Dappa Dan

Jesus Jack. Commas mate... And for the record, I have hope, I just don't have it in kids that have only JUST been recruited. We've gone through ten whole years of picking up these youngsters, and every year people come out with their 22, or their front six, or their back 6 and say "how good is that?!" when most if not all of the names have done next to nothing, and more importantly they end up DOING next to nothing. I agree there's some potential there, for sure, but I reckon it just reflects my being fed up with potential alone. I want tangible results. Form on the field, even if only a hint of it. I'm one of the people who is hoping we recruit heavily at the end of '09. Yeah, I thought the same thing after my last post. I actually meant it as a conversation starter, not a simple disagreement with you. In that sense, it was entirely uncalled for, so you have my apologies. ALl the same, I hope you understand my reasoning. I keep seeing these names arranged in pretty groups of 6, and I keep getting disappointed. You may want to consider this a pre-emptive strike against the tidal wave of dissent we're going to see next year as our side still comes to terms with the game.

It kind of annoys me a little when people write these. There's new ones every time we recruit a certain type of player... Of those, only Morton and Wonna have played good footy. Jurrah is talented but could very easily become nothing. Watts is an exciting talent, but won't be even in the squad properly for a couple of years, and Maric has played only a moment or two of his AFL career. MANY of the "exciting" current list won't make it. It's just about a mathematical certainty. Maric could be the next Steve Armstrong, Jurrah could be the next Daniel Hayes, Wonna could do a Bartram... So yeah, call me pessimistic, but once I see a player do things at AFL level that prove they belong there THEN I get excited.

4. Debatable but probably true. What it has cost us was a player that might have played some possession-heavy games off a back flank where anyone can get a kick. What we will miss is his strong, accurate kick and (relative to the current list) mature body. Ultimately though, he was a fairly mediocre excuse for a footballer at the best of times, and saying he'd earned his place in the side is out-and-out rot. The first handful of games he'd played for MFC were as ineffective as anyone's, and his for in the 2s was only good without being great. The guy might have done ok over the next 5 years and cost someone like Petterd, Grimes and others a game, when they're (IMO) going to be better players in the long run, with far better attitudes. 5. Exactly. Given what our 22 is going to look like in the coming years, CJ was only going to stand in their way. And if he wasn't going to stand in their way, he would have ended up being a mature-aged "leader." Which would have been a TERRIBLE outcome, given what we now know about his character. Good post except for this bit. He didn't "clearly" deserve anything. His attitude, we can see now, is that of a whiner. The kind of guy that plays for himself, his paycheck, and his own career ahead of the team's. I can TOTALLY appreciate how ND and DB would have been loathe to put an individual into a group of kids that needed to become a team. Just because he gets copious amount of possessions off a back flank in the VFL doesn't mean he's going to cut it in the AFL. And when he DID go up a grade to the ones, for a long time there, he was miles off. He played 2 good games this year after 4 years on the list. In what way did he earn his spot? It's amazing to me that people get stuck into the unfashionable Bell when this guy was such a soft ck. Bell doesn't know how to go less than 100% (sometimes to his detriment), works harder on and off the pitch, has played heaps of really good footy for MFC, and is still grateful for his opportunities and humble in the press. I'm conscious of the fact CJ's delisting has given Bell's career a boost, but still I'd choose Daniel over CJ any day of the week. And if rumours are to be believed, as little as a year ago, Bell was being touted as trade bait... where CJ just barely garnered interest from the Blues. I'm not saying his delisting was a GOOD thing, but it's certainly not as bad as people are making out, and this new article only reinforces the point that, by hook or by crook, it was good to get rid of this guy.

Yeah pitmaster, I agree on the DB thing. I'm a big fan of bluntness and broad strokes when it comes to leading ever-shifting groups of 20-50 people, something I have to deal with all the time in my line of work. He could have gone behind closed doors, made an impassioned plea, put in triplicate the fact he was unhappy with Chris and sent them to his agent, his Mum and his new club... but in the end it's all very tame. In my opinion coming out and making an example of Chris, which you could call a risk, has an inherent effect on the playing list. If nothing else they see that he is committed to the club, the team and its loyalty ahead of a face-saving debate with a disgruntled player over whether or not he "earned his place" in the side. If the team don't see he means business now, I wonder what it would take.

