The Stigga

Yep fully fit Brisbane are a worry,

Finals experience now and have got same great young kids with Rayner a virtual new recruit.

45 minutes ago, binman said:

In all seriousness, one of the unintended, really positive, consequences of having to play the GF at Optus is that for this group of players heading across to play the Eagles and Freo will be a complete joy and a trip they will look forward to, not far.

Imagine the vibe and the buzz of playing on the ground where you had beaten West Coast late in the season, trounced the Cats in a prelim then experienced the ultimate football dream in winning a grand final. Bliss

And the booing?

Well for one, that may well feel juts like a curio to players now - bring it on.

And two we might well have more dees fans in WA now - even if it is freo fans supporting us against the Eagles and vice versa.

Yep ironic isn't it, 

Lost the Semi over there in 91'

Prelim in 94'

Semi in 2006

Prelim in 2018

Mr Pert, if you're out there, please don't request Footscray for our flag unfurling game

Hibberd signs on as Dees make last list changes

Just now, old dee said:

GCS, we could get 70k demons into the ground. 

I think we would get at least 70,000, weather permitting, no matter who we played.

Yep, I'm not a fan at all of requesting to play Footscray in Round 1.

I feel its not really at all humble unfurling the flag in their faces, in fact it could make the difference given how close some teams are in terms of mental application.

We talk about 'respecting' our opponents, well this isn't it for mine.

I don't think we should bite off more than we can chew.

The boy had had enough, it wasn't going to happen again, not under his watch.

not going to happen now but would be open to trade 17 for bobby hill

29 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

We had the best injury run ever and lost Burgo. We’ve lost the ability to trade for Cerra this year by not having our pick, next year that means no Ben King or other highly rated player most likely. And Collingwood probably though getting 2 nice picks was better than their first rounder this year until they tumbled from finals to second last.

Having seen the locked in deal I’ll say it’s fine, maybe even good, but have to at least consider this won’t be good if we miss finals. 

If we missed finals next year a downgrade from pick 18-8 is the least of our problems...

2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

We were originally linked with 19 but now it's 17, either way, we really can't get a better pick back for the one we gave up. Not at all worried about next year, just a little concerned about the idea of doing deals without any upside in the deal itself. 

When we traded for the picks that became Weid, Pickett and even the 2 for 1 with Bowey/Laurie we gave up future picks that the other teams banked on being good picks. We outperformed expectations in each of those years and ended up either breaking even or getting value on the trade itself, yet alone the player.

There was room for us to improve. Significantly even with the Pickett deal when we're coming from finishing 17th, even though North I'm sure doubt we would be that bad again. We weren't relying on JT finding better players than the picks we gave up. We risked it for the future to get him the best possible picks we could find at the time, then improved so that we didn't lost out.

We have to finish in the 8 to avoid disaster with this deal. Hawks 2009, Dogs 2017, it happens but I'm fine with that risk. Unless there's a whole bunch of academy players or a dodgy draft crop next year we probably have to finish in or close to the top 4 for it to really break even. And once again, I recognise JT has been amazing, but we still should give him the best possible picks not the quickest possible picks. 

We didn't cough up a 2nd rounder or 3rd rounder at all, moving only a couple of places. Once I saw that I'm much more comfortable that the risk (falling down the ladder) v reward (immediate access to a player) is much more balanced. Had we paid a nice juicy 2nd rounder for a very late 1st I wouldn't have been as keen on it. I'm surprised Adelaide and Dogs did this deal to be honest. There's enough in it for both of them but they might've got more come trade night.

I agree with what you are saying but geez there is such fear of getting reamed with picks.

You get reamed if you pick the wrong player with any pick

Official 

https://www.afl.com.au/news/683080/mega-pick-swap-four-clubs-sign-off-on-monster-trade

Just now, FlashInThePan said:

I think we have to accept that you need to give to get. We got the trades done that we knew we needed to get done. One trade in isolation doesn't matter, it is the balanced list you build overall. What we paid for Lever looks to me like peanuts when I see what that back line has done for our confidence over the year.

