Chook

I suggest you go rewatch the games he played before injuring his shoulder against Carlton this year. I think you'll find he was in our best every week.

This is different. What's done is done. We've already lost the games, and we lost them (despite what people would have you believe) because of lack of onfield talent. Getting a priority pick will enable us to trade for what we're lacking. Not getting one means we will continue to languish at the bottom of the ladder, never able to remove the stench of losing from our players...until sure enough it latches onto the next generation of young talent and we end up out of the competition forever. Nobody wants to lose games; but since we've already lost them, why lose again? All we can do is bring new people into the club to replace the old, and getting a priority pick will enable us to do that. Nobody's saying it's a desirable position to be in, but we're in it all the same.

I'm hoping Roosy does what I would do: drop Trengove back to vice-captain and just have Jack Grimes as sole captain. I rate his leadership really highly, and I think as a leader he is actually better than Nathan Jones.

If we're "propped up" now, it may mean that in fifty years we'll still be here instead of being constrained to the annals of history. Do you think anyone will give two tosses about a priority pick given half a century ago? This is our last shot to make it work. If we can make it work now, then whatever assistance we're given (and the lack of respect that goes along with it) will pale in significance to the surety we'll gain from whatever "unearned" success we parlay the AFL's assistance into.

I'd have to agree with Sue here, CB. As she said, both the reverse-order draft system and the priority pick rule are implicitly designed to "reward" poor performance. The fact that one is always enforced and the other is rarer does not mean they are different in principle.

I agree with both of you. Unfortunately I'm the kind of person who throws out every idea he can think of in the interest of being thorough - which often makes me look like a person with no good ideas at all.

What if we got both Burns and Simpson to the club on the proviso that either one of them (performance based) would become our senior coach after Paul Roos left, and that the other would be free to leave if not selected? Would either of them go for that, in the knowledge that whatever happened they would be in the box-seat to coach any club that was looking for a new coach by then?

I think you'd find that if you got into a time machine that took you back to 2009, you'd find similar opposition to threads targeting Jack Watts.

I believe in freedom of <redacted>.

Then all is not lost...

Hang on...if he's saying it's been longer than it really has been, then doesn't that mean time moves faster for the author of that article?

Anyone who has any idea about evolution would know that the egg came first. End of story.

HOGAN, DAWES: Hagendaas HOWE, WATTS: (Who where and when) CLARK, KENT: Superman Surely this must have been planned from the beginning.

Nathan Jones to stop skirting packs and start winning some hard ball every now and then.

Nope, but I cost a hell of a lot less.

Ass coach, eh? Sounds about right...

You can start comparing the length of their contracts as soon as you tell me that Jesse Hogan is in the process of finding and mentoring the best young key forward in the country to take over for him once he leaves. But looking at it objectively, Hogan would be mad to go anywhere near a contract until at least half-way through next year. Looking at it through red and blue glasses, "come on and sign, Hoges!"

Paul Roos wants players who run hard back and forth all game. To think that Nicholson and Bail would be delisted is lunacy when you go through the list of pea-hearts who have yet to be kicked out.

I guess he doesn't have incriminating photos of the new lot, so there's nothing keeping him around anymore.

Does this mean that my man Neville Jetta has been given another go around? And what about James Magner?

That on a good day they could be good (73 points good), but on a bad day they give up (186). Simple.

What happened to the whisper of Michael O'Loughlan? Could he be our possible forward coach?

Roos didn't "fire" Neil Craig if that's what you're saying. My understanding is that both Craig and the club decided (well before Roos got here) that if he didn't get the job, he'd move on. And that's what's happened.