rpfc

That is 15% of the cap in 2016. In 2018, the first year of that hypothetical deal, that number might be down to near 10%, and the value will only improve over the life of that deal. I don't know what deal is being presented but if Hogan is asking for THAT much, we should be asking for THAT long to do that deal.

When they are both at their best - Dawes is better. But Pedersen is fit and in form - and selection always leans toward those two traits.

The point of the thread is to illustrate that with so many even teams at the top of the ladder and the presence of so many bad teams right now - Ess, Fre, Carl, Coll, BL, Rich, etc - that old adage of 12 wins and percentage may not be enough for 8th. And the predictor is up to you, not history...

The team we beat in round 1 smashed them by 12 goals. Having a player say that a team is 'gettable' is not a bad thing - you do understand that, yes?

Ok, so you can waste a week doing this but I have a quick look at the ladder predictor on the AFL site here: Ladder Predictor. I thought it would be a case of scrounging 12 wins and making sure my September was free, however, it looks like GWS, Syd, Geel, NM, Haw, Adel, WCE, and WB may make it difficult to make finals unless we win 3 of our 7 games against the above 8 teams. I have WB, Adel, and Haw at the G as must wins to make September. That and winning all those 'easy games' like the Lions and GC at the G, Fre and PA in NT, PA in Adel, and the Saints at Shittihad. Essentially, if we lose to WB this week we have to 'sweep' the Hawks, or beat Sydney at the SCG, or WCE in Perth, or win again down at Mordor. So unless one of those 8 teams collapses like Essendon during the 'Pep-tides Are Turning' years - we face a degree of error this young team will struggle to work with. PS. I have created an entirely plausible season in the predictor where we win 14 games and still finish 9th. A game out, not even simple percentage...

CL I50 UPs CPs Score QW Rd 1: GWS -6 6 1 -4 2 2 Rd 2: Ess 5 -15 -134 -4 -13 0 Rd 3: NM 17 12 15 32 -5 2 Rd 4: Coll -5 1 17 4 35 3 Rd 5: Rich 3 0 74 11 33 3 Rd 6: StK 12 -2 -33 -10 -39 2 Rd 7: GC 18 40 61 36 73 3 Utter domination from start to finish - stifled in the first half, irresistible in the second. Never seen us dominate the I50s count like that since...ever. 2016 Differential 6.3 6.0 0.1 9.3 12.3 15 2016 Melbourne Ave 41.0 57.6 225.4 153.0 109.3 CL I50 Ups CPs Score QW 2015 Differential -3.1 -9.0 -12.0 -0.9 -21.4 35 2015 Melbourne Ave 37.6 44.5 203.5 135.2 71.5 Again, rate of improvement is astounding. I am waiting for a smoothing out of the numbers but hoping for a statistical improbability of improvement.

To those that didn't understand the decision to move on Howe an replace him with someone like Kennedy - Howe finds it extremely difficult to find the footy from the forward line unless he is sitting on shoulders. Kennedy is a point of difference in that forward line because; 1. he can get kicks up the ground, 2. he can fight for the footy in a scrum in the forward line, 3. and get it at the feet when the ball is directed toward Watts and Hogan. I was really worried going into this year about who could help Garlett but Kennedy and Kent have played some excellent games this year. They have gone missing for times but playing small in the forward line is very tough. Adding Petracca to those three will be very interesting. They can all do damage offensively but are very hungry defensively.

Reminds me of Nathan Brown... Little fella with a bit of pace coming out of the backline. Mop of hair (early years)... You are naturally inclined to underrate these blokes - but if you do a job and kick start a team off half back - you're value.

Thrilled for us.

He is a mid. And he is a point of difference in there with his height. I would get him fit, and put him in the middle, he can rest forward, but when you say he should be a forward first and mid second - you are setting him up to fail. He is a mid.

Vince has only started playing back this year, is more of a mid, and Salem is a kid. No, I mean actual honest-to-god - HBFs - think Malceski. He is asked to make kicks because of his own ego but also because of habits ingrained because there are no better options to scream at him for not handing it off. And his kicking is fine, it is his decision making that is the problem. And that can always be tamed.

We need skill out of the backline. We need skill on the outside of contests. We need a decent second ruck who is predominantly our 2nd tall forward.

Anyone is 'tradeable.' But before you go off and dream of what we will get back, have a think about what you lose and what Tom McDonald could be when he works himself out. Would it not be easier to surround him with players that take the kicking burden off him?

To be perfectly honest, I thought this had already happened a few weeks ago...

The ease of the goals we are giving up tell me we are struggling with the press we are trying to implement. And that struggle doesn't mean that the direct opponent of Riewoldt or Membrey screwed up. It means that the team function of running a press is failing consistently. They would have vision of who that is, so it might be telling at selection - if you can't play AFL structures, you won't be there long...

Having an ethos of forced switching means you are predictable to your teammates and can reinforce behaviours like spread to the other side of the ground to complete a switch. The more you force, the easier it should become; players will mould their game to make use of the switch. As for the movement to man-on-man from a press - this can be abandoned for 5 mins easily enough if you have a team that can chop and change quickly; if there is one thing worse than not doing a press well or not defending man-on-man well, it is having some players do one and some players doing the other.

