Dappa Dan

It's not about missing the games... it's the lack of pre-season. They're just SO important. Fitness is one thing, but the amount of hard body hits he takes in a game... his ability to bounce back is one of the things that sets him apart. I've been a bit lazy this off season... is McNamara still on the list? That's another one... Because one of our top 6 players, our best defender, and an All Australian (and nightmare matchup) is missing 3 months... half his preseason. You can look at the positives all you like... opposition sides will be breathing a sigh of relief. ANd while we may have good players coming up behind him, the whole LEAGUE has "good" players. What makes the difference is your best 5-10. And Frawley's just about our most important in our top ten behind maybe Green, Jamar... for different reasons.

Yeah. Load of crap. His arm would be in a sling... I had a similar injury to Chip's a few years ago. In fact, it was a cartiledge problem... Michael Vick had the same injury this season in the NFL and missed only a few weeks. I can say thought that any injury in that area is tricky. It's one of those areas that's in constant use. rolling out of bed was actually difficult. I didn't know how much your chest muscles were involved in just normal balance. Breathing is even tough... In terms of timing. This is pretty shocking. He's such a fit player and needs all that strength through the chest to stop guys like Brown and Fev. I like that he's only missing a month of pre-season and the Nab cup and will likely be back in the first 3rd of 2011... but he won't play like he did last year. Not with the business end of his preseason stuffed. This hurts. Just about the last player I wanted to see go down.

Bah... watch out for the Eagles in Philly... And the whole team has just had a lovely week off too...

Wouldn't be difficult though, would it?

Naah.... The tie -breaking procedure is like 12 steps long, and ends (with identical records) in a coin toss... The only steps that really matter are, in order: 1: Head-to-head (win-loss-tie record between the two teams) 2: Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division. 3: Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games (games played against the same opponents) 4: Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference. After that it gets into complicated things like percentage in victories, and amounts of touchdowns. The first ones are the ones to keep an eye on. In the Rams/Seahawks one, both teams are on 3-2 in their division. If the Rams win they'll be 8-8, and Seahawks will be 7-9... easy. But if the Seahawks win, both sides would end up 8-8... both teams will have won once each against each other (Rams earlier this season, Seahawks this week), and their division records would be: Rams 3-3, Seahawks 4-2... That last stat being the tiebreaker. Exciting stuff.

Actually they'll be on .500, since they have to beat the Seahawks to get in. It's amazing though. If that doesn't usher in some change, I don't know what will. Imagine if they somehow beat the Saints/Falcons in week one?!

My worst fear came true in the first play. The OL has been going really well all season, but in recent weeks has been overwhelmed by the Giant's amazing pass rush, and now the Vikings who have a respectable defence. The league now has the information they need to get at Vick. I worry... especially with defenders dropping like flies. He's an amazing football player, Mick the [censored], but if they don't go nuts recruiting guards and tackles next season I'll be worried. Reid came out and said that if he had to play today he couldn't and that he's unlikely to play on the weekend. Which is good. That is essentially our bye now. So if we want to get to a superbowl, we'll have to beat one of the Packers, Giants or Buccaneers at home... then go on to beat probably Bears then Atlanta away... Tough call.

Trading Des Headland didn't seem to hurt Brisbane. In fact it only hurt Freo. :D I think the lesson is in there somewhere. At any given trade period for about the next 3 years, the demons table will be among the busiest. The trick is to pick the players with the greatest value, the least amount of upside, and who will do the least amount of damage at their final destination. Every club, if they're successful, will need to go through this if they're serious.

Nobody tell Jackattack... I could smell the burning rubber from the powerband bonfire he had last week from miles away.

