rpfc

Well, what did we have to do with Demons before they changed it because of a 'Checker' Hughes bake?

stmj and PD - we are talking past each other for the sake of argument. I don't have the energy today - we all agree the forward line will revolve around him and that he will spend time up the ground, but, hopefully, closer to goal predominantly. This kid at 7 better be special to get space close to goal in Hogan's Forwardline and that won't be for years.

I absolutely love the fact that this man mountain can run for 20kms a game - love it. But I would not create a gameplan that has him lead with the flight of the ball into the 50 with a established tall sitting 25m out. I am all for getting a tall in this draft if he is the best available but Hogan is most dangerous to the opposition when he is working his bloke over with multiple leads and having space around him 30m out. And you don't 'completely disagree,' if you think he should still work back into the 50. I would prefer they use his aerobic capacity by getting him to work over his bloke within distance of goal - get someone else to take chest marks on hard leads 80m out.

I just don't want him on a wing. The notion of a FF and a CHF went the way of Pagan's Paddock. I do not like the idea of trying to find a player to play between Hogan and the goals. We should be trying to find a player that keeps Hogan in the 50. He is a transcendent talent and unless we can find another one - he should be kicking goals - not chasing kicks on centre wing.

Hey hazy...

I don't think it says much - Kennedy plays a different role, and is in a different stratosphere to Prestia - a much lower one.

Neither. I am frustrated. I just see this all as change for the sake of change. I am yet to be convinced we have a strategic objective behind all this. Melbourne as the focus, a smart marketing open in the city and what else exactly? The most lasting thing we did to shore up our fan base of late was to get involved in the Women's game, get Hogan, and get Roos. I am underwhelmed. I would like someone to point out what they are going to do 6 months from now, 2 years from now, that illustrate a plan that will be more of a skipping stone because I fear this is all a big dump in a pond that garners attention for only a short time. If they do that then I may be all for changing the song.

He looks like he is about to be hit by a train, or Buffy is around the corner. Nah.

Nah, but think of all those people that will be convinced to follow Melbourne if the song has the name in it. I would say just as many that will support it because of our rebrand...

The song's original words were about the US flag. We changed it to suit ourselves. If we change our logo at the drop of a hat - a very good looking hat - then why can't we shoehorn Melbourne in there?

"Every heart beats true for the red, white, and blue"...

The song is an American marching song that's an ode to their flag - the 'stars and stripes'... We adapted it to suit ourselves. We can do it again if we wish to.

I am glad he is taking an interest in the selections but he is wrong. He is applying his own, unique, experience about how quickly a young player can make the transition from teenager playing elite junior footy to the AFL. His first year in AFL was really his second. He had a year in the VFL prior to that and he is a generational talent. To put that pressure on any tall taken at 7 is unfair. That kid will take, at least, those three years to make an impact. Ironically, if he wants impact straight away - he should want two mids at 3 and 7.

Well, I am surprised so many can still use their computers stuck in all that mud...

I stand by my input in this thread. I liked the emblem, I like the idea of the emblem sticking around as the emblem and logos coming and going with the times. This one will stick around if we start winning.

No offence, CB... But, nah.

You know what I confess to? Not wanting to throw more Demons under the bus. I don't hold grudges against Demons. Some of you would treat criminals better than some passionate Demons. I don't hate Ian Ridley in death - let it go. I thank Paul Gardner, McLardy, Gutnick, and Szondy, for their time and effort. I admire Cameron Schwab's ideas if not his execution. [censored] let it go. A confession is to admit a sin for absolution. Well, I will give it. Will you?

Umm, it has the name of the club/city and the old monogram in a shield that is sometimes borderless. How does it say all these things?

I don't mind the rebrand (or rebland?) at all, I am just aware that the success of the team will define the success of the club's brand. Well done to all in the city today, happened to be there on business today and got a free footy and a photo of Nat Jones graffiti. Smart marketing. Hope they get mileage out of it and commitment to it. But, yeah, we won no fans with this - we all know what will...

I'm a cynic now. Don't care. Win games. Any logo will do if you win games.

There is no difference between a caretaker coach overlooked for the job and Roos? For one thing - Roos instigated this transition, he is the architect of it, and the one with experience on how it has worked in the past. If the point is to subtly say that Roos is a 'lame duck' and all the irrelevance that comes from being one - I doubt the players would see it that way. It's Paul Roos. If the point is that more and more responsibility will transfer to Goodwin to the point where he is the head coach by the end of next season - then that is the actual point isn't it? I don't know whether it will be successful but Roos would be able to point to his experience in doing this as a successful one - a very successful one...

In preparation for the ND, it has been updated. Now, we have 10 days to decide whether to nominate Lovett - which will make it harder to not delist someone if we want to 'meet' any bid during the ND. If a bid comes during the ND, we have to put Lovett on the Primary List if we want to meet that bid. If he makes it through (and through the PSD I believe - we can rookie list him). So if we wanted to take him, I can see why we have not delisted Terlich - we may not want to take Lovett in the ND, nor will we have to if he doesn't get bid upon.

Thanks for the reports - I will get more excited for them when we move into game style stuff - the running is indicative of fitness and preparedness for the season but I am more interested in Goodwin's imprimatur on the offensive side of the game. And, Garland and TMac being there says more about those two than it does about the others NOT being there. The club manages each person individually and telling me that Player A or Player B 'should be there after last year' is simply an ignorant statement - you don't know how they are situated from a fitness perspective or what work they have already done.

26 is a terrible number. It just is.

Please don't tell us anymore, BBO. I don't want to be an accomplice after the fact... Um, jeez, I don't know - about every player I suggested during my cringeworthy Flag Core © madness from a few years ago... Morton and Gysberts the most laughable. But the ones that were the reverse - wrote off Garland after Rd 2, 2008. Dunn has stopped jumper punching and pulled a career out of the fire I didn't think he would be able to get. Not many of these... I was right onto Viney and Hogan. Knew Viney would be this good when his mum had parents of older boys complain to her about how he played his footy. And as soon as I saw some footage of Hogan before the Mini Draft - it was by any means necessary... So it's not all delusion and stupidity.