Bailey's reaction says as much for Bailey as CJ's does for CJ. CJ just isn't that good. If he was we'd be complaining in the same way we did when we lost players with greater chops... Nobody cares because we all know the best he'll do is pick up soft possessions on a flank, frontrunning with help from Judd, Murphy et al... Those who know the game know how much of a soft breeze CJ is in the AFL ... He'll be forgotten very quickly as a player. In fact THIS whole mess is what he'll be remembered for.

Morton is a ripper. I'm almost sold on him in the same way I am about other young players who you just KNOW are class. As far as the CHF debate with him goes, it really depends on the direction of the game and the direction of the side. There's no real reason he can't be a Murphy-type CHF, which if certain demonlanders are to be believed, is the way of the future. And if the rules committee keep altering the game, there's no telling what will happen to the kid in terms of what role he plays in the future. The beauty is he could fit in to so many spots.

I see your point, but perhaps you'd consider that you're applying the logic to a ruckman that you would apply to, say, a tallish flanker? You can't expect ruckmen to come in and have Nathan Jones-like starts to their careers. Their bodies just aren't anywhere near up to it. How many ruckmen play heaps of footy in their first few years? And even when they do get a few games (Leuenberger, Kreuzer) how often do they dominate? I think it's fair to say that for a pick 8, he's been a let down. But we didn't pick him at 8, we traded a later pick for him. Picking him up at MFC was ALWAYS going to be speculative. But there's no point speculating on a player like Meesen if you're not willing to follow through with it. When picked up at age 20 (or thereabouts) the club would have set goals (mostly attitude and training related) for the kid, and if he met them, give him another couple of years. At the end of, say, a 4 year period, if he was floundering, consider mature-age rookie, or trade/delist. I would be worried about us if we DIDN'T leave every stone unturned. As I said above, this model or mature-age recruitment of ruckmen has worked beautifully with PJ... If you look at his situation a ruckman had to go from WC cos they had a few good ones, and it was unclear if he would make it. He still ha market value, because we traded for him... we didn't take another team's cast-offs. The same is true (in principle) of Meesen. Though I will agree he's shown nowhere near as much as PJ at a similar time. Ultimately what we're talking about here is backing the recruiters, and their long-range assessment of a player's capabilities.

See now, that may as well have been Greek. I had to go over it three times to figure out exactly what your point was. How hard is it to look over what you posted and use the key to the right of the 'M' key?

Meesen's a speculative listing. Saying to him 1 or 2 years is tantamount to saying "We think you're pretty crap, you have two years, and if you don't lift, you're turfed." He's a ruckman, and young ruckmen take time... As I remember PJ frustrated a lot in his first few years. Enough to have him traded out of WC (albeit from a ruckman-heavy list) and look at him now. Giving Meesen a few years really allows him to get settled and show why he was picked so early, and if he dribbles through a few games in '09 and '10... then comes out and plays 22 in '11, we'll be calling it a masterstroke. On the surface, perhaps the reason he's been persisted with is that he fits the mould you need for a modern ruckman. Big engine, not too slow, and no glaring holes in his game. The beauty of PJ was that he had all those first few years to fix up elements of his game, like no overhead marking. If Meesen is given the time he could get there. And something about that pairing of PJ and Meesen makes my mouth water. The idea that you have PJ running down speedsters like Sherman one moment, then when he goes off for a breather, you get Meesen coming in and you don't lose any of that pace or mobility. It's just a theory of course, but still... Personally, I reckon people will find mature-aged ruckmen will be a drafting choice of the future. Even some KP players could be recruited later and pay handsome dividends as there's less risk. Martin is a good example of this. Predicting star ruckmen at 17 years of age is fraught with danger. Not even NickNat is a guaranteed star ruckman yet. If you apply this logic to Meesen, we basically got a guy at 20-odd, saving us a couple of dead years on the list. I, like everyone else, am not sold on the guy, and think he's as much of a chance NOT to make it as anything. But you HAVE to give these big kids a chance over a number of years.

