RalphiusMaximus

Is it better to name Watts at HF with a license to run up the wing, or on the wing with a license to go wherever he needs to? Richo almost won a brownlow in the roving Wing role. Watts has the pace and the size to play the same way, although he isn't the contested ball winner Richo was.

Would it be a bad thing? Max has had a few good games, but he is struggling. For all his size, he isn't really up to being pushed around like a lot of the rucks are starting to do to him now. He still needs to get his core strength up to be able to hold his own against that. He's getting well beaten in the ruck and isn't really giving us that much forward. I don't know that Fitz will do any better as a second ruck, but he should give us a better option as a forward. At the very least he has pace to burn on the lead.

Once again we are seeing a lot of people blaming the coach for things that should be squarely on the players. "He's lost the players" "They don't play for him" Utter BS. They are professionals. They are paid a huge amount of money to do what the coach says. If they can't or won't do that, then it is THEIR lack of professionalism that is to blame, not the coach. He was brought into the club to bring a greater level of professionalism and has been pruning out the players who couldn't handle being told that they weren't up to scratch ever since. If a few more have to go before the message sinks in then so be it. "The gameplan doesn't work" Again, utter BS. Casey are playing the same gameplan and are one of the top sides in the VFL. The difference is that their players EXECUTE the gameplan, while the majority of the senior side are either unable or unwilling to do so. Again, this is a fault of the playing group who need to work harder on their skills and execution. As Dawes said, the coach shouldn't be wasting time teaching his players how to put in. "He can't develop players" Once again, UTTER BS. With a couple of exceptions the ONLY players on our list who are showing improvement are the ones Neeld has brought into the side. Taggert is showing us some good signs after a lot of injury issues last year, Viney and Toumpas are both going well and Jones and Terlich are flying. All players who were not tainted by previous coaches. If the senior players are refusing to "buy in" and are also showing less or no improvement, this is a massive indictment on THEM, not on the coach who is trying to salvage their club and in many cases their careers. The common denominator in our poor performance from well before Neeld's arrival is the poor effort of the playing group. We've all heard the stories of players deciding not to show for training, or the leadership group overruling the coach and refusing to do a time trial. That sort of petulant crap is the cancer that has eaten the heart out of our club, and if the players are rebelling against Neeld it only shows that he is on the right track to breaking them of those sort of habits. It's time for them to grow up, appreciate the privileged lives they have been given and do something to show that they are worthy of the time and money the AFL and the club have put into them.

I'd think Dunn is the man to play defensive forward. He can do the defensive things and is a legitimate threat on the scoreboard. Play him on Hodge.

Who voted for us to beat the Hawks?

Maybe he's preparing his powerpoint presentation for the meeting on Monday.

MERGE

That's quite funny actually.

Weather report for Sunday is for a few isolated showers. Could be a little slippery.

I could be really pedantic here and complain about the misuse of the term "whipping boy" but instead I'll just say that I agree 100% with the content of the post. There are a few teams out there that always smash us and it's getting old. Hawthorn, Carlton and North. Every bloody time they walk all over us. Time for the Demons to draw their "line in the sand" and go out and show the world that they are nobody's [censored]. It could never be better timed than this week, but I somehow don't think it's going to happen, and that just makes me sad.

We haven't been playing poorly. Casey is right in the hunt.

Yup. Numbers at the ground translate to dollars both directly and indirectly. Not only are they paid for bums on seats, but more people at games = more money from sponsorship deals.

I like your analysis. It does seem to have been a lot of buck-passing throughout the drama oft the last few years. Even to the extent of farming the search for a new coach out to a certain ex-player/media identity. If the players as a group have issues they want raised then surely it is the leadership group and the captains that have to bring these to the board? We know that Moloney had issues and behaved like a spoilt child rather than raising them openly. Are others doing the same? Certainly it's well worth considering.

I expect a bit of a rebound from the team, like we did against Richmond. They'll stand up for themselves for a half and wind up going down in the third pretty badly. The difference between an fan and a supporter?

We'll be thrashed, but it won't be 100+ points. More in the realm of 50 or so.

Quote from the coach: Sounds like Fitz could be in line for a call up finally. He also rated Kent's game, although I was under the impression he didn't do much. It'll be a big ask for the Fitz to go up against the Hawthorn defence if he does get picked.

