rpfc

That may be, but better teams will isolate their forwards. There was plenty of one-on-one contest in the finals.

With respect AoB, you have written many lines starting with "rpfc believes" so those first two lines are a little galling... And the "hypothetical road" which you are trudging down is that Sellar will be a suitable pure defender on players that Frawley would usually play on, and with the amount of text you have put in this thread about it I would say that it is not unfair to say that you are a fair way down that road. We both think he may help out with teams we usually struggle with and we not have an answer for months (or years if he takes time) so this is argument without a quick conclusion...

If you agree Bailey should have been removed why allow a charade that would have ensued if we would have kept him on? Danny Frawley did the same and it was draining and embarrassing for all concerned. If you make a decision, own the decision. We did that. And we did it poorly, but as soon as the decision was made to end Bailey's reign - we needed to end his reign. Jim shouldn't have called him, but after a 31 goal loss you don't dismiss the 31 goal loss for fear of looking 'knee-jerk.' That game happened, it was embarrassment after a period of stagnation and decline - my KPI thread bore that out in clear detail. Whether or not Garry had a role in what happened, the only mistake made that weekend (other than the FD and the players) was the decision of Jimmy to call Bailey. You cannot compare our coaching dismissal to others whose only similarity is that 'happened around the same time.' Eade and Craig were longstanding servants of their clubs who achieved great success albeit not the greatest success, those clubs also didn't have a 31 goal loss as an exclamation mark. Time will tell about the decisions made by our club. But Garry has never claimed to be anything other than a short-term, cheap consultant. The decisions made by the MFC while Garry was a consultant will be wrapped around his neck, either as a noose or a wreath, but that is the case for all those at the club.

This is the picture I saw. And no stats will illustrate it for those who love stats (and I am partial to numbers). But stats lie.

You must admit though, you are well down the hypothetical road.

If only it were so simple. Frawley is our best pure defender, he is also a damaging rebound player. Which is more important to the team? Which is the easier role to find? They are questions that have to be answered by the individual. If Sellar can "the punching in the goalsquare" on the player that Frawley would usually take I will gladly hail the recruitment of what would have to be one of the most undervalued players in the AFL up to 2011. However, if we are being found out then Frawley has to go back on Jack Riewoldt because keeping him from keeping 8 is far more important than Frawley being able to get 18 touches and 5 Rebound from D50. (If we can form a structure where Rivers is always there to help Sellar, other teams can counteract that structure. At some point he has to beat his opponent.) In essence, Thomo is right - I believe that the hypothetical of Sellar becoming a solid, reliable defender is still very hypothetical.

That's not quite what I am saying...at all. You are comparing him to players - Rivers and Garland - because I have said he could take some forwards they usually take, yes? Well, I wrote that 'Sellar might be an option to take the players Rivers or Garland FAIL ABYSMALLY at taking.' If Sellar can take one of Cloke or Dawes - hallelujah! That's where I see his worth, that's where you see it too, but you have upgraded the expectations to allow Frawley to leave the best big forward to Sellar. And we all know that Frawley is an attacking weapon but it doesn't ameliorate the fact that he is an AA defender because he beats opponents and we might not have the luxury of leaving Sellar on someone who Frawley would have a better chance of beating. Oh, the game has changed, AoB? Of course it has, and defenders rarely have one-on-one battles with forwards anymore, but there are occasions when a big forward require a defender worthy of his talents and in that case, I know the person the coach will call on to beat him. And at the moment it is Frawley.

But forgiven? Garry said alot of things we were saying. He did his bit. We can forgive, forget, and do whatever else we need to do to recapture some optimism as a club. Soon, a great hero of the club will leave us, and I am happy for us lionise (no pun intended) another. It's good for the soul.

We all need our heroes, RR. Whether you a poor soul suffering under terrible regime after terrible regime without any idea of what it is like to live in any way other than hopelessness, or whether you are North Korean...

I don't think that is a likely scenario. He is a very good player and I expect him to hold his own in 2012.

I believe I posted pretty much the same sentiments last off-season - whoever gets the captaincy will be an adequate choice. The case is true again, I don't get tangled in universal statements or exaggerations - Green will be a decent job as captain as he did an average job in 2011. However, the idea of giving it to him in case Moloney/Jones/Jamar/Rivers are a failure is not a good enough reason, nor is this future planning idea of grooming Trengove or Grimes for 2013. I want them to pick the best, albeit flawed, candidate we have - regardless of age, experience, and ability (although they all play a part in the selection process) - as captain. If it's Green, it's Green.