I managed to score some WICKED seats for the State of Origin match this year... I stood up at 1/4 time to stretch the legs and look back at the crowd, proudly displaying the red and blue... Eddie McGuire looked at me from a few seats behind me as I arched my back, with a snarl and raised eyebrow as if to say "How did a demons fan get in here?" That's right Eddie... It's a sign of things to come... Be afraid, be very afraid.

No. Nope. Pretty sure it isn't. If you come on here to say ANYTHING you have to make your posts easy enough to read that we can understand your point, otherwise you create clutter and the site fails. We can all handle typos, and the odd spelling error... in fact as a footy crowd we should expect a LOT of them, but if enough people come on here without writing properly, the football discussion will deteriorate and visitors will cease to visit and post. No-one on here has forgotten about Szondy... just as no-one has forgotten about Woey. There are topics on here that people are so tired of going over, that have created so much tension that we simply don't want to waste any more of our lives on them.

If by that you mean trade them, then I can see some logic in that. Sylvia would be trade material every season simply because of his suspect body, and the fact he'd have some sort of market value. Davey would be trade material if his form was frustrating simply because he's got HUGE market value and may work out to be a sensational trade for us. Personally I would hope we'd hang on to both. And as far as Davey's concerned, he's earned an on-off season or two, and he's worth more to the demons where he is with his identity, leadership, and his fanbase as one of the only demons with a clear personality. To trade all that in for, say, pic #4 (which is ambitious to say the least) would leave us horribly short-changed. He's a good player... He's proven it with consistently good seasons in the past, and despite the criticisms levelled at him regarding his finals football potential. I say, even if he struggles again next season, we keep him. If he were being played as a forward all year we would be measuring him for an AA jumper.

Salient point. The same goes for a lot of the list, but I cannot see how ANYONE could lump Dunn in the same category as Bate. Bate's done WAY more with his chances, and has many more lives left. Neitz, anyone? Not the best forward ever, and I'd put the Pav ahead of him, but how much do we miss the contests Neitz created... Point taken. I think you may have touched on the area that causes difference between people on these players with suspect kicks. As far as I'm concerned I couldn't give a rats how it looks, or how the ball drops, it's how often the kick goes to our advantage, or to a 50/50 vs how often it goes to opposition. Modifying the assessment would be things like how a player kicks under pressure, how far they can kick, and how the kicks are shaped: ie whether or not they are easy to mark, how they chip, stab, how they shape shots on goal (not the ones that trickle, the ones that bend through the air)... If a player "butchers" balls, as you put it, twice a match and still gets 80% effectiveness, then I'm thrilled. This is turning into a good thread.

Yeah. I don't reckon we're that far off in how we sum up the team. The Martin one is a fascinating one, particularly the implications of his recruitment and his effectiveness as a player given the fact he was recruited at the age he's been recruited. If he works out, I dare say the club and other clubs will go down the path of recruiting mature rookie ruckmen more often... Then again, they probably said the same about Rix over at Saintsational. They've always claimed he was recruited as a forward, but are you certain he was trained as one? I remember he played a lot out of the square at Sandy during the end of ND's reign, but he was likely trained in a whole lot of positions, as was Neale's wont at the time, in his endless hunt for "flexibility."

