mauriesy

It's amusing that we think Carroll (191), Frawley (193) and Rivers (192) are "small". Take four of the best defenders in the league at the moment: Glass, Cornes, Scarlett and Harley. All 191-192. All 95kg. Carroll and Rivers are only 2-3kg below this playing weight. Frawley is young and still has lots of filling out to do.

How big do you want a backline to be? Three talls 193, 192 and 191cm, plus three smalls. It's a lot bigger than our forward line. He'll be in the best 25 by next year, easily.

I actually think if we could hold Rivers, Carroll, Frawley, Bell, Whelan and Bartram on the park for the majority of next season our backline would be the least of our worries. Our biggest worry has been our forward line. It's scored fewer points than any other team in the competition ... either the forward line or the lack of midfield feed is drastically missing.

Jared Rivers. I think I remember him.

Sorry ... how do you know that's the club's position? It's amazing when we're all depressed, when the club is going through a rough patch with injury, that anything a supporter expresses, no matter how wild a supposition, is taken as having some official truth and that it "reflects"on the club. Could it just be pure BS? Most likely.

And we are surprised an inside midfielder gets caught holding the ball sometimes because ... ?

Maxwell knew that most players don't shake hands before the bounce. It was mischievous trying to do so and Maxwell knew it. A calculated bit of gamesmanship that many are sucked in by.

That's exactly what he's been offered. 750 + 70 = 820 minus 25% for an early plea = 615 points = 6 weeks.

It's funny reading the rationalisations over at Nick's BB. Here's a few. * Johnson couldn't pull out until late because Bell kept fumbling. * For the same reason (Bell kept fumbling), it was "accidental". * Since Bell was walking around after the game it wasn't "severe". * Bell was "milking it". * Getting hit like that is a tactic clubs to teach players to milk frees. * The hit was not on the head but on the shoulder. * Johnson's intent was for a legal hip and shoulder. * Bell never lost consciousness (as if that makes it lesser). * If he did lose consciousness, it was because he hit Carroll's leg, therefore the initial contact wasn't too bad. * He only needed the stretcher because he twisted his knee. One poster even thinks Johnson has no case to answer! To be fair, the majority of Pies supporters thought it was very bad and that Johnson is gone until 2008, but why do some idiots always try to rationalise a hit like that? You can read the Tribunal Handbook on the AFL web site. There is a specific offense (19.2.2 (xi)) of "Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that player has his head down over the ball". Even if it isn't "intentional", a reckless, head-high severe contact on that specific charge is Level 5, and the penalty is 750 points. Add in his outstanding 70 from last week, Johnson is up for 820. Maybe reduced to 6 weeks with an early guilty plea.

Actually the most prominent in getting the huddle together was Jeff White, waving his arms around and calling everyone in! What does that say?

I'm sure there are two schools of thought: 1. Rucks are over-rated, taps to advantage are actually few. In this case Johnson/Jamar/Neaves are all young and with many years of service we can get by. Better to concentrate our draft picks on midfield strengthening and potential KPPs. 2. Rucks are vitally important, especially in around-the-ground play In this case the only options after White retires are to 1. stick with Johnson/Jamar/Neaves, or 2. replace one of them with a trade, or 3. replace one of them with a draft selection and then develop.

Whatever the arguments about actual position, I can't see any of the 14 players below the second last line remaining at the club after 2008. The only possible exceptions might be Neitz if he plugs on into 2009, Warnock if he "does a Carroll", Miller and CJ if they somehow re-invent themselves, and Jamar if we decide we really need another ruckman (and Neaves doesn't cut it). The rest are forced by retirements or offer us nothing beyond that time. I think the most players an AFL club is likely to turn over is about 7 (which is what my scenario envisages in the next two years). Beyond that you can't guarantee that late draft picks are going to be any better than the players you are delisting. That also allows for a potential 3 more at the end of 2009. Of course, it's always possible a trade may be made for a player in the "keep" list.

