Dappa Dan

Good pick up LT... As Pickers said, classy mover. Seems like he likes to dash off the HBF... Do we have room for another of his type of player? With CJ gone you'd suggest we do. Going on that video: Good pace, good/very good long kick, doesn't mind dropping back in the hole, stands up in the contest for marks, and when tackled... And he can deliver with his hands which is a skill most MFC players are lacking in. Good vision too around the corners... And I liked him at ground level. Seemed clean. ALl that said, there's not a lot to go on. Looking at that video, why hasn't he been mentioned before now? How are his numbers? Does he rack up the stats?

Why are people still doing this? PettErd... It's not even pronounced PettArd... No disrespect or anything, just a small niggle for me... Love your work all the same Nugget...

I can honestly say, if there is a football God, this guys career will go the way of Phil Read's. You like to say that you wish a player good luck and all the best... but I just can't find the words. I don't think I've ever booed a player before, but if he got a game against us with the Blues, I'd shout myself hoarse.

Yeah, look... Obviously you want to have the absolute best position possible in ANY draft. And yes, given we have been the worst performed side in 2 years, we should have two years worth of the best picks... My ONLY contention here is that it's not the end of the world. The important thing is that we get an extra pick, and that pick is early enough to make a difference. I would have thought Rich and Watts would be a big coup, as the club can talk the talk, get members excited, the general footy public can get all pumped up... but as far as I'm concerned I'll get EQUALLY as excited with whoever we get at 17 and 19. As you and I have said many times, once recruited, the players start from scratch. We get quality, and we get a certain type of player, and in the end that's all that I'm worried about in the draft for 2008. And for the record, I don't reckon we'll do MUCH next year, but I feel like we'd have to be VERY fortuitous to grab the priority before round 1.

I'm gonna cop it for this: It's not AS big a deal as everyone suggests. Picks 2, 17 and 20... in 2007 Then picks 1, 2 and 18 in 2008... vs Picks 4, 21 Then 1, 17 and 19... We still got 5 picks in the first 20 or so in these two years (if you don't count the Johnstone trade), that would only have been 6 had we tanked... The only certain place we missed out was the priority (any priority) in 2007. I can live with that, it's only one player, and if history has shown anything it's that recruiting is a complete mystery MOST of the time. The more stabs we get at the first 20-25 draftees the better. And while I would love to have Rich and Watts at the club, you never know how good our pick 17 is going to be. It may be the luckiest thing that ever happened to us.

Hang on. Didn't Bailey say they offered him two years?

So besides being a demons supporter, and basing his game on one of the CURRENT demons list (yikes!), what is there to make us excited? Haven't we got enough inside players?

I had this discussion for a moment with Hannabal a week or two ago, and found it interesting how people were quick to crucify DB after 22 rounds... 1) Overall win/loss record is next-to unimportant. At the most it is of secondary importance. Win/Loss will come into it probably from 2010 onwards. 2) His weekly selections are something I've been happy with. We're not looking at players kick ass in the VFL and wondering why they're not getting a look in. The young guys are given multiple weeks to dig themselves into a niche... and even when they have a solid spot in the side, they are dropped if they're not performing... a la Bate and Jones. So far I reckon he's shown that regardless of your name, you have to prove your worth selecting. It puts pressure on the players, discourages front-running... Perhaps it's not going to win too many games in the short-mid term, but it's a good place to start, and a good work ethic to instill early in the careers of these young kids. 3) ????? Like what? 4) This is where I'm a bit nervous. I've not seen too much inspiration. At the moment I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, as he has very little cattle to work with. The Freo game where he had effective defenders, a CHF and FF working as well as they've ever worked together, small forwards that were cutting the legs out of the opposition... That day he seemed to be able, with players doing their jobs, to construct a DEVASTATING structure with virtually nothing to work with. One good day out of 22 though? There just isn't enough rough data yet to make any definitive analysis. Even if he's not performing yet as a match-day coach, who's to say he won't get better? 5) His brand of football, as above is just not existent yet. Sheedy's brand of football leant heavily on his names. What I hope is that when (hopefully) we get our required 3 or so stars, DB can construct a brand around them. A big ask you might say, but he has to be given the opportunity. 6) You mean what he says and how he says it? I like the cut of his jib, but I think this is the kind of thing that is more easily analysed when we're a serious side, which we're not. 7) Yep. I was stunned that we won ANY games given the kind of ages he's working with. He's going to cop it over the next 3 years, and people are going to call for his head. The question is will they get their way? Or will he be the next Clarkson? Or worse yet, will he just leg it to another club as soon as we make the finals again?

