rpfc

WCE Clearances: -3 Inside 50s: -8 UPs: -38 CPs: -4 Margin: -54 QW: 1 Ess (averages to date in brackets) Clearances: 5 (-2.6) Inside 50s: 13 (-11.4) UPs: -47 (-11.2) CPs: 11 (+2.4) Margin: -9 (-22.2) QW: 2 (23) 2014 Melbourne Clearances: -4.8 Inside 50s: -11.6 UPs: -6.5 CPs: -1.5 Margin: -28.1 QW: 30 With the interest being in how we have not improved - here are the raw numbers from the differentials from last year. UPs have gone down as you can see, however, WCE, Haw, Syd, and Freo accounts for 139.5% of those numbers (in layman's terms - we would be in positive territory if you removed those four games). That is not to say Roos doesn't need to improve that area - he does, we still seem anaemic and unwilling to run and be bold.

Last years team could never have beaten Geelong (it didn't) let alone in Mordor. We have had a harder draw to this point than last year and disappointing performances to Essendon and Port Adelaide should be seen in light of what happens in the last 8 weeks of the season. If wins are all we care about and illustrate our improvement from last year - one more win will 'prove' 25% improvement. 2 will mean 50%. 4 will mean 100% improvement. Jeez, what a success hey? PS. the stats show that we have improved our clearance rate differential by ~50%, made little ground on Inside 50s, lost ground on Uncontested Possessions (although this is entirely due to the top 4 teams beating us up), pulled down our average margin by ~20%, and have won more contested possessions than our opponents for the first time since Daniher was in charge. So, yeah, nah, the stats are a mixed bag where improvement can be seen.

Yeah, we are no better than that, we played the same ordinary football down at Mordor and beat Geelong. Same ordinary football made Richmond look 'insipid.' Hard to score when the goalposts move so frequently...

They have 8 games to improve on last year - the Fatalistic wrist slashing on here is over the top. We lost to Essendon at the G by 9 points - as awful as that sentence sounds - it was never a fait accompli and should really only be a surprise to the sorry few who actually thought we could finish the season by winning 8 of our last 9 games... The Midfield is the beating heart of modern footy and ours is still Jones, Vince, Viney, *NEW - Brayshaw*, *NEW - Vanders*, and ??? Who are the next 5 ???. Invariably (almost universally) when we lose games it is because of the players we DON'T have in that midfield. When we solve that issue, I will be surprised to lose a game of footy.

Let's see what the next 8 weeks brings before claiming that the 'truth' of our stagnancy is confirmed.

Gotta blame somebody.

If Nathan Jones is cut of a different cloth and immune from the Melbourne disease that we have to rid ourselves of, why can't Garland be cut of that cloth? He was always consistent amid the nonsense and bounced back this year with some better footy than 2014. I agree that our list has been trained to be timid and inert since Bailey left but it is bordering on ridiculous, stmj, when you say that everyone must go regardless of form or talent.* *except Nathan Jones Garland isn't some mercenary, he doesn't play like a bloke damaged by past failure, he has looked a model professional, he shadowed the recruiters for a year when he did his bone in his foot, he built a career and held a leadership position, and as discussed previously, seems to have a solid relationship with the bloke we have put in charge of breaking us from our malaise.

I assume Howe will be shipped out from what I have seen so far. Riley gives you attack on the footy and hard tackling pressure as a baseline, I am partial to players like that at this club.

And who is this player so familiar with the money his mates are on?

From?

I would fight to retain the bolded but the other 8 have a bit of work to do. I realise Harmes will have his chance in the coming weeks. M Jones and Terlich are prime candidates to be paid out... Especially if Riley, Harmes, and Howe show something in the last 9 games.

I love the arrogance of bringing a first gamer and a bloke coming back from injury through Essendon. It just better not backfire.

Well, no, that list of around 10 deletions have a few AFL standard role players that when you get rid and go to the draft and draft poorly you end up with what we have already experienced when we did this from 2007 to 2011... Been there, done that. Bitter experience tells me - you can have too many kids.

Trengove just got re-signed for 2016. So, nah. And what do you think we would get talent-wise using ~10 picks in the draft? You'll probably name them in a similar list to get rid of in 12 months time.

I told him he was coming to the club at the right time; just got our house in order and don't have a midfield with any size. Great news. Also glad that the Dees didn't try to overthink and keep him on the list for another year to get an extra pick in the ND - we have done that before and it usually backfires in unforeseen ways.

Now, I think you are the one underestimating Watts... He'll be fine. Guys get dropped for all sorts of reasons.

What if the weather means it is played in his dimension?

Harmes, Michie, Lumumba? They are on the fringes. Dropping someone is not the end of the world as Jack has already found out this season - we are too tall forward in the wet with Jack - simple as that.

I have bought many shares in Watts Inc. over the years and haven't cashed out yet - but if there is a game that is entirely played on the floor with a heavy, wet footy - Jack Watts is a luxury whose skill set will never be tapped during that game. Like a decision to drop a second ruck (which is one will do), dropping a 196cm HFF is something I would do.

It's great that he is finally doing it, and if I had no-one that could play his role I would play him and tell him - if you want to play in games that are 'wet' this is your last chance. I would prefer to win than spare feelings. Ironically, I argued that playing him against Adel and Rich in the wet earlier in the year was a bad decision for his confidence when most were saying he was destined to be traded, delisted, and voluntarily retire. So my argument is both seeing the benefit of both the team and Jack himself.

Check your memory - I didn't think he was that great. They should not play him in the wet. All that he brings is mitigated, all that he doesn't bring is magnified.

How is that? How would you reform the Academy player bidding system?

I was suggesting the pretence of being oblivious to the reference because it was so unrelated.

Good lord, if Prestia is available and we don't offer ND5 I would be disappointed. If we had a talent like that and someone offered ND25 and the right to overpay Howe - what would you say? Think before you post.

Were you watching the Simpsons while writing this post? Because there is a simpsons quote in the middle of your post. It's like: <Jobe Watson-related post> UNRELATED SIMPSONS QUOTE <Jobe Watson-related post>