Exactly, its like Carlton and Freo are dancing around at the moment about Cerra and whether a future 2nd or future 3rd will be given on top of pick 6.

Just ridiculous, get it done.

6 minutes ago, Greendale said:

It's hardly even about points, the picks line up very well with each other. Picks 33 and 45 are slightly worse than 37 and 49. Therefore we think pick 17 must be at least slightly better than out future 1st. I'm not sure it should be.

And if we took this attitude and played conservative we woudn't have Lever and May, both of which deals were seen as overs by many at the time

I love how we don't faff about at trade time!!!

12 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Weideman - didn’t work 

Pickett - worked, filled a need, original deal was bad value that turned in to solid value after swapping picks with Freo. Improving to mid table ladder position sure helped the deal.

Bowey/Laurie - got great value due to outplaying Brisbane/over performing expectations. Bowey’s well worth the first rounder, ended up with Laurie for a small second round downgrade.

My concern this year is we’d be trading a future first and something for pick 19, so we’d immediately be losing, with no room to make up ground. The best we could do is break even on the first rounder and not have given up much else.

It’s also unlikely the kid we take makes immediate impact. And it’s a future pick that could go to identifying and filling a need with a proven experienced player next year. And if we do it now there’s no way we’re guaranteed to get who we want.

Im a broken record on this but no matter how many times they deny it I reckon they wanted Max Holmes and had him poached last year. They really liked Macrae and maybe Angwin too. 
 

Without the benefit of our fate being in our own hands in terms of ladder position improvement nor the ability to guarantee who we’re selecting I don’t like this idea. A lot of risk for what reward?

I understand what you're saying but we also 'gave to much for Lever' at the time.

...

Hmmm... first for first again, they are consistent!

2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I want our players running out each week with a desire to be the hardest at the contest. And also the fittest and most skilled if possible too!

And if you can’t win a share of your own ball you’ve got no place in AFL footy.

But I’m also glad we’re a team that recruits Langdon, sticks with Fritsch through quiet games, backs in a tiny young fella in Bowey to play finals after 4 games, sees the value of Spargo’s running to space and kicking even if he’s not winning much of the ball. 

 

Me too! Contested ball is not the panacea. I'm sure, being the fittest, most skilled and best at wining the football at the contest or the spread are just as important.

Agreed, and improvement in all of the players you mentioned gives me confidence that the same can happen to Dunstan, even at the age of 27.

5 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

No. Way too slow.

We fell in love with that mantra for years and it peaked in 2018 before the Eagles blew us apart by opening us up. 

The biggest change this season is we stopped all trying to win the same ball and used speed and spread with our contested work.

The over the top focus on being the best contested footy side should be relegated to history alongside Neeld’s ‘hardest team to play against’ 

Politely disagree regarding his speed.

In relation to the 'mantra', its sill there, the players still mention it often, no doubt its one of many 'mantras' they would have.

I don't share your concerns about the recruitment (if it occurs) in terms of cost/years etc.

I've got no doubt Luke would know that Harmes, Sparrow and JJ (all premiership players) and Hunt are all ahead of him, he's clearly decided not to tread water at a GC and give it a red hot crack here.

If he improves his disposal can even see him giving HIbberd a run for his money of the back line

Just now, drysdale demon said:

So you agree the MFC should grab him.

Absolutely.

Think its a great acquisition, as we've just lost Jones and AVB.

Just now, drysdale demon said:

That is you, not the professionals and experienced people who are in charge at the club.

Fair play, the poster is entitled to their opinion.

By the by, this year Dunstan was ranked:

14th - Inside 50's per game (Oliver was 12th)

11th - Stoppage clearances per game

13th in turnovers per game (funnily Petracca was ranked 3 for this)

Steve

Ok, so from the 18 minutes to go when it was 13 points to WB to 11 minutes to go when Bont kicked another goal, we repelled so many entreies, this is where we won the game in my view.

Gawn and Jackson are bonafide Ruck-Rovers 

Pickett's pressure was immense, didn't matter that he didnt touch it