rpfc

I like that being dropped isn't the end of the world. Because it isn't - but it has been treated as such for a while now, especially with our kids. It isn't a lack of faith, it's a lack of form.

Gotta pay somebody.

I was thinking more about the club getting worth out of its early picks. Thompson was an excellent pick but fate has judged that poorly aswell... McLean and Sylvia are now flailing at other clubs, and yes we had 3 and 5 in the wrong year but there is a pattern - we have been picked poorly with early picks for a generation. Development is an unkown unknown as Donal Rumsfeld used to say... I know a lot of other clubs look down on our development and with good reason but I just don't think we have picked well (or had a great deal of luck) from 1999 to 2004 and again from 2007 to 2011. You just can't have failed year after failed year.

It's more than 4 failed drafts... 1999 (ND5*) - 2000 (ND16) - 2001 (ND9) - 2002 (ND14, 15) - 2003 (ND3, 5, 21) - 2004 (ND13, 15) - Dunn 2005 (ND12) - Jones 2006 (ND12) - Frawley 2007 (ND4, 14, 21) - Grimes 2008 (ND1, 17, 19) - Watts 2009 (ND1, 2, 11, 18) - Trengove 2010 (ND12) - 2011 (ND12) - 2012 (ND4) - Toumpas *Salary cap penalty. If you make this many mistakes with early picks, you are going to have a bad time.

I agree that Roos should sit down and think about what he wants to do in the future - if he doesn't want to coach beyond 2016 that is fine, but keeping him in a role similar to John Elway at the Denver Broncos (sorry to inject the US sports into this). We need his expertise and the unifying force of someone of his ilk. I don't think we are in danger of not surviving, but I agree that the commitment of someone of Roos' ilk is necessary in the immediate term, and likely necessary in the medium term until the list is back to being moderately healthy.

Spinning bullcrap? lol I have been saying since Roos took over that we will struggle, I have maintained that, and now it is showing to be true. And if I am in PR - "We are a bad team" - isn't the best slogan is it?

No, it isn't. Reading the hand-wringing on here every week; it's like this place has a collective amnesia of the ills of the list and the performance of the players we do have. We have a bad list - and some of the players I would consider 'talented' are horribly out of form, battling career defining injuries, or have one major aspect of their game/career that has stunted that talent playing for this club. How often can you be appalled? Shocked at the result? Tired of the performance? I suppose it is a good thing that we 'expect more' but conclusions have been reached. We are a bad team. It's time to be less shocked.

I hope that wasn't jibberish, 'rjay.'

I would like these two to define their roles over the next few years. But what has happened over the past 3 games is not the disaster some are making it out to be, and the job of these two remains the same as it did a month ago. Tacitly blaming these two for their vague timelines of their own involvement for what we see before us - which is what this thread is about - is shallow thinking. We would be this bad with or without Roos - we don't have talent, confidence, or a forward line. We are all starting to figure that out aren't we?

Did I say that? I only pointed to the crucial off season that is coming up, and the chance for Roos to mould our youth. The results are close to what I feared they would be, and when I saw the gameplan in the NAB challenge, I feared the performance would also take a downward turn. We just don't have the cattle to play this modern possession footy and our confidence is so low and damaged that whatever capacity we did have bleeds out so easily.

Land is on fire tonight. There are upturned cars everywhere. It would be good if they did contextualise what it is exactly they intend for the club in the medium term, but you know what is more important - that we get a Roos-led revival of the list and development of the youth that we have and will soon receive. This perforating gloom we have descended into is not helpful - we did know where we were at didn't we? Isn't that we why we needed Roos?

You talk about culture, C&B, but your insensitive remarks about the plight of Mitch Clark tells me you aren't looking for a good culture, you're looking for a good public flogging. I don't think Roos would agree that they are non-trying 'pea hearts,' in fact, I don't think he would ever think that of a player. That's why went and got him - because he knows what a good culture looks like. We haven't seen anything near it for close to a decade.

Is that a rhetorical question? Or are you saying Roos isn't serious?

