Little Goffy

Ha. This conversation is funny just because of how lonely Preuss will be, sitting there on the bench while everyone runs around going 'where will we find a tall now?'

So it seems to me like Hogan would actually consider how well Melbourne is compensated in the trade, as a factor in whether he will move. If that's the case, it makes him the most loyal person ever to leave a club!

Lol, sideways idea: Maybe we get pick 4 2018 and Freo's first pick in the 2019 draft, and that's why we are asking about trading our draft pick for next year (to get May/whatever). Because obviously Freo will be expecting to rocket back up the ladder. If it is a wrangle between accepting 5 or 10, I think their 2019 first selection is a fair slip of the coin. Leave it to fate, very sporting.

Based on what a few broken down shown-nothing key position forwards have gone for in recent years, right niw Weideman is worth a first round pick. Bizarro garbage to talk of zhogan being worth just the one, even a very good one. Meanwhile, something today reminded me of Trent Croad. And Fremantle's legendary capacity for terrible trading results. Prediction: Hogan heads to Freo, does fine but misses the profound bonds with the Demons. Is gutted by missing out on being part of our premiership at the same time as Freo just completely flat-lines with nothing but rubble left when they finally sack Ross Lyon. After a couple of years, feeling more mature and with family settled happily again, Hogan returns to the Demons for half what we gained in the original trade and proceeds to kick 70 a season for the next 5 years. A good time is had by all.

This photo is from an art installation where a brother and sister cleared out all the stuff that their father had obsessively collected and stashed. Then they sorted it into a warehouse space. It just kept going and going. You can't see in this photo but I believe both Dom Tyson was stashed along one side. Though he should have been in the middle for best effect. And I say that as someone who has respect for Tyson and thinks he has been a solid contributor. But even his mum would say that he's better off being put to use somewhere else than left in storage at the Demons.

His younger brother never even got a chance to play at the highest level, and I hear he was even more talented.

That's more running bounces than our whole team currently averages per game! ?

Hibberd, Melksham, Lewis, Garlett, Vince. Frost depending on how you rate him. Anyway, the talk of an 'early first rounder' for May does trouble me a little and I'm wondering about the package deal options given Kolodjashnij, and also Gold Coasts picks 17 and 26, both of which seem to be in the high quality range of this allegedly deep draft. Could it be that Jason Taylor has identified a few players in that pick 20-30 range that he has a lot of confidence in? He can't spend his whole career picking from 40+, can he?

If the final result from losing Hogan is to gain 6, May and Kolonoscopy, we'll have done almost as well as West Coast did with the Judd trade (3, 20, and Kennedy).

This, precisely. On the one hand I still think a 3-tall forward line can work if done right and given the diversity of the three talls we'd have. On the other hand, in a 'pressure and weight-of-effort' game style there's always room for another small-medium player on the field and we have a great stock of options to pick from there. It's all ok. Not joyful, but it is ok.

For what it is worth, I'm firmly on the side of getting him. Yes, a little bit of risk but he very much fits into our list needs. Would not be crazy expensive in trade terms, and we can't just have seven teenagers come in all at once.

Was ahead of our curve at Melbourne as far as developing a calm, humble and professional attitude. I'm quite sure he was a good example to the 'kids' coming through;, and his presence forever ready to step up would have been a good honesty check for the young talls. Can only speculate if his attitude also had something to do with how well several players responded to stints in the VFL, too. "Is Pedersen sooking? Then why are you sooking? Get on with it." I wonder what his ties with his junior/pre-AFL clubs are like, I can see him cheerfully dropping by to kick 12 goals in an afternoon while he is still fit.

Wasn't that long ago, the last time talk of Hogan leaving went ballistic, that I speculated that maybe Gaff and a good first round pick would do the job. Now, Gaff has become a free agent, Hogan leaving would open the salary cap space to grab him, and we'd realistically get two first round picks from the trade. Swings and roundabouts. I still hope Hogan stays and I think the three-tall forward line can work (Haaaa ha ha with Hogan playing the role previously held by Watts... sorry, I just said that to annoy people) given the versatility of all three. What I picture is a kind of 2xCHF set up, with the 3rd 'slot' being filled by the variations of Weid in the ruck, Hogan up the ground, McDonald pinching (only occasionally) in defence, and a true traditional stay-at-home FF - in a sense, a forward 'resting' even more forward! Between the double-CHF and those four variations you get 3 players on the ground close to 100% of game time, using that 'rest' in the goal square, cycling between the three as needed. I think the benefit of each tall adding an extra 10-15% of game time on field works out in as much as you can then give that '30-45%' to help the midfield rotations stay fresh. I also think, given our haphazard inside-50s, there is real value in having three clear options going on at all times - a CHF 'travelling' out to offer a link up the ground, a CHF staying roughly around that traditional zone, and a FF ready to attack the emergency long kick.

Geebus. This thread is still going? I'm seriously considering adding an inane meme-gif every time it gets bumped. It just beggars belief.

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.

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.

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.

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.