Agreed on the kicking. I just reckon Bate has a good kick. 60 metres, kicks them straight at goal... his field kicking isn't that bad... it's just his ball-drop that's the issue. I dont have his effectiveness stats, but as a close observer and an enormous fan of his, I've never been worried about his kick. But that's just me. Morton is 190cm plus, and I don't think he'll play midfield his whole career... Also I put Morton IN the list because he's a mid that's shown he's more than capable of averaging close to twenty touches a game. My issue with outside mids is that if they don't get the touches, they're dead space in the 22. As soon as Blease shows he can get 20+ more often than not, he's in with a rocket. Simple. And not contradictory as you claim. Fair enough. Hope you're right. So you'd put him in the Rivers mould? As in, a player who can defend but isn't a prodigious kick? I haven't watched Martin that closely, and I reckon there's WAY too much enthusiasm for the kid. Given a heap of responsibility, week in week out, I reckon he might not be as solid as people reckon. Again. Hope I'm wrong. Can't argue with those two points. Brian Taylor gave the world the Davis vs Wonna debate, which is ridiculous. They're just not similar players at all. If he was white, we wouldn't be having that discussion. My only reason for not putting him in that list is that I don't reckon he'd be a player opposition fans and teams would be scared of. But I agree wholeheartedly. He knows how to lead, how to contest, make space... He'll get his 15 touches and that's great. Youre a huge fan of Dunn's, and I think in time he'll take his place in the 22 as a genuine utility... as in, playing bloody everywhere. My issue is that he's tall, and as a KP forward he looked average at best. He doesn't like a contested mark... and so far has only had people talking about him as a tagger. Meanwhile Bate, even with his "bad" kick, dodgy turning circle, his apparently poor awareness, and his red hair has kicked bags of four goals. The reason Dunny hasn't been played forward is because he was taking up space and being more ineffective than Bate was at the same time. For what it's worth though, I reckon this will be the year Dunny will prove you right, if he ever will. Bate had some dodgy games up forward, but could be shifted up the ground to get his numbers and earn his spot the next week. Dunn now has midfield chops, and hopefully that flexibility will give him the opportunity to come up to where Bate is now. Why do I not have him in the 22? Because he hasn't PROVEN he can do this. At the moment it's just a hope...

Correct. Apologies. Disregard that... Man. I'm in form eh?

My God, this is the silly season. Even Freak is doing a semi-about-face... I definitely think Jones and Bate are still looking the goods, as long as they work on their games. Like you say, they "have work to do." But then, who doesn't? I, like you, think we will have another year of juicy picks... and then in 2010 we may lift to get CLOSE to the 8. Which is tantamount to saying we'll have something like pick 6-8 which, if we were to get a Vickery/Hurley, would only make us look even MORE formidable on paper. As for your list of big names... I reckon: Petterd, Watts, Strauss, Morton, Maric, Bate, Jones, Davey, Garland, PJ, McLean, Sylvia, Rivers... are the names that will make up a core. You had: Blease: I worry about purely outside mids, and from what I've seen that's what he is. You may ask why I put Strauss above him, and it's to do with the fact that I see Strauss running through the guts a bit, and his field kicking/handballs are supreme. It won't take much for me to get on Blease's bandwagon, but I want to see more than running down the wing unmarked... Buckley: I reckon he'll float in and out of the core group. I like him, just not completely convinced just yet. Close though. Kick is a worry. I wouldn't want to see him become the next Ward. Martin: I need to see more. He seems to have a lot of good aspects, but if we're going to crack it over bad kicks, then this guy has to be one of the worst kicks on the list. Wonna: I'm in the group that believe he might be a bit limited. I love him and all, but I don't think he'll scale the heights of a Didak, Davis or even Davey... I'm not entirely ironclad on this, but I'm leaning towards the glass half empty with this one. Dunn: You are hugely positive on him, and I reckon, given his time, he's a bit late in his development. I'm not saying he WON'T make it, but to get stuck into Bate and NOT this guy is a bit rich IMO. If you're marking him on skill set alone, then yes, he is quite possibly in the top 10 at the club. But I worry that he's missing something else. If skill set was all that mattered, Newton would be in our top 5 just about. I want a player that plays well for 5-8 seasons, not one that alternates good seasons and bad seasons. If he became a McPhee type, that would be good. I hope he develops a bit of mongrel... There's about 10-15 others that will drift in and out of our top 10, but those are my names for the most part. Add 3 or 4 or dare I say 5 good ones to that and we have a deep and talented list... and all we could wish for as a supporter group.

There wasn't anything the club could have CHANGED per se. Full marks to the club given the situation and the options on hand. But I still maintain my disappointment that we don't have a full compliment of talls I can get excited about, given that this was supposed to be such a deep draft for KP players... Also the CJ thing stung a bit. Not cos he's a great player, but because it painted the club in a bad light. If Jurrah or Bail turn out to be better players than CJ then we have the last laugh, as they were players we may not have taken with our extra pick. But it's still embarrassing, and if it happens more than one time to us, in the long run we would lose out. Other than that, I can't see at this stage how the recruiters have made any glaring errors or oversights, given the information at our hands. And I can't ask for more than that. I reckon if these players don't make it, it won't be something you can pick fault with the recruiters for. That said, I'm sure people will call BP crap in years to come the way they do CAC, regardless of how well he's done at draft time.

