timD

He is pathetic

Scoop, the question I have is about whether he is good enough at the inside role. Now, no-one can dispute that he has that knack of getting the ball (not even STMJ though he'll try). Is he better than Jones, trenners, viney and pick 4? Now, for the last two I just don't know. I am relatively confident that he lacks other strings to his bow that jones and Trenners both have. So, the question then becomes is his ball winning skill so particularly good that his weaknesses are offset? I guess that the FD say 'no'. Truthfully I don't know - i'm not a good judge and don't see enough footy. As for getting done over, well, let's see what happens. Someone once argued that we over-rate draft picks. What we traded out were blokes we don't think will make it and we traded in blokes who ahve or who we think will. Pehaps the picks are incidental - they allow players off our list and TPP and allow us to keep blokes, pay blokes and offer others more money in the future?

If the 21 year old has one position that we will not play in three years and the 26 year old improved structure and may play in three years then it is a good move. Pederson can play back? Could he take Sellar's role if he is cut at the end of next year? Doesn't it provide us with the chance to have some strong talls and depth? Martin is not up to it. Fitzy may not be either - his kicking is still very iffy (albeit improved). Gysberts could only play inside onballer IMO. He could not play forward or back due to disposal being average only and overhead skills and pace being average-below average. So it is him or viney, jones, trenners, mackensie and then pick 4. No loss. We have redundancy/backups (magner & couch). Pederson may well allow fitzy more time to develop, may give up a choice of big bodied forwards/defenders, allow mitch clarke and dawes to play permanent forward and mean that hogan has to earn his spot. I cannot see gys giving us structural advantage and he has not earnt his place in the midfield and I am not convinced that he'd keep it over the next few years anyway.

Yeah, but some opinions are more equal that others.

Lord travis, we cannot do it all in one trade year. Don't forget that more GWS and GCS kids come OOC next year and their lists get smaller... I have no doubt that this is phase two of a multi-phase plan that will still take several years to come to fruition. This year looked to be about attitude and structure. Next year will be about role-players and a few choice strikes at top talent. Then we'll see what the midfield really looks like.

Is this really a competition to see who can get closest to being banned without being banned? I'm giving BH three shots before running over 'the line'.

I thought olisik was going to take the cake for worst post I'd ever read. I was wrong. Wow. Harrington has no interest in building a premiership list. Just wow.

]Cheap shot...FMD. This is not cheap shot rumor anything - it is people putting together limited information to try and figure out what is going on. Unlike what you are doing, which is being contrary and rude because you can. It is clear that there have been really serious problems at melbourne. Problems around attitude and work ethic. Gysberts doesn't appear much bigger or fitter than when he started. Lots of people who watch the game agree. I remember posters on 'ology commenting a couple of years ago that Gysberts struggled to run and looked exhausted quickly. People have observed coaches getting in to him and blease about running. And then you get blease coming out in an article recently saying that he got fit and did what the coaches said and got into the side. Couch did, magner did..hell even evans was close before further injury. Gys was in once or twice and then out again. Concerns about his fitness are not new. - and a number of reputable posters notice his poor running in games for melbourne and casey. Then there are genuine rumors about attitude. Being snide just makes oyu look snide. This may well be accurate...but it is not helping your argument.

Stuie, you look it up. in·flux    [in-fluhks] Show IPA noun 1. act of flowing in. 2. an inflow ( opposed to outflux): an influx of tourists. 3. the place at which one stream flows into another or into the sea. 4. the mouth of a stream. So, if 'competence' comes in and 'incomptence' moves out then T_U can argue that it is an influx, or inflow, of competence So, now you are clearly wrong, maybe you go and bleat about something else.

H, Andrew Bolt plays fast and loose with the truth, invents conspiracies and so grossly distorts what he quotes and how he use material that he appears generally disengenuous. I'm all for conservative writers challenging the looney left but this guy has no standards, no observable ethics and is cleverly abusive, derotagory and deceitful as it suits. That is not you at all. Paul Sheehan, Amanda Vanstone, Chris Berg, Tom Schwitzer all write more convincingly without the moral and professional vacuum Bolt consistently demonstrates. Greg Megalogenous(?) is someone I really enjoy reading. I reckon that the only thing that separates bolt and alan jones is that bolt lacks the courage of his convictions.

So many. So very many. My worst though was not a player. It was Bailey. hook line sinker. I bought the whole development coach line...the idea of talentEd kids growing under his leadership... You know, the while self disclosure is supposed to make you feel better. It really doesn't.

