rpfc

The only reason why people don't see Jurrah as a FF is because of deep sociological defect that thinks that black folks can't be FFs. He's as tall as Fevola and plays a lot taller, he's a better kick than Riewoldt, he's blistering on a lead, and is a very good mark. But these ingredients mean third tall? Please...

Yes, but he is more solid than Warnock and is stronger. I also don't see Frawley being able to keep up with Riewoldt-like gut running that the best CHFs are capable of. I see Frawley as quicker but with Warnock having the larger engine.

He has two options. And he will lose respect in the eyes of many with whatever decision he makes. Go to the reigning back-to-back wooden spooner and spend 80% of the game on the ground in a team that is middle of the road at best in 2010. Stay at a premiership contender and possibly play half an AFL game or a full VFL game in the hope of being the 20th, 21st, or 22nd player picked on the last Saturday in September. Both have their plusses and their minuses, and both require thought. If he chooses not to play for the MFC it is not because our FD "don' no what there doin!'" and it is not because "the Media don't want us to have good players." Also his here-to-fore silence is not because he "hates the MFC" as the assertion that "if he wanted to come he would have already said so" holds less weight than Miranda Kerr. Luke Ball does not have to make audible the thoughts in his head as he is making his decision, he needs to only tell the world of the decision within a certain time-frame - a time-frame that has not yet expired and nor will it in the next 24 to 48 hours. This is for a few select individuals - stop tilting at windmills when there are none. Tilt when a decision is made.

THE POLL ANALYSIS I think we have a decent cross-section of anonymous MFC posters as it stands. I doubt results will change much in the near future. The findings: 57% believe Green will play predominantly in the forward line. 80% do not see Newton as close to selection Rd 1 all things being equal (no injuries). 83% want Watts to start 2010 in the AFL. 46% want Petterd to start 2010 in the forward line. 40% want Miller to start 2010 in the forward line. 22% want Maric to start 2010 in the forward line. There is a definitive 6 that we see as our forward line: Sylvia Bate Watts Wonaeamirri Jurrah Green With Petterd and Miller fighting for a spot on the bench. Sylvia will have a run in the middle, as will Green I am sure, and, possibly, Bate. Trengove (possible centreman), from all reports, can take a mark, so he will rotate through the forward line. I suspect that Jamar (possible 1st ruck) and Martin (possible back-up ruck) will spend some time in there as well, and Davey (possible wingman) will drift forward.

FB/CHB are redundant in that the rarely play out of the square and the hole respectively. But I still think there is the 'FF' - A bit bigger and slower, short leads, small tank (Fevola, Kossie, Tippett) and a 'CHF' - bigger tank, bit shorter, moves onto the wings a bit (or a lot), chest marker (Brown, Riewoldt, Cloke). They are positioned all over the place but I believe Frawley is better suited to the 'gorilla FFs' and Warnock the fit, quick CHFs.

That would be the dumbest thing I could think of for Newton to go and do. If he decides to allow his contract to end in 09 he will go and play somewhere else. But it's all moot because he is not going to agree to throw out his contract. We have him next year, or we pay him out.

No. We would have to pay him out, let him go through all the drafts, and then make the daft decision to pick him up in the Rookie Draft.

I always felt Warnock was a CHB. With more pace than Rivers. And Rivers was more value as a loose man. There are my impressions. Frawley will be a gun FB though.

If you're replying to me, that is exactly what I am saying. Ball would be a godsend in that respect. Maybe even Bradshaw but that is less than ideal. MacDonald possibly could be put on a large contract. Basically, I am saying that I would prefer to overpay a 25+ year old so that we don't have this inflation problem with a number of our younger players.

Oh, you can be very droll... I blame Microsoft. Bloody Powerpoint.

Or perhaps, and I understand this is a very shaky perhaps, they felt that any turn around in behaviour had to backed up with minutes in the AFL. I was just thinking that attitude problems are rarely fixed in the twos, the player also has to be playing regularly. And Thorp wouldn't be... I would ask no less than the FD boys interviewing him and getting a feel for his personality. Little risk in the PSD too.

And Hangon007 has his Think Tank initiative - we are pretty much all baking. I made chocolate brownies. And someone is bringing The Goonies.

You're on the money there. KOTD in November. If Ball is unavailable then the boys have to decide whether Pick 34 is worth more than whoever is left for Dec 15. But it really is a 'best of a bad lot' decision.

