rpfc

Gardner Reply Tasmanian Hawks is the best line of the article.

The AFL reckons that 18 teams will get them $1billion in the next deal. The AFL will help us but they don't want to be our buttress and we don't want them to be either. We will sign our new deals with the AFL and MCC soon, but the AFL is just trying to do what any good business does and that is look at all alternatives before throwing money at the problem. The AFL will get our back, when we get our act together.

Miller isn't a defender. CHF, HFF, or Wing. That is it. Rest of the season. Then decide wether we both should move on or keep going.

I could give a reasoned critique over why he is wrong and that we can in fact make it in Melbourne. But I think i'll just say "frack off, Jeff."

There are no easy answers. One that sticks out to me is the fact that the club is still divided after the merger in '96. Only 12 years ago, and it split the club and those wiling to work for the club. And, let's face it, Gutnick was not the saviour that we all thought. Plans are underway to bring people back into the fold and that is a good start. Other than consolidation of every aspect that you mentioned, we also need patience. Not just the fans, but sponsors and the AFL. I think we will get it. And I think we will get it right. Sooner or later...

IMO the key point of the article is the changed view of the AFL after we got rid of Harris. With turnover at around 90% the AFL were rightly coming to the board and saying, "we are paying for your pay outs and recruitment expenses, and its not even related to the football dept." Renegotiate, get some more sponsors on board and let's get moving. By the way, pretty disappointing about the gaffes in the article but it happens, I don't think malice was intended.

Yeah i'd like to see Warnock have a go on Franklin. He's 24 and if he wants to stick around he's gonna have to that kind of job. Outs are tough because everyone were as bad as each other. Ins are easier, just a matter of how many come in (in order and if fit) - Rivers, Johnson, Wheatley, Whelan, Carroll, Yze, Dunn, and Holland. Rivers, Carroll and Wheatley are injured I beleive so I predict Johnson and Whelan to come back for PJ and Buckley. Not saying I agree, just what I think will happen. Although I would prefer PJ played ruck at Sandy than BP for Melbourne. Franklin v Warnock, Roughhead v Frawley, and Bell v Williams.

Not saying they deserve to be dropped or should be dropped... I was merely trying to predict who would get dropped, if Yze was to come back who would go down?

Huge fan of our current youth policy myself but as I said in another thread 17 players last week were 24 or younger, so having Yze in the team is acceptable as long as the U/24 crowd stays at least at the 14 or 15 level. Vulnerable players: Frawley, PJ, and Buckley.

I have to question you on the claim that the Casey council is willing to build stadia, I haven't heard anything about that. 20000 is a lot of seats and it'll cost a lot of money.

Davey is short. Valenti is short. They are probably not short walking down Chapel St, but they are short walking down the race.

...and if you married your fathers sister, you'd be your own uncle.

Nicho ahead of Nath. Not an endorsement though. And Bizzell was fantastic from the time he came to us to when he smashed his head against Adam Simpsons' knee in Rd.9(?) 2005. Smart courageous player, loved him.

Tends to reveal how many tackles someone had. Just quietly. Valenti played just over an hour, went well. Quicker than he looks. Tiny though.

That was '05 and he was on fire. But he couldn't kick then and he can't kick now. All helicopters and such, not pretty. Still valuable though...

Yeah, give it to Nat or Rich or Hurley. No-one on the list demands the number.

Hate to spoil your fun but he missed that shot... Is it just me or are Cam Bruce's helicopter kicks getting less and less reliable? Anyway, back to topic - Morton is a gun, feed him and put him where Miller is. For all the Miller lovers out there he can play on a flank or a wing if he must.

New century fellas and Neita can pick his place. I loved the quiet leadership, but what I will always say to anyone who questions his place in history is the fact that this bloke was AA at Centre Half Back and 8 years later AA at Full Forward. The enormity of that achievement does not hit you at first until you go to the footy or watch it on TV and say "could Croad do that, or Brown, or Fevola?" No, they couldn't. He may not have a flag, but he is an immense figure at the Melbourne Football Club - Est.1858, 12 Premierships - and that is something to behold.

How about the selfless bloke who has won our last 2 B+F's? James McDonald over Bruce and Green easily. Rivers, too injured. Brock, too stupid. Jones, too young. Left field choice would be Aaron Davey...

Slow? He's dumb with the footy but give him his due; he is quick and has a long kick on him. As Danny Frawley says "he just needs to lower his eyes a bit and go shorter." At least he was bold and willing to take them on, others should follow his lead as we looked most dangerous when we were running and sharing from half back.

There was some great passages where we moved it by hand all the way up to the forward line with some boldness and dash but a few of the fellas went into their shells at times. As an aside, Carroll did nothing in our half against Freo, so I don't think that dropping him was an indicator that the coach was attempting to lose. Quite frankly, that was hard to type because it is a ridiculous argument to suggest that DB wants to lose and that Nathan Carroll is 'the difference.' Our talent is young, lets see it.

We have won 6 of the past 31 games and our talent is in our youth. Let's give them a run and look to the future because the present is doing nothing. Carroll is a good fullback in a good team as he showed in 2006 but cannot run with the ball and is slower than the younger blokes, he isn't as smart as Rivers and his height (191cm) doesn't allow him to play on the resting ruckman or a Tippett like forward. With that said the 24 and younger brigade was 17 today, which is alot, but that is where we are at right now.

...or a large marquee tent.

Carroll is better than Garland, but Garland has the chance to contribute when we are pushing for a flag in a few years whereas Carroll has 1 or 2 years left. Yes I know he is only 27 but he is too small/slow to play on the better forwards and is useless as a rebounding defender because of his skills. At the minute I don't rate Garland but he is just 20 and that's where we are at right now, after winning 6 of our last 30 games.

You may be using last years ages because I have 23.2. But the premise is right and very promising - there is 17 players selected this week that are 24 yrs old or younger.