The Chazz

To be fair to the club, in recent years (I'm talking 2000+) there haven't been too many delistings/trading out that have hurt the club. And while they haven't all worked out, a number of players that we have brought in to the club have played some very capable roles for us. Just need to look at our current "best 22" that would see May, Lever and Langdon up there with the first picked.

Ernie, would the Brent Grgic to Geelong situation run a close 2nd?

Selfish.

It's an interesting point - I went for a period probably in the early 2000s where I lost some touch with the NBA, after being obsessed with it through the 80s and 90s. Over the past 5-10 years, I have found that it's a horrific version of what the game used to be like (it's not the only code I'd say that about). The junior teams that I have coached have frustrated the hell out of me. The obsession with becoming the next Curry means they want to spend time at training shooting 3s, yet in game time, their lay-up % on a fast break would barely be 50%, and free throws even worse (I still have nightmares about an A grade semi I coached where we were 2 points down, 2 minutes to go, we had 6 foul shots in that last 2 minutes, the opposition never had a shot in that time, and we lost by, you guessed it, 2 points. Our key shooter took all of those shots and didn't hit one, but refused to practice them at training...). Statistical analysis in sport is always something I find interesting, but like all stats, you can dress it up to support your beliefs, but at the same time, not tell all of a story. For example, comparing Offensive/Defensive rebounds from last season to 20 seasons ago, there's a significant drop in offensive rebounds these days, yet there's a significant increase in shots being taken in today's game. I could easily spin that as the offensive team not positioning themselves in a true rebounding position when a shot goes up, which is likely because of the increase in 3 point attempts made in that time (over double the attempts than what it was 20 years ago), meaning more of the offensive players are planted outside the key. Would be an interesting topic for a different thread, but I doubt it's one that would be objective on a site like this, mainly because there's no true "right" or "wrong" answer, just how one interprets it (hence why people specialise in the area and get paid big bucks for being good at it!). Back to the original post, I didn't go to training yesterday.

Ah, the old Steph Curry comeback in a 3-pointer argument. Generally, the league average for 3-points made is around 1 in 3. And further to that, of the total rebounds, only 1 in 4 are offensive rebounds. An interesting side note - the league averages for free throws is around 75%. Curry is well above league average (no surprise there), consistently hitting 40+% of his 3s, and regularly over 90% of his free throws. Moral of the story? Do the basics right. Players in the NBA, the most elite level of their sport, have a 66% chance of missing a 3-pointer, and when they do, it is 75% likely that the ball will go to the opposition. Unless you are a freakish talent like Curry, you might as well just walk up and hand the ball to the opposition, then hope that once in 4 times you do it that they drop it and you get it back. Dr Drake's point about over the head handballs is that it's a low % play with a high risk of turnover, which frustrates me when we can't get the basics right.

I heard they bought an old desk off Cameron Schwab. Presuming it will be placed in one of the drawers...

The whole presser has been cringeworthy...

I wouldn't be punting on 2021 being significantly better. Be a good idea to take your own advice about keeping expectations low at this stage.

So, a community series where clubs play their home game away from the mainstream ovals, yet Geelong plays theirs at GMHBA Stadium? (*only other team that are playing their home.game at home is the Gold Coast).

Petty training with the backs is a no-brainer for mine. We have 3 quality tall forwards, which I strongly believe, all things equal, that we go in to Round 1 with next year. We can always play with 2 if one gets injured, and if 2 of them are out, it'll depend on which two they are as to how we line up (ie if Brown and Weid are out, we will need another tall, which could easily be McDonald/Petty to fill the gap, or if it's Jackson and Weid out, I'd imagine they'll play Brown and possibly Mitch Brown or Fritsch as the 2nd target). Down the other end, however, our key posts aren't batting as deep, hence why I think it's quite important that Petty spends preseason down there.

Looks a bit like Setanta O'hAilpin...