Front loading can be less than ideal if you do not fill the hole in the cap soon. If it is pushed into 2011, then there has to be a player or players placed on large contracts to fill the 'cap gap.' If you do not find said player or players then you must front-load more contracts - creating a problem. If you have had to 'front-load' the same players contract twice by throwing out the original contract and front-loading a new one in the second year you will have effectively inflated his wage. Because that is essentially what front-loading does - it momentarily inflates salaries. If you don't quickly rectify the inflation, you may have $500k of 'overpayment' in a few years time, and it may push out a very good player. Example (and I used this example some months ago): Morton on $500k over 2 years. $350k in 2010 and $150k in 2011. But if we are to front-load his contract again to reach the minimum in 2011 we will have to throw out his $150k and give him, say, $600k over 2011/2012 with $400k in 2011. Therefore, Morton would have been paid, effectively, $750k over 2010 and 2011 when we only wanted to pay him $500k. Troublesome. (Granted that is worst case scenario, and a little hard to follow. Apologies.)

Bingo. But not mine...

In the last 6 weeks of 09 Junior played a very effective BP. Roles change. I think his has. I am really surprised that the vote is only slightly leaning toward McDonald in the backline.

PM - I can understand the desire to put a 'big bugger' up in the forward line but PJ is not that bugger. Jamar can, and will, go forward to provide a target - and he actually knows how to use his frame. In fact, I would prefer Jamar take every centre tap and then go forward, leaving Martin to follow and link if it is absolutely necessary for a ruckman to follow and link (I don't think it is, but I guess someone has got to take the ruck in the back half...).

He won't be 'ready' for 3 years. But it is imperative for our future fortunes that we give him games now. On a wing. On a HFF. Wherever. Let the man play. You let him play!

I'm much more comfortable with McDonald and Bruce limiting the minutes of Cheney, Strauss, and Bennell, rather than Scully, Trengove, Blease, and Maric. That is where my head is on that. They are going to play, they should play in the backline, and I will put whatever credibility I have left as rpfc on those two playing predominantly in defence. (Apologies for the grandiose statement - I have just bought the Mumford & Sons CD. Inspiring.)

Explanations and biases: For the purposes of this I am going to say that there will be 7 named defenders, although I am well aware that players will have a run in the middle, and vice-versa. I believe Rivers, Frawley, Garland, and Warnock can play in the same backline. I like Garland for the 'QB role' that Grimes and Bruce played in 2009. But I admit that there are doubts surrounding Garland being available at the start of 2010. Players considered - Frawley, Grimes, Garland, Bell, Junior, Cheney, Rivers, McNamara, Bruce, Warnock, Bennell, and Strauss. I believe that Junior and Bruce will be used they way they were in the last 6 weeks of 09 - in a BP and a HBF respectively.

That's where my head is at on this semantical argument. And I also believe that a team has a finite number of stars. For example - Andrew Mackie is not a star; he is the luckiest bastard in the world for having that midfield in front of him and Scarlett right behind him. And he was plucked at random - applies to plenty of other B graders who are made to look A because of the company they keep.

No he can't. He can take a mark on a lead. Jamar can take a pack mark, Johnson can't. True. He HAS the body "bust packs in the air and on the ground to create opportunities for small forwards." But he doesn't. Some guys just never realise how to use their God-given advantages to their...well, advantage. He plays small; he is a winger trapped in a ruckmans body. He would play a lead-up role in the forward line in 2010 if he were there and Green would be better option in that role as he has won a final off his own boot playing that role. I think we all remember that game...

I don't like that. I know it may be false but players should go to the coach and get it sorted and out in the open, not demanding the player move on. Unless it is Level 5 or 'Carey level' infraction...

1858 - Very well explained, just one addendum - when a player is placed on the VL they can be moved back to the PL but will remain a Veteran and therefore a club will change from 50% saving to 33% saving. So: rpfc $900k - 450 outisde 1858 $600k - 300 outside = $750 outside with 2 Vets placed on the VL. To: rpfc $900k - 300 outside 1858 $600k - 200 outside hoopla $450 - 150 outside = $650 outside with 3 vets and 2 placed on the VL. I have the CBA on my computer. There really isn't an incentive to name more Vets than the two on the VL, unless the third Vet is on stupid money. Basically, the proportion of a salary outside the cap depends on the amount of Vets at a club.

And Geelong. The bloke took some good grabs I think we can all agree. And no he isn't a star of the game. Aaron Davey is. But that is another argument...