Chris

No.

Why jump to a silly ultimatum when it's easy to see what the post is referring too?

We are talking about blokes who have been here since the Bailey days and some from before.

The blokes who are insignificant players at our club but who should really be the leaders.

Nathan Jones isn't in that bracket and neither is Viney both for different reasons.

Why is it so hard to understand?

Because you argue based on someone leaving because they have been here too long. Does not make sense and is a mistake.

Not every player also needs to be an overt leader, I am sure there would be young players who would look up to the Garlands and Jetta's of the world, quiet achievers who get their job done with little fanfare. I know as a kid these were the sort of people I sought out, not the overt look at me I am leader type, they left me cold, and still do. You need a mix of both.

frawley?

Isolated case.

Basing a decision on a player on whether they are from the past or not is a mistake. Base that decision on their contribution to the team, skill, errors, etc. Not on that they have too much experience!

Seriously. Did you just appear out of a cave?

Have the last two drafts, recruiting and development done absolutely nothing to quash that view?

Have you been following the club since the Bailey days?

No I didn't just appear out of a cave, Yes we have drafted and recruited well, I have been following the club since Carl Ditterich was the Coach.

Going with youth alone does not work, you need to keep experience around the club. Three examples, us after we sacked the captain and all the other experience and went with youth (worked wonders), Gold Coast, went with youth with very little experience around, really struggle when the littel experience they do have is missing, and lastly, GWS, have bought in experience with their youth and have leap frogged GC by a country mile.

If you think we need only focus on the future and get rid of anyone from the past then we are rid of N. Jones, Vince, Cross, Dunn, Garland, Howe, Watts, Lamumba, Dawes, Trengove, Grimes, Pederson, Garlett, and a bunch that will either retire or probably delisted (at best provide a little depth).

Remove these players (which is the extension of your argument to go with the future) and our club would sink straight back into the mire it finally seems to be extricating itself from. But I suppose that's OK, we have some players for the future, again.

Garland is the past Not the future Is a big part of our problems in lack of run from the back half

What happened last time we threw out the past and bought in the future?

I'm of the belief that both Garland and Howe will be shown the door by the club at the end of the year and I reckon Roos is comfortable knowing that it'll give us the ammunition we need to further compliment and improve our list.

To continue to bring in blokes with a fresh state of mind and willingness to compete at all times. Whether it be specialised positions we'll be targeting or mids to complement our one-paced midfield or both. Our own supporters are scared of what the unknown looks like.

Posters were scared and underwhelmed when we grabbed Bernie Vince, arguably our best mid (along with Jones).

Posters were scared when we got Garlett for nothing on the back of a poor season at a club he was uninspired to play for and look at the impact he has not only on the scoreboard but in general play. I implore you to look at some of the vision of opposition players kicking out and how something as simple as kamikaze style running at that opposition player, (providing they play on) usually results in a miss-kick and a restart for us. We've been missing those kind of pressure acts from most players on our list for the best part of a decade.

Do I even need to bring up Vandenberg again and the impact he has had in his first year as a bloke who had a shoulder op and did half a pre-season before he played.

I can't fathom the idea that some supporters of ours want to keep underperforming players in the hope that they'll come good. Or because they've been with the club for so long that there's a sense of 'sorry' felt for them.

[censored] me. First year players have shown both of these blokes up!

Not only that. If you're looking at the needs of our list, it doesn't even make sense to want to keep someone like Garland! A player who's strengths we already have covered and who's weakness/weaknesses we already have enough of.

Imagine if we'd kept Frawley like so many here were hoping we would!? It's astonishing.

We need to continue to turn over underperforming experienced players who are NQR's. Roos knows it, the rest of the club knows it.

We don't have the champion leader veterans of yesteryear like a club like St Kilda or even the Doggies have. We had to bring one of them in! Cross!

When will people wake up to the fact that keeping as many 'experienced best 22 atm players who have been on our list for 6-7 + years' is simply not an option for the MFC!?!

I will happily eat humble pie if we keep Garland and or Howe. But I honestly cannot see it happening for the sake of rebuilding and rebranding our entire list from top to bottom.

Garland

Howe

Jamar.

They'll all be gone by the end of the year.

Save this post.

Garland I think will stay, if he wants to. I don't think the club will push him. He is very versatile and is in our best 22 every week, no doubt.

I fear clubs will get involved in Family Planning.

They need to work out how to make sure of the sex of the child first. If society gets to the point a club can mandate that their players only have boys then that is the day I stop wanting to be part of it.

How is that? How would you reform the Academy player bidding system?

Each club younger than 20 years can have an academy, each club over twenty years old gets father son.

Every five years each club can have a max of three picks from F/S or academy for free. They can use these all in one year or spread them out depending on the talent coming through. The five years is a rolling five years.

If a club want more than the three picks then they can have one per year, which would be governed by the rules as they were, i.e they can't get them for their last pick and would need to pay close to market price for them.

This sounds complex but is actually fairly simple and allows for forward planning by all clubs, and removes the disadvantages of having F/S coming through or academies.

assuming the ladder stays where it is, we have pick 4.

trade ND4 to a middle of the table team ie. Geelong for both ND9 and ND27

trade ND22 (845 points) and ND27 (703 points) to GWS for tomlinson and ND28

use ND9 on a Ah Chee or Curnow / etc

GWS get to use the extra points to offset selecting both Hopper and Kennedy (presumed early picks of ND5 (1751 points) and ND9 (1469 points) respectively) totalling 3220 points

ND10 = 1375

ND22 = 845

ND27 = 703

ND46 = 331

total points = 3254

Perfect example of why this new points system is bull S&*T.