rpfc

Honestly, GTFO if you think Paul Roos thinks that. You can't bemoan Roos-speak and then take such insult from his words 'if you take it literally, and read it in this way...'. The guy has been a bloviator of whimsy for a decade and yet here are sane, functioning humans who are convinced an excellent coach thinks 'fans are to blame.' We just love being the poor, little victim, getting it from all sides. "Even the coach hates us!" decried the poor little Dees fan as he explained his lot to his colleagues, mentioning that Hogan might leave for WA so he doesn't want to get his hopes up too much. "He will probably do a knee anyway!" he said with a nervous laugh before agreeing with the vacuous Hawthorn supporting contractor that 'some clubs just aren't meant to keep playing football.' When the fat, balding [censored] said "I think Dees supporters would be happier back playing in the VFL," the poor little Dees fan briefly shot his eyes wide but then remembered his place: "well, we are playing at that level aren't we?" he said with a self-loathing smile. The consoling, condescending pat on the back from the Hawk, who really only has followed the game since 2008, was married with a "maybe you'll be out of the bottom four next year, hey?" The poor little Dees fan could have corrected him but what would be the point he asked himself - they will probably be back there next year anyway...

Can those that say "we just need to move on it's in the past" stop prefacing or finishing that with "but we did tank" or "we got our right whack"? - that isn't 'moving on' and that isn't 'leaving it in the past.' You have your view on that saga, how it unfolded, and the definition of tanking and other Demons have theirs. If you want to "Move On and Stop Talking About It" then do that yourself.

I did mention it a few years ago. And it's all good - I was just going for a laugh and to use that GIF - Jubal Early in the last ep of Firefly - great show.

If he stays then there is no market for him at $550k+ and he would be on ~$400k which would be the going rate for a 3rd tall who can sometimes go back and fluff around for a bit. Otherwise he can hold his ground and go into the draft and get to someone at that contract I guess.

Well, it's an auspicious dropping... It is obviously a message and an indication. BUT I want value, you don't build lists by just getting rid of talent - however unrealised that talent is. Sylvia got us Vince, Frawley got us Brayshaw, Scully got us Hogan. So, yeah, trade and move on if you want to but don't get ND33 and tell me we did the right thing.

3 years I have been doing this kind of Contracts thread and never been pinned, Mono tries it once and it's pinned...

Watts gets enough shite from the media and AFL fans in general without Dees fans refusing to believe their 'lying eyes.'

What do people think 'good development' looks like? Having proper examples to base your game around? Having good leaders to guide you? Having the luxury of refining your game in the reserves to learn structures and to refine skills? Access to sports science professionals to build your physique and allow your body to function in the AFL at its peak (or beyond it)? Do you think it is all of those and more? What if you don't have the necessary talent, ability, and/or application? Then development is moot.

My point is poor development from when a talented kid is 19 to 21 is not the impediment you intimate it is. They have gone to other, better environments and done nothing - that PROVES it is poor drafting. Unless we 'rooned them for all time!' You telling me the hypothetical that 'every other club rated these players highly' holds less water than me showing you a bloke who hadn't the exposure to development that these boys did, however terrible it was, and he still 'came on' at a third-tier club in a third-tier league. We did such a holistically poor job at drafting that you think it must have been development...

Maybe we should? This argument that they are 'ruined' by us when they left to go to other teams is a ridiculous notion. They are not furniture. Vanders spent his 19-21 years being fat and coddled out of a lack of commitment by an underfunded NEAFL team. He wasn't 'ruined' when he rocked up at the MFC. Or did we ruin these blokes emotionally? In their Brains? We drafted poorly, we haven't developed well but development is the difference between turning a B-grader into a B+, not whether or not a player 'makes it' or not. I'm with CB - 90% drafting, 10% development.

Yes, it's something I have fought with myself. Yes, we have brought in some experience but the changes have been so many and the predominant inclusions have been younger players. To think that we will easily reach 30 changes to the list inside 3 years...

We were found not guilty remember...

Roos does not rate our depth players... So many kids have played this year and last. Much harder for a kid under Roos at Sydney to win a game. Good luck to him. Love left footers.

Yes and no - he would be a veteran player in the traditional sense but not in the literal, list management qualification of a veteran - none of his wage would be outside the salary cap the way that Jamar's would be as a 10 year servant with the club.

Well this is awkward...

I don't know what your point is? That the Footy Dept should be tactless and rude to players? It couldn't be that we have been disappointing at times this season because that's very common knowledge. And it shouldn't be the tired arguments against Watts because he has listened and he is responding and you still want to treat him the same way you want to treat those who haven't responded. If you want to send a message, or make it known your displeasure or disgust, I 'get it' but you don't want a coach repeating the antics of a Neeld. You may want to say you want it - but you don't want it.

Will he? Where are you getting that from? Perhaps Facebook, where fans are trolling their Crows supporting friends by tagging them in an article from 2012 announcing a three year deal? That's cold, by the way, sheesh...

Excellent mindset. Should we bother? I'd risk the embarrassment of asking the question and try and get these young talented player, but that is just me - always shooting for the clouds...

Yeah, that's all hyperbole and exaggeration and that's boring - you have nothing to discuss, just everything to be disgusted at. And Toumpas possibly getting a contract for his 4th and 5th year of his career is what we are discussing - and it isn't disgusting.

NM, for example, will rove to taps of opposing ruckmen when Goldstein is being beaten. But they won't just do that - they will see where Jones is going and literally use his momentum to get to the spot that Jones was headed for. We are that predictable, and essentially it comes down to a lack of better options. Source: Darren Crocker (NM Midfield Coach) at a Coaches conference

You should probably take up the language of "retired" with the club. I would have kept him for a year too, but I wouldn't have wanted to play him - and at the end of the day is that a good way to use a list spot? Especially if he sticks around in an off field capacity.

No need to be so disingenuous of the point boydie is making. You can be ruthless without being contemptuous, you can make good decisions without being insulting. In fact that has been a part of our problem of recent years. You say 'losing isn't their fault' and scoff at the thought but your point about the selections at the draft being wrong - you can't scoff at the statement that that isn't the players fault. And kudos for rounding up Watts into your diatribe - isn't it funny that the poster child of the 'cut the crap' Neeld years looking a broken player has responded under a coach that respects his players. Taking no notice of the facts changing under your feet will lead to some horrendous decisions.

I don't think it will be that many - unless we find homes for Garland, Howe, and Grimes. But even then you are looking at bringing in some very speculative talent in the back end of the draft or finding some limited players in Delisted FA. Cross and Jamar retiring, M Jones and Terlich being paid out, the aforementioned three moving via FA and Trades, and the deletion of McKenzie, Hunt, Bail, Riley, Michie, and Fitzpatrick would be the maximum I can see and that is 13. Not much room to move. You can also compare them to what they would bring in: 1. Mckenzie/Vanders 2. Bail/ND5 3. Terlich/ND27 4. Hunt/ND47 5. Jamar/ND66 6. Howe/*Trade Pick and/or Player* 7. Cross/Harmes 8. Fitzpatrick/DFA1 9. Garland/*FA Pick 10. Grimes/*Trade Pick and/or Player* 11.Michie/DFA2 12. Riley/ND86 13. M Jones/DFA3 The above are in some sort of 'desire to keep' order but the value return disappears in my opinion at Michie for the second delisted FA, we might see the back of more than that but I doubt it. I would keep Michie and Riley around but the latter hasn't played much and that isn't a good thing in a contract year - the return on the 11th change onwards isn't great.

Or when he has players who can consistently run to the areas he is tapping to before opponents do.