Demon3

I have no knowledge of Bailey, assuming he plays, will probably go through the middle a bit changing with Rayner. Agree you dont want Hunt to close to goal and defending one on one, but that all depends if we let their ball movement happen that way, We were pretty awful v Sydney, didnt have May there either that night, Tomlinson got destroyed and they exploited us down back. Reckon it will be different this time. Hibberd is a great match up for Rayner, who they will play through a bit, he is in form and plays tall and small. i know we have lost 6 of our last 11, games are hard to win especially when we are not playing at the optimum level, but in those wins have been Brisbane and Freo and Carlton.. all top 8 sides. Just my thoughts, thats why i asked the question.

Hibbo surely gets the Rayner match up.?

we have won our last 11 in a row interstate.. we travel better than we play at the MCG.

ok.. so what are the match ups/ Lions fwds v Dees defenders Daniher v May Petty v McStay Lever v Hipwwod? Hibbo v Rayner Hunt v Charlie Rivers v McCarthy salo loose?

Its a huge test for Goodwin and the coaches I reckon. It depends on what sort of Neale game we get. r15 22 - 22 disposals - LOST qf 21 - 46 disposals - LOST r12 21 - 25 disposals - LOST r8 20 - 33 disposals - won r15 19 - 38 disposals - won His impact has been ok against us, but certainly the last 3 outings he has not done any damage. Still i would tag him. There only other damage player is McCluggage. And the May v Daniher match up - Daniher will roam high, do we want May going with him, it renders Lever very vulnerable on a 1 on 1 match up.

Not one bit relevant to my original post at all but whatevs.

Couldn't help feel a bit sad for the whole saga when i saw how happy Dogga was when we won on Saturday night, you cant question his buy in, it just seems a shame that this is happening.

Everything will depend on the Jackson trade. If that gets held up, it will hamper our ability to get other players. If it gets done quickly, then we will have capital. If we get the 2 first rounders we are demanding for Jackson, then i imagine we will try and work that into 3 picks inside the top 20. we want a very early first round pick, under 10, then another first rounder, that late first round pick will hold the key to everything, turn pick 14 in to 18 and 20 for instance, then we have some serious ability to move. The thing that might be an issue is a future first rounder, but as we have been we will be active in pick swaps in recent times. Lets hope the Jackson deal does not go to the last minute.

They are scumbags, the majority of supporters are absolute vile creatures. despise them.

The Treloar deal: (essentially a similar salary dump scenario) DOGS GAVE UP: P14 & Future Second round selection PIES GAVE UP: Treloar, picks 26, 33 & 42 Clearly they have to get rid of money to keep DeGoey and Grundy is more replaceable than a game changing mid fwd. You would hope this would be second rounder and move on pretty quickly.

What would we have to give up, pick wise for Grundy? is it a second rounder? So, we could lose Jackson and get: 2 first rounders (make no mistake, that is what we want and will demand) and might secure Grundy for a second rounder? It reads ok.

Cant drop Hunt IMO.. point of difference. If we get out structures right and we dont allow shoot out footy, Hunt comes into his own with run and link up play.

He has kicked 10 goals in 4 games... his first 4 games. its pretty good start. Not my point though, more about the fact that he is similar size and weight to JVR.

Copy that, not sure age is everything though. To be honest i haven't seen a lot of JVR, when i did, it was raining, so hard to get a gauge on it. I se Darcy debut and others and think we have missed a trick not getting games into him while we have been trying to find out right fwd mix.

I have no real negative views on getting Grundy.. but IMO he is simply not the Number 1 priority. A ruckman will be obviously, but money spent on him will mean we will not be in the race for a KPF

Just on JVR.. now im not sure if he is ready or he is seriously in the mix or we are just getting him around the team for experience. But watching Ash Johnson play the role he does for the Pies has got me wondering why he is getting a game and JVR has not been tried. Both 193Cm, JVR has a couple kilos on him.. but really they are both similar players that would play the same role.

Some really valid points on this. I think obviously composure is king going inside 50. I know the kicking to pockets is to allow for better setting up for the rebound and exit of our Fwd 50. But surely, this team, who looked pressure straight in the eyes last year can hit up a 20m kick inboard to allow a better entry.. surely.. its not that hard.

Fair call.

I really like this.. i think him fwd of centre would help and should be tried. Id easily give him a try. ANB is a leader, and he is a goer and he is always trying, but right now he is caught in no mans land. He is playing a bit higher up the ground, not impacting, and therefor not impacting fwd pressure. Not sure what his role is at the moment.

Its really stark isn't it.. especially the Petracca number, Cant and wont be the best player in the comp if he has numbers like that and frankly, that has let us down.

6 games with leads of 20 plus points.. all ended up losing. This is on them, simply not good enough. We "Should" beat the blues, but i thought we should beat the dogs and we should have beaten the pies, so there is no way you can go in with any confidence with us winning either of the last 2.

My 2 cents.. Hibbo, Hunt, May, Lever, et al.. were let down again by our inability to defend the ball coming out of our F50 because of out putrid and dumb entries. So they all deserve less critical analysis than others.. It does my head in that we are still talking about f50 entries.. the coaches and players are culpable for this.. they are not learning and its repeat behaviour that makes me think they dont put as much capital on it as we do as fans. Its disgraceful that this mechanics of our game has not been rectified or that it keeps creeping back.. lazy, dumb stubborn? not sure, maybe all 3. Anyway, changes. In: Harmes Out: ANB - (sub)

I know.. dont understand it. Can be a great leader but not a natural captain. Max is a natural captain.

Well that's just wrong, he is a leader and a very good one at that.

Its a very curious thing for Max to go with, could easily have just said the old we "will resepct his decision.... "