I seem to be making a habit of disagreeing with you today Colin, please don't take it in any way personally. I don't think we can use his lecturing of Sylvia as an indictment given the way Col has been playing this year. His game has improved drastically, he's more consistent and I would suggest probably a top five in the B&F this year. Watts I just don't know what to make of. He played his best footy ever last year for a patch, but he's now back to his old tricks again. He was like this before Neeld, so what can be said on him? He did show improvement and perhaps the all-important "buy-in" that so many speak of, but now everyone seems to think he doesn't like the coach and wants to walk. I frankly have no idea where his head is.

So what happens if we come back from the bye with Neeld still in charge and beat the Saints and the Dogs? Will you still be screaming for blood? Will it still be absolutely imperative that he be sacked? Would those two wins buy him enough credit for the horror run after them when we get hit by Geelong, Sydney, Brisbane and North? Would that give just enough time for the talk to build up again before we hit GWS and GC again? What happens when we beat GC this time? My point is that using games against three top 4 sides as the final nails in his coffin is just wrong. Wait and see what happens against teams we have a chance of beating. If we end round 14 without another win I'll shut up about this and admit defeat, but I think he deserves the chance to fight for his job. Let's see if he can get the job done against teams we have a reasonable shot at.

IIRC, Geelong are the top team at scoring from intercepts and rebound 50's. Clearances are a nice bonus but not essential.

I think you may be reading a little bit too much into things there. Do you have any evidence to back it up or is it a classic conspiracy theory? As for Neeld, I think he was a very highly credentialed and highly rated coach, had served a good apprenticeship under Malthouse who remains one of the premier coaches of our generation, and promised to improve the level of professionalism at all levels of the FD. Nobody can deny that this is an area in which we were falling well behind the pack. Even if he is sacked in the next few weeks he will have raised the bar in this area and for that we need to be grateful.

I note you don't try to address the logic in my post. I take that as you conceding the point. Thank you.

Exceptional post RB. I agree 100%. The last thing we want is a quick sacking with no plan in place. I wonder, would it be worth putting some questions to the playing group before deciding on a coach? Not so much "Who would you like to work with?" but more "How do you think the game should be played?" For example if the playing group as a whole said they wanted to play a fast running attacking game through the middle taking advantage of our quality forwards to kick big scores, you wouldn't really want to pair them with a defensive-minded coach who wanted to lock down the back half and play a lot of stoppages like Sydney did a few years ago. It might just help out in picking a coach who is more compatible with the players. Of course, this is once again assuming that we actually wind up needing a new coach.

Now I know that there are a lot of people who are going to say I'm making this up, but let's look at the situation logically. What the seeming majority on this forum are saying is that Neeld needs to be sacked, and the board is at fault, and also that there may be a loss in the order of $5 million, and this is the boards fault. The general tone of things is that the board has to sack Neeld and that to fail to do so is to fail the club. However, the same people calling for this are also calling for the board to be held accountable for the massive financial losses incurred if they DO sack the coach. Let's look at a little logic tree. 1) Board keeps Neeld as coach ==> Losses total around $1.5 million ==> A) Losses continue ==>Fans want board gone for keeping Neeld on. or B.) Team improves and wins 6-7 games on the back half ==> Everyone talks up the great prospects for next year and has a happy off season. 2) Board sacks Need ==> Payouts to coaching staff and new coaches bring loss closer to $5 million ==> Fans want board gone for incurring huge loss. That being the case, it seems to me that if the board want to keep their jobs, the only possible way to do it is to back Neeld and hope he turns things around in the second half of the season. This also the only way that we have a slight chance of keeping the finances vaguely under control. The club simply can not afford to sack Neeld (and probably a lot of his assistants) and bring in another coach who will probably be on higher pay. Far better to ride out the next few rounds and see if things improve. Don't forget that we are still doing better that we were last year at this point when we hadn't won a single game. Edit: You do know we have two very winnable games right after the bye don't you? The saints are going downhill rapidly and the bulldogs are as much a rabble as we are.

I like the attitude and some of the points. Not entirely sold on the players, but then I don't know that much about them. I also am not sold on sacking Neeld. I think it will look terrible for the club t do this again after they cut Bailey's tenure as well. Let the guy finish his three year plan and see if it works.

All speculation based upon the sacking of coaches and paying out of contracts. Keep Neeld, see if he can pull it off and you don't have to pay anyone out.