rpfc

Gotta blame somebody.

If Nathan Jones is cut of a different cloth and immune from the Melbourne disease that we have to rid ourselves of, why can't Garland be cut of that cloth? He was always consistent amid the nonsense and bounced back this year with some better footy than 2014. I agree that our list has been trained to be timid and inert since Bailey left but it is bordering on ridiculous, stmj, when you say that everyone must go regardless of form or talent.* *except Nathan Jones Garland isn't some mercenary, he doesn't play like a bloke damaged by past failure, he has looked a model professional, he shadowed the recruiters for a year when he did his bone in his foot, he built a career and held a leadership position, and as discussed previously, seems to have a solid relationship with the bloke we have put in charge of breaking us from our malaise.

Well, no, that list of around 10 deletions have a few AFL standard role players that when you get rid and go to the draft and draft poorly you end up with what we have already experienced when we did this from 2007 to 2011... Been there, done that. Bitter experience tells me - you can have too many kids.

Trengove just got re-signed for 2016. So, nah. And what do you think we would get talent-wise using ~10 picks in the draft? You'll probably name them in a similar list to get rid of in 12 months time.

How is that? How would you reform the Academy player bidding system?

Good lord, if Prestia is available and we don't offer ND5 I would be disappointed. If we had a talent like that and someone offered ND25 and the right to overpay Howe - what would you say? Think before you post.

Gotta pay somebody. Literally, we HAVE to pay 95% of the ~$9.3m cap. That is how it is set up so that there are no more Fitzroys that just survive year to year paying two-thirds of what other teams pay. And as others have said - we frontloaded contracts under Schwab and that would be the only way we could do reach near 100% in 2015. So I assume we are doing that. None of this means that we have no cap to use in 2016 - only that we are paying near 100% in 2016.

Dawes is not on $700k, please show me where they got that figure from if you are going to throw it out there. He is rumoured to be on around $500k. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dawes-now-a-2-million-demon-20121016-27pmn.html

Homer: Prestia? Marge: No we can't afford Prestia... Homer: Prestia? Marge: We are on a budget. Homer: Prestia? Marge: Umm, yeah, sure. Prestia...

Not playing with a full set if you think the Trengove deal to Richmond was all but done... THEIR doctor saw something in the MRI. That means we agreed and they were doing their due diligence in the medical.

More talented he means.

Makes more sense when I read it backwards...

Yeah, that's it. I cannot stand it when big forwards lead to a pocket in lieu of the Most Dangerous Spot on the ground. "There's people there!" they cry. Yeah, there are. There is a reason why they're there...

I think that picture was of Selwood after Dunn gave him a 'I won't be playing against WCE' shot to the guts...

Did we push them over? Probably not. But we kicked them in the nuts in front of people that like them - so that'll have to do...

How did he get there? It's your hypothetical - in what reality could we have picked him up in the RL? Certainly not this one.

Give it up. It's not going to happen.

Personally, I would like to recruit very good players. Very good players are ok by me. I think if you asked Jones and Hogan and Tyson - they would also like us to recruit very good players.

Gotta pay someone.

Garland won't get much, neither will Grimes, Watts maybe a little more but Howe might get a first rounder from some idiot who wants to get 'people through the gates'... Frankly, I don't mind keeping all 4 of these players, my issue is replacing the 36th to 40th players on your list with players who are in your best 18. Trading Grimes for Pick 43 doesn't interest me. Getting Dangerfield in FA however...

It's a credit to him that he has lifted the expectation in ten games to the point where being beaten is an aberration...

This will be deleted soon, as well as my response, but what a ridiculous thing to say. You don't know him, and the situation we faced as a club a few years ago cannot simply be laid at the feet of Schwab and CC. They love the club as much as you do. And that little aside about the 'jokester' tells me you don't have much against him other than a bad joke that was jumped on by some bitter individuals to grind their axes on, that began the investigation into 2009.

He could play better and see the footy less and have less involvement - as any forward - he is reliant on others to be effective. Hogan is not the focus of the test of these next three weeks - his midfielders are.

The only thing that will 'stunt' his progress, or make some believe it is stunting, is if we don't get enough footy, quickly enough, to him. I have seen enough - now it is up to the team to feed a forward line that, by the looks of it, has been overhauled in the last couple years and set up for success.

Beat St Kilda at Etihad a week after beating the Pies on QB and that is four of the above... Some are more meaningful than others though. Beating Geelong down at Mordor would be huge, and of course beating Hawthorn, but Geelong are on a precipice - I would love to push them over...