There is still a lot of confusion on exactly what role Garry filled. He filled in the role that Jim Stynes was supposed to play as the Football Director. This role is for a board member who knows footy to have the ear of the entire club and report to the rest of the board any issues that need to be resolved or have been mitigated. Connolly was the head of the Football Department and reported to the CEO. He is now in an ambassaorial role. NeilCraig is now the defacto head of the Footy Dept if this report is to be believed and I seem to remember a press release stating Craig would report to the board. This would leave the Footy Dept head on the same structural level as the CEO and I can see why they have gone down that path after the issues the Footy Dept had with adequate communication to the board, however the Football Director on the board should be talking to all in the levels in the organisation not just the head of the Admin (Schwab) and the head of the Footy Dept (Craig).

I am not saying that you are saying he is guaranteed to make it - I am saying that the role you have envisioned for him: to take the forward that Frawley usually takes is a massively high ceiling for the bloke. And I realise that the FD might 'want' him to fill that role, but as I see it - a lower ceiling that Sellar might be able to reach is to take the forward that Garland/Rivers struggle with when Frawley is otherwise occupied. I just can't see Sellar being given such a massive task in his first year at the club after his struggles at the Crows. To be perfectly honest with you - we are talking past each other here - we both see a role in the backline if his form is good enough. I just don't believe it will be good enough for the FD to say "he's ready to do what Frawley has done." Remember the guy was AA in 2010.

If a reason for a captain is that "he gives time for X and Y to develop into a captain" you may aswell forget about it. Green may be captain again, but it will be because of a significant improvement of his leadership in the off-season (if the new FD can determine that) and hopefully a heart-to-heart with Neeld about what is expected of him. Besides, his redemption will come with consistent performances as a leader and he can do that without a title, and might be better off achieving this redemption (if it required for fans) without a title.

We all have different ideas on who would be the most suitable choice. He isn't my first choice, but unlike another mooted leader (Jamar) he has been in the Leadership Group in his career. And unlike another mooted leader (Moloney) the difference between his best games and his worst games isn't huge. And unlike another mooted leader (Grimes) he consistently stays on the park. And unlike another mooted leader (Green) his body language isn't pathetic when things are difficult. I am not saying I would give him the reigns because of these reasons, but he is in the mix for the captaincy and these arguments in favour of him. Again, I will say - stop putting crosses through names people, because you will be left with 6 vice-captains and no captains... We have no perfect candidate.

Always thought he was the perfect consultant - cheap, loyal, passionate, knowledgeable, and a Demon. But I am a little bit bemused by the "Craig reporting directly to the board" aspect. Does this mean his position is dictated to by the board ie. he is at the same structural level as the CEO, or that he simply 'gives reports regularly' to the board? And while I think that Neil Craig is going to be fantastic as an honest conduit to the board, what happens when the FD head is the problem? I still prefer having a board member who: 1) Knows footy 2) Is a former passionate Demon 3) And has the time to get involved and have an ear for everyone that has the desire to talk to the board. Is that Healy? It's not if the only person he talks to is Craig.

That's a big presumption. Can Sellar do it? By all means, name Sellar on that dominant forward and tell Frawley to be damaging. But I believe we will be damaging ourselves unless Sellar can do what Frawley can do. I really don't think that the Judd analogy was helpful but I will say again - he Sellar can take the best tall forward and release Frawley then great...hooray...but 1) I don't see it happening, and 2) that is huge expectation on a bloke who has 6 years of underwhelming AFL footy behind him.

And he gets it from most of us. But calling him a disappointing captain is not turning on him, it is stating the truth that even you evidence by your belief that he won't return as captain.

We have no perfect candidate I have said repeatedly. It's about time people got used to the fact that there will be flawed leader in charge of the Dees in 2012. Jones is in the mix to be that flawed leader.

Inspiring stuff... "We stuck with Brad because it is a convinience." Cough.

Agree with your ruck ideas but Sellar pushing Frawley off the No.1 back perch? I think that is giving him a celing that is going to be tough to meet... He should be aiming to do what Rivers and Garland seemingly can't - play on resting rucks and help against teams that have multiple big bodied threats (Cloke and Dawes). So I don't think he will be expected to push Frawley down the proverbial totem pole. Personally, I think he is going to struggle but he is low risk - high reward.

My mind didn't go there at all. Yze had his time and it was well and truly up when we pushed him out. Many love to say "we should have kept (insert name) for another season" until one reminds them of the players that wouldn't be drafted if they stayed. Jurrah, Martin, and young McDonald are all late picks (or early PSD picks) that would not be here if the fans (and players) wish for "one more year" were granted.

That's very flattering, RR. I appreciate it.

His account isn't a three line post on Demonland, it's an effing book! "Hey Hemingway, I notice in the blurb on the back of The Sun Also Rises you didn't mention the war, so that wasn't part of life back in the 20s?" Did they have blurbs back then? I am going to say yes...

What. The. Hell. Barrassi left? You know he was never that good anyway. We saw his best years. I will never welcome him back except for the times we welcomed him back. I hear he has a dodgy knee. Outrageous.