Fat Tony

Boak doesn't want to play for us and we would have to pay him too much. We would be better of using our salary cap space to pay overs for free agents such as Cloke or Goddard or further front loading the contracts of our current players.

This is exactly the reason why coaches shouldn't have ultimate control over list management decisions. Boak isn't that good and he would cost us high draft picks and command a big salary.

Logical way to look at it.

As much as our list needs a talent boost, a mass overhaul is not the best way to do it IMO. Players picked later than the third round are most likely to be busts and are a reasonable chance to slip to us in the rookie draft in any event. They also require two-year deals, which impinges on our flexibility next year. We would be better off giving one-year contracts to players like Dunn, Macdonald and Bail than taking picks 60 and 70 in the draft.

Contracts: Strauss, Blease, Moloney, Rivers, Jurrah, Cook, Dunn, Bail, Fitzpatrick, Green, MacDonald Upgrades: Nicholson Delists: Bate, Bennell, Petterd, Spencer, Davis, Jetta Attempt to trade: Morton Unsure: Bartram We would then have picks something like #3, #4, #13, #25 (Viney hopefully), #43, #60/PSD pick #3 The problem with making wholesale changes is that new draftees get two years. For that reason I would prefer to give a greater number of players one-year contracts.

The club did the right thing three years ago and I agree with the basic premise that tanking doesn't create a "losing culture", but Schwab et al have to go so we can move on.

We won't get a priority pick, so it will be 1, 2, 12ish and Viney.

Jack Viney complicates this issue, just as the priority pick did in 2009. For mine: Picks #1, #2, Viney, PSD pick #1, big losing culture > Viney, #4, #23, two meaningless victories, lesser losing culture, PSD #3

The incumbants (Wood and Yencken) are sympathetic to the MFC.

Without being inside the club, it is impossible to say whether he should be replaced or not. Those voting ‘yes’ are putting a lot of faith in intangible improvements, which I don’t think can be evaluated from outside the club. IMO the board would be negligent if they did not do a thorough review of the situation - given the on field results have been so poor. This may end up reconfirming the administration’s initial positive view on Neeld. We now have a lot more information on Neeld's coaching ability than before his appointment and so it is easier to assess his suitability.

IMO we would be better off with a smaller defense (i.e. three of Frawley, Rivers, Garland, MacDonald, Sellar, McDonald and three of Grimes, Bartram, Blease, Tapscott, Nicholson, Strauss). It gives us more run and skill but comes at the trade off of being caught short in the air. At times this year we have had a five and one mix (with Macdonald and Garland as small defenders), which is unbalanced. IMO Garland should be played on the third tall and either Tapscott or Grimes on the slowest small.

It is obvious there is a directive to go along the boundary out of the backline and we then give up far too much territory in switching because we don't want to take a risk bringing the ball into the corridor. This allows the opposition to set their defensive press and thus leads to slow ball movement. Team selection, by including too many key defenders with poor foot skills, then exacerbates the problem.

Disagree. Neeld's game plan is a massive outlier compared to the rest of the competition. We have been way too predictable and slow in our ball movement, which is a complete 180 on where we have come from. No other team is so averse to either using the corridor or using handball as an attacking weapon.

I don’t think making mass changes to the list is a great idea given the requirement for new draftees to be given two-year deals. I would prefer to retain players like Cook, Bail, Green, Gysberts and Dunn on one-year contracts. Tapscott will only make it as a small defender IMO. He does not have enough pace or tricks to play forward and cannot develop the tank required to play as a mid. But we would need to structure our defense to accommodate him. (i.e. play only three key defenders.)

To have faith in a Neeld future I think you must have confidence that his long around the boundary, defensive game plan provides us with the best chance of winning a premiership. Watching the way Hawthorn are playing, it would be a brave person to say that the future of football is not a style which puts a greater premium of retaining possession and encourages risk taking through the corridor. To my mind the quality of football is only going to improve, so this is even more likely to be the method to win premierships in the future. Neeld has not adapted his thinking and we are still sticking to the same approach used by Collingwood to win the 2010 flag. This is my key concern and all the other issues with Neeld are just side issues IMO. Comments will be put forward that this will come later in our development and that we do not have the players yet to adopt this approach. However, I doubt any coach in their right mind would be so discouraging of taking risks and then do a complete reversal and advocate it. The recruitment of players such as Magner and Couch also indicates Neeld’s thinking on the future of the game.

Having a signature saying “I believe in Neeld.” at a time when we are 2-14 smacks of evangelism.

Three-year contract or otherwise, it is clear as day that Neeld will start 2013 under pressure. (And fair enough too given our pathetic performances so far.) No matter what the board and administration say, another very poor start to the year next year and the media pressure will be intense. The club and the Neeld evangelists can only point to intangible improvements for so long.

The weekly cycle of Demonland under Neeld: Game Time: Insipid performance by the team with no apparent purpose or modern game plan and no sign of hope. Post Match: Demonlanders who actually watch the game question how a team that won 8 games last year can become a 10 goal worse side so quickly after spending an inordinate amount of money on new coaches. Monday to Thursday: Neeld evangelists shoot down anyone who dares question the direction the club is taking, sprooking buzz words like ‘culture’, ‘186’ and ‘deadwood’ and expressing unwavering confidence in the coach. Thursday: Team selection and our team doesn’t look so bad on paper and we cling to a small chance of winning.

Think of White not impeding Jamar.

Surely any trade discussion requires a degree of prognostication?

Jamar is a lumbering tap ruckman rather than an athletic one, so I don't think he is likely to play great footy in his 30s. And I doubt we will be a contender in the next three years. Furthermore, I think we should also be planning for an AFL rules change to open the game up. (i.e. a move to 2+2 on the bench.)

No. And this is not a Jamar bash thread. Rather my view just takes into account Jamar's age, where we are presently at, my positive view of Martin as a ruckman and Jamar's likely trade value. And I also don't think our side is balanced with Jamar, Clark and Martin in it, as Martin has never really excelled as a KPF.

Hopefully not Sam Blease in the PSD.

This as different as Jamar has some trade value. I also believe that Jamar being on the list is more likely to stunt the development of Gawn, etc than assist it.

"We're not at a stage really where we can change too much about what's going on in a game. Game plan A, that's hard enough to learn. Three quarters into a game, when you're two short, you can't try and pull game plan B out." Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dockers-stifle-demons-20120714-2234g.html#ixzz20ffQ6q8j Surely when you are 20 points down with 10 minutes to go, the message needs to be to play on and use the corridor. The fact that this message never came is very disappointing IMO.