titan_uranus

An honestly ridiculous take which stems from the unfair notion that we should win more than one flag with this list. It’s an unreasonably high benchmark. Any club who wins more than one is incredible. But that doesn’t mean winning only one is a failure. Winning flags is extremely hard and gets harder every year equalisation continues to be an AFL focus. Try asking Brisbane fans how they feel having won 0 from 5 years of contending. The sooner Melbourne fans and the media stop saying a second flag is “the minimum”, the better.

Absolutely shattered. He was a beacon of hope having been draftee in 2014, and one of our most important players both on field and off since then. An absolute tragedy that his career is forced into an early end. We can only hope that he doesn’t suffer any serious long term symptoms and can live his life to the fullest.

If you genuinely respect the contributions of people like binman and WCW, can you shelve the use of words like “apologists” and phrases akin to “I told you so”? The “I told you so” brigade make genuine debate over our 2024 fortunes tiresome - sure, you’ve been more concerned than others over summer. Why do you feel the need to effectively gloat about it? (PS this is by no means a comment on what WCW said to you).

Aren’t there still three more “quarters” to go?

I thought you were backing me up on the whole it’s a practice match thing.

The big quote isn’t even the most insightful thing he said in the podcast. IMO, the best bit was when he spoke about leadership. He said words to the effect of how he, and maybe our other leaders, have seen leadership as requiring them to put the team on their shoulders when under pressure needing to win a game. He said what they have needed to learn to do is to maintain the system, to not deviate. Dyl then said that was a hallmark of Hawthorn under Hodge, who was great at sticking to the Hawks’ method when under pressure. How often do we see Trac or Lever take a risky kick, or Gawn belt it a mile forward from a ruck contest, or Viney try to take all the tacklers on, etc. Collingwood, hate them or not, are exceptional at sticking to their plans whether it’s the first minute or the final minute in a 1-point game. I like that Trac has recognised this.

True, this is even less real. I mean, what are we playing here, seven “quarters”?

You can’t reach that conclusion based on what we do in a practice match. It’s not real.

It’s a practice match, everyone. A practice match.

I would take each of the 6 players immediately following him in the list before I'd take Daicos.

Backing in my 49ers at 7-13, because why not.

Agree with those who say that Windsor looked great in that highlight reel. Hard to draw solid conclusions from clips like that but promising signs IMO.

Thanks for the report and sorry to cherry pick one bit of it but I‘m not a fan of this sort of viewpoint in relation to first year players. You may be 100% right that he was low on confidence, needed heaps of instruction, and appears less confident than other clubs’ draftees. Indeed I’d trust you given you were there. But we should be well beyond the point where we fall into the trap of rating one of our players’ development against other draftees. 18 year old kids, particularly those taken in the top 10 of a draft, are long term investments. We shouldn’t care if he is (objectively or subjectively) “behind” other draftees because it doesn’t matter at this age in pre-season 1. Interestingly enough I’ve only heard positive things about Windsor from non-Demonland fans who’ve been to training this pre-season. Each to their own of course and today he may have struggled. Thanks again for the report (personally I love hearing that ANB is starring as a mid!), love your effort and that of everyone who attends.

Ravens 1-6 49ers 1-6

This is honest discussion. I'm neither offended nor uncomfortable. I just disagree with you. My reply to your post was to highlight what I perceive to be your pessimistic outlook on 2024. Yes, pessimistic. I can't stand the "it's not pessimistic, it's realistic" thing which is run a lot on here. It's pessimistic, not realistic, to say things like "Sydney's list is stronger". That's your subjective view, and you're entitled to hold it, and indeed you might be right, but it's not "realism". Ditto your other comparisons above. Again, they may be correct and they're not outlandish views, but putting them together to form your overall argument is pessimistic. That's just your view. Similarly, of course we're better off with Oliver. But his potential absence doesn't sound the death knell in the way you are arguing. And I don't accept that it's "realism" to say May and Gawn are going to be worse this year. Is it possible? Sure. But it's pessimism, not realism, to conclude that they won't be as good this year. Our depth is an interesting point. Yes, we lost a bunch of players who weren't all replaced on the list with similar players. Your argument is that makes us worse off. But like you've argued with TMac and Brown, we had those depth players in 2023 and, guess what, we didn't win the flag. So maybe the change in the list profile through there is a good thing. Neither of these are certainties but the reason for my reply to your post was to say that i don't think the signs all point to us struggling this year to the extent you are arguing.

I'll give this a go Ravens 13+ 49ers 7-12 Lions 1-6 Bills 1-6

So we can't avoid pessimism during the season, we can't avoid it in the trade period, now we can't even avoid it in January? Is nowhere safe anymore? [I'm taking the proverbial here a bit] Anyway, to the substance of what you're saying - in the opening paragraph you raise the issues of Oliver missing (he missed 10 games last year when we made top 4), TMac and Brown over the hill (neither was important in 2023 nor, barely, in 2022, both years in which we made the top 4), and May and Gawn are a year older (every single player in every single club just got a year older, including critically important players at other top sides - it's not like reports from training are suggesting these two are struggling). Then you say "no real depth or youth to excite" which is subjective and is really just a reflection of your own pessimism (the OP in this post talks about the excitement of Turner, Howes and Adams, there's been plenty of excitement around Laurie and Woewodin too). As for supposedly "meh" depth, Collingwood won a flag this year with side featuring Frampton, Cox and Cameron. A-graders aren't required on every line. Melksham's injury is a problem for us IMO but it's borderline hypocritical to say "well Laurie and Woey aren't much chop" and then say "we're going to struggle because we don't have Smith". If it weren't for the Oliver/Smith issues I wouldn't look at us and think we're any more likely to slip any more than Collingwood or Brisbane. I think each of us responds to those issues differently or to different extents and largely I think those who are getting really down about our 2024 prospects are those who can't help but interpolate that the Oliver/Smith stuff means broader issues that, quite possibly, just aren't there (and yes, the opposite is also true). The last bit of "don't come for my throat" - why not? You want to lead with your pessimistic chin, be prepared to cop it. Similarly, if you see someone out there going "we're a lock for top 4/the flag", I'm sure you'll be ready to clip them back.

Not only is this wrong (Pickett and Fritsch were drafted, May and Lever traded in, and that's been me thinking about it for 5 seconds), it's also not a good argument. How many "game changers" does Collingwood have? Or Brisbane? How many does a side need?

Gee I stank this year. Eagles, Cowboys, Bucs

Bills, Packers, Jaguars

Chiefs, 49ers, Eagles

What does this story say?

Lions, Texans, Jaguars

Chiefs, Dolphins, Lions

Dolphins, Chiefs, Ravens