Skuit

Do they still vote on the Bluey the way they did a while back. Some system from memory whereby every player is given a mark out of ten for each game? I may be imagining this - have been self-medicated since Sunday - but if so Jack could be right up there in contention already.

Sounds like a similar trajectory. Is it the difference in coaching personnel or the current AFL team-building blueprint?

Don't respond to the thread, don't respond to the thread, don't respond to the thread . . . dammit.

Don't stand flat-footed next to the ball carrier. And especially don't call for it if you're flat-footed and under imminent pressure. Consider shepherding instead.

He's kept some known accumulators down to very low possession counts. I wonder if they are season lows in most instances.

And revolving Dawes out would be a refreshing notion.

Jamar for Dawes. As argued before. Harmes looks likely as a player to me. Shame for him he isn't in another team.

Sure. Or those from our 2018 list. Whatever tickles your fancy so long as we can keep it good clean fun.

The year 2018: The AFL in its infinite wisdom has decided to allow clubs to clone their lists in an effort to insure its most marketable commodities against the scourge of injury. But wily coach Alistair Clarkson has just exploited a regulatory loophole to field Clone Roughhead next to his biological counterpart at CHF. Name your starting MFC line-up if we had two of each player available on the list.

I think the mids kids did try hard today. That's probably who Roosy was referring to. The personnel he brought in rather than those he was lumped with.

After 8 years of absolute shite I'm not sure why it was this specific game that broke the proverbial camel's but it did. I still think the future looks bright and I'm not normally overtly critical of players but I'm sick of [censored]-footing around. If the apologists for the likes of our seniors with some inexplicable but potentially minute currency such as Dawes, Garland, Grimes and Watts want to continue making a case for their value going forward then good luck to you and god save the MFC.

5. Dawes. For getting us off to a great start with the clever tactic of putting his shoes on back-to-front. 4. Watts. Claiming a 2-meter mark - all class today. Almost Pendles-like with the time and space he thinks he has. 3. Roos. Garland on Nick a curve-ball they surely weren’t expecting. 2. Lamumba. Never afraid to play on and take the first option whatever that may be. 1. Tyson. Seamlessly adapting to the Melbourne blue-print after a troubled first year.

Scratching my head over the love for Watts.

Shovel-work when too warm can give rise to a nasty case of ballaratinal chancroids.

Great time to bring that up.

One of the reasons I don't generally bet spec-multi's is because I get fixated and it tends to ruin my entire weekend rather than just the day of the Demons' game. But then I got fixated on your damn multi. Cheers for spreading too wide and granting me the evening off (and damn, that Essendon dip is looking kinda likely!) Though clearly I still enjoy the vicarious thrills on someone else's dollar.

Cheers DC. Sounds like a work experience gig.

Could someone please inform what the 23rd player denotes in the VFL? Is it a somehow restricted role - sub-like?

And more second-round picks might bring us more Bernards.

http://aflagents.com.au/images/uploads/2013_Free_Agency_Infograhpic.pdf

So bribery is the go. Pay the lad $22 p/a in ice-cream funds to support the Dees. The club will get it back many-fold when he's a miserably entrenched future member.

Dawes commented on the ability of another team. Viney commented on us and our determination. It's professional football - neither should make a difference, but if one was to provoke it would be the Dawes comment. Not that I believe it did or remotely care that he said it.

Don't think the comments are comparable in any regard. I hope the whole team has Viney's mindset and the Saints know we're out for retribution.

Exactly. It's relative. But if he attracts that offer do we keep him i.e. - match it? And up until what point do we match?

The debate over Garland still isn't being framed correctly. It's not simply a matter of keep/don't keep by arguing his merits or otherwise and overlooking a relative determinant. I'll ask again. Would we be happy if the club were to trade a second round pick for a 'Garland' on half a mil a year?