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT'S a GRAAAND OOOLD FLAAAAG!!!! Spewing I missed it... If it's not on another Sunday in a few weeks, I'm there... I hope...

He is? The only encouraging thing I've seen is some glowing literature... I'm not writing him off or anything, but...

Rollo and others... I'm afraid I'm going to have to bail. Wish the boys all the best though, and will be certain to make it next time... Go demons.

Agreed. Is Zomer an interstate rookie? If thats the case, doesn't he have to be held onto for 2 years? Wonna and Valenti no shock. CJ... The thing that pisses me off is the complete waste of the few years he's been at the club. He could go on to be a high-possession winner, but Will never be an out-and-out star. I'm just curious. Why did the club not want to offer him 2 years? Do they have big plans next year in the draft? Did they want to make sure they still had options in 12 months, and not be tied down to retaining a player they weren't sure about? If this is the case, then fair enough. Still. Would have made more sense to trade him for a late pick... surely we could do better than pick 80-something?

All depends on whether or not he's interested. I saw an interview with him when he'd debuted, and he seemed like he was here only for shits and giggles. May have been given the ass for that reason. If he's serious about Aussie rules, then fair enough...

Apologies... didn't see the response til just now. You'll note I said "so far." There's been a few opportunities for him to go for the quick fix, and he's stuck to his guns as far as keeping on the 23 and under track. I think you put too much stock in the word "highly" though. So far I like what he does in the media (which is probably not too significant in the end), and am happy that he's stuck to playing kids who earn their spots, not playing older guys on reputation for a cheap win. I think it takes some nerve to adjust your list, after just a year in the job, to the point that there's only 10 guys over 25, and of those, Carroll probably won't be playing next year, Jamar is a non-entity, Robbo could very well be a spent force... and of the remainder only JMac is in his thirties. He is coaching for short term pain, to long term gain. Given what we wanted, and needed, he's done a bang-up job so far. I agree, of course, that there's little we can glean on match day. As he's managing a list that NO-ONE could coach to many wins, IMHO. My point, if you take it in context, is that there's no reason to jump on the dump DB bandwagon. That's absurd. You're going on 22 rounds where he coached the biggest basket-case in the AFL? At the start of the season there was talk we wouldn't win a single game all year, given our list. What did you expect at the end of the year when you're playing a midfield of kids? Vast improvement? It sucked as a game, but unless you missed it, the whole season sucked. And of course we can afford another year like this... We can afford another 2 if they net us guys like Watts... We're in a precarious position, but what the cub has realised is: what we need more than another 5-10 years of mediocrity and quick-fixes, is a flag. And this is the way to build one. Worked for the Hawks didn't it? Which brings me to my next point. One of the major criticisms of Daniher was that he was reactionary. When the Swans won, he focussed on defence, when it was WC he focussed on midfields and running games... He did whatever the flag winner from the year before did. That was a recipe for SOME success, but not flags. He wasn't innovative. That's what I'm hoping, when he gets a decent squad in, he'll do. My only concern with the Hawks model is that it has worked so well, everyone will be doing it. Carlton are a couple of years ahead of us in that regard. Also, the Hawks did it well because they traded strongly, as well as took advantage of some fairly amazing recruiting... What if pick 1, 17 and 19 are duds? Then where are we? But that's another thread for another day.

How rare to see a journalist get it right for once. Caro. You've earned brownie points here, and for more reasons than the fact you've come to the defence of MFC. Well done.

