts - 75, Nic Nat - 89.2

Howe's doing just fine as the third man up/ intercept defender - 2 intercept marks and 9 interceptions on the weekend. If we get a Malceski type it will free Grimes up to do this as well (reading the play is his best attribute imo).

Even if it's good advice, I don't want us taking G.Lyons advice ever again. His last lot of advice/ help set us back a long way. Dawes and N. Jones would be the next highest, a recent Herald Sun article listing the number of players in each pay bracket had Dawes and N.Jones around the 500 mark. Chip wasn't in our highest 25% paid players this year (that's why he's a FA this year), so can assume less than 300k for chip. Clark was listed as between 600 and 650 in that same herald sun article. Would assume that Vince and Tyson are on reasonable contracts for their respective positions within the game at the start of the year. The figures bandied about for Hogan are probably inflated, however there would be some truth in them, probably closer to the 250-300 mark than the reported 400-500.

You can cancel a contract at any time, however the financial implications of doing so make it very difficult. The player has been guaranteed an amount of money over a certain time frame, if you end the contract part way through the time frame you are required to pay out the remaining balance on the contract at that time. In most situations the remaining balance would be included on the TPP in the year it was cancelled, however depending on the circumstances you can apply it to following years. Eg. We delist Evans with a year remaining, the amount we pay out either goes on this years or next years TPP, essentially we are paying for a player that won't be at the club, which can also push the salary cap up above the allowed limit. The example you mentioned re: Juice/ Jetta this year was smart financial management in Juice's case. The club de-listed them and then picked them up in the rookie draft, any club could have picked them up in the main draft or rookie draft if they wanted. As per the example above, the player is guaranteed a some of money over a period of time and you have to pay it to them, rookieing them allows you to pay that amount to them, however the rookie list is outside the main salary cap, as such you're saving a bit of $$ while keeping him around if he comes good. In Jetta's case, because he's played a certain number of games, it will likely be costing the club a bit, because match payments for rookie players fall under the main salary cap, however he's proved that he's worth keeping around. This is just looking at it from a TPP point of view, the club's financial situation may also have some bearing on it as paying someone out is a large financial burden (even if they aren't on mega dollars). There's also the situation where you trade a player out with years remaining and the contract at their new club is of less monetary value, eg. Woey. He was traded to Collingwood on less money per year with 2(?) years remaining on his contract. We then paid the difference between his contract and the Collingwood contract for those two years, which I believe would have fallen under the salary cap.

Most people were expecting 5-8 wins, better percentage and significantly less 10+ goal losses. Which has pretty much been achieved. Not everyone has eternal patience though, we have the lowest winning percentage out of any team over the last 8 years (excl GWS) by so far it's not funny. We have won 1 in 5 games over the last 8 years. So you know, it's kind of understandable that people want to sack half the list, when the list wins 1/5 games.