Three questions for mine; 1. Has any club ever been unhappy with their draft results on the night of the draft? 2. What is the logic behind our first two selections in particular? Both sub-180cm, aimed at playing the small forward role where we used a first round pick last year to fill that need (Kosi) while also having Spargo on the list. Yes, they have claimed that both of these new players can push up on to the wing, but given what the modern wingman look like (see Langdon, as well as the drafting of Rosman, a 194cm wing), I just see these two selections as head-scratching at the least. Please don't allow the "plays taller than their height" line - it's a different game playing against men. 3. During the trade period we were told about the need for another wingman to compliment Langdon, then when we missed out on Smith from Hawthorn, we were then told that we were confident with stock currently on our list filling that spot (presumably Baker, Rivers, Tomlinson, et al). We've now gone out and drafted a tall winger (Rosman), and picked two midgets that might be able to rotate through that position.

Not rocket science, just target companies/industries that have thrived during this time. The wine consumption in my house has certainly increased, so we've ticked that box. In the coming days I expect Sorbent to be announced as our next Back of Jumper sponsor...

They had a good year where the opposition most weeks would've put minimal time in to. These 3 have shown that with the right development from here on, they should be extremely good players for the MFC. Reality is, we have no idea if Egan's departure will be a good/bad thing, because we don't know how much of an impact he has in the development of certain players. Given he is reasonably well respected in the AFL circles, I'm going with the "he will be a loss" story, but I'd be confident to think that he is replaceable and his departure won't set us back.

Can you guys just beat it with these egg jokes already.

I came here to post the exact same comparison. Here's some snippets from McGuire this morning; “This is not unusual … Maybe it is unusual, but I was told it’s not that unusual." “The Dogs will remember those who stood by them when they had no friends and voted for them and looked after equalisation and things like that.”

My opinion is that there's a bit of a misunderstanding by some regarding Collingwood's salary cap dump. From what I can gather, they had to get rid of those players otherwise they would've been over the salary cap. So while they have shaved close to $2m off this season, that could actually bring them back to paying 100% for 2021. I could be wrong, but that's my reading of the tea leaves.

Which top-line players have we lost because of Brown's 1 year extension? Their salary, as well as Brown's, has already been worked out for 2021. It's a non issue. They tried to save money by offering TMc up, but there was no interest in him. And it's actually got nothing to do with the fors/againsts of re-signing Brown.

Do you know that we didn't make a play for Phillips? Maybe Tom didn't want to come to us. Maybe we looked at his salary and thought that we could find better value through the draft this year. Maybe we are happy to use 2021 to see how the likes of Baker, Rivers, Sparrow, Jordan, Hore and Neita come on. I find it baffling when people get baffled by list management decisions that they have no idea about.

You're presuming that the likes of McDonald and Petty are only playing forward. I'd be very surprised if TMc in particular doesn't spend all of the preseason with the backs, and Petty might just do the same. And with regards lessening the salary cap - Mitch Brown would be costing us bugger all. Him being on our list isn't impacting much at all.

I reckon it was hesitation due to mental scarring. When he didn't have time to think of the consequences, he still showed he had his freakish ability. Same it was only 2 or 3 times a game, rather than 20. People are complaining about the waste of money it was - it would've been bugger all. I'm glad the club took the punt. Didn't work out, we move on basically unscathed.

Are you telling me that we're not going to have Treloar or Isaac Smith playing for us next year? Grinch.

Good move. Mitch is a good average player, is under no illusion where he sits, will have a crack when he gets his chance, and is cheap depth. I won't be slitting my wrists if he plays a handful of games this year as back up. If he's our main target at times, then that's a different story.

6 days since it was "rumoured" that LJ was a long way off re-signing...

The point is, SWYL, that we recruit this young talent to help make us better. If, in 2 years, we aren't better, then part of that responsibility has to fall back on the young talent that we've brought it. They contribute to us being better.