old55

OK I'll put up ... With acknowledgement to 1858 that the AFL might not approve the trades ... Here's offers too good to refuse: Our mid 1st round compo pick 13 to GWS for their 2nd round pick 23 and their 4th round pick 59 Our 3rd round pick 43 to GC for their 4th round pick 60 That's a nett for us of: In: 3, 23, 59, 60 Out: 13, 25 (Viney), 43 Gives us 3, 4, 23, Viney, 59, 60 in place of Viney, 4, 13, 25, 43, 61

desperate for "Dislike" button

It's Jack, not Tom

I honestly don't think we want that - we forced him to deny tanking existed and we didn't get any protection from GWS re Scully - I don't think making HQ mad at us is a good plan - as attractive as it might be.

Yes OK - so we'd need to trump a 1 pick upgrade.

Yes, no kidding! But in that scenario how does us offering not to take Whitfield at pick 3 benefit GWS and influence them not to bid for Viney? You're having a major logic failure there. The only club that would benefit is the club who finishes 15th and has pick 5.

We could do something less obvious like give them our 3rd rounder for their 5th and 6th rounder which they have no intention of using anyway. We don't have to use the picks we trade for either.

No that's not right, there'll still be the same number of picks before their pick, someone else will take Viney with one of those picks and quite possibly before the Adelaide pick. Viney will absolutely go in the first round so there's no "bringing their 2nd round pick forward" it's still pick 21 and Viney goes in an earlier pick to either us or someone else. Even if your logic was right - say Viney went after the Adelaide pick - that advantage they're getting is a 1 pick upgrade - bfd - we'd need to offer them something better than that.

You're not making any sense - we won't get a chance to take Whitfield. If we finish 16th and they nominate Viney the picks will be 1: GWS, 2: GC, 3: MFC=Viney, 4: MFC, 5: 15th finishing team If we finish 16th and they don't nominate Viney the picks will be 1: GWS, 2: GC, 3: MFC, 4: MFC, 5: 15th finishing team .... Round 2 MFC: Viney Our picks are after their picks either way, they'll take Whitfield either way.

You're too, too nice! You need to spend 5 minutes with Range Rover - he'll help you understand how it really works.

I can't see how that works - the pick we have will be after their picks anyway so who we take with it doesn't impact them. No we'd need to offer them a player they want at a decent pick discount or a later pick trade that favours them.

If they nominate Jack and we take him they don't get any direct benefit, just indirect benefit by making us weaker. We can offer them some direct benefit not to nominate him. I know we Demon fans think differently, but I wonder if GWS and GC lie awake at night worried about the mighty Demon threat to their flag dynasty - it wouldn't surprise me if they thought they could afford to give us a leg up if it meant direct benefit to them because we're not perceived as a threat.

Someone smarter than me suggested we could arrange trade deals (to be executed in the trade period that follows the F/S) that are favourable to GWS and GC on the basis that they don't nominate Jack. Win-win!

Dr, your forum future is in your own hands - put up or shut up - answer the question or seal your own fate ... As the Captain said "You gonna fit in real good ... it's all up to you"

Yip, hehehe, your usual modus-operandi - insinuate, deny, obfuscate, never own an opinion ... You'll never own that you were talking about any particular player or even talking about trading a player. It's Scully to Richmond re-visited ... Yes I am a mod now and part of my responsibility is ensure a quality board.

Interesting that you thought I was talking to you. Feeling guilty?

You never name who you're proposing we trade - so typical of your weasel approach.

I've acknowledged that you have a good theory and even provided Essendon as an example that supports your theory. The key is could a new coach have built a bridge from Bailey's plan to Geelong - or did we need to go back to the drawing board. The coach selection panel has indicated the latter by choosing Neeld. I accept that is a change of direction and there's a question about whether they really knew enough to make that sort of decision. But the bridge plan is no sure thing either. Yes there's much rework involved but I raised the recruiting component because I think that's a step too far and I illustrated why using example and comparison - how else do you want me to assess and discuss the validity of your claim that we recruited the wrong types based on a discarded game plan except by looking at the data? You and Ron Burgundy make a good pair on this - maybe I'm missing something in my reasoning armoury?

I think you and Jake Niall are over-playing this card. There's no evidence that Strauss cannot win contested footy (and kick it well) he hasn't had a chance to show his wares yet. Good players are good players, Blease has run and spread attributes that will be vital if we progress beyond the basics of Neeld's defensive style - yes he'll have to learn defensive structures and win his fair share of his own ball too - Adam Cooney was pretty effective last night, hopefully that's the direction he can develop. Bennell might be a bust because he's too small and can't win enough contested football but my understanding is that the Eagles were going to take him with the next selection, they play a contested style and recruit suitable players - sometimes it doesn't work out and he was pick 35 after all. Maybe you can explain why the Eagles picked Tom Swift in this context? It went Blease, Shuey, Strauss, Swift but apparently we stuffed up and according to many they're geniuses? Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Tapscott were the other early picks and all have contested ball winning skills. I think our list is being written off prematurely - hell the Scully picks aren't even on the list yet.

It's an interesting idea. I had a look at rpfc's 2011 measurements - particularly contested possessions and clearances, the mainstays of Neeld's gameplan: http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/25041-rpfcs-measurement-of-2011/page__view__findpost__p__472599 In 186 the differential was -48 and -21 and yet according to your theory we "play a "Geelong" style of footy"? I think whoever took over as Melbourne coach needs to address these issues. It so happens that's Neeld's style requires us to address them head-on. If Sanderson had taken over he would have faced the same challenge. The questions are: Does Neeld have anything else up his sleeve once he gets these fundamentals squared away? We should see an answer in time. Could Sanderson have got these fundamentals sqaured away while retaining Bailey's corridor attacking based style or would he too have had to strip back to a contested style? This is the core of your argument I believe. Maybe Essendon provides a supporting case - they played an attacking corridor style under Knights and have been able to translate that succesfully under Hird-Thompson.

Amongst other good creative play, Watts missed 2 contested marks - one in the backline in the 3rd which he should have taken (a stretch to even call it contested) and cost a goal and one in the forward line within range in the 4th which was harder but I'd expect him to ultimately clunk - if he takes them, we quite possibly win with the associated momentum shift and he's the match-winner. I'm thinking glass half full - it was a move in the right direction. If we try to spot up Davey in a contested marking situation against an opponent who is 15cm taller again I will spew up, we continue to do this - and yes I'm talking to you Chip amongst others. FFS if he's the only option (which he wasn't in the Chip case) then kick it along the ground and give him a better than 50-50 chance.

best outcome from my perspective would be an Opel patch that the shop can put on with their number applicataion machine - jumper says "no iron"

Spencer!

So many daleks and cybermen

Maybe they got the list management sheet mixed up with the team sheet?