Axis of Bob

(he means us ... we are at AAMI Park)

I'm just happy that I'm here to witness it before all of his posts get deleted. I think there's a lesson here for all the kids.

We've established your draft credentials, DemonDan. You've seen (at most) two videos from when Viney was half fit. You didn't know the difference between the TAC Cup and the Under 18 Championships. On top of that your posts are barely decipherable. And my reward for cracking the enigma was a torrent of abuse at posters for no reason other than that they disagree with you (or have pointed out you factual errors). It has not been a good thread for you.

Scully senior signed with GWS a full year beforehand. This was far earlier than when you stated that the real thread was not GWS, but instead it was Richmond! No offence (well, actually some offence), but the whole line of argument was pretty funny. Continuing to hold on to it is even funnier. This thread is comparably funny.

I love irony.

Exactly. It's also why some teams play much better at Etihad than the MCG. Same reason Geelong do so well at home - it's is such a narrow ground that a lot of teams have great difficulty. Subiaco is much longer than most grounds, so it requires teams to carry the footy much more. That's how North lost - because they were unable to get outside West Coast, who run the ball with their top level runners like Embley, Gaff, Shuey, Masten etc, who complement the inside work of Kerr and Priddis. It suits the ground. North do much better in the confines of Etihad.

I think Richmond is the biggest threat.

Have Geelong activated that pick for this year?

He is no star, but he is I mature player from a successful club that fills a role we can't currently fill. This is what free agency should be like.

I'd keep. He's strong, fast and competitive. It's a really good start to play Neeld's style of footy.

Neeld has had a year to work out the lie of the land. We've already seen in the last draft what Neeld value highly when he drafted Taggert, Tynan and Sellar - hardness and athleticism. In other words, the ability to compete. Cook is a wonderfully skilled player who makes great decisions when you deliver him the ball. The problem is that he's slow and not a physically dominant player. Not a good combo because it means that you have a lot of trouble competing. Gysberts has some of the best inside hands I've seen at Melbourne for a while, but is not athletic at all. It just means that he struggles to spread and struggles to get to contests and compete - which is important for Neeld. Compare that with him wanting to keep Bate - strong and a really good runner. Neeld just found out, after coaching him, that he wasn't good enough. But there was a definite reason why he kept him.

One of them probably broke up with their girlfriend recently. Have they let the supporters down by not telling us? Get over yourself. You aren't that important.

You're

Why? Anyway, I agree with the poster who said that Tynan will be a good, long term role player for us. He apparently has a fantastic attitude, is a good runner (good pace), flexible (good size and courageous in the air) and competitive. He'll play a flank at either end and, at worst, will be a good AFL player. May not have that natural class to be a midfielder, but he'll be one of the first picked each week due to his ability to fill a lot of roles well. A good late® pick.

Culture. Which, ironically, is the likely reason why he probably won't be with us next year.

It looks like that was his dominant half of the game too!

The benefit is that we could screw a team over for one pick in the draft (which probably won't make any difference to the player we get anyway). The downside is that we could never do another deal like this with any club ever again, since nobody would trust us. So if there is any chance for us to get a gentleman's agreement with a team that could give us a significant benefit (like the Viney deal) then we could never do it. Nobody would come to us in a trade with good faith. I wonder how Billy Stretch is coming along?

It's hard to tell because I'm not an expert and I haven't watched much more than everybody else on this site. Unlike many here, I realise that I don't know. I can only go on a few games plus reviews from others who have seen more. From those reviews and the little I've seen, I'd probably guess that Viney is rated between our picks 4 and 13. Hogan, mainly through the lack of alternatives and the relatively risk free nature of him filling an AFL key forward position, would probably be ranked in the 3-8 range, depending on who wants him. Martin's better than that, but he has other issues that could well stop clubs going near him with an early pick. But, as I have said (pretty strongly) my opinion should be taken with a North Korean salt mine's worth of salt.

But GWS will say "We'll nominate Viney and then you take him at 3. Then we'll take pick 5 from the Dogs, which will effectively give us the same player as your pick 4". The deal will have to be pick 3. And both parties will be happy with it. It means that we get 3 top 5 players with 2 top 5 picks. GWS get pick 3.

I really like Wright, from the little I've seen. Really good power.

The alternative to dealing with GWS is to pick up Viney with pick 3. So...... - MD pick 1 is traded for pick 4. - MD2 is traded for, effectively, pick 29 (or whenever our 2nd round pick is).

Go Blues!

The problem with Beamer is that he isn't a good runner. That's a problem, especially for a midfielder, but not one that was as big when you were allowed to freewheel into space a bit more like he could last year. Now that Neeld's plan requires him to run much harder in a game (with all the defensive running required) his poor running ability is being exposed and he has become less effective. He plays a really good 2002 game style, but nobody plays that way in 2012.

HSOG: They are closely aligned. The first one "almost like a plant that has been sent here to unite the supporter group against your point" is how your attempts at the second one ("driving an agenda") manifests itself in the eyes of those looking on. To put it more simply, you think you are helping your cause of creating anti-Schwab sentiment but, in reality, you are driving the unaligned away from your cause because your have attached your constantly dwindling credibility to it. And, on another note, don't [censored] up Demonland like you did to demonology.