Dappa Dan

Wow. Did headland's suspension stick?

OP? Had he not been restricted, would his career achievements to date be rated differently than those others you mentioned? Those guys have put together 2 good seasons. Bell only started getting regular games in the last half-dozen rounds last year after overcoming his OP mid year. What more do you want from him occo? I look forward to reminding you of how good he is in the years to come, I'll say that much.

That does it. Bring in Byron. Buy him a big maccas breakfast. Give him orders that for the day he's not to look at the pill, just make a beeline for anything named Carr. We'll still lose, Byron won't play for 8 weeks, but by gee there'll be some fireworks.

Bugger.

Twit.

Another interesting Wikipedia reference... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwayne_Russell :lol:

Not many. He only played on him late, and one of those goals was kicked when he was holding his nose in place and walking off the field (not before turning to see if he could pick up a touch mind you). Is that right? I could have that wrong...

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/articl...ong_sports.html Thoughts?

Right. I reckon I've found what might be the core of our opposition here. I really can't emphasise enough that good form or not, The footy Newton has shown me so far has shown ABSOLUTELY NO sign of what you describe above. He's been the exact opposite actually. There could be a number of reasons for this, and I'm certainly not saying you're making things up. However, it's certainly confusing. One thing's for certain though, he's no Bartram. Very sage. Though I'm really confused about this whole Garland thing. The way I see it, he's not that much closer to the side than Weetra. He had 2 opportunistic goals last week, and after that didn't do a whole lot. He seems like he has a future, but is MILES off as far as I'm concerned. If the match committee see something, then that's fine. But by gee, I've not seen enough yet...

Well first of all, he's been trying, and has succeeded in breaking through groups of opposition numerous times. This is one of his strengths. Secondly, watching him try to run and carry has been like watching a car crash. He's been exposed in this area and I reckon it may even be possible that the coaching department has told him to find his first option by foot at every opportunity, rather than to run and get caught. Yes he has explosive pace, and he seems to enjoy bruising opposition players when he gets the pill, but my goodness can you remember what it was like when he took off, had a bounce and then raised his eyes to look for a leading target? It was hard not to cover your eyes. I dunno. I'm happy for Bell to be given a go in the guts, but I certainly don't think he has a long-term future there on anything more than a part-time basis. Talking about midfielders isn't exactly my forte, so I'm happy to just go with the flow and hope for the best... who knows? Maybe he can be a good run-with player? At the moment though I'm afraid we may be robbing Peter to pay Paul (or however that old chestnut goes). Our defence isn't exactly knocking it for six at the moment is it?