Yeah, we agree on most stuff truthfully. I see people hide behind process when they don't want responsibility. However, let's do a little thought experiment. The same process had Schwab sacked and Bailey re-signed before 186. Imagine if we'd 'only' lost by 125 points that day. Bailey would have kept his job and be coaching still. Schwab would be gone. Neil Craig would likely be at Carlton with Mick Malthouse. The leadership group would be unchanged. No mitch clarke. 7.5 wins. Steady as she goes but going no-where, with a brooding discontent as G Lyon finds his backroon voice after recovering from the death of his good friend Jimmy. Yes, I'm guessing about a future that did not happen. I'm not being unreasonable IMO. I too prefer substance over form. What I would say to that is that the substance and form are intrinsically linked and that the Neeld appointment is neither - it is outcome. Anyway, despite a shocking year, I like him and like what he is doing.

Ron, I bagged the lack of process. You are confused if you reckon that the process is justified by Neeld's behaviour. That is just a daft argument. Like saying that Prendergast's recruiting is good b/c of Howe. I aint no dweeb, sunshine. The process sucked. Just because it hasn't blown up in our faces yet is more good luck than good management. And the process does not reflect on Neeld. I thank my lucky stars that he seems to have a plan and the ability to galvanise a club around executing it (while losing those that won't come along). If you reckon that the board, while busy helping create division and distraction, clearly understood what we needed and sought it out by picking the best candidate through good process, then you give them a damn sight more credit that their behaviour deserves. They are lucky to have such support.

Amen!

We might not need much past 58 anyway. Given we've got Dom Barry (berry?), Viney and pick 4 as well as Dawes and Byrnes and a comp pick that may be about 35, we are adding 6 blokes before even getting to draft pick 58. Add that one and it is 7. Now to see if we can trade Martin, Petterd, Morton etc.

I know Robbie. We cannot fix all our problems in one draft. But, bugger me, what a draft so far! For whatever reason, I've given up on the idea that we can develop players. I just assume that Taggert, Tynan, Evans and Gys won't come on, that Tapscott won't, that Gawn won't, that Sheahan won't - or that we cannot get them to come on to an AFL standard. If that changes - if this club actually figures out how to maximise the potential of their recruits - and a few of the seven I mentioned actually make it, then we are just a star away from being genuinely good.

Ron, we still need a midfield and we are about 5 blokes short ATM (a few who play and a few for depth). FMD, but Neeld is decisive.

What a pile. Gysberts finds the ball. It is not a 'suppossed' skill. Watch him play. FMD. This thread is littered with people arguing about his limitations and yet you find it necessary to get on, make a series of points that are borderline irrelelvant or already made and then defend it by saying that you are concerned that people are making their opinons' up on the first 3 games. You finish this by failing to remember the injury that RobbieF points out. That was particularly nice - to accuse others of limited reasoning when yours was so...ignorant. Thanks for appointing yourself the guardian of well thought-out arguments. You are extending your efforts about Morton to Gysberts. Excellent. Now why don't you go and define "inside mid" as someone who gets the ball and butchers it. No wait, you've done that already! Gysberts' great talent is that he can get the ball in tight. He is physcially weak, has no tank and cannot hurt the opposition. In four years his strenghts have barely improved and his weaknesses are painfully unchanged. Trade now, trade next year or delist.

This was then and is now an effing stupid idea. Rehashing it is just that bit embarrassing - like a joke that was bad and does not need retelling. Champ, it is just not funny. Robinson is a spud, ableit a physical one. Useful but supremely limited. He'd be good for us for two years...unitil he wasn't needed anymore. So you'd trade watts for pick 11 effectively. Watts might not (?will not?) be the forwad we wanted but he has the potential to be an excellent attacking defender. Pick 11 is a blind guess. Could be rioli/fyfe/shuey, could be gysberts. So, you'd trade 'very good' for short term grunt + big fat maybe. That's not playing our hand very well to put it mildly.

Gold. Not much makes me laugh that quickly. Nice work Pennent.

DA, what I have heard is that (sort of like Jose said), it spaces out the age of their list a bit and that JM is a perfect Scott Clayton player (I think he is there recruiter) - skinny, quick and sublimely skilled.

With respect, you don't know what 'personality' is. To be clear, you've mentionned three factors wholly derived from personality - attitude, confidence and intensity - and then said that you've haven't montionned personality. That's like saying "mount panorama, conrod straight and peter brock...but i'm not talking bathurst". You're normally excellent at this stuff; what is it with this area that throws you?

Skills, the problem with your argument is that Scully fails despite his poor kicking efficiency. He fails because he is soft (the anti-JV if you will). So, arguing that he might not be much chop based on a stat that is irrelevant to his flaw is following the same glorious path as Range Rover and Rono - getting the answer right despite the lack of logic. Fab. Forums are places where armchairs experts get to compare internet-persona endowment. Once you figure out who is worth reading, it just bothers you a lot less.

Should we have mismanaged him differently?

...'cause that makes it sooo much better...