titan_uranus

Can't believe we (49ers) lost. The way the Vikings moved the ball through our defence was unheard of. Well played. Ridiculous Week 3 so far. Jacksonville over Indianapolis, the Saints 0-3 in OT, Jets-Dolphins going to OT, just insane.

Disagree. HT: Byrnes has shown nothing in the last two years. Therefore he is unable to add to Melbourne. Me: Sometimes a player's situation at his club precludes him from being able to show his worth. For Byrnes, he has been pushed out of the side by better players. Exactly the same thing happened to Kennedy, who was 'promising' as HT says, but unable to hold his spot because Hawthorn had players like Hodge, Mitchell and Sewell clearly better than him and taking up the spots. I'm not arguing Byrnes is as good as Kennedy, or will show the marked improvement Kennedy has. But the clear point is that sometimes there are mitigating circumstances which preclude a player from getting game time. For Byrnes, he is behind the likes of Stokes, Christensen and Motlop. Nevertheless, he is better than anyone on our list at his role, and will add value whether he plays at HFF, drifting up onto the wing, or closer to goal.

THIS is your argument? Ask yourself what Josh Kennedy delivered for Hawthorn in his time there. Squat. Look at him now. Sometimes, a player is beaten into the 22 by better players. In Byrnes case, he lies behind Stokes, Christensen and Motlop. He can't get into the side. At Melbourne, he lies behind no one. So he would be a starter in our best 22.

As has been pointed out, this is ridiculous.

I think something worthwhile to look at in the article is this bit: "But Hawthorn has not recruited any players in the last five years who are not elite kicks, even if they weren't as hard as they should have been when initially drafted. The Hawks' philosophy has been that it is far easier to teach a player to win a hard ball than it is to improve a player's disposal. The decisions to recruit Cyril Rioli, Matt Suckling, Grant Birchall, Clinton Young and Ryan Schoenmakers, plus Brent Guerra, Josh Gibson and Shaun Burgoyne from other clubs, all falls into line with good decision-makers and elite kicks of the ball. It should prove a masterstroke that wins them their second premiership in five years." This is exactly what I think Melbourne has tried to do. We took players like Morton, Watts, Gysberts, Cook etc., operating under the assumption that they brought talent and we would bring/impart upon them strength and fitness. With that strength and fitness, and their talent, we'd get a good list. Hawthorn managed to take skinny kids like Rioli, Young and Suckling and make men out of them, which has given them the best chance to put their talent to use. We haven't been able to make men out of our boys, and so we still play like boys. Now, I don't mean to do a Range Rover and take one little thing as conclusive evidence settling a debate in favour of the side I sit on. But in this recruiting v development discussion, I do think that there is merit to the idea that our recruiting hasn't been anywhere near as bad as our development, and that if we'd had a group of coaches here who were competent and able to strengthen and lead our draftees, we wouldn't be as bad off now as we are, and our decisions to recruit the players we did were not that flawed, were in most instances based on sound reasoning and made perfect sense at the time. I think Hawthorn has shown that you don't need to draft kids with mongrel or kids who look like brick sh*thouses to win flags. What you need is to take your kids and put them in a professional environment and make men out of them, which, if you're good enough, is entirely possible even if you draft schoolboy twigs. Obviously it's easier to grow up and mature at a professional club like Hawthorn, compared to us, but I think the strategy is valid.

I honestly cannot believe this is being debated again, but whatever. Because that doesn't solve the issue of our clashes with Essendon and Adelaide. According to the AFL, we have to wear something 'light', and white is the only one that solves all our clashes. Whether you like it or not, this is going to be the strip we wear. This club is facing far greater issues than the colour we wear.

I don't see the merit in assessing his worth based on this game. Almost every Collingwood player played poorly. Dale Thomas did nothing either, but he's clearly an A grade player. As it stands, despite tonight, he's still better than pretty much our entire midfield, and is worth a decent sum. There is obviously a limit as to what we'd pay, and I'll back our new administration in to know that, but given what's on offer on the market, he's worth us chasing.

Yes, I'm willing to part with A grade money. We have the money to spend, and we don't have enough A graders to spend it on. Wellingham at B grade still exceeds the rest of our list, so spending money on him is not exactly unreasonable. I don't know where your ceiling comment comes from? You've seen enough from him to think that's it? I disagree.