Yeah, but there really isn't a system to fix this. At the heart of the problem is the fact that the worst sides NEED the picks the most... You can fiddle with the system all you like, but it'll always be exploited. The closest thing I've seen to a fix is the lottery system in the NBA. And even that is HORRIBLY unfair when the team who came last doesn't get the #1 pick. IMO, having gone as badly as we have the last 3 years, I think a draft system with compensation pick etc is actually working a lot better than people claim. I don't think we tanked, by definition. We certainly did everything within the rules to get those first picks, but it's not like the players ever kicked the ball backwards deliberately. I'm almost certainly in the minority, but the fact we've had something to cheer for for the last 3 years (the draft, ie the future) is what's kept me sane. It's not perfect, and no system will be no matter how complicated you make it... but this is doing it's job. Look at our list. :D

The Wildcard part is actually the GOOD part. The conference system itself (Wild Cards aside) is what's messed up. I can't believe one team that's 6-8 will get there. It's actually an embarrassment. It did? That'd be a first. So the season is 16... that's 6 games between you and your division rivals... then you'll play all the teams from 2 different divisions... and those two divisions are selected from both conferences. After that, there's two more games selected, though I don't know how they're selected. So for example, for the Eagles who are in... 6 vs NFC East teams. These are the big ones. 4 X NFC North teams. That's a Division in the Eagles' own conference. 4 X AFC South teams. That's a division OUTSIDE the NFC's conference. These are SLIGHTLY less important, as you're unlikely to need a tie breaker where your record against these teams matters. 2 X games against one team from the remaining two divisions. So the only two divisions in the Eagles' conference they haven't played are NFC South (Falcons) and West (49ers). As with most of these suggestions for fixture changes, there's an immediate merit to it. But then, a season isn't 11 games long. It's a marathon. If, say, we won our first 6 games... then went badly at the end of the year, I'd feel jibbed. Also... if you think it'll make the end of the season better, it'll almost certainly make the start of the season less important. Teams will be trying harder at the end of the year when their situation becomes clearer, and taking their foot off the gas at the start of the year. As with most of these suggestions, the league will only change them when MADE to... Like when new clubs come in. I love the idea that it'll stay a final 8, even though that's less than half of the teams in the league.

And I've been so good lately, haven't I? At least I save my relapses for the off season... Yeah. That's messed up. It's great now that the divisions are 8 X 4... Everyone has 3 competitors for the chance to compete in the playoffs, and every year your team's chances vary WILDLY. Injuries can make you 13-3 or 3-13 at any given time. The MLB one makes NO sense to me at all. The American League has 14 teams, and the National League has 16. So the way it works out the American League west division gets 4 teams, but the National League Central Division gets 6?!!!! It's not like they're all in the same places in the country either. Houston and Chicago? They're on opposite ends of the country! I think, from memory, that it's a historical thing. Back when there were two separate leagues, before the MLB became one big organisation, the leagues were lopsided. But I can't see why, in the homogenised game as it is, they can't just take Chicago and whack it in AL West. Then it's 15 teams in each conference, 5 a division... everyone's happy. That whacky old MLB. I might start an MLB thread next season... Part of the deal in which I became an Eagles supporter (in exchange for my American friend becoming a Demons supporter) was that I follow the Phillies too... and we just took Cliff Lee from under the noses of the Yankees!!! That's like Nicking Dane Swan on half pay from the Pies! Giants in 2007 did it. The year the Patriots went undefeated until the superbowl. One of the biggest boilovers EVER. NOBODY expected the G-girls to get close. I still remember that. It was my first few months in the States, and people couldn't believe it. The thing with those Wild Cards is that they're still a pretty legit way to make it. I mean, you can quite easily be the second best team in your division, and still get a wild card. The New Orleans Saints, right now for example... In the NFC, the Falcons are way out ahead on 12-2... But there's a few teams on 10-4... namely the Eagles, Bears and Saints. You could argue with Brees (Saints QB) throwing as well as he is, that they're the biggest threat... after all they hold the NFL title at the moment. But because they're in the same division as the Falcons, their best hope is for a Wild Card, but they're as much of a chance to win the lot as anyone. Brees is a star.

