titan_uranus

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

Given we have the same number of interstate games in 2024 as we did in 2023, it’s reasonable to suggest we traded the GMHBA game for the extra MCG away game we get this year. Indeed, we have all the same interstate trips except that instead of North in Tasmania, we have Fremantle in Perth (although we draw the short straw and have to swap the neutral Gather Round game to playing Adelaide).

I just deleted it because I missed one. They get 6, which remains the minimum along with Carlton and Collingwood. At least the latter two made prelims this year. How Essendon continues to get the best ride on interstate games is beyond me.

Interstate games (remembering that for everyone except us and Essendon, one of these games is a Gather Round game on neutral territory): Essendon - 6 Carlton - 6 Collingwood - 6 Hawthorn - 6 (plus four in Launceston, plus Geelong) North - 6 (plus four in Hobart, plus Geelong) Bulldogs - 6 (plus Geelong) Geelong - 7 Richmond - 7 (plus Geelong) St Kilda - 7 (plus Geelong) Melbourne - 7 (plus Alice Springs)

Things we shouldn't be surprised about: Collingwood get 7 of their last 8 games at the MCG, with the only other game being Sydney in Sydney. St Kilda get 8 of their last 9 games at Marvel, including their last 6 straight. That is a [censored] disgrace. In a professional sport played home and away, no side should be play that many games straight at their home ground. They get an "away" game at Marvel against Richmond, again. Gillon's left, why do they keep getting KOTD? Essendon get 10 of their last 11 games in Melbourne, all of which are straight - in other words, they don't travel anywhere, at all, from Round 12 (on 2 June) to Round 24 (at some point at the end of August, nearly three months later). Again, in a professional home and away league, that's bonkers.

How many big MCG home games are we supposed to get? We get Collingwood and Essendon but not Richmond or Carlton. We get Geelong but not Hawthorn. We get all of North, St Kilda and the Dogs, and we get Brisbane (biggest or second-biggest drawing interstate side) and Port (who should be decent). What I am a bit disappointed in is that of the four Thursday night games only the Brisbane one is a home game. Hopefully we're doing OK by the time the floating part of the fixture is released so that we can try to get the Essendon, Port and Collingwood home games in prime time slots.

My initial thoughts: No trip to Geelong is always a win. Even better, Richmond and Hawthorn are (completely fairly) going down there instead. We have an average slate of MCG home games - we get Collingwood, Essendon and Geelong but don't get Carlton, Richmond or Hawthorn. West Coast at the G breaks a 10 year duck. But of course means we get the overwhelmingly likely better WA team as a road trip. 8 interstate games is the same as this year, as is the one Marvel game. The difference is we trade the Geelong trip for an additional MCG game. That's a win. Zero Friday nights for us so far. Four Thursday nights means we don't miss out on prime time football but I detest Thursday night games when we are playing so that is, to me, a major loss. Our double-up games look very hard on 2023 form - Collingwood, Brisbane and Port Adelaide are the entire top 4 outside of us, which is ridiculous. But it's always folly to rate the double ups on this year's form, when every year we see a strong club flop and a weak club rise. It does not surprise me at all to see us get the equal-worst allocation of five-day breaks. You'd hope that means we don't get any in the last 9 rounds. You'd also hope that the sides to currently not have any five-day breaks all get at least one to make it somewhat even. I reckon back-to-back games in Adelaide is a good thing. One less set of flights, ability to adjust/acclimatise. Hopefully we can make that work. Indeed, the Adelaide fortnight is the only time during the year we spend more than one week away from the G. That is a major upgrade on, say, 2022, in which we had a 5-week period of playing away from the G. Our travel feels well spread, and we have four of our last five games in Melbourne, which is good. The Wednesday ANZAC Eve game looks to have been spaced out really well for us - 7-day break from Gather Round, 13 days to ANZAC Eve, 10 days to the next game - the bye works perfectly for us there Proper bye after KB is also welcome

Am I the only one yet to get off the mark? Cowboys, Seahawks, Vikings

This is a take I don’t agree with. What if we avoid trips to Brisbane and GWS? They were the two strongest interstate sides this year. We have to play interstate games so we can’t just get West Coast 5 times.