rpfc

As sweet dee says - the disaster is once again we finish in the lower region of the ladder - to worry about something so image related as 'last place' is pointless. If we play like we did against PA in the last few weeks we won't finish last but our lot - once again - is set in stone; another season down in depths with a list so compromised. Sorry if I don't see the added shame in getting the spoon - we have been spanked regardless...

If we have Roos, Thompson, and Senior Assistant in waiting next season - we are going to need a bigger boat... And by 'boat' I mean 'money', and by 'bigger' I mean 'lotsa'...

Yes, and Vince for older players looking for a contract and higher responsibilities.

To be perfectly honest guys - convince me to stay on next year - this was ridiculous. Every year we shed two or three - I am one of them at the moment...

WGAF about a spoon. The 'disaster' is another year winning 5 games or less... To celebrate not winning the spoon as some sort of 'win' seems odd to me. We have a terrible list - to finish last or third last - to make a distinction between 18th or 17th or 16th seems to me like a distinction a pathetic club would make.

Oh noes! Finishing last instead of third last. What a disaster...

I don't think he wants the day to day grind of head coach for much longer - I think he will move into a similar role to the one at Sydney with a spot on the board or as a Technical Director. He said on FC that he will be at the club 'in some capacity' post his head coaching days.

There are a few options (ordered by likelihood) but all depend on him agreeing to come obviously; 1. FA acquisition - this will dilute our compensation should Frawley leave. Should he stay - this is the best option. 2. Trade a late pick - this is the option to go for if Frawley leaves. It will not affect the compensation. 3. PSD - If Malceski is willing and we think that others below won't take him - this will work but requires a longer wait. 4. DFA - If Malceski is delisted for some strange reason. Maybe he requests it. I cannot see it happening, but it will not affect the compensation for Frawley. FA and DFA are seperate yet parallel constructs in the AFL. 5. Nat Draft - this will not happen.

You think that is the deciding factor in what makes one worthy of being a leader? I didn't think THAT spoil on Dangerfield when we won against Adelaide over there was leadership - it was just an illustration of his talent and commitment. If he was ball watching for a few moments then that is a shame - if that is the deciding factor in the game - then how far have we come in year?

Most of you missed that he essentially said he is at the club until we don't want him anymore - he sounded like a Demon lifer from here. Who cares if he coaches for 3 years or 5 years - he is a Demon and will be around the club and helping make decisions for a generation and a club restored. Celebrate.

How's that?

Watts showed you yesterday how you can influence the game without being the hardest player out there. And how productive and damaging he can be when others get him the ball. The thing you don't understand is that in a team, there are going to be players more comfortable than others with their face in the dirt, and there are players more comfortable puking after running 100m after 100m to get into space for a switch or to link up play. They are not 'un productive' - the best teams hae them and they usually tear us to shreds - that's where the real damage occurs. Try to understand, I feel like this is Footy 101...

That old chestnut... Yeah, played today. Captain-coached even. Not that it matters to discussing footy. The modern game involves about 700+ disposals a game and 300 of those are contested. Only 300?! Does that make you pause and think? One of my best players is a winger that uses his pace and running ability to get in space and 30 touches a game and kick your 'multiple goals'... You allude to my lack of knowledge but I think you need to reflect on what you know. And Watts has played some good games for this club but he will always rely, like most forwards, on others doing the hard work for them, and if you watch any footy this weekend maybe look at the players running into space and the players up forward leading back and forth and realise that there are 400 uncontested possessions a game that you are not aware of.

Read my post in the other thread - you are angry at the wrong things and your remedy wouldn't help it would only make things worse. 12 months removed from Neeld and have people learnt nothing about how to manage players and build a list? Essentially blaming flankers and pockets for our problems - which centres around our lack of a capable midfield - is missing the point. Neeld missed it when he was giving verbals to Watts and the other 'problems' instead of trying to get us a capable midfield. If Roos gets another Vince, Tyson, Cross and Salem, JKH in the draft - maybe we will win more games than we lose. Getting rid of our senior players won't help us win more.

