rpfc

Tanking will come into vogue again though... NFL doesn't have an issue with tanking - as Herm Edwards said - "You play to win the game!" It doesn't have an issue because there are only 16 games and each game is an event in and of itself - there just seems to be too much pressure to win for coaches and admins that tanking just doesn't seem to happen. The fact that teams are literally one or two players away from contention also stops the desire to be bad...

In the NFL you have to 3 years removed from high school.

Not really, Nasher was right in banning him for his reprehensible logic, even if he scooted past it as the reason for his decision to ban him.

Well, you know my thoughts on the draft age, so if they lifted the draft age to 20 or 21 I would be ok with 6 years to FA...

Nothing is wrong, other than I think it is wrong... Fitz is 24 midway through next season, if he is going to be better than Dawes, he better get his skates on...

Here we go again. Fitz plays two games, Dawes in his first few games back straightened us up immeasurably. I seem to recall you walking back your 'Fitz > Dawes' argument during the year... When I see a bloke mark, or not mark, the way Dawes was toward the end of the season it tells me their confidence is down. I also agree with Chris that he is a role player and I think will be more important when Hogan is introduced to that forward line.

You need to just move on, the only poster people are judging is you, olisik. You are the one that read it wrong, and the one with the terrible point about key defenders. Slink away, don't attack.

Do people realise that clubs have been helping the spouses/families of players since the beginning. Whether it is finding them real estate at half value, or finding them a placement as a nurse, or finding the child of a player a surrogate father after the war took his dad... To complain that we did this and then didn't get 'anythin out of it!' with gnashing teeth and a frothing mouth is unscrupulous.

This was the logic of what HH said: 1. Houli was called a terrorist. 2. People are called Terrorists because of their chosen religion - Islam. 3. Houli was religiously vilified because of his religion, not his race. 4. That is fine. Frankly, I find point 2 of his logic utterly reprehensible. If taken in a vacuum, HH wouldn't have been banned, IMO Nasher has sub-consciously read the reprehensible logic behind the post and banned him accordingly.

To be fair - he equated being called a 'terrorist' to vilifying someone's religion while he was saying all that... I really don't think HH is the hero of the Anti-PC Agenda...

HH missing a couple of weeks on here will do him some good. I agree he was banned for stupidity rather than offensiveness but the fact that he thinks you can call someone a 'terrorist' because of their religion means he needed this teachable moment... And besides, he was having a terrible few weeks on here. Form really nosedived from a low altitude.

At some point, we would want to be a top 6 side.

Nathan Jones met with Essendon a couple of years ago and was close to going there. He is nothing but a fantastic Demon, do you agree?

It's designed to stand out - I would criticise Redleg for trying to win attention to his posts, but, frankly, there should be attention to his posts - they are usually reasoned, well thought out, and rational. Occasionally, that's in short supply... Edit: Or sometimes the formatting gets screwed up... I stand by the attention thing, some of deeluded's posts read like the inside of Maurice Sendak's mind...

OR you know the other team will take him with their subsequent pick...

This would be a good point if it were not for the fact that key position backs don't have to get lots of possessions to be the best. As pointed out in another thread - Talia averages less than 12 touches a game and he goes alright...

I want Roos to earn his pay check. It took Dunn 9 years to do something with his talent, Watts has the talent to help us get back up the ladder. Roos should back himself to get something out of a bloke that has progressed each year but at the rate of continental drift...

It's only that way because of people like Nicky Winmar, Scott Chisholm and the 'Army of PC Thugs' that drove away the acceptability of vilifying someone.

When are posters going to realise that Demonland is not The Anonymous Internet© - If there is such a thing - and that people own this site and are liable for what is on this site. You are simple if you think that Nasher is impinging your free speech - it's not just your speech on here.

To be fair - that is BS.

I think you are confusing FA compensation with whatever is going to happen in this instance. If it is left up to the clubs to trade with us - we are not going to get a good pick - clubs are not going to fall over themselves getting a guy that has played 15 games in 3 seasons. We will not get a trade commensurate with Mitch Clark's value to us before his fall from grace. Unless the AFL step in with draft assistance...

When it comes to compensation - if you ignore all the periphery issues - Clark is a 27 year old ruckman/forward who has played 15 games in the last 3 seasons... He is also unfit, has a history of mental illness that clubs - for good or bad - will have to take into account... To Melbourne 'The Decline of Mitch Clark' story is worth quite a bit - he was a player who was easily our most talented and damaging player. To other Clubs 'The Decline of Mitch Clark' story is irrelevant to how much they will fork over for him. There is so much 'IF' coming off his potential AFL career re-ignition that clubs would not offer anything more than a prospective pick. If we are to get anything worthwhile - it is going to be through AFL House and not from Seaford, Lexus Centre, Waverley or Essendon Airport... How do those who complain we go 'cap in hand' to the AFL too often feel about that? Or are those people ok with getting Pick 45 for Clark from Collingwood or Hawthorn?

I think it is sentiment that doesn't interest Roos. We are all so upset because of the promise of what Mitch Clark was. What he is right now is a damaged footballer with questionable prospects of playing football. We were going to use his unfortunate fall from grace to lobby for a PP from what I could tell from comments from Jackson and Roos. To Roos, that need for assistance doesn't change because Clark is thinking about 'giving it another go'... That happy change of heart and health promises nothing in 2015 and beyond.

Demonland Meme: "We Only Recruit Choir Boys!" Demonland Meme: "Unlikeable Bloke. Look Elsewhere!" Demonland Meme: "We Just Need Footy Players!" Pick a lane, any lane...

Roos is Mr Ruthless Premiership Winning Coach. He doesn't see in Clark what we all see - he looks at what he has done in the last couple years, the project that he has become and maybe he then looks at our midfield and thinks to himself that there is a better place to invest money than in, what the British would call, a "perennially crocked" forward. Hogan is the man in that forward line and Clark is only at the stage that he wants to play AFL again - so much water to flow under that bridge. If we were gearing up to ask the AFL Commission for a PP - partially on the back of Clark going - we are certainly not going to say its all hunky dory now that he is a chance to play again. IF he can get his body right, and IF he can recapture his form, and IF he can stay healthy... If Clark gets back to footy and we can gain a selection to help our midfield - then would we be better off than if we were taking the chance with Clark next year on $800k? Nothing is black and white and that's why we shouldn't eat Mitch Clark alive - he hasn't seemed like anything other than a great bloke and Demon.