stevethemanjordan

Srsly.

As I said, the same could be asked about Kennedy during his first few seasons.. Some key forwards aren't flashy. Weed's is an old school big forward who flies hard for the ball and is generally pretty reliable in front of goal. If his first half against Box Hill didn't show you why he was rated so highly then I can't help you.

Given Weideman's injury history prior to the draft and all the talk about the fact that he'd take time to get his body ready for AFL as well as the need for us to find another quality forward, do you really believe the club would be thinking about the possibility of a trade? Tom McDonald played a few good games as a forward and it seems people now believe that Weed should be moved on? If I have learnt anything from my time at demonland it's that posters put way too much weight on a few good performances from individuals. What we're doing with Weed is setting him up so that when he plays regular seniors, he'll be in a position to contribute and play at the level. Exactly what we should have done with Watts and countless other young players over the years. All key forwards have different traits. I would say that Weed is very similar to the Josh Kennedy mould of forward and posters should go and have a look at how long it took him to stamp his name. 4 years. Not every forward can come in and play like Hipwood, Hogan or Daniher. They have all have different qualities and attributes and were much further advanced from a conditioning perspective than Weed in their first years. Weideman is tracking just fine. At VFL level, you're not getting the same quality entries as you are at AFL level. You're not going to have the opportunity to kick bags every week because of this. But he's shown he can indeed kick bags when the ball is coming in efficiently. With another pre-season, some reshuffling and addressing of personnel further up the field, I can only see further improvement and contribution starting over the NAB challenge series. I still firmly believe that Hogan needs be played at CHF and needs a mini reprogramming in what it looks like to lead at the ball rather than calling for it long constantly. He needs to give the kicker the chance to kick to advantage more often. Weed is the perfect full forward type. Not blessed with the same running ability as Hogan but is a much more natural forward mind and leads to the right spots and flies hard at the ball. It's going to click eventually with the two of them and when it does it's going be scary for opposition sides. Tom needs to become the great defender that he was supposed to become. He needs to majorly simplify things and get back to playing consistent, hard defensive footy with his mind solely on beating his opponent. Lever will help Tom enormously in that regard and it allows one of Oscar or Frost to become depth and continue to develop at VFL level like they should have been during much of this year.

I hear why you're unsure, but if you look throughout the AFL you'll see that most teams who have running receiver types are players who aren't supposed to be sucked into the contest and win it at the coal face. It's not their role. Of course you want all players ideally to be able to win their own ball in one-on-one situations but Gaff's strengths are his overlap run and sheer gut running ability to provide both an attacking option and also be able to defend well. Hill, Scully, Gaff, MaCrae, Smith are all players who are so well suited to the wing due to their running ability. We don't have anyone who provides that sort of two-way running. We've been playing an inside mid with ordinary footskills in that role which was hurting us a lot.

We agree on something. Let's be friends.

Massive lol at anyone who thinks Weed will be traded. Was brought to the club with the knowledge that it'd take time to build his body. Has been on the list for two years. TWO!

Please go away.

It's his natural position and is where he should be playing but wasn't because of the concussions. Looking forward to next year already.

Well what point were you trying to make? You said that it puts his number of clangers into some perspective? What perspective exactly? What point are posters trying to make when comparing Dom's clanger count to genuine champion players of the game? Posters are singling out one stupid stat and taking it out of its context - (which is the most important part in the actual comparison) in order to defend the criticism Tyson gets for his ball use. I don't even know where to begin with your post. Why are you even attempting to compare career averages for Tyson and Dangerfield or Martin? Do you realise both are mid/forwards which is yet another variable you conveniently left out when comparing their disposal counts etc? How on earth is it a "much more accurate way to compare players". Also interesting that you opted with the "injury-interrupted pre-season" excuse but left out the fact that Danger and Martin both played through injury this year. Do you see what I mean by bias? They're incomparable. The disposal count averages I was referring to were for this season and whilst I agree I exaggerated the "nowhere near" comment, I still maintain that averaging five disposals more per game for two players who play forward as well as midfield is still significantly more when viewed in that context. Here's some more context too: Tyson won 30 disposals or more on three occasions this year playing solely through the midfield in the AFL's highest disposal getting team. Dangerfield and Martin won 30 or more disposals 14 times playing as a mid/forwards. Both recorded 40+ disposal games with Martin doing it twice. (They also win games for their clubs off their own boot just quietly). Tyson averaged five more uncontested possessions more than contested for the season. Dangerfield averaged six more contested possessions than uncontested and Martin averaged almost a perfect split. How's that clanger/DE looking now? I could go on, but I genuinely can't be bothered.