Well, they change their setup a fair bit, but they'll be staying where they are with it for the near future, until more teams come in. Think of a 32 team comp split into 2 "conferences" of 16 (American Football Conference, and National Football Conference... or AFC and NFC). Now. Those two conferences are divided up into 4 further groups of 4... North, South, East and West. How the year works is that the winner of each of these divisions goes to playoffs. Obviously that would suck if the 2 best teams in a conference are both in the same division, so they have a "wild card" opportunity... That is that in each conference, the two teams with the best records that HAVEN'T won their divisions get to go through to the playoffs. So that makes each conference have 4 playoff teams, plus the two wild cards... Which makes 12 teams out of the 32 make the playoffs. I won't go into the playoff system, that's a bit more complicated (but makes sense, the teams that rank the highest get the best run)... I thought it was a bit messed up at first but now that I think about it it makes a lot more sense. The NFL season is only 16 games long... not 22 like us, and not 31, so even if you wanted to, you could never play EVERY team in the league once. So instead of just random seeding, you're placed in these 4-team divisions... and in the 16 game season you have to play your division rivals twice. Once at home and once away. So for my team, the Eagles we play 3 teams that have become massive rivals over the years... the Giants, Redskins and Cowboys who are all big-money, big-name teams. So it kind of heightens the storyline, if you like. What's more we play them all in the last 3 weeks, or near enough to. The reason this is a big deal is if you're tied at the top of your division with some other team, the tie-breaker there is your record against these teams. This year for example, the Eagles are only one win ahead of their hated division rivals the New York Giants, with 2 games remaining. But as it happens, the Eagles have won BOTH games against them this season... which means that if we somehow end on the same amount of wins, we go through to the playoffs instead of them... Which is awesome. The goofy thing about the system, especially this year, is that you ALWAYS get one division that is just terrible. They have this awful situation at the moment in the National conference, where there's 3 teams fighting for the last Wild Card spot. The Saints (10-4), the Giants (9-5) and the Packers (8-6).... And yet in the NFC West, the team on top of that division has a record of 6-8. A full 2 wins less than one of the teams that'll miss out on playoffs!!!!! So you end up with the 6th-best team in the conference missing out, and one of the finals being played by a genuinely awful team. They're looking into it now though. I think maybe something like, you can only advance past the regular season if you have a winning record, or something like that. Plenty of good wiki pages that are nice and simple, if none of that made sense. :D

Yeah, now that the smoke has settled a bit (though not on sportcenter I can tell you), the more I think about it the more I reckon that may have been the Eagles' ceiling. They played pretty badly for 3 and a half quarters... And didn't deserve to win, as they didn't play good footy for as long. They can't rely on freaky Vick plays and dumb luck from Dodge to Jackson to win games... The better defences will blitz Vick, and it'll be enough most likely. I wouldn't say the Eagles fear anyone, but I don't like the thought that they'll probably end up playing the Giants in week one. And if not them, most likely the defending champs... of all teams. Still. Fun to watch.

GO THE EAGLES!!!! They're the most rewarding team to follow at the moment. Doing all the freakiest things. If you have questions, don't be afraid to ask... I used to judge this sport hugely... but once you get the rules down, it becomes a massively rewarding game to follow as a fan. But as usual, it's only rewarding if the team you pick is winning. Extraordinary. I still don't really believe it happened. And I certainly don't know HOW. The onside kick had them completely fooled, Jackson got very lucky... It's all about Vick though. He had 37 yards at halftime, and ended up with 250+ passing and 150+ rushing... It's one of the top 5 things I've ever seen on a field of sport. The media over here is losing their blob over it... They're calling it the Miracle at the NEW meadowlands. My mate who got me into the Eagles got in a cab to go home... I had to call him on the phone.... and he still didn't even believe me!!! Andy Reid in tears in the rooms after... I knew this team could do some freaky things, but I didn't think they could do that. Who are you picking for the Superbowl? Pats/Eagles?!!! I know I am...

