rpfc

Why, DC? Why?

Pointed remarks... They're bullsh!t, but pointed.

You are effusive in your faint praise...

He may have some annoying ticks but console yourself in the knowledge that he is the nicest bloke you could meet.

You have been very forgiving of his credibility in this thread, and have yourself given a toss about what he has said by justifying his views...

What a bump! How did you ever find such an intriguing idea to give this thread life? And I think at this point saying Dunn is better than Bate is like saying that getting kicked in the shin is better than in the nose; they are both painful and require some work to improve the state they are in. I have a glimmer of hope for Bate in the midfield in 2012, but Dunn's place is even less clear. Can you have Jurrah, Howe, Petterd, Green, and Dunn in the same team with a resting ruckman and Clark in the forward line? I don't think so.

He'll get fitter and his lung capacity will increase in future years, but until then he will play on a HBF...

That's bananas...

The players you have mentioned could not be in the top 5 mids in their teams (I question Enright as a HB...), Blease could be with his footy brain, awareness and pace. He can be a HBF, that's fine. But he could play a bigger role in our midfield and I hope we groom him for that.

I didn't say we lost all pride. I said that pride has no place when you have to fire a coach. And Bailey's papers were marked with pencil in the loss against the WB, and it was a fait accompli after the Geelong game. To keep him on would be farcical - similar to Frawley at the Tigers. If you are not continuing with someone then you should cut ties - that's what we did. Judd, Riewoldt, Pavlich, etc - these are marquee players. Scully should become a player of similar ilk but to say he was of that ilk when he left is misleading. It reflects badly until one does some research and looks at the very good things that Stynes has said about Bailey that somehow carry little weight because of the word "now." The people here want to challenge him with all the things that we think has gone right over the recent past of the footy club. They are entitled to that view. To criticise Denham is to be 'frightened to recognise areas of concern' at the club? I welcome criticism but let's be honest - Greg Denham is not going to give you expert criticism of the MFC. I am comfortable with my sources on this aswell, at no point had Cameron Schwab lost his job. It makes a good story, but it wasn't as sexy as many claim. His extension was debated and he was kept on for a year.

Pride has no place when firing a coach. It is always a messy demise. As for the business with Schwab - it is Caroline Wilson's contention that Schwab was 'gone' and not fact, from what I have been able to get out of people it was debatable whether Cam was going to get his option for an extension but that he was never fired on the Infamous Friday. And I am saying that you are putting together facts and your own supposition together in a 'vigorous meld' so that no-one can tell what is fact and what is supposition. No he wasn't. He had the promise to be one but that is different. Potential marquee player is as meaningless as it sounds. We lost a promising kid and, no it didn't hold us in the greatest light, but that is not losing a marquee player. The fact that we were also able to snare Mitch Clark should, and has, motted the situation and muted the critics. A poor placement of the word "now" and suddenly all the great things that Stynes has said about Bailey is thrown out the door. It shouldn't have been expressed that way, but it shouldn't have been interpreted the way you have interpreted it. I think the opposite, we always sit in silence and take our lot. If people want to say their piece about Denham saying his piece then that is fine. Big, strong clubs are thunderous and arrogant and lack self-reflection and over-react and don't like criticism. They do something about it internally but show a strong, intimidating front, and I would welcome that - even if it was from the fans.

It was a glorified tin rattle, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do, nor does it mean the club should stop looking for fans to supplement revenue. If you are willing to give the club money, the club should take it.

Anyone can switch the footy. Look, I know what you are saying, but I still don't see a HBF in any gameplan being more important the the midfield role that Sam could play if his fitness was good enough. He was a Brent Harvey style mid as a junior and that would be much more valuable in the future than the best HBF.

From what I have heard - Sheedy had nothing to do with Gubby's antics and the list of players they have put together.

Ok, this is where you went wrong - 'observations and facts'? Just meld them together? I agree we were a basket case but point 4 is a vigorous meld, point 5 is not true, and point 6 is an unfair extrapolation of someone's word.

There are roles, and then there are roles... The 1st round is where you pick up the talent, and that talent should fill the important roles in the midfield or in key positions. Just my view.

Yes, but I don't think you should invest a Pick 17 on a HBF. I hope Blease is destined for bigger things than playing on the 5th best forward and rarely getting forward of centre.

I have. In fact I think I have used it a couple of times... But only to describe a role, rather than give the role the title 'QB'... That is a narrow, but deep, distinction.

Do you mean 'defense'?

Er, thanks for your insight... I think this thread moved onto how crap the Giants will be, and how unfortunate it would be if we chose Sheedy to coach us, than us taking the crank seriously. As an aside, does Demonland have a no 'Walking Billboards-as-Posters' rule? Coz, we should...

Nah, same missus. I get like this every off-season. Hannibal/Lone Wolf/Glengarry Glen Ross/Tweed Pig/Trav 20 thinks I am 'unreadable' but I disagree.

He can have a personal life, but I would have preferred he said to Anderson before the IR series "Sorry Adrian, I only get a few weeks to get maggotted with my mates and I really cherish that time so I won't be able to play IR." But he decided to 'commit' to the venture, and was keen to play as Eade said he rang every day confirming his eagerness. This is my only issue - he is not as professional as he needs to be to get the most out of himself. The rest is just him being an idiot, and he is more than welcome to be that. But he isn't professional enough for Neeld and that reaction is probably a good thing.

Well, if you believe said directive was from those at the club (Bailey would have been apart of that decision, but we move on...) how do you think Sheedy would have taken that? "Listen Kevin, we want to purge this ageing list and attempt to claim a good draft position in the next couple of years before the expansion clubs take all the picks." "That's great. How do you guys feel about recruiting Mark Bolton? Oh, you don't want him? That's too bad because I am going to put it out into the press that MArk Bolton has a contract waiting for him." Hypotheticals are always treacherous but, seriously, I can see Sheedy being an absolute effing disaster. We would be picking up the remnants of some awful deals and clearing out the dead wood he traded for to try and stay competitive after the Daniher years.

Bailey, say what you will about his coaching or development, turned the list over quite brilliantly, and ruthlessly. You can't on the one hand call the Bailey tenure a 'hand grenade' and as I am reading this I realise that you were the one that made that wholly unfair assessment of Bailey that was posted recently... Suffice it to say - you have your view, I have mine. But I very much doubt that we would have gone for as much youth as we did, and while that was partly to blame for the disaster that was 2012, it is also the principle reason why folks around here are so bullish about the future.