You have to take some of what was said with a grain of salt, but even then, a lot of talk about not understanding the level of professionalism, the work ethic or the fitness that was required. Really seemed to stand out as a common thread amongst those who spoke. It's not going to magically turn around for us, but another pre-season with Misson and a greater awareness of what is required on and off the field should really impart a great deal of improvement.

Wellingham's not A grade. If he was, we wouldn't be having this discussion because there wouldn't be any doubt as to whether he's staying at Collingwood. The fact that he may end up leaving is down to the fact that, if push did come to shove, he's not in Collingwood's top echelon. Having said that, he is still B grade, and that makes him better than almost every midfielder on our list. He adds to our list things we don't have (pace and skill in one person, goal-kicking nous). The price that it will take, if it comes to this point, is going to be substantial, but that's not to say we shouldn't be willing. If we pay more than what we think he's 'worth' as a footballer, we'd be adding in what he's 'worth' in terms of lifting our midfield slightly and making the team better. Then distribute those extra dollars around our other 21 players and you get a balanced team costing us not much. There is obviously a limit as to where we will stop bidding for him, but IMO that limit can afford to be quite high.

That's not what's happening. Players aren't getting away with throws or high bumps in fourth quarters. What's happening is that umpires at the end of games, especially tight/tense ones, will refrain from looking for the technical free kicks. I'm talking little jumper pulls which mean nothing, hands in the back which mean nothing, simple bodywork at marking contest, ruckwork, incidental contact to the shoulder despite spoiling the ball, those kinds of things. The small, mainly 50/50 decisions which just don't need to be paid, aren't, if it's late in the game. But early on, these get paid. The way the game is generally umpired late in close finals is how the game should always be umpired. Leave the small free kicks, just let the game go on, and only penalise when the incident is actually worthy of it.

Clearly pick 1 expects a better return than pick 15, but the fact that Dunn went in the first round need to be remembered. That was all I was saying. I think to say the future of the MFC rested solely on our picks 1-10 is a bit simplistic. Any first round pick needs to add value to a side. I'm sure you have held Dunn to account. What I was trying to say is that, right now, the things you're saying about Watts should also be said about Dunn, and since they have been for the last few years, that is all the more reason for saying that Dunn is doing as badly as Watts. I do think Watts should be held to account in those areas, and I'm not entirely sure how you read me as saying otherwise. My opinion on Watts is that, prior to his injury, he was beginning to settle into a role across half-back, and that I saw steady improvement for the consecutive weeks he was playing. I see a smart reader of the play (not unlike Rivers) and as good a kick coming out of defence as Melbourne has. Clearly his contested marking/football in general is a glaring weakness and holds him back considerably, and he needs to lift his intensity at all contests. But I think it's fair to put some of that (not all, I'm not trying to absolve him) down to his fitness, and for a 21 year old, I think there is still plenty of time for that to be fixed. If we're keeping people based on 'age and size' we'd still have Brad Miller. I don't think having muscle means much if you can't use it, and I don't think Dunn can. I am very interested to see what happens, and my gut feeling is he'll stay, but if that happens, I won't agree with it.

Couldn't agree more. This AA team is an absolute farce and demeans the entire process. Being AA from now on will mean so little. Naitanui and Rioli have not even had 'good' years.

You referred to King, which I don't agree with. As in, I don't see the point in mentioning his views. Outside of your reference to King, your post was good. That is all I meant.

OK, whatever. My point was essentially that if you're going to call Watts out for softness and a lack of improvement, then you can't at the same time say anything about Dunn other than that he should go. You based your view on Watts on his position in the draft and his time on the list. Dunn was also a first round, albeit much later, but has had double the time on the list. If one of these players ought to be called out for their lack of effort, intensity, or courage, it should be Dunn, not Watts, and yet you're happy to just say 'meh, if we keep him we keep him' to Dunn, but you savage Watts and call his future into question.

