rpfc

I don't know if that has been tested yet. I don't think it will be allowed.

Facetious about politics, that is tautology.

He knew what you meant - he was just tearing it down.

No, you can take it to the general board.

You mean what the players did to put Shannon in the LG. I think a few on here have a reprehensible attitude to a bloke who simply signed a contract and wanted to be a Dee. At some point, we are going to stop regurgitating all our perceived failures and start moving in a forward direction.

Our current coach picked up a few players from other clubs that were, or set to be, cast aside. We have already resurrected Cross' career, given a three year deal to a 28 year old, and traded for two kids who hadn't seen a lot of footy. I would not be surprised if we continue to look at former players of other AFL clubs over teenagers.

Yeah, let's keep doing things the way we have been doing it while failing. We'd be crazy not to.

It's surprising that no one at the club stopped him from making a fool of himself and the club by going on the radio.

Until others surpass him, he will be in the midfield rotation of the MFC. We put lines through players out of some desire to reject reality - he was our second best midfielder last year. He has all the opportunities in the world to work on his kicking, his decision making, and his ability to spread and find the footy. And if he gets better in those areas then there will be a 'beyond' for him and it might be a while before we 'evolve' past him.

And a whole lot more harder to win...

So Mark Williams will be coaching again? The Saints are poorly run aren't they... November firing of a coach. How often would that have happened?

You are talking about 14% compared to 20% - that is not much success at all... If you had 20 players from each group the difference would be 4 players from the 30-40 group played 100 games and 3 from the 20-30 group played 100 games. The difference there is 'statistical white noise.' Remember that these 5 drafts are for players that are now 24 to 28 - so there may be some movement as players like Watts reach their milestone in the next few years. I chose those years because I didn't want to go too far back as the earlier drafts have lost relevance to today as time passes.

Yeah, too bad the recruiters from all the clubs have already decided and that we are going to take Crouch. lol

We are doing a fine job of it ourselves thankyouverymuch...

You are betraying your intelligence if you think this is a possibility.

It's not a fair question... Sigh, I really hate it when people don't know I'm being facetious.

Make Money: Sydney (sat night/Roos game), PA (NT game), Coll, Breakeven: WB, Geel, Lose Money: WCE, GC, NM, Freo, BL, GWS It's just a terrible commercial draw, the only way we are going to breakeven is if we get a major sponsor ASAP and we win a few early games and smash through 45k members.

I don't know, what is our injury outlook 5 months out?

I am not referring to any individuals; every thread on a delisted FA has multiple people saying "not an option." It's fine to think that, it is also good to give an argument as to why they would not be a better option than whatever kid would be available at 40, 57, PSD2 or in the RD.

You are 'picking and choosing' your stats on this and I have removed all those that are not in the last decade - the simple fact is that teenagers picked outside of the second round have a progressively lower success rate. It is hard to find the stats on it without doing it myself... From 2004 to 2008 (not including FS picks and NSW scholarships like Walker which skew data, I have also removed mature age recruits): 149 teenagers were taken between Pick 1 and 30 with 99 of them playing more than 50 games and 43 of those reaching 100 games. 128 teenagers were taken between Pick 31 and 60 with 46 of them playing more than 50 games and 18 of those reaching 100 games. So the success rate of picking teens to play 100 games in the first 30 picks to the next 30 drops from 28.9% to 14.1%. (Note: Picks 1-10 is 38%, Picks 11-20 is 34.7%, Picks 21-30 is 14%, Picks 31-40 is 20.5%, Picks 41-50 is 11.9%, Picks 51-60 is 9.5%) It's just so fraught picking teenagers in the draft; it is little wonder that Roos is a 'draft sceptic' in the words of Greg Baum.

That was between us and GWS with the latter obviously telling GC that it would be best for their chances of getting Martin that they play along. It wasn't 10 clubs coming together for a giant conspiracy of silence that Fox Mulder would think is a 'far-fetched'...

You are reading too much into what is on the club website. The AFL have a certain control over what is on the website, just because it is on there doesn't mean we put it there. And it certainly doesn't mean that 10 clubs come together before the draft and tell each other who they are going to draft. That is laughable.

Do those that shoot down every mention of discarded AFL players realise that we are looking for player 39 and 40 with our last two selections in the draft? The option of picking up delisted players is just as reasonable as speculative teenagers.

Do you know that was a rhetorical question?

What if we can pick up a Barlow as opposed to a Magner? I am a bit sick of picking up kids that are gone two years later. This is less about Garlett and more about drafting players on what they can do right now as opposed to what they might be able to three years from now. I would have a rule that any player brought onto the list has to have at least one great to elite facet to their game from the beginning so that they can play a role immediately at AFL level; whether it is speed, winning contested footy, spread and run, skills, etc. If there is a 22 year old out there that Roos sees as a 'soldier' or a 'role player' I would take him at 40 rather than risk not getting him in the RD.