rpfc

The MFC has no memory of this jumper...

Posters swapped 'pats on the back' via posts before the like button and there is still that now - Moonshadow/BBO/Biffen/and others constantly do this. If you are simply talking about posters that like the same posters over and over again that would be because they think alike. The button meant one less post. Those that like personal attacks are judged as are those that make 'rah-rah' posts to get likes. It may be more revealing of what the community thinks of an idea or argument as it meant that a post of agreement that was never going to be typed is now a 'like.' That would make it more honest. And this is an internet forum of anonymous posters - sincerity has no place here...

It's a forum. People are going to agree with other people. The like button made it neater and easier to read and navigate.

It is good to have for when we debate and there are two diametrically opposed arguments and you want to largely agree with one side. When that happens we would have 25 'I agree' posts and it was cleaned up by the like button.

Good work. We will get to 40k pretty early and then hit a wall I reckon.

Why don't we leave the jumper thumping until the kid does something?

What do you think a small forward does for most of the game? They are asked to spend 90 minutes of the game looking to, when we have the ball - get to the feet of the targets up forward, and when we don't have the ball - chase and harrass the HBFs trying to clear the football from our forward line. The secondary role is a rotation through the middle. If you cannot do the primary function - you won't play as a small forward. Ideally, he would be able to do both. But you are kidding yourself if you think that we are going to leave the better small forward out of the team for someone who isn't as good a small forward but plays the secondary role better.

Brad Miller tackled Matthew Whelan during a game against Carlton. My dad struggles with Essendon games (when we are not in white) judging by his reaction to who has just won the footy...

Just because it's the same colours reversed doesn't mean it's the same. If I had my way we wouldn't wear anything other than the current home jumper. I am looking for the most acceptable abomination. Reversing the colours is not going to be acceptable and it would look terrible. White looks terrible. The club use to wear it though, we should own that aspect of our history. We never wore a blue yolk with a red jumper.

So put white in our navy blue? It's not our colour and it looked awful.

'Nup'? The ability of a good small forward to go into the midfield is ideal and most desired. However, a good small forward will spend most of his time in the forward line, playing one of the hardest positions on the ground. It is far more desirable to have a player in that position that knows what they are doing for the 90 mins they will be in the forward line to the 30 mins they will be in the middle. You talk about a 'rounded' player but seem to reject the fact that half of that circle would be their work as a small forward. This isn't counterintuitive - you need to be able to do well that to which you do for the most time.

Yes, but having someone who knows what they are doing in the fwd line is more important than whether they have an idea what they are doing for the 30 mins they spend up the ground.

You sure can. You sure can.

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. You don't like the argument and all you have to answer it with is that the colour in question (or non-colour) was used by the cricketers that began the game. And? Cricketers started the club you barrack for, invented the rules of the game we play, and they happened to play at first in their cricket whites. And who did they play back then? Geelong. And do think that Geelong played in their whites too? They didn't. Ironically enough they wore an all blue jumper in 1859, red in 1860, and a red jumper and blue shorts in 1862. The MFC moved to navy blue in 1873 and toyed with the red V, stripe down and across, until we settled on the yolk in 1935. The MFC was born out of a cricket club, invented by cricketers, and they honoured that with their uniform for 12 of their first 14 years of existence (they wore an awful magenta jumper in 1861/62). http://australianfootball.com/ http://www.footyjumpers.com/

Who is suggesting he play in 2014?

That's their problem. And probably why they are making mistakes they shouldn't.

Yes, I apologise for my 'red herring' of stating a fact. Frankly, I have tread this path before. It's just as boring as ever, and even more moot. We're in white, deal with it.

Did you know that the MFC were called The Invincible Whites back in the 1860s? Did you also know that the MFC spent around 80 years of its existence NOT being called the Demons? Should we go back to the Fuschias? If we don't want to spoil our rich heritage than would be ruined by change how did we let that former Richmond jerk 'Checker' Hughes change our moniker? And our Traditional Jumper is a red yolk on navy blue. Switch it around - ruined. Have mainly red - ruined. Have a demon on it - ruined. There is no such thing as a good alternative strip, it's an oxymoron.

Ok, I like thinking ahead and I know that some posters don't like this so look away now: Players OOC at the end of 2014: With the avenues for new players ever increasing - we got trade ins, DFA, rookie upgrade, and draft just this year - there is a chance that we would have a similar level of movement at the end of 2014. Bolded players are those that I would look to re-sign as soon as possible (keep in mind that Clisby and Riley may have longer contracts, I have not seen confirmation of their years). Defining years ahead for Tapscott, Blease, Strauss, Bail, and Nicholson. I am no fan of Dunn but he may be looking at one year contracts until the club doesn't want him anymore, I can't imagine another club overly desiring his skillset. Byrnes and Cross may be moved on after one year, the former likely to be. rpfc's Best Guess: Nicholson, Strauss, Bail, Byrnes, and Tapscott will be delisted. Will that be enough? I don't know. Good thing Byrnes has another year on his contract.

I know we all hate Collingwood with a passion but one of their colours is white. And their away strip does a good job of maximising the white and becoming a white clash jumper. Essendon would look much better in white with a black and red sash than they do in that awful grey thing. As for your last line:

I thought Kent was lucky to be drafted last year as he didn't play for his state... But Hunt just played school footy. If he becomes anything, we are going to see the boundaries for recruitment fall away.

Nasher making a joke about Daniel Breese is hardly worth all this... Frankly, when I see someone write 'mute' instead of 'moot' I will correct them not because I am a patronising [censored], although I can be, but because I think it is nice to advise someone of a mistake they may make in a 'forum' more important than this. And I skim over boring posts, I don't get angry at them...

Well said, goodoil. But press enter once in awhile, please... List management for next year would see Bail, Byrnes, Strauss, Blease, and Dunn under the gun. If Byrnes is delisted today, then it is one more you have to find next year.

Isn't the current one imitating our own guernsey?

They are all babies RF.