You can tinker around the edges but you never go away from your core gameplan - it takes long enough to get boys to learn one without trying to teach multiple ways of playing. Gameplan (as far as I see it) From the Centre: This is simple - Gawn dominates the taps and we use that to our benefit - teams will work us out and rove to his taps but as long as we are selfless and willing to work for each other (read Viney) we will get the ball out of the middle consistently. A must these days. From Stoppages around the ground: Again, heavily reliant on Gawn but also reliant on quick hands in the contest to release players on the defensive side and and the top of the stoppage. Reliant on quick, unconscious hands. Utter trust in your team-mates. From there we move to... In Free play through the middle: when we have the footy here, the idea is to not blaze away, but to continue to run with it until a penetrating kick can be made (this balance we have not got yet). All this is heavily reliant on skills and decision making and we have consistently made mistakes this year When we have it in the backline: we don't want to go long down the line (last resort), we will look to hit up short kicks to open up the ground and we will use a 'forced switch' strategy that means when the ball comes in to defence and we get the ball back, we will immediately look to go across to the other flank and 'out the other side.' This can be very dangerous if you are prone to clangers (ahem, Tom Mac) or if your mids and fwd flanks don't push across to the other side of the ground hard enough to provide options. When we don't have it in the forwardline/midfield: we are playing what looks like a box press but I cannot talk with much authority through the TV screen. But all player look like they are off their man in segmented, regular lines with only the last two defenders to handle any forwards in the defenisve side of the ground. When we screw this up - be it a full press or more of a soft 'zoning off to guard space' - we are butter, Lurpak butter... Torn asunder. Easy Goal Town. It has been good though at getting us easy goals. I hope the players stick at it, it is becoming a requisite that teams get easy goals through forward pressure. Now all that, even if it isn't all correct, is not fundamentally changeable in game, nor game to game even. Fremantle are having so many issues because they are not suited to what most teams are asking of them and they cannot reverse course quick enough - the ball is in free play more and reliant on hands in tight rather than stoppages and 'kicks down the line.' You can make tactical changes like an extra player here, tempo moving of the footy, but at some point you have to release the shackles and let the players play the style you have told them is the one that will win them games of footy. Abandoning in game is not pretty and it shows a lack of trust in the team and the coach himself. There are Plan Bs. If you go from Plan A, you move to Plan F. Fail.

Well, how about this - gameplans don't easily change during seasons. If you are working on two or more different 'gameplans' then you will be left with 2 or more undeveloped ways of playing footy.

2016 DAWES TRENGOVE NEWTON T McDONALD O McDONALD GARLETT PEDERSEN KENT M JONES TERLICH Restricted WATTS GRIMES Unrestricted JETTA Rookies Max KING WAGNER SMITH WHITE MICHIE 2017 DUNN HOGAN SALEM LUMUMBA KENNEDY-HARRIS KENNEDY* FROST SPENCER Mitch KING VANDENBERG WEIDEMAN HULETT TYSON STRETCH NEAL-BULLEN 2018 VINCE PETRACCA GAWN GARLAND BRAYSHAW HUNT HARMES BUGG 2019 N JONES MELKSHAM OLIVER 2020 VINEY

JnrMac - Plan B is a misnomer. The only thing a coach can change from one week to the next are tactics around the edges - gameplans don't change within seasons. The only thing that changes week to week is our ability to execute the gameplan.

DE% is not one of my favourite stats. I find it misleading. Teams that overpossess with hands or with short kicks in the backline will have a high DE% but will be ineffectual. Pressure through the middle is important, not sure what metrics would be ideal to measure that. Usually UPs Differential will indicate whether one team or the other is providing enough defensive run. We also had 23 more clangers than St Kilda (69-46) which doesn't help...

Er...ok... Reactions are reactions - our supporters are going to read into that 3rd quarter all that they want after the last decade. Again, this team hasn't earned anything more than that. I hope they don't do wholesale changes, and I am sure they won't. That's where the calm needs to be - down at AAMI park.

Let's get this out of the way: CL I50 UPs CPs Score QW Rd 1: GWS -6 6 1 -4 2 2 Rd 2: Ess 5 -15 -134 -4 -13 0 Rd 3: NM 17 12 15 32 -5 2 Rd 4: Coll -5 1 17 4 35 3 Rd 5: Rich 3 0 74 11 33 3 Rd 6: StK 12 -2 -33 -10 -39 2 Beaten in UPs and CPs - that usually means just one thing... And the season: 2016 Differential 4.33 0.40 -12.00 5.80 2.60 2016 Melbourne Ave 39.8 54.7 223.0 150.3 100.8 CL I50 Ups CPs Score 2015 Differential -3.1 -9.0 -12.0 -0.9 -21.4 2015 Melbourne Ave 37.6 44.5 203.5 135.2 71.5

I can see the similarities, but what they do next will define how they go in the next few years (decade for us). At the end of 2007 we went the Youth Route like a bunch of kool-aid drinking zealots. Only Joel MacDonald and John Meesen were brought in with any AFL experience from the end of 2007 to 2012. And that leaves you incredibly vulnerable if you don't get your high picks right. We didn't and the ground caved in beneath us.

Such a great story! How did we deliver such a schizophrenic thread?