Part of the reason the umpiring gets better in finals is because the AFL puts the best umpires in the games, weeding out the fails (like that idiot Leppard). The main problem with umpiring overall is the tendency to pay marginal decisions which wouldn't have that much of an impact. Tiny pushes in the back, marginal contact to the shoulder/head, holding the ball when both players are holding each other, ruck infringements (the worst of the lost, probably) are infuriating and get in the way of the game. Blatant free kicks should be paid. Otherwise, get on with the game and leave the marginal ones (exactly like they do in the fourth quarter of the finals).

How to successfully miss the point. I said it's not necessary. It isn't. The roar at the end is enjoyable, and as a tradition I have no problem keeping it, but at the same time I wouldn't lose sleep if the AFL decided not to play it at every final, because it's not needed or necessary. Understand? No, you probably don't.

I wouldn't put stock in anything that comes out of David King's mouth, after the year he's had. Agree with the rest of your post though: that shoulder reconstruction may have something to do with his low averages this year. At least, if we're going to shop around first-round picks for him, you'd hope so.

Wellingham is a very good player. If he's any chance of leaving Collingwood I'd love for us to throw what we have at him. Pick 13 is definitely appropriate for a player of his talent. He'd add exactly what we're lacking to our midfield: skill.

The more we get threads and posts of this ilk, the more people embarrass the Demonland forums.

At a base level, that's fair enough. One was Pick 1, after all. But let's not firstly forget that Dunn was himself a first round pick. It's not like he's on the rookie list or something. As I've said, though, what I don't like is how 4 years is meant to be enough for us to know whether Watts is going to make it or not, but 8 years isn't enough to write off a player who has gone no further in his career than Watts has. This is all relative to where they started: take Watts when he started and where he is now, then take Dunn where he started and where he is now. I'm not comparing the two. What I'm saying is that, for a first-round pick who hasn't gone anywhere, we're happy to let him have another year based on minimal improvement from what he was like when he started, but make that first-round pick Jack Watts, and all of a sudden we have to halve the time we allow. That is essentially what BH (and many others) feel. I find it interesting.

I'm not talking about what you expect the players to become. Everyone expects Watts to be a better player than Dunn. My point is your assessment of the two. You've called Watts out for entering his 5th year and thus needing to show something. Meanwhile you're happy to give Dunn a 9th year despite also not having gone very far. IMO Watts has shown more improvement in his career than Dunn has anyway. At any rate, Dunn was still a first round pick, so even if you want to discuss expectations, there has to be something riding on him. We're all banging on about Cook having flopped at 12; Dunn was 15.

Apologies for this ambush, BH, but you're smart enough and mature enough to deal with it... I read this post and immediately thought of your views on Dunn: Now, for Watts, five years (one of which, admittedly, was a nothing year) is enough to warrant needing output and courage. 2013 will be Dunn's 9th year, and he has only gradually improved in the same areas (strength in the air, for example) as you want to see Watts improve in. This is a view I think many on this board hold. Dunn seems to be getting positive comments and respect for showing minimal improvement in 8 years. Watts gets little respect and has the pressure of the world all over him for 2013 for showing minimal improvement in half that time. Why the discrepancy?

Whoa, calm down you hyperbolic git. The OP was asking why we have to hear the anthem at every final. He wasn't questioning the anthem as an anthem. And he has merit in his argument. Do we really need to hear the anthem before each and every final? Before the GF, sure. Before ANZAC day, sure. Maybe even before QBD (although that doesn't happen right now). But for every final? I don't think that's necessary. And that says nothing about whether our anthem is any good or not; that's a separate discussion. Edit: having said that, 'necessary' and 'enjoyable' are different concepts, and I will admit that at the conclusion of the anthem, when the crowd roars, that is a great moment.

Naitanui last night was woeful. Gave nothing. Not saying he's a dud, because he's not, and he's got the potential to be a total star, but the wraps on him now are ridiculous, OTT, and largely unfounded given his limited contributions. He needs to learn to get involved more and to stop trying to kick a goal every time he feels like he can take possession. I hate Darren Jolly, but he did very well last night. Agree with the Shuey comment; anyone who disagrees has no idea what they're talking about and probably has only watched one West Coast game in their life. Disagree with the 'legitimate game' thing. For a team as poor as us, every game is important, even against the stragglers, and to beat them as convincingly as we did, three times, gives our young players confidence and shows that we're not as big of a rabble as we otherwise could be.