Freak, I love your work some of the time, but you are VERY full of [censored] me old matey. Jones' kick was a problem when he was recruited. Bate's awareness issues aren't crippling, and as for Bell's footy brain... it's always been off on holiday, how could you claim to have been the FIRST to bring it up? The difference between you and everyone else is you [censored] about the team first. Just because the rest of us like to be positive from the outset doesn't make you any more right about these players. And for the record, I think given his work ethic, his age, and the fact he's had huge responsibility from very early on, even to the point of getting tagged, Jones will find a place among the best midfielders going around in his future. As soon as his body matures and becomes the one that does the bruising, instead of getting bruised, no-one will care about his so-so kicking any more than they did Harvey's. Bate's a key position oddity given he's neither a KP player or midfieder. He's got enough runs on the board to be rated higher than he is by the masses, but as per usual, people only rate him as good as his last few games, which weren't too flash. And as for Bell... do you really think you were the first to claim he was no good? Seriously? MANY of the best players going around had glaring holes in their games, and still do... But once you give them team-mates who can compliment those weaknesses, they come on and in some cases win flags. Hodge and Franklin were both given a hard time in their late teens and early twenties. Anyhoo... Out of interest, going along the general theme of this thread, are you positive about our future? Do you think we'll climb the ladder with the current list? Or with SOME of the current list? Or do you believe we still haven't recruited the core that will be the premiership threat of the future for us? I think there's room in our future best 22 for Jones and Bate. In fact I reckon they'll make up an integral part. I don't believe either are stars, but both could very well be players as important to a strong side as... say... Hayes to the Saints, Birchall to the Hawks... Not the players people write about, but the players without whom things seem to unravel very quickly. As for Bell, he's about as glamorous as a bin-liner at the moment... but I'm not jumping on the "delist him" bandwagon. He's played some sensational games for us, and within two years ago, was considered one of our only promising young players. I agree wholeheartedly that he's limited, which is why I'd advocate a trade, but people do carry on a lot more about him than they should.

Why? Cos someone sees your side of the story? Or because a demonland poster has the balls to change his mind for once?

Someone get over to Jaded's house... I think she's unconscious.

No worries occo. No harm done.

Had a closer look... and I might retract that about the insider part. I like that he goes and gets his own footy... and that he's not solely a skinny guy who streams around a wing picking up soft possessions. But yes, you're right, he's not a Judd-like contested possession winner.

Well then we have different views on what an inside midfielder vs outside midfielder means. From what I've seen he is great under the pump and makes great choices when surrounded. If you mean that he's not the last guy to pick himself up off the bottom of packs a la Nathan Jones, then fair enough, I've not seen him do that... But I reckon he does enough of the body on body stuff. Plus, it's very early days. He has a little size to him. Maybe that core of Jones/McLean types can instill that hardass quality in him if he doesn't have it already.

The more I consider Strauss, the more I think he has the potential to be what the Dees have not had in the entire time I've watched them. A complete inside footballer. Now we all like Blease for his footskills and pace, but there's countless players with those attributes who either lost their way, or had their potential stunted by bigger bodies, taggers etc etc. This is not to say Blease will be the next Ooze... but I certainly see him as having startling strengths, and some potential weaknesses that might hurt him in finals football. Strauss on the other hand is, and this may seem silly to say, pretty close to the complete inside player. Good in the clinches, startling vision and hands, an elite kick both under pressure and on the run... He may not have monstered matches, but if you look at his game, he's the closest to that magic type of midfielder you need... that isn't JUST an outsider (Trav) or JUST an insider (Jones), but a bit of both. Effectively, when a player like that is "on" they are like having two players. Time will tell whether he goes on to develop, but theoretically I can see this kid becoming a bit of a barometer for the side... Unless we get a couple of star mids that compete with him, of the ilk of Scully. It's early days, I know, so take it with a grain of salt... But I reckon Strauss is the one to watch... Behind Jesus Watts, of course.