Umm no. Tyson's disposal numbers would be nowhere near Martin or Dangerfield. Nowhere near. He also cops nowhere near the attention that those two do. So given those two facts, it's giggle-worthy that some try and somehow conclude that Tyson isn't that bad with ball in hand. To think you'd believe that their disposal numbers would be similar only confirms my view of the bias you hold for our players. Either that or you simply don't watch the opposition anywhere near enough.

Don't say that because you put Dom Tyson in an awkward position and some demonlanders hate that and refuse to believe it. Let's just keep it as "Dangerfield, Martin and Fyfe all have high clanger counts too-ooooo, so ultimately Dom and them are the same players yeh? Yeh!"

Seriously. I still can't look at that photo without being weirded out. It's like someone photoshopped Fyfe to be small.

+ 1

5 points to you for a silly post.

How about they just let us know what the [censored] the injury is? Is it that difficult? Misson - "Jack's experiencing a sore foot. He could be out forever or it could be a couple of weeks".

Loonies. Everywhere.

@Chook in Perth Any murmurings you've heard?

Makes Watts look like the most fearsome player in the league... Let's get him.

I've seen him live a couple of times too Spirit. Will definitely be a player, hard to know if he'll reach Lever's heights. He actually reminds me of Rance a bit, similar athletically and attribute-wise.

Haha. It's hard not to like him, given his strengths. So eye catching. I wouldn't be surprised if he was taken with a mid second-rounder but really I have no idea and I reckon there'll be a bunch of clubs interested depending on how far he slides. The fact he didn't play much for Metro works against him and his exposed form is only really from this year with the Knights. Has had some huge games as well as quiet ones at Tac cup level. But from the first time I saw him, he stood out.

Thoughts on O Mac Binman? ... ........

At 22, some of his defensive plays are insane. Some of his spoils last night went as far as 30 metres. And his composure with ball in hand is super impressive. I don't care what we give up, he is going to be the best defender in the comp within a few years.

^ Merry-go-round. Actually, I have been doing some scouting this year for a club and hope to continue it. It's quite enjoyable. With respect to you Binman, I don't know why don't just put me on ignore. Club's make decisions all the time that don't necessarily work out and our very own club are no better example in years gone by. All decisions should be questioned. I've given my reasons countless times as to why Oscar played more than Weed this year. And it was simply out of necessity due to a lack of options, regardless of what you say. And we see that all the time at clubs. Some players are given more leniency thanks to a lack of depth in a given line. (Backline in our case). Oscar has battled away manfully this year and has been okay for the last half of the season. But is there any wonder why there's talk of us going so hard for a bloke whos the same age and experience as Oscar and we're willing to pay upwards of $700,000 a year for him? Most obviously we are a weak key defensive unit. Oscar, Frost and Tom all have major flaws in their game. Yeh Oscar and Frost have time on their side. But as so many others have pointed out, you can't carry three key defenders who can be so hit and miss into a finals campaign. And next we'll be ready to play finals. Building list and line depth takes time, especially from where we've come from. Next year with an injury free run, we'll have a lot more coverage given we'll hopefully have Lever, Garland for one more year, Smith and Keilty if he comes on. That will be hugely beneficial given the need to perform at your best will be turned up and Oscar won't be given the same leniency as he was this year. All of that is positive. Now put me on ignore.

Except for that time he was an AA and kicked 56 goals in a season. Sylvia may have featured in our top 5 in the BnF once in his career if he was lucky? Stringer has runs on the board and is proven quality. Obviously something has gone on this year. I'm not saying we should get him, but he's nothing like Sylvia.

Danger going at pick 10 still makes me slightly ill. And the bloke we picked at number 4 in the same year makes me even more ill.