rpfc

wyl is soft as butter; I demand us to win 22 games next season. And if that gets us into the finals - and I think it might - I demand us to win another 3 games to win the flag. Why have realistic expectations? Why have a rational conversation about the reality of what this team can do? Why indeed.

Another chance for a team to say to themselves - "it's just the Demons, they couldn't develop an indoor plant..." (arrogant chuckling) Ok, let's see how it goes, champs...

(Chokes on cornflakes)

I'd take two of the best three mids of this draft class. My point was that one teams 'reach' is another team's star player. Those limiting the choices to four players irritate me. We can pick any two players that the Saints didn't pick at one.

'Reaching' for a mid in the 5-10 range with an earlier pick could have landed us Dangerfield or Rioli in 2007, and Rich or Sidebottom in 2008. Is that 'reaching'? The best kids are just that - kids.

Not to pile on here but the NFL has a random fixture where you play those in your division every year but go through every other club other the next 3 to 4 years. There is no fixturing of the glamour teams against each other every year, there is no rewarding for good performance or punishment for bad, it is simply a fixture to give every team as much of an even chance at winning and making money. Monday night games (their Friday nights) are far more shared than our glamour nights. They manage this noble attempt at parity with a 16 game season with 32 teams, and here we are whinging about the fact that we can't make a fair draw with 22 games for 18 teams...

I am talking about ND53 vs RD2. Assuming Newton is on his way, one of Trengove, Evans or McKenzie is required to be delisted to make way for ND40. With the difference between ND53 and RD2 being neglible, it is understandable if they don't use ND53.

The way the mechanisms work, there is quite a bit to be said for keeping Trengove on the PL as a key to any Rookie upgrade from Rd 1. Essentially, if Trengove was delisted and rookied and we didn't have an LTI to start the season then Harmes or RD2 may not be available for selection. We would have 40 players to choose from. If Trengove was on the LTI, we would immediately have 43 players to choose from. It is not the difference between winning and losing but it is an argument that the club is not worse off for having Trenogve on the PL for 2015.

He might be of more use on the PL as I just explained in another thread as an injured player that will allow any RL player to play from Rd1. If Newton arrives we would need to delist a contracted player to use ND40. I would delist Evans or McKenzie and then pass on ND53 and use RD2 on a player targeted with ND53 (there will only be about 15 live selections difference between those two). I would draft Evans or McKenzie with RD20 and tell Tapscott that footy can be tough sometimes. There are a few ways to go and each avenue has its pitfalls and pluses.

It looks as though, according to an article on the AFL website, that there will only be around 65 live selections in the ND. This would make RD2 approx. the 67th live selection for 'new' players. With regard to ND40, I don't think we should pass on that but the argument to pass on ND53 in lieu of the more flexible RD2 is a strong one. Trengove may be more use on the PL injured and allowing any one of the rookies to play Rd 1 than he would be on the RL.

It's my cardboard stalker... You are not quoting me are you, as you admitted you are quoting a paraphrased post from Deestroy All. But if you don't think that the relationship between club and player has changed, just look at the recent article on the afl website about Trengove realising more than ever before it is a business. Has the relationship changed irrevocably? No. But we were trying to offload him a ND he wanted to go and that is quite the rubicon.

If this report on Newton is correct, we will have to delist and promise to rookie one player to use ND40. Using ND53 is something that the club will be weighing up now, as the argument can be made (as GRRM just showed) for taking that speculative player at RD2 instead of ND53. You may still get one of the players you were targeting and you are not burdened by an automatic two year contract. I think they will delist and rookie Evans or Trengove, and Tapscott will be forgotten about and they will have the one live selection at RD2. If they make the strategic decision to honour all contracts then ND40 will not be used and Tapscott will be rookied. But, again, if the Newton report is correct.

Yes, but at some point real soon we are going to have to give these blokes time to 'do a Jetta' and pull their collective fingers out. And my point is more that keeping Evans on a for a year may be more benficial if you don't want to give some kid at ND53 a 2 year contract. Take a similar talent at RD2 and you can jettison him after a year - I don't like it but I would maximise the use of it.

List at 1st Lodgement.

...or back. It's not about quantity of changes, it's about quality of changes. If you lose a B- player and replace him with a C player - your list gets worse. We have had a recent history of doing exactly that. From 2008 to 2012 we brought in John Meesen and Joel MacDonald, as experienced AFL players - that means all the experience we lost from the Daniher years were replaced by kids - kids that didn't make it. And because we didn't bring in any players with exposed form we not only didn't have any stars of the game from our top picks, we struggled to even find good players through middle range draft picks.

2015 Trengove, Jamar (UFA), Garland (RFA), McKenzie, Howe, N Jones (RFA), Evans, Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Toumpas, Pedersen, Salem, Kennedy-Harris, Hunt, Cross, Bail, Riley, Harmes ®, King ® Trengove, Jamar, McKenzie, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Hunt, Cross, Bail and Riley would be a chance to be moved on for a variety of reasons. But each player has their own story and if Trengove recovers, Jamar is kept for depth, Hunt is given more time, Cross maintains his body, Bail keeps his form, and Riley cements a rotation role, then that leaves only McKenzie, Pedersen, and Fitzpatrick to be moved on...

Well, I'm convinced...

ht, I get the desire to take a ruck/forward at ND3. But the time it takes for him to come on would be better spent scouring the second tier leagues for a 22-24 year old, or trade for a known AFL commodity, who we know can contribute right away. If predicting the future of 18 year old small player is troublesome and haphazard - predicting the future of an 18 year old ruckman is a Demilitarised Zone, patrolled at night to keep people out of. If Roos allowed this selection, I would be stunned.

They are 'penalising' teams by having them play us at the G - just not with us as the home team. I understand the desire to not play irrelevant teams but that is the curse of football codes that are run well - they will have some games that are not the best spectacle or be the biggest draw, have the biggest stage. I didn't have this much of a whinge after our 2012 and 2013 debacle but this isn't just something I want for the MFC - but the AFL. Equalisation, if it ever occurs, must include the fixture.

We are in a position to pick any two players after the player St Kilda picks. If the club 'reached' and chose Dangerfield over Morton - would this place have gone into meltdown? Yes. Would it have been a ridiculous, pointless, and wrong reaction? Yes.

...in 6 years time.

I can see us only using ND40, but I agree that we should be using at least one of ND53/DFA/PSD2. Ideally, we should use ND40 and ND53 for two promising kids and PSD2 for an out of contract emerging player. But if the club doesn't see a promising kid at 53 (a promising kid that is much better than one in the rookie draft) or a good enough player at PSD2 then ND40 might be all they want. The kid taken at ND53 is given an automatic 2 year contract, the kid taken at RD2 is given a one-year contract at a reduced rate. The club may prefer the flexibility of having a few out of contract next year...

Who is talking about conspiracies? We understand the reasons for our terrible fixture - we disagree with them. Most of what I would say - Macca has already mentioned, but I will add that equalisation is not something that is easy, it is not something that goes hand-in-hand with making 'The Most Amount of Money' - it has to be a holistic approach for any league that wants to ensure its future by galvanising the clubs and supporter bases of ALL clubs. Everything is connected and the fixture is a big cog in the crusade for equalisation. It affects crowd numbers, members, marketability, sponsor exposure, and, indirectly, anything that flows out those aspects, including the most important - player retention, recruitment, revenue, and support. I don't disagree with the fixture because it is 'trying to make the most amount of money and bums on seats' - I disagree with the fixture because that's the wrong, short term perspective.

There is another list lodgement before the ND after the October 31 Lodgement on the 13 November. Players can still be delisted at that point.

Canberra.