rpfc

Makes more sense when I read it backwards...

How about this logic - build a list by keeping your better and most consistent players and discard those not up to it and who haven't performed regularly and who don't want to be at the club. That is Roos' guiding star - not some half baked idea of 'value with FA' or tea-leave abusing 'moving on from 'mentally scarred' players' meme that has cropped up with every player who is down for a few weeks.

We just outplayed Geelong in Mordor and won by 4 goals... For me to thud, WCE would have to not let us score, abduct Hogan during the match and play him during the second half, all while Ramsay Bolton kicks 10 from a half back flank...

You can equate the two situations if you want to but not the two Colin's. They are miles apart from each other in terms of consistency over their career and illustrated and demonstrated leadership. Garland emerged during our doom years as a bright spot that over shadowed higher pedigreed 'stars' like the aforementioned Sylvia. He has been consistent for the majority of his career as a player who can play tall, small, quick, or rangey. If you are happy for Nathan Jones that we are moving out of the mire then spare a smile or two for the bloke we all wrote off after Rd 2, 2008, and who turned himself into an excellent defender and leader during our worst times. While decisions on your list can't be made with emotion, forgive me if I remind you all that emotion plays a part in football and THAT can be affected by list decisions.

Brutal truth.

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/38600-game-day/page-6 The first few pages of the Game Day thread feels like another dimension to the one we are currently 'logged on' to. There are lessons both ways about how things can change in a hurry but my main point would be calm down. Calm down about how bad we were going after those 41 secs, and calm down about making finals after being 4 and 8...

Noticed him hobbling a bit... Explains a bit if true.

Just looks a footy player. Smart reading of plays and a decent decision maker for a kid. Solid skills and tough in close. Again, who knew drafting kids with these traits was the way to go...

I will have a look the next time I need my fill of schadenfreude.

Yeah, that's it. I cannot stand it when big forwards lead to a pocket in lieu of the Most Dangerous Spot on the ground. "There's people there!" they cry. Yeah, there are. There is a reason why they're there...

Haven't stopped to think about this - Saints fans will be on McCartin's back pretty early and heavy. Especially if Brayshaw continues and Petracca emulates.

No, I don't mean having a bad 41 secs in a decent game against a 'maniacal full ground pressure' team. I mean, coming out and being made to look like also rans against a team full of them...

Didn't they, Nasher? Didn't they? Hey, now wait, they didn't... And, we have/had enough kids, we needed Bernie Vince to alleviate the pressure on those kids, not add another one for them to have no-one (bar Jones) to look up to.

I wonder whether Gorgoroth and (to a lesser extent Unleash Hell) still believe there is no point to bothering... http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/38568-heartless-pathetic-club/ Salt the earth? Well, I guess seasoning is important when cooking something special...

Sounds more like common sense.

I would tell Dawes to suck it up and second ruck. I agree that Darwin may require a smaller group. Who would ruck in that team is up in the air at the moment - none of Watts, Howe, Hogan, or Dawes are ideal. He "can't" or he 'doesn't want to'? Gawn cannot ruck for two hours unassisted. Spencer is useful up to a point in the forward line. Hogan is best left as a forward and too valuable to leave in the ruck to be cut in half. Watts will be cut in half if left in there long enough, Howe the same. The back-up ruck should be a 25 minute job for a capable forward to complete a few minutes at a time. I don't think we have an ideal scenario but the sharing duties of Gawn and Spencer will create an issue, IMO, where we get sub-standard forward play out of Spencer because he needs the ruck to be effective and Gawn is more effective than him.

If we can't beat Essendon I would be disappointed. But we might be in one of those turbulent years where we surprise at both ends of the spectrum - win at Geelong and lose a 'gimmie.'

Don't overestimate the 2 or 3 marks that 'Concrete' hands is missing. He is a forward, Spencer is not. And that is the primary job of the second ruck. And Dawes had 6 score involvements from 8 touches. Garlett, Gawn, Watts, and Brayshaw also had 6 each. Jones and Vince had 10 and 8 respectively. For comparison, Spencer had 3 from his 6 touches and 25 HOs. To round out the forward line; Howe had 2 Score Involvements, ANB had 4.

I'm a fan of what Dawes brings but I can see the ruckmen pushing him out after last week. Personally, Spencer brings less than Gawn and the second ruck needs to do more than Spencer does while not in the ruck. Dawes should be banging down the door of the Match Committee and recanting his desire to not be second ruck - we really need a forward to do that and Dawes is the best suited candidate not named Hogan... With that said; I would drop Spencer and Riley for Hogan and Garland. Spencer and Gawn are gunning for the same job. I don't think they can play together week-in, week-out.

Uncontested possies first 9 weeks: -192 compared to our opponent (-181 of that against Freo, Syd, and Haw). Uncontested possies last 3 weeks: +120 (+92 of those against the Saints) and winning each time. For interest: Contested possies first 9 weeks: -13 (-36 against Freo, Syd and Haw). Contested possies last 3 weeks: +39 (-4 against the Pies who are an excellent CP side)

Now I know you don't need stats to suggest the last three weeks have been better but... In the first 9 games we were -59 in clearances compared to our opponent - winning the clearances only once (Bulldogs). For perspective - we finished 2014 approx. -106 in clearances. In 2013 we finished approx. -212. In the past three games we have been +20 in clearances, winning each time.

Digital subscription add on to your MFC membership is about $70. Goes to the club and you get to watch pretty much any game live (even non-MFC games) and all games after a day or so. Really happy with this purchase I have to say. Don't know if still available. Good for the club too as it is AFL media that has no cost to the club and provides pure profit from what I can see.

There is a reason why Roos and co. were keen to keep him around for another year. He has a great opportunity to win a place in this midfield - it is still quite shallow, it's getting deeper but who are we kidding? We still need more than Jones, Vince, Viney, Tyson, Brayshaw and vanders. And he also has experience on his side - which will be a point of difference for all the other talent we have that are just starting out. I was sure he would look to leave a club that tried to trade him last year but it is a measure of the bloke really that he wants to stick around and fight to play for the Demons.

Clearances: 13 (-3.25) Inside 50s: -14 (-13.75) UPs: 27 (-6) CPs: 27 (2.2) Margin: 24 (-20.67) Quarters Won: 3 (20) Without Haw, Freo, and Syd: Clearances: -1.4 Inside 50s: -10.3 UPs: 12.1 CPs: 6.9 Margin: -4.1 Quarters Won: 19

He is always going to do things that infuriate us, but, as I have maintained for a few years now, while he may not be a 'big piece' he can contribute to our rise up the ladder. The amount of internet we devote to his every contest is still a worry though - he gets attention that far outweighs his importance to our side. When we don't play well - it is not because of Jack. And we can still win when he doesn't play well. That isn't to say we cannot criticise what he does, only that we should keep in perspective how much criticism we devote to him as opposed to others, and the type of criticism we give: there were a few posters on here who fervently thought that 'retirement' was Watts' best option for all concerned at the end of the season... Is that condescending? I think it is beyond that.