rpfc

The 'airborne' indication removes the old excuse 'I was just competing for the ball' (this is for when it is on the ground of course) as keeping two feet on the ground would be a prerequisite for winning a ball on the ground and disposing of it adequately.

I have noted this a few times in the past to, what I assume are, glazed looks from some of you on here: Confidence in marking the footy. I bring it up as Hogan just had the biggest example of I have ever seen of an elite marker of the footy to show an abject inability to hold the football kicked in his direction. This lack of confidence leads to 'hard hands' and little trust to mark it in your fingers; it can lead a player to try and 'brick it down' by deadening the ball with your palm and 'two-grabbing' everything in sight. And this leads me to Dawes - the person in question that I have noted in the past with little confidence in his marking. It comes and goes, and Hogan will get it back as soon as Round 1 I would say. But it is a part of the reason why, if Dawes can get back on the park (yes a big 'if' OD), then Dawes can give a great deal more than he gave in 2015.

Yeah, one can't expect him to be AVB. Big chance to play HBF though for us, we don't have an abundance of good kicks coming off the backline. If Salem gets injured...

Jeez, he looks good... Very exciting next few years for our midfield but more immediately - he is a big chance for GWS.

I guess someone got him a mirror...

Ok, sure, but 'latent potential irrespective' aside - we can discuss the team we play possibly losing its FF...

GWS at the G... Ess at the G... NM at Bellerive... Coll at the G... Rich at the G... What a great opportunity to play some half-decent teams that give us the opportunity to test ourselves but also get off to a good start. We could win all of them or be 2 and 3... Then we play two games (StK at Shittihad and the Suns away) that we should win but invariably do not - this will either drag us back down or propel us forward as... ...we play the WB, PA, Haw, Coll on QB, and Sydney (with only BL as respite) to Round 13 and the bye. If we are to play finals we would have to at least 5 and 2 when we play WB...and beat two of the above (assuming the Lions are a win as well) and be 8 and 5. The back 9 looks hazardous - we would need our confidence up to survive it.

Yes, we used the new rules to our advantage and were ahead of the curve. That felt strange to type...

If they are the best leaders of that group right now - then that is the measure. I groan when I see LGs that have "potential leaders" included.

Yeah, so a win is a win last week but not this week. Progress I guess...

I don't really believe in forward flanks of old - I think he will end up playing that extra wing role from the HFF. He is competing with a few there though; Kent, Watts, Petracca, etc. none of those play exactly the same but their role will be similar.

1. 2 years is 1 year? Ok, then. How do you argue with that? 2. Hearsay. And what targets were those? Coz they wouldn't have been stratospheric if we 'hit them'... 3. Hearsay that they listened to deals. Hearsay that they 'strung us along'. 4. The salary cap will (in my estimation) jump $3m. That is how big the TV money increase can easily handle. Hogan's 2015 was a taste of what he can bring, and if you think that a million a year is a good deal for him for his peak years (and there will be plenty) then you are not reading the tea leaves properly. He is worth ~10% of the cap right now (that is $1m btw), if he stays being worth 10% in 5 years that would mean he should be paid $1.7m. To sign a (crazy) long term deal is not in his best interest.

Some of your neuroses are showing again people. If we want to keep players of his ilk then acting like he will leave will not help. He has 2 years left FCS. Some of you are so effing embarrassing... Start winning some games and offer him his rightful amount and he will stick around to play with the talent we have surrounded him, and he has bonded, with. PS. I have talked about this previously but the AFL salary cap is about to have the biggest jump in history - FYI. Read into that what you will, or just continue to hand-wring.

I don't see BBs posts. Mainly because of reasons like what you are referring to - getting paid a commensurate wage and playing in a winning team is accusing someone of being a mercenary? Good lord.

Well, there you go - the path to empathy; treat all posters you disagree with as you would your half-cut self...

But you can retract a scrubber. Scrubber - Yes. Simpleton - No. And while I look forward to the snide - isn't it easier to understand where mo64 is coming from when you were once there?

So Hogan will stick around because he likes coffee? I get the 'travel with a bad back' reason but the things that will keep him around are money and winning.

$$$ is what I make of that.

...extended a couple years ago.

Jeez, what happened here? Can we just agree that picket doesn't have the necessary qualifications to post here and move on? As for Pearce and Cowan: this will be commonplace in a few years and I am all for it. And if you don't think women have to earn their way in the footy industry - you are kidding yourself.

You know, maybe, just maybe, the AFL should have stipulated the definition of 'multi-cultural' or even 'indigenous' before they instituted a policy resting entirely to those definitions. What an absolute waste those people down at the Docklands are. They are 'free jazzing' football administration.

If we draft a Casey player in Feb onto the Rookie List - they will invariably play for Casey...

What is more cost effective? Paying Roos for, let's say, 5 years as coach at $1.5m and then going back to the coaching drawing board... Or... Paying Roos to mentor the next coach and have a year of two head coaches? Try doing a cost benefit analysis on that...

I don't see why you won't let those that administer those ethics do their jobs as the CAS has? It has taken an effing age but the players have reached their point of judgement and justice and they will pay their penance. I think it is naïve to think you can apply such universal and holistic punishments. Jake Melksham is hardly Lance Armstrong. And Jake will serve his punishment and the effects of that judgment and punishment will reverberate into the future and affect the rest of his life. I see no point to stick the knife in further.

That trade will be judged in about 6 years time. Unless of course you are of the opinion that we should "not have any drug users on the list!1!" Then we would have half the players we do currently and it would be tough to recruit with that stance.