praha

God our backline is average. They look like scoring every time they go forward.

We're overusing it.

They have scored all of their goals from stoppages and throw-ins in the back half. Our defense is not great.

A lot of people disregarding the conditions. Tough kicking with such a swirling wind. We are doing fine. Not spectacular but we're on track for 20 goals....

Uninspiring but scoreboard is about right. Wind makes kicking tough and you can tell. We're a 14-15 goal better side but in these conditions anywhere between 5-10 goals.

As far as most punchable faces go, Daniher is right up there.

I was confident we'd win but cautious. Today I am just confident. I loss would be a far bigger indictment on the team's progress and improvement than the Essendon loss. This Brisbane team is much, much worse than any team Essendon has fielded this year.

A defensive zone dictates full team awareness. Everyone needs to run both ways in transition. Unmanned opponents is a breakdown of that awareness. Man on man does not work in footy and hasn't for 20 years. When it works, you don't notice the zone. But when it doesn't you scream "MAN UP!". It's a team game and the best teams win flags, and the best teams play an effective zone, and have since the Bombers of 2000. They introduced it.

Swans showed tonight that the zone works. You need 100% commitment across the ground and players that run both ways. Good defensive awareness in the backline, middle and attack wins you flags. It's not just about "manning up".

Disagree. Swans played a good zone tonight. Being a good backman isn't just about minding a man. It's about good defensive awareness, whether you're minding space or a player.

Ummm.....yeah? EDIT: I meant key backMEN. I edited lol

Swans demonstrate how important a good half-back line is. Midfield lost it for them last week, and half backs holding back Hawks fight back this week. They play a superb brand of defense-attack transition football. The Bulldogs are almost their protégé. We need key backmen.

This sort of rhetoric makes me cringe. There's not some conspiracy to channel all good players to the "power" clubs. Stop hyperventilating and acting like the AFL is in charge of a country. It's a sport for crying out loud. Are the Bulldogs a "power" club? North? Geelong is "big" but it's hardly a "power" club of the Pies variety. Building a football club is very hard. You need luck but you also need professionalism, urgency, commitment, and good leaders on and off the field. Geelong had a golden era of drafting in the early-to-mid 00s and is still benefiting from that. Hawthorn too. Treloar fell for the media hype about Collingwood being a top 4 side. I can bet that if Collingwood finished bottom 3 this year and he was leaving GWS this year, he wouldn't go there.

I'd be spewing if I were Dunn. Offers far more than Garland, who is an extrovert and drops his head too often, to me he does not have a future at the club and suspect he is on his last AFL contract. He just doesn't fit in anymore. Dunn to me seems more natural and at least can go forward if things get nasty. Can also ruck and is good at ground level for someone his size.

A loss would be disastrous. For it to happen again after Essendon would look pretty bad. It'll go one of a few ways: 1. We will smash them from the first bounce until the final siren. 2. We will smash them out of the gates and then play putrid for 3 quarters. 3. We'll play average for a half then smash them. 4. We lose and Demonland servers crash.

True, not saying he is going to Richmond but them not even offering a bunch of players new contracts or even initiating talks suggests they will throw money at agents like Prestia.

Compared to the Bailey era, though, and we either smashed the opposition, or they absolutely pasted us by 10+ goals. The Bulldogs didn't kill us on the weekend. It was a comfortable win but hardly a smashing. If we're only 5-6 goals off a top 4 team, well then I'm pretty happy about that. This team is far more accountable defensively then the Bailey teams. I remember in 2010, parts of 2011, where we couldn't get it out of the defensive 50, not because we didn't have the players, but because you had a bunch of blokes who didn't have the urgency or confidence to demand the ball. The loose players and goals over the back that we've seen this year is a breakdown in communication. I don't think it's through lack of urgency or confidence.

Leaving 100%. Richmond offering him INSANE money. Will be hard to turn down.

Zero change Garland is dropped with Jetta out.

The philosophy here is actually great. It's a bit like the triangle offense in the NBA: every player has a role, and if every player plays that role perfectly, the offense is unbeatable. That translate into defense, with more fast breaks, better transition. We saw it with the Bulls in the 90s, Lakers last decade, and the Warriors now who have tweaked it and incorporated it into their defense. As King said, it puts the onus onto the midfield to win the ball. If they don't, it is then the responsibility of the midfielders and the half-backers to run both ways and get back into defense to block the hole. It absolutely has to work like a well-oiled machine. There is zero margin for error. Many on here bemoan Melbourne for playing an "outdated" style but we're trying something new and unique and once (if) it works, then everything will be fine. It demands accountable football 100% of the time. I don't think we lost against the Saints or the Bulldogs because of this. We lost in other areas of the ground. They were flat against the Saints, who won too much of the ball at the stoppage. The Bulldogs played the MCG better than we did and had players those few extra feet out of stoppages. They got the handball out and they had a few meters of space to deliver forward. Ultimately I think that in our losses this year excluding the North loss, we've lost it in the middle, not down back. In matches where Vince, Gawn, Jones and even Oliver aren't particularly influential -- they might get the stats but don't really provide us with much run or drive -- we tend to struggle.

Twas a joke.

Lions by 3 goals.

Should we have taken NicNat?

That was part of the problem yesterday. His game was very similar to his Brisbane game. He got a lot more of the ball but he had little influence. He wasn't alone in that regard, though.

Today, yes. Point being is you'd rather him be there and stink it up because at least he is reliable with the ball.