It's not about prime time games. We have only one Friday night... which is stupid. It's about having a fair slice of Saturday games, which we don't have. Punishing teams for losing by limiting their ability to get corporates only worsens things... Try explaining that to Vlad though...

No-one else gonna say it? Notman? Unfortunate surname...

That's gonna be tricky... How long is their contract for?

If that's true, then the more important thing will be whether DB can smack the attitude out of him. It's no good if he goes from Sheedy who liked him, to Knights who didn't, and then to DB who is a no-nonsense kind of coach. I get the feeling that if Dean sees him as Kinights does, we'll pass on him before the draft even begins. Good point though.

Ultimately, yes. But as you have said, it's just not as simple as putting a line through a player's name simply because he has had disciplinary problems. If they're chronic, then yes, get rid of him. Like you say, it's a judgement call. I thought he was 20? I applaud your sentiments, but it's just not that simple. Some people say that discipline is mandatory, and that any problems with it mean a player has to go. If that's the case, then Pike, Aker, Cousins and Kerr would never have played in flags. Likewise, just having some %&$# in them doesn't equate success. If it did, there wouldn't be players like Angwin and Gardner having their careers devastated. In the end I hope we're not spooked by a few disciplinary issues. We have a majority of smart, cool-headed blokes running around at the club, and unlike Essendon we don't have a core of unruly loose cannons. Perhaps Knights thought it was time to tackle the issue seriously and make an example of Tom. We're not in the same state as the Scum. I hope we take a balanced look at the situation. But when all is said and done, we're never going to get the "perfect" player in the PSD (were he to go that far). Players don't get recycled because they're an ideal fit. And if it's a couple of injuries and disciplinary problems... then that's about as good as you're gonna get for a 20 year old. At the moment, there's no-one else. Simple as that. And there it is. An "official" word if you can call it that. Tom will be painted with this brush for the next 5 years, and should he overcome it and play 200 games, possibly the rest of his career. Would we suggest a performance based contract to him? Any clauses on discipline? If he baulks at the idea and feels he's being treated unfairly... then maybe it's best to let him go to a different club. If he shows genuine signs he wishes to reform (maybe he can come train with us?) in an interview, then go for it. I back the club t make the right call.

If you take all that as read, it's still a surprise decision in Tom's case. Bradley had played quite a bit of footy, and his limitations were clear for all to see. Hislop is still just so young. As far as the rest of the football world is concerned, including EFC members, the fact he's gone is considered borderline premature. Now I would consider it mandatory that no footy department follows the whims of a fanbase, naturally. Especially if this site is anything to go by. But in Tom's case, it's clear whatever he did wrong (and he must have made a wrong step SOMEWHERE) he did behind closed doors. Knights' reputation, and that of his recruiters and footy department will now be scrutinised more deeply, as a result of both Bradley and now Hislop. I don't think it's outrageous to suggest this either. The mistake of recruiting him? That's clear now, and you're right. But the mistake of letting him go, when he could go to another club and play good footy, that will (possibly) come. As for whether or not he will be picked up... Come on RR. Given that there's basically no-one good nominating so far, it's fair enough to say that he's likely to be picked up. Not as much as, say, Nick Naitanui... but still pretty darn likely. If we see a wave of highly rated but wayward youngsters let go by list-lodgement time, then I'll retract that. But at this stage, I'm gonna say he's a monty to end up at another club. "I have no evidence of any off field or atttitude issues and I dont see why some are unfairly speculating about it." Well that's simple. He's a top 20 draft pick with 2 years at a club. His development hasn't gone amazingly, but it hasn't stalled either. He had some injury complaints, but nothing (public) that suggests his career is finished. We don't know the facts. One thing's for certain, there is more to this than we know. Hence, we speculate. But yes. Much of it is unfair... "Sylvia's issue was a once off matter that I think is separate to the assessment of his football talent." True.

