rpfc

Peter Ryan should know - he is an AFL journo appointed to the Demons. He is a journo who knows our list and our issues. He has been paid to specifically know that stuff.

That's rich coming from the bloke that cannot get over Josh Kelly and What We Did Last Summer...

Your first paragraph and last line are somewhat ironic because I want a PP because it helps build a list - not because I want some kid to save us. Case in point was last year with the trade that got us Salem. We had a top 2 pick and we may have taken Billings or Salem (from what I have heard) but because we traded down we managed to get Tyson and still snag a kid we targeted. That would not have happened if we did not have the capital of Pick 2. We simply need more capital.

Quayle is a huge believer in kids - that's what she knows, and she knows it well. But we know that kids by themselves cannot right a ship. Some of her list will not make it, some of our picks in the next few years won't make it. Our disaster is being a team that has had a hit rate of about 20% with getting value from high picks rather than the league average of about 50-75% (I will do some research a thread when I have some time). We will have to have a hit rate of close to 100% with the last couple drafts and the next couple drafts if we don't get any draft assistance.

What about if Richmond were awake that day we beat them? What if Carlton kicked straight? What if Essendon put us away in one of the worst halves (the first) of football under Roos? What if Adelaide had Walker? What if... What if we are historically bad and the rule to help the league in this scenario needs to be applied?

It's a cap of better judgement. If we removed 15 players we would be trading just to move people (like we did with Martin), bringing in good VFL players, and bringing in such teenage speculation onto the list as to make the whole exercise worthless. Added to that is the fact that any 'new' player (first year in draft) gets an automatic 2 year deal and you are hamstringing yourself the next year.

Every draft is different, and so would your tactics be when you have high picks. Those of you that 'wouldn't trade a top 5 pick under any circumstances' are naïve. If you cannot see the transcendent talent at your pick and you think the talent is going to similar ten places down - you trade down and get something for very little on the way. Like we did with Tyson, Salem, and Hunt for 2 and 22. If there is a Judd or a Hodge - FCS keep the pick. If you think there is a Sylvia and group of McLeans - trade it for something, and move down and pick the last of the McLeans. We need to build a list.

We weren't the team that blooded two kids and sent players off for surgeries in the weeks leading up to it. Don't know why you would even think that we were tanking?

I think we should show Barrett that we are fighters and get on the front foot against his BS. Jackson should know that the Commission only cares about public opinion. Explain to the Footy World their own hypocrisy and false equivocations and convince some loudmouths that the rules should be applied as they are intended and that they are there for a reason. And, again, he talks about how failed picks like that is a reason not to help us. It's specious and false reasoning and Jackson should point it out.

Or before a match... If anyone links the video I will put them on ignore.

Wonder at the post below.: Bingo! Screwing up our previous high draft picks is MORE reason to give us draft assistance, not less. EVERY TEAM THAT REQUIRES DRAFT ASSISTANCE 'BRINGS IT ON THEMSELVES'! St Kilda will need one in a few years because Lyon decimated their draft picks to find experienced pros in a chase for the flag - they will have to get all their draft picks right to avoid being in the wilderness like us for 7 years. APPLY THE GOD DAMN RULES! That is all we are asking.

We didn't care where we finished, do you really think we didn't care how we played? That's the only thing I cared about. You can be misguidedly flippant if you want to, but don't think you are making a point or anything.

It's a part of the rules that perennially bad teams will be helped via the draft. The effing rules. To call us weak for asking for the rules to be applied is nonsense. You can't on the one hand say that we are the worst club since Fitzroy that will be dead in 6 years and then say we shouldn't apply for the rule that attempt to mitigate this situation to be enforced on the league.

The other side of that coin is that when you cut your losses you can turn the dollar you have into 30 cents. Martin for Pick 53 was not value. And we should have left that on the table. Watts would be more valuable on the list than in a trade I am afraid to say.

Jetta Dunn Howe Garland McDonald (Insert Recruit) Vince Jones (Insert Recruit) Watts Hogan (Insert Recruit) JKH Dawes Gawn Jamar, Tyson, (Insert Recruit) Cross Kent Pedersen Viney Trengove can included in the possible New Recruits but I don't want to rely on so many youngsters in the midfield rotation again. We are still in need of some AFL talent through the middle and while I would probably not spend a high pick on it - I want some solid bodies to compete for 22 rounds next year. As for the ruck - Jamar has no value to us other than what he can put on the field next year - let's see where Gawn is in another year and move from there. I have little idea about the four new recruits that we can get but I would target 2 good inside/outside mids (hopefully one 22 or younger), an established HBF with great skills, and an established outside mid with excellent skills. So another off season of Tyson and Vince would be good and a Malceski and a Suckling thrown in as well...

How is this news? Did people actually think that Neeld was that bad?

Frankly, Salem shouldn't be playing. But our list being as poor as it is, Roos is playing him for probably a few reasons. But one reason I can imagine that is at the forefront of his mind is that Salem has a future at the club, whereas there are a plethora of players who don't have a future. I don't want to see kids thrown out there before they are ready, but if no-one is earning the games before them - that is what we will get. We simply need to get some solid pros into the club. Cross and Vince were a good start and the cost was only Sylvia, and two list spots, effectively.

If seen in a vacuum - the fact that we have scored less this year than last would be concerning - 66 in 2013, 59 in 2014 - however, the score is only relevant if you include the opposition. And the opposition scored 122 a game against us in 2013. In 2014 it is 85. So I will stomach one less goal if you allow 6 less from the opposition...

Please argue that we are worse than 2013. I would like to know how anyone can see 2014 as worse than 2013.

I can't read through all of this and as drained as I am I didn't react in any other fashion than I have all season - with funereal expectation. We are a terrible team and the sad thing is that we are still an improvement on the Demons of 2013. Mindset issues have a devastating effect when your cattle is the same that gave us 2012-13. Roos is to blame partially for the pathetic mindset on the day but to question him is, again, misdiagnosing what is the problem. Constant bottom four performance across 3 years, bottom 8 across 7 years, what is the common denominator? I will give you a hint - it isn't the coach.

Gulp.

If you want to be pedantic, and I know that you do, the quote was that the players have heard enough negatives. So I think it would be far to say that Paul Roos discusses the negatives...

No, you are spot on. I read the historical records of that draft arse about - we got Kent with the Compensation pick (Moloney & Rivers - Byrnes = ND48 Dean Kent). Martin was moved for 53 essentially on its own as we upgraded rookies that you could have used any pick on. I would say that Martin was worth more to us than ND53 but I saw that a great deal about getting value out of your list. The issue remains that if the Lions had Leuenberger up and running - we wouldn't be talking about Martin at all and he might have just salvaged his career in the past month.

So 'another Vince trade' probably wouldn't involve Malceski? Then maybe you can assume I didn't mean Malceski? rjay and I were discussing how many experienced players we have or need to bring in - he believes spending picks on older players is fraught, I agree but finding another Vince type would be fantastic - we need talent.

He was traded for less than value - the club lucked out when the pick we traded him for turned out to be Dean Kent.