Nice post, RR. As you say you've thought carefully about all the aspects, but I think the difference here lies in where we think we're going for 2007. Hang on a second. I've seen plenty of what he can do, and I've missed ONE intra club game that you claim says more about what he can do than a month playing out of the square on AFL quality defenders. Now you may well be right in saying it has MORE to do with his AFL form than VFL, but I refuse to accept I'm either uninformed OR naive based on the comparison of what games he's played and where. And for the record, the decriptions of his form in this match, including yours, are not lost on me. That's what I thought. If that's the inference you thought I made, then that's regretful. I certainly never meant to imply you haven't seen enough of his footy, or any at all. If you take a look, you'll see I more-or-less assumed you'd seen your fair share, but couldn't be sure. So you've seen a fair bit from him? That's good, but since I assumed you had, changes little. Agreed. I certainly think he's got MILES to go before he's a walkup selection. Actually, from what I've seen he'd make a premium CHF. It's this position that I see as more open and available down at Sandy. They've got a number of players rotating through there at the moment. Sauntner is absolutely ironclad as FF, but there's certainly room for Newton SOMEWHERE on the forward line. Point conceded. Playing him out of the square for his ENTIRE time at Sandy would certainly limit him in terms of footy education. It's here that we disagree. Call me naive (and I'm sure you won't miss the opportunity), but as far as I'm concerned we HAVE to be at very least 3-5 after round 8 to have only the slimmest chance of winning the flag in 2007. After round 3 I still thought we were a chance last year, and I stand by that. But this year, given the injuries, form, fixture and instability, I simply cannot see us being in a position to threaten for a flag in 2007. Yes we'll cmome good, and when these players with 4-8 week injuries come back, we'll be a different side, but not different enough. If you remember I said before the season started I had serious reservations about our year, and you convinced me (though not deliberately) to come around. As it turns out my prediction has turned out to be truer than I could have imagined. My focus in regards to MFC will have shifted after round 4, depending on the reult. Rationally? No. Informed? Yes, and I take umbridge to the suggestion I'm not "informed" about footy, even in this crisis. As I've said numerous times, in a normally functioning 2007 MFC forwardline with the odd injury, there is absolutely no room for Juice given his current form. At the start of the year I had him pencilled in for a full year at Sandy, hopefully with his worst footy at the start of the year, and his best as the year wore on. If the demons were going along well, MAYBE there was room to sneak him in for a game or two if there was the odd hammy or corky, but that was absolutely best case scenario for him. As it stands, I believe the club is not even trying to get out of a tight spot. I reckon we're on the verge of a full-blown crisis that could stretch half a decade into the future, and ALL my football instincts are screaming out at me not to scrap the odd win, but to invest in the future absolutely AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Many have said we have shots at a flag in '07 and '08. As far as I'm concerned under these circumstances '07 is out of the question, and I have serious worries about '08. Back on Juice, as I have said in a perfect world his form is NOWHERE NEAR good enough to get a game. But the MFC forward line is about as far from a perfect world as I can conceive of. But I'll concede the point... For now....Having Juice go it alone up there, with the help of only Miller, PJ, Jamar and a few other pinch-hitters is almost certain to be an insurmountable task for him, even just to get 10 touches and kick a couple in 60 minutes. BTW thanks for the help, and when I hit the "add reply" button we'll see if this has worked. Oh, and thanks to you Nasher for the help in making demonland that little more aesthetically pleasing... Ed: Heeeeeey, look at that! It worked!

Watch some football. It's no wonder demons fans have a bad name. Not only is Bell up to AFL standard, he's going to be among our best now and in years to come...

(Not sure how you managed to put the quotes/answers in seperately, maybe you can drop me a PM) - I agree there. My point is he IS physically ready. If you put a kid in who has the physical attricutes but is still 18, and going up against J. Brown, then you're a bit thick obviously. He is not 18, he has filled out and is physically taking the bigger guys on, hence... - Aaaah. Yes. I didn't see it actually. On this I do concede a point. Against senior AFL players it appears he didn't show a yelp. But from what I understand you haven't seen too much of him at Sandy. Is this correct? I hope you've caught a televisation or two, though I fear it won't show his best work, which is sometimes off the ball. - I still disagree here. One thing he perhaps lacks is a bit of speed, which I think he may need on the wing, as well as a touch more endurance. I doubt he's had much experience there either. This in itself is a good enough reason not to select him, but then I'm not arguing for him to be brought in as a flexible player, only as a last forward option. I mentioned Miller only because he was given a go at a VERY young age with nowhere near the talent Newton possesses. My point on physical attributes was only that perhaps Miller was played early because he showed he had a hard enough body. - Absolutely. My common sense has gotten me NOWHERE when it has come to selection this year. My selections for players who will come on and prove their quality have let me down. I think this paragraph holds the most weight in your posts from above. Newton is CERTAINLY a confidence player, or at least given the evidence, he is. You're spot on there, and he should be handled carefully. But just as a young confidence player can be set back by early failure, so can he become great with a handful of strong possessions. It's still a question of timing. Also, It's my feeling (disagree all you like, that's your business) that you place too much influence on a single inter (intra?)- club match. I fully understand your meaning when you say he was woeful, and believe me I don't mean to undermine your opinion on that match, but what I saw from him, albeit at Sandy, might as well have been a different player. I've seen a good few players played who have done less than he has in my time wandering around TBO. But again, it's my word against yours. It seems to me you are saying stay the course, don't play kids before their time, and I'm saying that although early, it's time to try something daring. - The issue of justifying his spot hasnlt come up because he hasn't got one yet. He hasn't even had the chance. Justifying the spot of a 2, 20, 50 or 100 game player is different because there's more certain evidence to go on. I'm perfectly confident in what I've said regarding the positions in the 22 of players like Bate, Ward, Godders, CJ etc etc. ....Bathing in what, exactly RR? If it's desperation and frustration, sure, I'll bathe... I'll swim laps. But don't make the mistake of presuming I'm not using my brain here.

