rpfc

Sorry, I couldn't do it last week - I just couldn't do it... 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 The obvious outlier (and hopefuly it remains an outlier) was the Ess game. This young team beat NM in every major stat except for the most important one... That CP stat is startling but shows what this team can do in the contest. This year compared to last: 2016 Differential 5.33 1.00 -39.33 8.00 -5.33 CL I50 Ups CPs Score 2015 Differential -3.1 -9.0 -12.0 -0.9 -21.4

Not too keen to have an 18 year old do back up ruck...

It's funny isn't it? He is no world beater but he can cement his place in this side if he gets some form back. Frost and Pedersen have been that rough...

Ding - what are you still doing here? You can leave us with our pathetic club, it's ok. We don't need you. Your health is more important. For the rest: Footy does this sometimes. Don't confuse this week with last week.

See you champ. Well, I hate losing but THAT was a statement to supporters. 9 goal qtr against a good side and smashed the around the ground. More polish/better officiating and we are celebrating a huge win. We aren't and that's footy but the effort was back and when it is - we are a good effing team.

The lens we see that loss in is one that has seen a great deal of failure just like it over the years. But this FD has changed so much over the last couple of years. They failed because the players didn't work hard enough to spread, and the coaches didn't adequately prepare the team to treat all teams with the respect of showing your best efforts. We when talk of a heartless past and a hopeless future - we give the players a convenient out. When we talk about our destiny being failure - as a few of you are - you just remind me of what Roos said last year about the fans being damaged with negativity. I hope the 'Woe is Melbourne' brigade didn't criticise Roos then, because you are arguing his point now.

horrific (hɒˈrɪfɪk ; hə-) Definitions adjective provoking horror; horrible Derived Forms horˈrifically adverb Synonyms View thesaurus entry = horrifying, shocking, appalling, frightening, awful, terrifying, grim, dreadful, horrendous,ghastly, from hell (informal), grisly, frightful, #wordsmatter

This was never going to be a linear improvement. We just endured a huge bump. But trying to weave this into the 'Woe is Melbourne, failure is destiny' parable is pathetic. If you believe that doomsday scenario then what are you doing here? What is the point of you being here? If there is nothing that can be done then you are only commenting on the demise of something that many people don't think is dead. So, your concerns are noted, but the rest of us have football to play. Effort, spread, execute, and you win. That's footy.

We didn't want to work and Ess did. Considering the stats - it's amazing we didn't lose by more. We didn't get out of first gear. Everyone was so confident before this game because we are a better team than Essendon and we are, but this team haven't earned that confidence. They need to be the hunter in every game. This team has down two-fifths of nothing. No idea why they would get ahead of themselves.

Well, I bought it from the club website, so at least some of it will...

I just bought the $65 digital add on membership - I know that is only good for your phone and tablets but I get to watch the replay on my suitably sized computer screen when I wish - hell, I watched the last quarter of the Geelong game last year a couple of days ago... Used to use the smart replay but prefer the ease. Add the $65 goes to the club.

The NBA are doing it that way. Salaries that are agreed will not increase with the cap - this is why LeBron James has been signing one year contracts for the last two years so he gets the maximum possible each year (the cap in the NBA is about to jump from $58m to around $91m). I think the AFL will do something similar to the above. So that means that I don't think it is wise to have an agreement with 1 player about their salary being a percentage of the cap when other players won't have that luxury. I also don't think we should be trailblazers by giving all our players a bump if other clubs are not forced to - it will give other teams a competitive advantage over us to suddenly have $3m in cap space.

I think the cap will increase by 30%. Are we happy to make that deal (X+30%) without knowing the full picture? It would mean offering $800k that is automatically $1.1m... Would the other players be happy with that? Would McDonald and Watts not be entitled to that? Jones? I hope they get the CBA sorted quickly.

A guy (you don't have to know who) surveys what is around him (this thread) and walks out the door. It's a judgement on this thread and your protest. I am more than happy to expand on things of importance and interest, but sometimes there are times when a short moving picture conveys everything. A picture says a thousand words, a gif would be an extrapolation of that surely?

The club wouldn't want that. They would prefer he get a contract that is huge but easier to manage as time goes on.

^^^ That can be its own thread LH.

Hogan isn't 'other players' - he might be about to sign a 5 year contract that would be entirely, fundamentally different at the end of this year when the CBA is finalised. The equivalent of $800k a year might be as much as $1.1m next year. Over a 5 year contract he might leave $1.5m on the table. The cap might go up $3m next year...

Really confident about the changes. Frost plays a role that would be beneficial but nowhere near to a standard to continue bothering at the moment. I like that they are not forcing it - sign of a honest match committee to abandon it one game in. Pedersen can back up Gawn and removing Frost allows him more room to attract the footy, a bloke, and create space for Hogan. Look forward to H creating off half back. Keep things bold back there.

Does a 'good game' not earn you another? And if he is finishing so low in the B+F - is it low enough to not be earning games. I reject the notion that Watts has not earned the vast majority of his games, and we can agree to disagree if you like. The better argument is that he was not made to earn more of his games, and that doesn't just apply to Jack Watts - that applies to every player we brought in during the failed rebuilds over the last decade.

Well, when you hold contradictory arguments and argue them in parallel - yes, you might need to clarify them. And you are saying he went above the minimum required which means you are abandoning one of your arguments - still don't know which one. Is he a simple role player, incapable of the transcendent play we initially thought he was capable of - a view that should deliver him extended praise for his last game? Or is he a singular talent that should impact most games and that last Saturday was just the minimum we should expect for such a talent?

You think that carrying the forward line for a game, playing through a corkie and turning the game in the last quarter is a 'minimum requirement' for someone who will 'never be the player we envisaged and hoped for'? Which is it? I agree that he is not the player we hoped 8 years ago he would be - and that means that performances like last week are 'cartwheel worthy' because they are over and above what you and I have accustomed ourselves to expect from this high HFF role player with great skills. He was our second best player on the ground - third in the game to Phil Davis - he may get Brownlow votes, that is well above what I envision as his 'minimum requirement.' He has Dees fans doing cartwheels because he played a great game. Others seem to be unjustly critical and cynical. I supposed that comes with 8 years of disappointment.

Rocked up to training with it last year and was told it looked "sick"...

You should have stuck to the 'not many players at the MFC have had to earn games these last ten years' argument. Not mention Martin at all. And that argument is fundamentally true. We have not had a list capable of keeping players honest. But that is not the fault of Watts, it is the fault of the club. You have to pick 22 every week. But to say that Watts has played what 70-80 'unearned' games is unfair to the bloke and the up and down seasons he has had. He didn't suddenly flick a switch for his solid two months last year, he has played about half a dozen good games every year for the past half decade. Except he doesn't back it up in the subsequent games he earns with those performances. Maybe we should go through the archives and collect all the selection threads and use the subjective judgment of Land to see how many he earned?

That Josh Fraser is a lovely fellow for greeting Nasher there.

Means as much as his demeanour in a press conference...