Dr. Gonzo

If so it will be another bland, uninspiring choice by the MFC.

Objectively looking at the game day output of our players - FAIL HOWEVER, I think it is the midset of the players rather than the conditioning that is the problem.

This is what worries me about Aish - seems like he could end up more of an outside winger/flanker - we don't need any more flankers we need pure midfielders who can kick goals. This is why I'd be all over Sheed even if he doesn't have as much "polish". Look at how the players we've drafted who had all the skills in the world have developed for us.

Wants to play on as well; http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-29/cross-ticks-final-box

I've read that the Dogs definitely won't be offering him a new contract - I think we would be stupid not to go after him, he would be a short-term injection into our non-existant midfield and provide some hardness at the clearances while allowing some of our younger players to develop. Get it done MFC.

That was disgraceful by Newman, not that I'd expect anything less. Does he even watch footy anymore? I thought he gave that up sometime last decade when he got turfed from 3AW for storming out of ther box.

Essendon/Hird will not win. They had a chance to negotiate an outcome on lesser charges (as we did successfully) but they chose to fight, the AFL withdrew their revised charges and will now nail them to the wall. They will be lucky if they're not deregistered/playing for 0 points for the next 2 seasons. The original negotiated penalties the AFL offered may have seemed harsh ($2.5M fine, loss of 2 years 1st & 2nd round draft picks, loss of 2013 points, 12 month suspension for Hird and lesser suspensions for the rest and with lesser charges) but they will seem minor compared to what the final penalties will end up being.

No mate, "buzzwords" are used to efficiently communicate more complex concepts as a means to summarise them in a simple word or phrase rather than spend paragraphs communicating them.

Our problems extend far further back than the last few seasons since the Stynes board took over.

Who do you think will be worse off after this is all done and dusted?

For those who wanted to take the AFL to court over the non-tanking punishment, have a good look at what is happening to Essendon and realise our club made the right call. Different circumstances yes, but the end result would be the same.

They wouldn't turn up to play because their clubs told them not to - give them some in$entive to play and I'm pretty sure their managers would make sure they were right to play. I see it as a common sense way to even up the fixture while still maintaining a 22-odd week season and lucrative media rights. 17 game season, 2 byes + 2 SOO weekends gives you 21 weeks, an even fixture and some great footy played by the best in the land.

A couple of things stand out in my memories of Flash; - bamboozling the Richmond players in his second game on Friday Night Footy in 2004 where a couple of them basically just stood frozen not knowing which way to chase him and he just split right through the middle of them - he is the fastest player I have ever seen in the flesh and remember him bolting down the middle of the G in one particular game chasing an opponent and making up about 20 metres in what seemed like an instant - his speed was just incredible - his goal from the Members pocket in the wet against Geelong on Friday Night Footy in 2006 - seeing him in his suit standing behind the AFL members one day and giving his trademark grin as I walked past with my then 13 or 14 year old brother and told him "look it's The Flash!"

I just read this whole thread and now my brain hurts.

Just a warning (to all, not particularly you WYL), if anyone on here ruins Breaking Bad before I have a chance to watch them (like what happened with Game of Thrones) I will hunt you down at our next home game myself (won't be too hard either considering the thinning crowds we have). I'm currently rewatching the earlier episodes and will binge-watch the last 8 episodes after they have finished airing. Now back to will he, won't he Roos talk.

It's not done consciously.

I seriously can't believe these guys rort a living dishing up schlock like this that is more akin to something you'd find on a fan site. It is not journalism, it's opinion and a poorly constructed one at that. So let me get this right, because we have been woeful in our decision-making/actions we don't deserve assistance; but if we'd done well we wouldn't need that assistance anyway. Ridiculously flawed notion.

A crap player who can get 20-25 possessions and a handful of clearances is surely preferable than a crap player who struggles to get 10 possessions.

Surely the fact he has a big body, can find the ball and extract it from clearances puts him ahead of at least half a dozen players who played for us on the weekend.

It is ridiculous that 1) it took us forever to upgrade him after Clarks injury and 2) once upgraded we refuse to play him. It beggars belief that he is less deserving than some of the guys rotating in and out of the side all year.

What you say is correct but Daniher also has to wear the legacy of playing favourites and refusing to push them out of their comfort zones as well as being a terrible game day coach with no plan B.

. Agree 100% DL - the crap the senior players were allowed to get away with in Danihers latter years (in particular White, Yze, Robbo, Bruce & Green edit: and Johnstone, Davey etc as you pointed out) set the standard for where this club is currently at.

What about the players who refuse to run until they puke and who choose not to put their all in physically every second they're on the ground (whether consciously or subconsciously). Talent is one thing but effort is another which can be executed regardless of talent.

Good words but still just words.

So he's another of these "flanker" types that we have an over abundance of who can't run through the middle.