Just having thought about this a little more I reckon there's a lot of right on both sides of the arguement, but I reckon if you put me up one end of a table, and Headland, his daughter and his wife up the other end, arguing the case against his vilent actions may be impossible... Not sure if it has much to do with all this, but it was an interesting scenario that popped into my head...

One more... Last year we played a slightly disproportionate amount of youth compared to other years. Bate, Bartram, Jones, Dunn and Warnock had their debuts and there were other players that weren't part of the 22 who developed beautifully by getting games despite poor early form (Bell chief among them). The point is that when given responsibility these young guys were actually an integral part of why we romped into the finals last year. Now there are always going to be exceptions to the rule, like Bate and CJ who are struggling, but for the most part last year proved that you CAN have succes while blooding large numbers of guys in their first seasons. Yes Newton is a KPP, and yes he's bottom age, but surely there's been enough evidence to show the younger guys were pulling their weight last year? And if that's the case, it MUST be worth considering them now...

- Yes. We all know this. But even if you don't count his first year he's still in his second. - He wasn't AWFUL in the pre-season. He played one senior match, then sent to Sandy seniors and was better than good. Yes it was VFL, and yes it was VFL pre-season, no-one's trying to say he's earned a callup in a full strength demons side, but times are tough RR. What demons there are playing are playing worse than the VFL team they are affiliated with. - Correct. He should/could play CHF. In fact, when he's gone there he's picked up marks, kicks, hard-ball gets... the lot. - Incorrect. By playing on the wing they're trying to get him to become more flexible as a player, so that when he does get promoted, he won't have to fight with the same 3 blokes to get a run. By playing him on the wing they have robbed him of his strengths. It hasn't worked. When he comes into his own, maybe he'll play there. But for now, there's nothing wrong with being a promising CHF, it was enough to get Miller a game at the same age, and yes, I'm aware of his physical attributes. - Some of the calls about Newton's promotion ARE bathed in naievity and ignorance. But not this one. This one is bathed in desperation and frustration. Too many of the players getting a game have little or no future, and have NO potential as KP forwards. Newton could come in and do little, or he could pull a Tomahawk and kick a few. Yes it's a risk, but WHENEVER he gets a game, this year or 2 years from now, the same will be true. At some point he'll go from being too young to play, to being "held back" too long. It's a question of timing, and while playing a guy too soon in his development can be a mistake, my feeling is he's no longer in this classifictaion. - That last sentence will be true on his debut, whether it be now or years from now. I say give him a sniff. The team is not going to get anywhere in 2007 and beyond with SOME of the players being selected. And I'm NOT saying play the guy for 120 minutes out of the square. He can be played with little responsibility to get a feel for the pace...

Yep. Just saw it in the paper. Disregard my last post...

Speak for yourself. Newton is in his third year in the system. he had a sensational pre-season, a bad game 2 weeks ago and an ok game last week when he was being played on a wing... Clearly they're trying to get him to become more flexible. If he played in the forward line and off the bench for the Dees I'm confident some good things would happen... He's certainly as much chance as Cox, Dick and Toovey (apparently the Chinese word for penis according to Peter Helliar). One thing's for sure, he'll do as good, or a better job up forward than a myriad of forwards we've got soaking up space on the list at the moment. Bugger flexibility, Newton's a leading target who does all the other stuff too... If we play all our old hacks we lose. If we play the kids, we probably still lose, but we get something out of it... It really is that simple.

I'll believe it when I see it reported at mfc.com or on the footy show. The Age is often behind on these sorts of things.

Bate is a big boy. He's 191cm and built like the proverbial. He's fast in straight lines (almost caught Wojak), but he's a unit. he was recruited as a KPP and plays a sensational running game (or did last year), but he'll not be a midfielder forever. As for hwhat you say about his hands there, everyone has bad form/confidence issues. His hands were sensational last year when marking, swooping on a loose ball, handballing out of tight spots... He'll come good... Oh, and the main reason I responded?... "Screen name of the month" award to you...