I understand the frustration with the players - how can anyone not be? But Watts is just a flanker with good skills who can be very damaging when others get him the footy. You are judging him as the number one pick with all the expectations that come with that - and don't tell me you're not - we pick on him for more reasons than his 'soft' displays. We expected more than he can give but it is not his fault he is only ever going to be a flanker. If we got rid of all the players you are targeting we wouldn't be able to field a side and we would continue to lose. Watts, Grimes, and Garland have all helped us win games and they are capable, they are just not in a position to shoulder the burden of making us a better team. That is up to a midfield we don't have yet and you wanting to burn the place down because of peripheral issues to this main problem is naive, or in the case of Neeld - near disastrous.

Lists are also bigger now. 4 or 5 more adds up over 18 clubs. We had 41 in 1992. 45 in 2014. 1994 - 18 million, 15 AFL sides, approx. 615 players, 29,268 per side 2014 - 23 million, 18 AFL sides, approx. 810 players, 28,395 per side

This has been brought up and there is precedent for it in the MLB in the US. BUT...and I think this is a big but...it hurts the lower end teams more when they get a 'Band 1' player in FA as their pick sacrifice will be higher. It would essentially stop the bottom 5 or 6 teams from going after the best FAs.

12. HT's Hurricanes Grant 7 10 0 141-182-0 77.5% 28 11-8-0 5 13. 7-UP Cheth 6 11 0 133-179-11 75.1% 24 3-13-3 4 JCB - it looks as though the 'The Age' (Ultimate Footy) has locked us all out from posting so I don't think you will get much love there. With the fact that you are taking it to the those that run the game itself - they will probably chuck us and our league out. Might be for the best. It is a game and some cannot take it or give out of line what they should give.

One addendum: The sky is blue and it WILL change overnight. It's up to the person looking up at any given time, at any given place, and it will be blue again. Well done P-man.

Frosty Demon Deletions: Trengove, Grimes, Watts, Frawley, Garland, Jamar, and ??? Do you think taking the last 5 players in the draft at 110, 111, 112, 113, and 114 will make our list better and give us REAL FOOTBALLERS? Or do you think it's just more hot air and empty hate?

Wit the trading of contracted players; the best players can easily get No Trade Clauses in their contracts with the rest having to deal with what every other professional sporting player in a draft regulated league has to deal with - going to teams without their direct consent. Teenagers don't get to decide where they go so I don't see how one can argue that when it comes to being traded - the players suddenly have this power about where they go. With the percentage deciding the order of the draft - if you increase your percentage the most from the point you are mathematically ineligible to make the finals - you get a higher pick. That is the essence of it.

It can't be both? Seriously, what a contribution...

Don't call us - we'll call you. Watts again. If we traded every player who flirted with good form, retreated back to bad habits, and teased us with many years on the list with arguable development - we would have Jones and Viney running around with all the players we got from other clubs. Dunn sure as hell would not be there. Garland? Nup. Jamar? Gone years ago. Jetta? lol. You are angry at the situation we find ourselves in and you seem to have picked out a flanker for 'not crashing packs and kicking multiple goals.' It's pretty lazy. Do you really think that Watts is our problem? Or do you think he epitomises our problem? Then why not use another player or players who epitomise the problem?

Sign and trades largely occur because of two things - a player is a Restricted FA and the fact that the NBA has a 'soft cap' that teams can exceed with 'sign and trade' deals. We don't have a soft cap, we have a hard cap and a team trading an RFA will not be signing their contract before trading them so it really will just be a simple trade like with what Essendon and Port Adelaide did with Monfries so that Port could maintain its compensation picks for Pearce and Chaplin. So there is motivation to do that trade on occasion but there would not be many. In Frawley's case - we would prefer to have Pick 4 to anything a team would be willing to give us for a player that could just sign for nothing. If anyone is suggesting a trade in Frawley's case - they do not understand the rules, the landscape, and they should be ignored.

I don't think young key position players should get drafted. Unless you can contribute with some skill right away - or near to it - you should not be drafted. And that's with today's landscape. I can understand the desire to keep these young tall teens away from Basketball but I really don't think it is in anyone's interest to draft these kids on the promise that 5 years down the track they might be footballers. So the rule allows for teams to be protected from injuries to their players with agreements with state league players. This will keep a team like the MFC from spending the first 3 games without a forward over 6".