PJ_12345

Would you say he had enough time to get in the right position? Because if he did, which it looked like, then he didn't attack the contest 100%... that regardless of the fact he twisted out

We still had Jones, Vince, Cross, Dunn, Frawley, Grimes, Watts, McDonald, Trengrove, Howe, and Pedersen Billings, Delaney, Dunstan and Templeton had never played an AFL game before and it was their first year in the system (compared to Tyson's 3 years and Michie's 4, injuries noted but they are still 3-4 years older) I get what you mean, and to be fair we also had Garland and Hogan out, but I think people need to have some perspective when talking about St Kilda's list; they still beat us when seriously undermanned with very little experience.

Ironically when they beat us in Round 1 they had 5 debutantes and no Stevens, no Hayes and no Montagna.... Their mad rush for top 20 draft picks last season doesn't seem to insane. I'd like to see Roos take the same approach this season, because whilst I think he is a good coach, I think he is an even better developer (just look at Sydney's depth). Got to try and get some value from fringe players. It's a tall order to get something for players who can't get a game in one of the worst lists in the league.

The split round is already proving to upset more than just your weekend. With Carlton beating North last night, and prematurely locking in St Kilda over Freo, there is a genuine possibility we could finish on the bottom of the ladder. Will be an interesting an interesting to see how Brisbane fare against against Gold Coast. One thing is for certain; St Kilda's case for a PP just got harder!

Hmmmm. Did anyone represent the club? Safe to say poor games/clubs would have been on the menu

Does anyone know why Roos couldnt make it to McLachlan's dinner?

For me it's the non-negotiables which frustrate me. We rarely get a second man on the mark to stop opposition players from running around at tight shots, rucks and talls don't make it to the line to punch opposition outside 50 shots, players don't crsh packs to provide some form of a contest, no one shepherds, no one draws opposition players in before handballing - they just treat it like a hot potato and put it in a worse position, some players still go into marking contests with only one hand up... and most of all there are too many weak tackles The Bulldogs aren't the most skilled team in the league but at least they tackle and are ranked #1 for it. What do Melbourne do? They can't even do the basic tasks. It's just not good enough.

If Ling wants to make a move into coaching he has a year left. The game can pass you by and in which case I'd rather someone like Kirk.

But do they? I'll play the devils advocate here but when people were calling for Neeld to be axed there werent alot of people refering to the list and I hold that he left it in better shape than he inherited it.

*Scotch

After sneaking out of a marking contest. Crash the contest, put some pressure, make them work for it... heaven forbid he gets dirt on his jumper

Already started car pooling with Rivers!

The fact that Frawley can miss 3 Melbourne players and kick it onto the chest of the only Geelong player in the area, their ruck McIntosh, is sheer brilliance. So brilliant, I hope another club plays him $800k+ for a seriously log contract....

Dees by 18

DL 101

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/36430-dees-to-talk-to-thompson/?hl=thompson

North has given me a lot of hope last night. I thought they played a similar game plan to the one Roos is trying to implement. They controlled possession, scarified a lot of ground, handballed similar to what we did against St Kilda, Hansen was similar to Howe as a sweeping/intercepting defender, Brown was Gawn esk, and Petrie had similar forward pressure like Dawes. BUT their running and spread was great and was the key to the whole thing. Players took risks, never stopped moving and always provided options. Most importantly, they hit their targets. That pretty much shut down Hawthorn's chip game. I'm not expecting us to win today, but expect Frawley, Garland and Terlich to really lift of their past few performances. Go Dees!

ManDee, I want you to read this very carefully. This is my final post on the matter. As I've said from the beginning: of course its a reference to the club and that it was a pun. (pun = play on words) My issue is the word he has used in the pun and it's colloquial use when used to describe a group of people. Bummer has many meanings. You've gone to great lengths to explore this. Now I ask you. Can you use bummer in the sense that you mean it (using your first quote "a disappointing or unpleasant situation or experience") to describe a group of people? Hint: no. What other meanings does bummer have when you describe a group of people? Hint: go back to that original link I posted and that will show you. I never said it was homophobic, quite the opposite: "I think calling them bummers is a pun in poor taste, and whilst given the context of it isn't homophobic, it's still offensive." The difference between Carltank, West-toast and cats as the "pussys" is that bummers is derogatory. It's something that got said twice. Out of all the words that can be used to describe Essendon, I don't think that was an appropriate one. All I asked was if it was necessary. That reply would have been alot better than someone rushing in saying "And you think calling them bummers isn't necessary. " when they clearly didn't understand the situation.

All asked was "Is this necessary?". If you want sensitive why don't you look at your first reply to those three words. You've gone to define bummers to mean a bad situation and now a nickname to part of the Union army in the American Civil war. If you look at the further definitions in that original link I posted you'd see anal and homosexual references outnumbered your personal meanings. Even look at BB's reply. His pun wasn't a reference to Major General William Tecumseh Sherman's Union army, nor wasn't he wasn't saying "the bad situationers". I don't care how many obscure definitions you can Wikipedia, or you trying to justify sense using a hyperbole whilst also misconstruing what he was doing/meaning. It was a cheap pun using a derogatory term. Even if he didn't know that was another meaning of it, once he did saw someone was offended by it, he could have edited it. If you think that's how the word bummers is used correctly then I implore you to walk up to someone and call them that. Even better, please do it on a Saturday night, on Kings Street, preferably to a group of guys or bouncers. Until then, you know where I stand.

I don't know if they are thinking that far ahead. They have made so many comments, and there are so many things happening, that they have backed themselves in a corner and swinging at anything to get themselves out of it. Regardless of contradictions (refer to Robinson lawsuit) or implications ("we dont know what was given or who took what" defense to AFL/ASADA which opened them up to WorkSafe) You are literally seeing a club that is self-imploding.

Without a medical reason, I don't think the players are allowed to wear gloves in non-NT games. The general medical reason that the glove helps aid easily dislocated digits.

ManDee, I'm very sure they didn't use bummers in that context. Look at the quote you have put and your meaning, its to describe a bad or disappointing situation. You can even use it when people constantly pinch cigarettes off you. When RPFC said "the Bummers" he was using it as a noun, and you can't use your meaning as a noun nor do I think he was referring to Essendon as the cigarette pinchers. All I asked was if it was necessary. If you want to know my views on the drug issue just read some of the things I've posted in this thread, or even better - just look at who started it - but that is all irrelevant to what I have raised. It wasn't necessary and was a pun in poor taste. Edit: Double quote

No I don't think it's necessary to call them [censored], particularly using that type of term. Have you stopped to think about the actual word? If you haven't, or don't know what it means, try this link: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bummer&defid=2465239 Essendon are drug cheats - then call them drug cheats, a Hird of drugs, Essendrug etc Essendon are lying bastards - then call them lying bastards Essendon are incompetent - then call them incompetent Essendon are the lowest scum in the AFL. and they are ruining our game - then call them scum I think calling them bummers is a pun in poor taste, and whilst given the context of it isn't homophobic, it's still offensive. It's a cheap joke using a derogatory term.

Is that really necessary?