I admire your priciples astro, and in all honesty I agree with the principle of punishing Selwood for this act. But it's worth keeping in mind that, according to ch. 9 reports the conversation went something along the lines of... "See her? I blanked her" "that's my daughter, and she's six!" "...Yeah, she's a blank" Now you can say one of two things here. Firstly, the fact that once her age was established, Selwood should have walked. Secondly, Selwood didn't even know who it was on his arm, or how old the person was, or when the tattoo was made... etc etc. The age factor is what makes this appalling. And for that alone this is being taken very seriously, as it should. The worst thing about it is not that Des has been offended, (they're big boys and I'm sure had this been kept behind closed doors Selwood would apologise) but that this low act has been seen by 6 year old girls everywhere, and their Mums, and their impressionable sons... This is an absolute nightmare for the image of the game, and one Adam may never wake from.

Madness, occo, madness. I like the general idea you have there, but I reckon you're selling us up the river. Everyone seems to think that in order to achieve success all you need to do is bottom out for a few years to get the best talent available over the space of those years. This has NEVER been proven. What if the way to win a flag is by having good players who can inspire and teach the younger ones to become the best in the land? If that's the case then I'd like to hang onto the Cam Bruces to see if they can't educate the younger guys on how to train yourself to be a better endurance player. I do respect the position of some posters who claim that our better players are the ones we must trade. You have to lose something to gain something, and unless you're trading GENIUSES like the Hawks (Hay, Rawlings) you're going to have to put up with losing someone you see a future in to get high draft picks. That said, trading our best players away isn't just a simple, clean deal. You trade away some of your future when you do that... Also, I reckon it makes sense if you can get rid of a Tarrant and end up with 2 first round picks in a superdraft. But to trade away all your juicy players to get a few early picks in ONE draft is incredibly risky. What if the draft ends up like 2002? We end up with 4 early picks in a dodgy draft. What if we drop Bruce and pick up another Fioraw ith the pick we get? We haven't really got any Woewodins, who's selling price is more than they're worth, so really there's no-one "good" screaming out to be traded. The solution? Well there really isn't one. We have only very few tall players. Even IF Dunny and Newton went on to completely replace Neita and Robbo (which they won't) that still doesn't give us a full compliment of tall forwards. When Jeff retires, I reckon we'll have exactly 0 ruckmen. So there's another 3 tall drafting spots needing to be filled. Worse than all this is that these tall players will most likely need time to develop. It could be 5 years before they all become the players we need them to be, at which time we will have had 5 years of pain... I reckon your 2 year plan will turn into my 5 year plan. And on those players... - From what I've seen Warnock will be lucky to make 100 games. I could be wrong, it is early days. But since I'm trying to be comprehensive, Warnock is a guy I'd prefer not to be FORCED to retain. - I admire Gooders for how he's gone about it this year so far. But we will never be anyting if this guys plays heaps of games, even at depth. - Ditto Ward. Not premiership material, even as your 22nd selected. - Ferg is VERY limited. Will probably be retained, but only because there's no-one else to take his spot. - I love big Dutchy, but he's too old to be part of any MFC plans beyond 2008. So in short, I just reckon you're asking to keep 4 very average and/or old players there and trading away your quality. The idea of a cleanout is that you drop all your dead wood, and players who will be forced into retirement within the next 2 or so years. You appear to want to do the EXACT opposite of "clean-out".

