rpfc

Kinda has a point, and it was said in jest people...

I don't know what those stats tell anyone. He played in a range of different positions and played good games 2010 onwards just not many in succession or consistency. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that 38 goals, 6 marks, 2.5 I50s, and 10 kicks a game in 2016 is not his best return. And that 2014-2016 was his most consistent spell in his career.

Still in the last few picked... ANB went past him this year because he more regularly hits targets and does more selfless team things (and his pressure is more consistent, the stats bear that out too from a cursory look). When we had those injuries I thought he would be able to do more but he wasn't. Still very much fighting for a spot round 1 from what I can see.

Are you saying that Bailey did in 2011? I am fairly certain the consensus is he has done nothing before last season. Can I get a spokesman from The Consensus?

We might want to keep ND45 and package up a couple of hose other picks to get back into the first round... Mahoney keeps doing things like that - I think it is admirable we look to get as much quality chances as possible. Sound strategy if you have identified a talent you want to be in position to select.

Love Lever, but we won't suddenly go down 18-24 points in points conceded. Hate to be a killjoy but that only happens when terrible teams become subpar teams. We need a quicker flick of the switch from defence to attack and the best way to do that is by having the footy and that would be an interception rather than a stoppage (fist out of bounds). Quick release to get that ball to a player on the other side of the ground and we are away through the corridor or that flank with hopefully Hunt and Hibberd being able to higher up the ground when they receive the footy. So while McDonald would have stopped those 3-4 goals he didn't set us up going the other way as superbly as someone like Lever should. So I see him as being an offensive weapon. PS. Forward here, I have been told I see everything through the lens of moving the ball forward. While I don't see that as being entirely true, you have to score don't you?

The first 8 seconds I watched ten times - two NM players run into each other, one of them knocks himself out as Lever does a blind turn and leaves them to their brutish dancing. It is very funny that the MFC put that highlight first up.

Would I now? So I critique Goodwin for not making the finals and partially blame his coaching, and you think that means that I would give the credit to someone else if we did make the finals? That doesn't compute. I don't have a 'Roos > Goodwin' Agenda; objective reality does. This team hasn't done anything, didn't do anything under Roos, and hasn't done anything yet. I am impressed that Goodwin, Mahoney and co. can convince the best young defender in the game to come to the club with that in mind. If we had played against Port, we would have won, if we played against GWS I would have bet on us, and if we played at the G in the Prelim against the Tigers that would have been something. If you have a problem with specific criticisms of Goodwin and the way we play, I would be more than happy to defend those. I even started a thread so you wouldn't have to travel around to find them. It's on the footy board.

I didn't mean to confuse you - if we finish in the bottom 4, the draft pick we gave up will be worth much more than what we are currently projecting. If I thought we were going to finish in the bottom 4, I would not have intimated there are no excuses for not competing for the flag next year. Therefore, that trade being 'measured' is dependent on how we go next year because top draft picks are more valuable than draft picks that are further down the draft order. Does that follow?

I guess that is me? I was about to give my obligatory 'Teenage Lottery Draft of the AFL' line so I say 'well done, Josh!' It will only blow up in our faces if we finish in the bottom 4... As for Goodwin; he has done well to convince Lever to come to a team that has done nothing. Kudos also to Viney, Mahoney, et al. 'Goody' now has an excellent collection of talent at his disposal in my opinion for 2018 and beyond. We have star defenders in Hibberd, Jetta, and Lever. Star mids in Oliver and Petracca, with excellent help from Viney and Jones. And a forward line with Hogan, McDonald and Garlett can create enough chances to kick enough goals. We are in 'hashtag noexcuses' territory.

I hate Gavin. We all have a Gavin in our lives, don't we?

Now this makes sense. I don't know how good your mail is but this is plausible because it means the club didn't initially want to trade him and that desire was instigated at his reaction to a negative exit interview that stopped short of telling him he was going to be traded. I just cannot imagine - if the club had decided he had to go since 'The Bondi Trip' - that he wouldn't be told at his exit interview.

ND29 is more value than I thought clubs would offer for a player we are clearly trying to move for a myriad of reasons. If I was Port I wouldn't have it on the table. If I was Jack I wouldn't move to Adelaide... But I would be the kind of d!ckhead who would play twos for a FD that didn't want me just for the chance to play for the Dees...

Touché.

I just read this shaking my head the whole time; Roos changed the culture of the club in a couple years. I am not going to get into this in Jack Watts thread but I don't get the Roos animosity for the money and inability to recruit names.

Are you now judging him on that nonsensical standard? You are obviously not, but can we stop reacting to the most ridiculous aspects of the arguments on here? This conversation is being dominated by the extremes because of that reaction. The vast majority on here wish it ended differently, wish him all the best, wish we get some value for him and wishes it will be over soon.

Weren't you the one arguing that the merits of a decision are about the process of making that decision and not the outcomes? Because you are talking about outcomes, which I agree with - namely that there is no way to cleanly trade a popular player, but my critique is about the process; not giving the player the opportunity to have an honest exit interview. We could have done all the right things and it still be a painful experience for all, I just don't think we did all the right things.

I am comparing the jarring response to criticism of the current admin. That even is what TGR is comparing. Nothing more. If someone goes further than that it doesn't diminish the relevant points made. Goodwin has motivated the players to play an excellent brand of footy (for most of the year), he made a great impression on his former coach and I know the players have a great relationship with him (at least I knew that first hand as late as the end of last season). Mahoney and the rest of the FD appear to be excellent operators and the deals they have facilitated the last few years that netted us Oliver and Weideman were un-Melbourne like and that is a compliment. But the 'facts' as they stand - if one can call them that - are not great in this particular instance. I think we, and they, can be grown ups about it and perhaps admit that it hasn't been handled as well as they would have liked. As Jack Watts will soon face a consequence of the decisions he has made in his career - so must we all...

Mahoney can trade back into the draft. The bloke knows what he is doing. Yes I am sure it is a team effort but give the guy a break!

Hi Adrian! People do not like you!

Well put. As I quoted above - if it is the case that we sprung this on Watts after we started shopping him and didn't inform him of our intent - is there a good way for a poster to broach that subject? I don't want to mirror the past but I remember when we told a few to pipe down about the Schwab reign, and a loud couple defended Neeld to the ridiculous end... Again, I don't want to equate those times because I don't think they can be equated, but the lesson I learnt was that open and honest with your f-ups is healthy - don't get defensive, get better. I'm going to say it... I don't think we handled this well.

But he had a Watts-ending-the-season start to the year. And he should be admonished for it. Consider yourself admonished, Jake!

Definitely a molehill but it indicates that either the club pivoted in September and decided to trade him, or that the communications from the FD aren't honest with players (or at least in this instance). Either isn't ideal, but they should be evaluating decisions like this over the season and if that Bondi trip is the conduit for this move - they knew months in advance they were intending to move him on, and waited to tell him this late, apparently bypassing the opportunity that an exit interview presents. That's why people are reading a mountain into it.

The honesty is preferred so it doesn't surprise during trade week and ensure the player has the sh!ts. It's a business now; agents can push availability and players can, somewhat, shape the conversation.