I knew someone would pick me up on that. I haven't given up on Frawley. It's a poor example. I just used him cos he was close to Hislop in his draft year. My point was that MFC have stuck with NQR a lot over the years, and many of them have played a couple of good seasons here and there. Sylvia, after his domestic violence thing, is an example of this. Perhaps EFC identified that with his attitude he would be a hot and cold player AT BEST and that the young list was better off without his influence? I dunno... I just reckon dropping a #20 pick 2 years after selecting him, right or wrong, is a gutsy move. They're gonna cop some criticism in the short term... and then again when Hislop is picked up, which you would think he would be. And then again if he goes on to rack up 100 games, which it's conceivable he could do... Are you on him? Or are you suspicious?

I read that as more that he was still a lover of the Hawks, not so much that he didn't like Essendon. Which makes me concerned than for a footballer who wants his piece of the pie, MFC is not the place to get it. If he couldn't find a home as EFC, MFC isn't exactly a step up. Food for thought.

- Probably not anything to do with list lodgement. It's a ways of yet, and they've dropped 8 guys already. Plenty of room on their list. - The inside midfielders question may have something to do with it. One guy at Bomberblitz said that when Prismall was signed, it made it harder for Hislop to maintain his spot. I dunno if that's reason to go delisting a kid, but it may have contributed. Yes, that could be true, but isn't it a danger that he'll be picked up by another club? If he did decide to nominate for the PSD he'd get picked up you'd think. And if they persuaded him not to, he'd still be looked at by us and anyone else above the bombers in the rookie draft order. Honestly though, I've heard this draft is good early, then it drops off dramatically late, and that it's not too deep. If Tom nominated for the regular draft, you'd think he could go in the 30s or 40s at least? I don't know if I'd condone picking him up with 1, 17 or 19, but perhaps 35? If he does nominate, you'd suggest he might end up at the Hawks, who were apparently very keen on him, according to bomberblitz. Some interesting factors on bomberblitz: - It seems like the older, calmer heads hated him. Say he had attitude problems and no love for EFC. - They reckon he was offered a year, didn't take it, so they delisted him. - The rumour is he was always on the way to Hawthorn, was just biding his time. - In general though, many are [censored] as he wasn't really given as much of a chance to prove himself as some of their other young guys. - I scanned pretty quickly, but from what I can glean he missed a training session. Not sure if it was pre-season or regular season. From all accounts, it was alcohol related. As in, he's a bit of a party boy. Not sure how ironclad that is though. * I take all of that with a grain of salt, naturally... One thing I am impressed by? The fact that the Bombers are hard-lined enough to ditch a kid who's not doing enough despite the fact they'd invested an important draft selection in him. You wouldn't find MFC doing that to, say, Frawley...

Well. I know only what the regular joes around footy know. Hard nut, he's a touch arrogant, but in a good way. Quick hands. Not sure if he's the archetype for the future of footy, as I know nothing about his kicking. But I do reckon one of the weakest teams in the history of handballing is the current MFC squad. Who, in our side, has hands as good as, say, Simon Black? We have extractors, sure, but my heart stops every time they look to deliver by hand... so Tom could be a good fit in that regard. My info is all pretty flimsy though. Best people to ask would be your die-hard bomber supporter mates. They would have seen more of him than me, that's for sure. Eh?!!! When have we ever not agreed? :D I did exactly the same thing as you, and I might go back later and edit my comments about drugs if anyone else is bothered, as they are unnecessarily inflammatory, especially in today's climate. I have NO idea why he's being let go, which is why I thought some sort of social, or team-oriented instability might be the cause. Also, if they were that keen to get rid of a top-20 draft pick in a super-draft, why didn't his name pop up in trade talks? SURELY it at LEAST would have come up somewhere in the Lovett trade-talks as an add-on. So what's happened between now and the end of trade week that has them so spooked that they want to let him go NOW? Speaking of which, why did they delist 8 guys... then a few ays later add him to the list? I'm very confused, and I reckon there'll be a lot more on this topic before draft day. For what it's worth, right now, a speculative pick up of a player drafted within the last 3 years is pretty much DB's wishlist. Also, if his reputation is deserved, then he'll be Dean's kind of player.