Choko

Thoughts?

When did he say he didn't want to play for the MFC?

So in essence if we want him we have to convince him to go into the PSD and not nominate for the ND? Otherwise he will prob get to Collingwood and certainly get somewhere else in the ND? If that's the case, I would only want him for free in the PSD!

I am not clear on how it works. Can he nominate for the ND or just the PSD? If he can nominate for both, what's the difference?

I often wonder why more clubs don't trade late picks for a player. Statistically, I would have thought that Peake (on his exposed ability plus whatever improvement the saints think they can get) has better prospects and is likely to be better than most picks in the late 40s.

Correct - though that's not the sole reason.

First, might not be true. Second, I would be shocked if Hawks didn't demand total secrecy on the proposal if true. Given that the secrecy has been breached, I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled out on that "deal" and denied it was ever an option

Reading that Ball is out of contract, I am thinking it might be possible that the club knows that he will be available in the PSD. If that is the case, I think we have done brilliantly. If someone better comes along for PSD pick 1, well we have Beamer and Jones, and if not, then we get Ball for nothing, Pick 11 for Brock, and Ball is probably similar (maybe slightly inferior) to Brock anyway!

Crap. Simply made up.

I have seen no evidence that this has anything to do with $$$, so I don't think people should be saying it, because it slanders Brock.

You have this one totally wrong. Just because we had no apparent options, does not mean he should have been re-signed, certainly not for 2 years. We have seen how quickly forward fortunes can turn around - now Newton can't get a game (because he is hopeless) and Robbo is gawn, yet we feel like there is some light at the end of the tunnel. The reason given by anyone at the club for the 2 yr extension, or at least the one I keep hearing, is that he has potential and getting rid of him might have bitten us in the bum. Well, that's the biggest case I have heard of the tail wagging the dog. To be "held to ransom" by a guys potential and not his output or effort is a cop out. I think the Newton decision is the only clear mistake Dean and the boys have made. There are other decisions that could be argued both ways (1 more year for Robbo), but 2 years for a guy who doesn't work hard enough, doesn't get to the front of contests and has "potential" was a bad call.

Exactly - we might look to trade. Imagine picking up Lake for free at PSD 1 and getting value from say a Hawthorn or Carlton for a Rivers/Warnock. Very exciting prospect.

Would be a massive call by the club, but I reckon you're onto something, ONLY if we think there is going to be a great player at 9 in a draft that is apparently not all that deep.

True - but can you imagine what we would have had to do to lose that one? It would have been beyond farcical.

McMahon has done a lot more for the MFC than he has done or will ever do for the RFC.

What's he shown, exactly?

Yeh it's an interesting one.... I agree that anonymous targeted and personal criticism can be very hurtful. And Beezle, just because you are in the public limelight, it doesn't mean you can't be hurt by, for example, the relentless character assessments on Bruce. Quite often faceless people will rip into blokes in ways that suggest they are "dishonest", "bad teammates", "incompetent" or simply "dispensible". But on the other hand, if Robbo says that everyone who talks to him about footy says how much they enjoy him playing, then perhaps he should have a look at the difference between some of the comments made by those people and some of the comments made here and by his coach, because there are always things to improve. There's no doubt that players can easily find people to blow smoke up their proverbials, so if that's what you're looking for, it shouldn't be surprising that you would feel upset by criticism from outside.

Jamar has been great....

Me too. I am happy we have the balls to bottom out, and Bailey clearly has heaps of mongrel because he stopped at nothing today to protect the pick.

GO THE WET TOAST! THIS DAY IS JUST GETTING BETTER!

Dude. For the last time... we want our players to play to win. We just hope we don't win today. We want the coach and match committee to pick and set the side up for the future and not for today. We all want to win 4. We just don't want to win 5, because the 5th win as a meaningless win but a massive loss.

Cute. You and Cards should sit together.

You don't get it. Barracking for us to win is barracking for us to lose. In 7 days time this goes down as a meaningless game in terms of the short term result. In 5 years time it could well go down as one of the better days in our club's history. Did Carlton lose when we defeated them in Rd 22 and they used their pick and leverage to gain Judd and Kreuzer? No. So Carlton supporters were quite right to be singing their song after that game. I for one was ecstatic. Of course the system should and will change. But while it is like this, thank goodness for McMahon.

I thought Bailey coached beautifully, and demonstrated he had a Plan A, B, C and D. Plan A: Drop half the team Plan B: Hope to play blokes in position and be beaten Plan C: Bring a ruckman into the side for a midfielder, then play Miller in the ruck. Plan D: Play blokes out of position - Warnock and Frawley in the forward line, Newton in the team, ON A WING, Davey on the bench, Bartram forward (after playing on Riewoldt) , Johnson back, Valenti at full back Plan E: Don't mark 2 players inside the back 50. To the players, great effort and they clearly wanted to win. I thought that given that almost every player was playing out of position, they did pretty well. Do you know what is a hell of a lot scarier than Melbourne tanking? Richmond wasn't Jacky Grimes is a legend.

Agreed