"Whether they hit a target or not, they were willing to back themselves in and they trusted themselves because they practised it over many, many years. We have to get to that stage eventually where we trust our leg, trust the guy who is leading to us and hit those targets. You may miss a few but [eventually] the reward will be better." - Shannon Byrnes (via Daniel Cross) talking about the amazing Geelong teams of the recent past. (Daniel Cross is the centre of a very good article by Peter Ryan on the AFL website: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-04-04/dees-must-be-hell-bent-on-winning-cross Trust is such an important aspect of any endeavour but in team sports it takes on even more substantial consequence. How you see yourself and your talent and how you see your teammates will dictate your actions when your actions matter the most. We can all talk a good game, but training ourselves to truly believe that we are good enough to do something is a battle. Another battle? Trying to train yourself to believe your teammates are good enough. From here - football on the weekend, and the Demons. Why don't we move the ball quickly? 'I can't hit that target.' 'I don't think Cam/Shannon/Jeremy can win this footy.' 'I can give it to Nathan/Bernie/Jack right next to me though. They will be able to do something.' Evolving/graduating/cleansing ourselves of these trust issues will what sees us become a 'team' of worth and note. I can't put a timeframe on it (and, yes, a forward line of note helps) but it will turn and click and the brave souls that join Nathan/Daniel/Jack/Bernie/Dom(!) will be better than they think they can be right now. Next opportunity? Sunday 6 April 2014 - 3.20pm against GWS.

You may think that is why he is here but it would be misdiagnosis of what our troubles have been. We have not had a sufficient Plan A. This Plan B stuff is a smokescreen, if you are talking about tactics surrounding our impotent forward line - that is not why Roos is here. If you are talking about the inability to have a second gameplan when things aren't going well - that is something Roos has publicly said he wants to avoid. Apparently the players had been given multiple game styles to learn and that when Roos came in and said - we will play this way - the players quizzed him about what percentage of the game he meant... He had to reiterate - 100%. We have not developed a solid Plan A - that has been our downfall. the players have little trust in themselves and their teammates to execute and it shows when they hesitate with simple kicks and handballs and avoid moving the ball quickly for fear that their teammates (or themselves) will screw up. He may put players in foreign positions but the style they will play will remain the same. Only the execution will (hopefully) change. They will get better, we will help them with a more capable forward line (hopefully), and we will see some hopeful progress.

Are you being sarcastic? I was being rhetorical. A few on here had an issue with my opinion that Viney was ahead of all mids save for Vince, Tyson, Cross, and Jones. Once he has got his fitness up a little bit he is straight in - I think Roos thinks quite a bit of him...

You can elevate at the drop of a hat.

Viney must be well regarded to come back so quickly...

We got our hands on the footy but didn't move the footy quickly because we looked up and saw a barren landscape with Shannon Byrnes as the most dangerous forward. Tying it back to losing the clearances is a leap.

Our CEO has put forward the very revenue sharing idea that you have mentioned. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-26/share-the-wealth-jackson Whether it gets up is another matter...

And because we have new contracts when players are traded - lower end teams end up paying more for the same player. If Rockliff, for example, has 3 years left on his contract and the Lions traded him - he should have to keep those terms for the next three years. This will also help with stopping players signing 'mates' contracts that are under market value - another obstacle to equalisation.

The revenue sharing is new to the AFL but the TV money is where the real money is and that has always been shared equally amongst clubs (with the AFL keeping a bit for rainy day/expansion areas/CEO pay reasons. The only non-TV revenue that is shared is the league beverage sponsor agreement. It's quite a bit but that is it. Clubs keep their own gate and share of other match day revenues unless they have an agreement to share (rare and only between the big clubs). There is a salary floor - it is 95% of the approx. $10m cap. Our culture sees a contract as between a person and their employer, not as a commodity to be bartered. That is why contracts are thrown out when a trade happens - the player will agree new terms with the new club. I agree that this will need to be altered and the players will baulk a great deal at this. But a more advanced FA/Trade/Drafting process will help the equalisation of the AFL.

Free agency turned Sylvia into Vince...

There is the ability in both the NFL and NBA to offer more money and more years to your own players. The NFL has a 'Franchise Tag' that is an agreed sum that a player can be kept for another year (on high money by the way). Info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_tag The NBA has max contracts set out in the CBA with max years (so no Buddy 9 year deals...) and the team that holds their 'Bird' rights (the team they were drafted by invariably) can offer more money and more years than other teams. This doesn't mean players don't leave teams - it means they don't leave teams for money reasons.

Calm down, saty, but yeah, if someone has written something that seemingly refers to something as if it happens in the future but it appears a few days after the fact - it is most likely your own cache issues. Press F5 and thrive.