If it's a something you judge on a scale... ie, Gehrig would be a 10 on the KP player scale. Someone like Robbo would be about a 4... Then yes, he's a KP forward. He doesn't look like one, to be sure, but the way he plays is so often man-on-man, keeping up with a quick-ish KP forward on the lead, spoiling. He's a challenge to match up on for some reason. Where he falls down is in the wrestling in the square and in the general body-on-body stuff where he has been pushed aside from time to time, through no fault of his own. What he does do is get back up and try again though. Occasionally he over-commits, but I'd rather a player err on the side of trying too hard, than not trying hard enough. If you want to mark the players as KP defenders though, there's a reason the whole league is creaming itself over Chip. The guy is prototypical as a KP defender. Tough as old boots, runs all day and runs fast, is incredibly strong in the wrestling, rarely makes a bad choice, rebounds better than most HB flanks, keeps up on the lead, tenacious, hard to get in the head of. He's just... well... "perfect" for his position. And his much-publicised kicking issues have been proven to be unfounded. When you put his skill set next to Garland's, there's no comparison... But then Garland is still a strong player. I'm trying to think of a BETTER key position defender in my time (going on his last season, and potential obviously)... I'd say maybe Neitz? And he didn't even play there all that long. Ingerson? Nicholson? Do we even HAVE any in our history in the last 10-15 years?

Yeah. How dare he try to get the most out of his career in money and playing time. What a bastard... Fair go, these forums really are full of flogs. I reckon it's a little bit sad, but I wouldn't say "ouch" exactly. They can have him. He's not going to do ALL that much over the next two years (will be decent for them), and our time is directly after that anyway. Would have been nice to see him stay a one-club player, but I imagine if it really was that important to him, he'd still be a dee. So if he's happy, I'm happy. Good on him. I wish him well, but only because I'm not terrified that he'll kick 6 goals on us.

Didn't stop him being whipping boy last year. Didn't stop him being whipping boy last year. Newton is in a weird category. What will have to happen is we have to have the same troubles in our forward line. Then when it's failing and he's STILL not getting a game, he'll get picked on. He, like PJ, were the whipping boy in the sense that EVERY time their name was mentioned in something completely unrelated, the geeks on here that feel the need to be quasi-witty would take EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY to stick the boot in. Just as with most major sports, as well as politics, people who have a compulsion for being passive aggressive will take joy in making sure the rest of the world knows they don't like some footballer... In that sense, Newton has ALWAYS been the whipping boy.

I would say Newton is 2-1 to be our main whipping boy... But while I rate Bennell, I have a feeling he might be a very outside smokey for me.

Whoa. I'm in the states right now... You'd be lynched for saying that in some areas. It may surprise you to learn that religion still plays a part in some peoples' lives, they just don't advertise it so much. Also, you don't know how much the Chaplain is paid. He may well be just a volunteer... I would have thought there'd be dozens of chaplains out there that love their footy who'd do it for free... And on the subject of non-religious councillors... I daresay the club has MANY. Some for sports, some for sports psychology, some for drugs...

Yeah. The Frawley badwagon has only just started, but is gaining momentum. However, that may be because of his stellar year...

Yeah. If he has the kind of year I'm predicting, he'd be STUPID not to wait. This is going to be the reality for us over the next 10 years. One of the few silver linings to being woeful over the last 3 years is that your salary cap has heaps of room. Get used to the fact we may end up losing a few players we don't want to lose... and that our top 5-10 players (think Frawley, Watts, Scully, Trengove, Grimes types) will ALWAYS be under pressure from opposing teams with big chequebooks. It's part of the recipe for success people.

:D

Actually you're right. I mis-spoke when I said "win." What I was trying to say was that given that many picks are busts (#1 picks are no less susceptible to it, even in the NFL where recruiting is a religion), the fact that we got a first rounder and 10 years of service, including a couple of very, very good years means he wasn't a "bust." But to say it was a "win..." Well in the context of the Goddards and Riewoldts... obviously that's a bit rich. I saw an article not long ago that went into the bet #1 picks in history since the draft began. While I understand drafting was a far more inexact science years ago, it's still worth mentioning he was somewhere around the middle. Maybe in the top 10 somewhere. There's no shame in that. No great honour either... but no shame.

That wasn't a terrible career. If he wasn't a #1 draft pick, we would be saying a big congratulations. Any player you take at pick #1, who wins a number of games off his own boot for you, threatens to win a number of B&Fs, and then you trade him for a first rounder AFTER TEN YEARS!! That's a win in my book.