A guy called up on SEN about this and was brave enough to take the other side of the debate from you Jaded. I thought at first I was ready to call up myself and have the guy banned from radio stations, but what he said made a lot of sense... First let me paint the picture... One bloke, who sounded like he had the IQ of a teapot, came on. He grunted something along the lines of "I play footy, and I have tattoos of my kids, and I always say to guys at training that if they say anything about my kids, I'll thump them." Doran then went on to ask what happens in games, to which he replied "If they bring up my kids, I warn them once that it's not on, and if they continue, I thump them." I couldn't help but feel then that that was all a bit ridiculous. Some pretty terrible things are said on footy fields, and everyone on them, umps included, understand that in just about every case, if the players find something about their opposition that they can use against them, to try and get their mind off the game, they will use it. If I come on the field and asked some guy if it was his kids in the tattoo on his arm, he said yes, then I told them how ugly they were, I'd expect him to crack it, but try and punish me in the game. If he turned and started swinging away, I'd immediately come to the conclusion that he was LOOKING for something to fight about. In a sense it's not about his kids, it's about his own wounded pride. My words may be considered immature, but no less mature than the actions of the bloke I'm trying to unsettle. So then another bloke, who claims to have played a lot of footy, comes on and takes the tack that when you're picked on by opposition players, it's best to either hurt them on the scoreboard, or fight words with words. His suggestion was for Headland to have said "You reckon you did that eh? So you're what... A paedophile? What would your Mum/Girlfriend/Sister say about that? I'll ask her next time..." You get the picture... It's clear to anyone with even a slight understanding of the game that Selwood was only trying to get under his skin, and he crossed the line. IMO he should be suspended so we keep that sort of talk from EVER seeing the light of day again, but people should really realise that worse is said on the field, and in all but only a few cases players understand that it's just words meant to upset a player. In all likelihood, when it occurred to Selwood to spout that filth he probably thought "This is too far out for Headland to actually believe, but it may effect him enough for me to take his mind off the ball." I think we'll find a press conference will come up pretty soon in which Selwood will say he's deeply sorry for saying what he said, and that he hopes Headland and his daughter may find it within themselves to forgive him, that he won't do it again blah blah blah.... And most importantly he'll find himself explaining for the rest of his career that the ONLY reason he opened his mouth was because he knew it would upset Des... Simple really. Punish him, but let's call a spade a spade as we do it.

I don't mean to bump the thread, but I needed to borrow the title. If we have a rough year then yes, we will have a good old-fashioned clear-out to make room for either trades or 6 shiny new draft picks. If we come, say, 15th with 4 wins, we get 2, 18, 20, 36, 52 and 68. But who goes? If we got rid of, say, Ward, Godfrey, Brown, Bizzell, Ferguson, Holland, Jamar, Neville, Warnock, Wheatley, plus rookies Hayes and Bode. Add to those a few other maybes (PJ, Ooze, Neaves, Hughes), we'd need twice the draft picks to just fill the list up!!!! So what are we left with? Of the 10 above, probably 4 must remain on the list.... How depressing is that? Either we keep a few 30-year-old has-beens or never-really-weres OR we keep a few young guys that have been proven to not have what it takes at the highest level!!! And that's assuming we use ALL our draft picks... That means using pick 68 in a non-superdraft year... odds are we'll end up drafting another guy who plays 3 games or something....

Yeah. I've been thinking like this for a while. We may be in the wrong thread, but anyway... pros.... It's Judd, he'd get us further up the ladder... He's probably only just about to start playing the footy he'll be remembered for.... Sponsorship + Membership $.... List would look more attractive to a potential coach... The younger players would see how it's done in regard to training and workrate, unlike the current bunch of leaders who seem ok with mediocrity.... cons.... We get only 150-200 games out of him, not the complete career you get from a Jones/McLean.... We Pay 1mil or whatever, making it hard to get the other players around him that we would need for a flag.... If hurt, even temporarily, all our eggs are in one basket.... From what we can see we are 5 years away from making a tilt at the flag, by which time Judd will be in his late 20s, would it be better to have a player who is only just 23.... As far as price goes, WC will get better than a first pick for him. In normal cases a gun player having established himself and played 7 years already with a club is not worth a first round pick, since you only get half the service before he gets too old, as compared to a round 1 pick that has a whole career ahead of him. Judd is a star, and so WC can just go with the highest bidder, and if it's a number 1 pick and a good player, or the first 2 picks... then so be it. In reality, I reckon no player is good enough at 150 games to be worth a number 1 pick, except maybe Judd. The other point to raise is that MFC seem to have a habit of stuffing up their high picks, and turning good talented players with huge futures into mediocre ones. So we get the next big ruck prospect... so what? He could be a dud... He will then be persisted with regardless and carve out an average career... There's pros and cons to both sides, and I reckon it's all a matter of price at the time. Personally I reckon a number 1 pick is acceptable for us, but if we have to trade a Frawley or something, then what's the point? I fear if we go for him we may be hung out to dry. We have precious few tradable resources at this stage, if we get rid of them what do we have? Another 1 man team for a few years....