Little Goffy

Jayden's attributes. + The number of players now in our best 22 who showed a glimpse, then ended up 'working on their game' with Casey before returning as much more complete, well-rounded players. = Reasonable confidence that there's a respectable future for him.

Probably clean it off for this weekend, just to be sure nobody thinks you're a Hawthorn supporter.

I know it is just a trick of the light and the image resolution but to me it looks like all the Geelong players are covering their eyes. There was a moment for me, I don't eve know when in the game (oh no, I'll have to watch a replay I guess), when Neville Jetta just completely dominated Dangerfield, even though the incoming ball was a bit to Dangerfield's advantage. I stopped worrying then, started soaking it up.

Yep, the Sydney pub I ended up at was all about the Rugby League, barely an AFL person, let alone a demon. But even that crowd was cheering during Hannan's run-in - possibly helped draw some attention when I momentarily lost it when his opponent slipped and I yelled "RRRUUN" like some kind of horror movie cliche.

Yep. Yep.

Uh, ok. Keep an eye on the antichrist for me, cheers. Evil espirit de corpses?

I am very confident I will never quite understand why this post quotes my silly little aside or even why it is in this thread. Truly bewildering.

Well, espirit de corps sure beats l'eau de baigner.

Oooh, adding to the bottom-6 Hall of Fame, Nathan Carrol's tackle on Fraser Gehrig, the single most important moment the last time we won a final. By coincidence I found the Demonland match report when I was looking for video of the incident.

I actually agree with your general point but it did remind me of something my brain dug up from the archives. And since the topic is the 'importance of the bottom 6', well, is there any better case for it than the great, the only, the unique, Simon Godfrey. 2006 Demons with Simon Godfrey - 10 wins 1 draw 5 losses 2006 Demons without Simon Godfrey - 3 wins 3 losses. Come to think of it, any chance Demonland can bring him in for a podcast. Maybe ask him if he ever forgave Robertson for stealing the 3 votes in his epic game against Richmond that year, and any tips for tagging Ablett, who happens to be the only player still active from the 2005 final.

2004 Josh Mahoney! (kind of our very own, or is now, anyway)

I think in the end the strength of the 'bottom 6 importance' case is that it necessarily includes the whole team. Not so much an argument of 'these specific six players must do well' as it is about looking at the contribution that can be expected of any player in the 22. Illustrated by the debates in this thread about who is in that bottom six. Fritsch, Vandenberg, O.Mc. I would reckon that when our bottom six becomes full of players that can be debated about as having too many merits or playing their roles too well to be considered bottom six, we'll be laughing all the way to the trophy cabinet!

Correction: Carlton would have been romping their way through finals if the top FIVE were what mattered. Also, I've seen some silly arguments in my time but to argue that the best 6 are what matters by listing the best 6 and noting that they are the best 6 is taki g circular reasoning to an impressive level. Is it enough to point out that the best 6 at Richmond has been much the same since almost as far back as Terry Wallace times?

Let's call it the Stephen Armstrong Principle. Your 'bottom six' don't have to be great players but they need to play their part effectively and not be leaving slack which your top players have to pick up. If your best six won finals, Carlton would've been romping it home for a decade.

The main thing I'm taking from this is that we have a lot of genuine quality players who fill their role really well. That and it gives the list a whole new look to have a few of the absolute top bracket players. I wonder where we'd slot in some of the players from our previous 2004-5-6 finals? Not sure many would make it in, which is kind of exciting.

We should be starting rumours that we are targeting any random player you like at GWS or Geelong, just to mess with their salary cap. I'm less and less concerned about who we target as each week goes by. Eerie combination of confidence in our list and confidence in our drafting. Our biggest gap is ball use going inside 50, where we have a couple of young candidates coming along who we will have to see what happens. Plus, improvement from overall team experience and system and all that jazz. Chad Wingard is a restricted free agent in 2019, though... We might want an understudy as future small defender to replace Neville Jetta, but touch wood that need is still a fair way off.

Can we take him as a category B rookie? Hasn't been on an AFL list for a few years, just St Kilda. (sorry, any excuse to work out some of the anger)

Surely the only appropriage response would be to take up the 'walk' pose.

His peak value will also be when he is a restricted free agent. So how about we all calm down and let this settle itself in time.

Wait, we took an 18-year old downhill skier as a Cat B rookie? Talk about thinking outside the square!

Well, not a complete derailing. Dutton is a banana-bender after all. And much like this thread there is a vagues suspicion as to a question on his validity. One thing we do know, this thread will outlast whoever wins the grease wrestle on friday! Heh, it just occured to me, one of the joke measures of 'how long since the Demons made the finals?' is that there have been five changes of prime minister. Well, a tick over two weeks to go, we look likely to hit 6 and there's a real prospect of making it 7.

Self-respect? Concern for reputation? Not wanting the responses to overheat the Demonland auto-censor?

I seriously considered starting a thread of "Should we pick up Goddard as a delisted free agent" just to watch people spit out their lunch.

I just... the sweet sweet joy of knowing that Melksham was absolutely hated by Essendon fans, and now he's playing better than ever and it turns out the problem was Essendon all along.

I can now use Harmes to explain to my girfriend what people mean by 'depth', 'fringe', 'best-22', and 'among the first picked', just by pointing to his progress this year. Useful educational resource, he is.