Nasher

Byrnes is, right this minute, comfortably in our best 22.

Yes, him. He was pretty handy at evading bans, and as mods we hardly had the energy to keep up with him. I took a fairly heavy handed approach last time which has either worked, or he's just laying very, very low now. Given his propencity for not just dying gracefully in the past, I'm guessing the latter.

Apparently this was the third time he offered his resignation over this issue.

Amazing topic, thanks for that.

^ As above. They're assuming that you watched the game, so you probably know how the players went.

Fair enough, but honestly those flags - and the MFC ones - were such a long time ago that it's hardly worth comparing modern teams against them anyway. Who can honestly actually remember Collingwood's golden era of the 20s?

Byrnes was brought to the club in the expectation that he would be best 22. His leadership was certainly a huge drawcard, but it's not *the* reason. It's patently false to claim that games played are just a "bonus" - FCS he's a player, his primary role is to play. As for how he has actually played - I agree with rpfc. He's our best (only) small forward and I'm not too unhappy thus far given that he plays in starvation corner.

How many of them are going to tell you that they hate it, really? Surely when talking to a player, you would expect some degree of towing the line. Most players aren't going to be 100% candid when asked on their opinion of things.

Probably because nobody can remember that far back. People always tend to weigh more heavily towards things more fresh in their memory; we see this phenomenon on the forum all the time when people claim that "that loss was even worse than 186!" when no loss will ever, ever be worse than 186.

How come Watts is suddenly a forward again in everyone's mind? He's only ever been poor and timid as a forward, he has had some success as a defender. I'm wondering what it is that I've missed that everyone else has seen. The coach has only ever said that he sees Watts as a defender. I know everyone wants as many reasons as possible to bag Neeld, but his view on Watts has been the same for a long time now. This is hardly new.

I highly doubt all that much focus has been put on this tbh. Point kick in strategy seems like fine tuning to me, and given that our players need reminding to run hard at the ball I struggle to work out how there would be time to go in to monumental levels of detail on this. Edit: missed the master's post who said the same thing but way better.

One first year player isn't struggling, therefore none of them should. Duh ;-)

Can't bring in Blease *and* Kent; too many little tanks in one side. I am of the belief that Davey and Blease are playing for the one place in the side and at the moment that one is a no-brainer. I'd keep it fairly simple: Watts in for Toumpas. I am happy to drop Bail if there is an adequate replacement; but I remain to be convinced that there is a suitable swap waiting in the wings at Casey. Any change to players like Bail, Nicholson et al has to be "run neutral" at worst IMO; we can not afford to cover net less ground than we currently are.

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/33907-mckenzie-and-nicholson/

No, we wouldn't. We just wouldn't. Playing kids who aren't ready just doesn't work.

If he's in our best 22, then no matter how regrettable that fact may be, there's no way he will be delisted.

Minor correction: Rich actually went at 7 in that draft. Hill, Hartlett, Hurley and Yarran all went before him.

Not funny.

More worryingly, I think he believed everything he said over the pre-season. I don't think he lied to us, he just didn't recognise what was going on, which is probably worse.

...that said, how about Gardner giving his CEO the boot as soon as he realised the man made poor decisions? Contrast this with McLardy arriving at the same conclusion about Schwab and then sitting on it for two years. (Assuming there is some truth to this story)

Sounds about the right number of sequential cockups to be true.

I laughed far more than I rightfully should have.

This thread isn't going anywhere good. I'm closing it.

You're not suggesting that we drafted poorly circa 2008 are you? My God. Thank heavens you are here to point that out, we may not have noticed otherwise.

This thread is a prime example of why I will never trust the greater membership to vote us out of this predicament.