I would envisage the longer-term scenario being something like the following. It would give us an exceptionally younger list by 2010. It is not fixed in concrete, players may move above or below a line depending on performance, re-commitment, injury, etc. This could be revisited from time to time, adding newly drafted or traded players. How we place rookies (Neaves, Hughes, Hayes) will also be decided as they are delisted or promoted. ------------------------------- < Keep players below this line In rough order of current value: Rivers McLean Bell Jones Bartram Sylvia Bate Bruce Green Johnstone Davey Carroll Wheatley Petterd Dunn Frawley Newton Paul Johnson Moloney Buckley Garland Bode Weetra -------------------------------- < Below this line retire, trade or delist in two years White (retire) Whelan (retire?) McDonald (retire) Robertson (retire) -------------------------------- < Below this line retire, trade or delist after next season Neitz (retire) Yze (retire) Holland (retire) Warnock Godfrey Miller Chris Johnson -------------------------------- < Below this line retire, trade or delist after this season Brown (retire) Ward (retire) Neville Ferguson Bizzell (retire) Jamar Pickett You may want to argue the fine points e.g. whether Ferguson or Warnock should be swapped, how long Neitz will play for etc. but it gives an indication of what we have to do in the next two years if we are to comprehensively renew our list.

Forward or backward there are only a handful of options anyway. People who think Ferguson can match up on Rocca are crazy. And you're all forgetting their other tall matchup need for Newton. If we are going to win the game, it will be because our midfield will beat their same old ploddy one.

Actually they decided not to finish making it because of the connotations of the word "derailed" being in the same week as the Kerang train crash. That is a credit to them.

Frawley only opens up for Bate because Holland will go back onto Rocca and Bate will take his place in the forward line. I doubt Bruce will be fit, but if so he will replace Bode. They won't drop Dunn ... McLean if he comes in will replace Moloney who still looks 50%.

I wondered about that too. Very similar style, similar sign off, always post within a short time of each other, both joined within days of each other.

Do you want Rocca to kick a bag? Holland on Rocca for me. Worked a treat last time.

If we could get back Bate, he and Newton might stretch their defence. Heath Shaw would be too short for Newton, that takes them down to their 4th defensive tall. Pity we haven't got a Bartram to run with mini-FIGJAM.

This is an internet discussion forum. Although we all have one thing on common -- a love for the Demons -- and while the discussion needs to be civil (and is moderated to keep it so) it is a place where you put your views and at the same time recognise they will be challenged. It's not a "flame fest" or a "love fest" ... you just need to be able to argue for your point of view in a logical manner, with some sort of research or facts to back your opinion. If you come out half-cocked, you'll often get shot down in flames and rightly so. Sometimes we all just need to agree to disagree. I'm sorry ... that's just the way it is. To me it's a learning experience. I can get shown up to be wrong and will revise my point of view. Sometimes I even end up looking stupid. And sometimes I can teach other people something. Regardless ... I never take it personally, and it doesn't form so much of a part of my life that I lose sleep over what someone said or the arguments I lose or win.

Geez, so what appears to you to be the case is right and the official stats are wrong? Since when is the old 6-foot mark "short"? According to the Melbourne 2007 Almanac, Bode (183cm) is taller than any of: Bartram (181) Brown (180) Davey (177) Jones (179) McDonald (180) Moloney (181) Pickett (178) Whelan (180) He is the same height as Travis Johnstone, and only a centimetre shorter than McLean, Godfrey and Green (all 184). Hardly an argument to be de-listed for being on the "short side". Then again ... Pickett is a midget, get rid of him!

Exactly. The only way to turn Pickett or Ward into the next Bartram or Petterd is to turn them into draft picks. However, we could turn Bode into the next Whelan, or Garland into the next Newton, simply by waiting another year.

That's why he was promoted, given Bartram's long-term injury status.

Neaves and Bode can't have been selected up to now ... they were/are rookies and not even on the senior list! And why do you think Bode was promoted to the senior list last week ... yep, because he showed something! And you're going to do that by keeping some extra older marginal players and dropping young players like Garland and Bode? For heaven's sake, Garland was picked up in last year's draft at pick 46. Give him some time. We all do! But I want a premiership in the next few years and we won't do it by hanging onto an ageing list.

Talk of dropping players is meaningless unless you look at the other side of the ledger, which is either a trade or an extra draft pick or a combination of both. In the case of many of our old, marginal players, that will mean nothing but a late draft pick as they are essentially untradeable. We have to take four (?) players minimum in the draft. That means four players need to go. I think the obvious ones are Ward (old and can't hit a target), Neville (young player who has shown nothing), Brown (retired) and Pickett (unfit and uncommitted). Beyond that we either: 1. Delist more marginals (e.g. Ferguson, Warnock, Bizzell, Holland, Godfrey) for further later draft picks and/or a pick in the pre-season draft; and/or 2. Trade a good player for an early pick (for a "potential Bate, Bell, McLean or Jones" ... not saying I actually want to do it). This is entirely dependent on what is offered. Personally, I reckon the most versatile older player who should be offered one more year is Holland. The others can all go as far as I'm concerned.