The Chazz

I might as well talk to the brick wall next to me. The only way we will take him with Pick 3 is if GWS or GC believe he is worth risking their Pick 1 or 2 on him. We make sure that they don't want to take the risk. It's a lot easier than trying to work our which of our 15 picks we're going to trade with GWS and which 11 picks we'll get in return so that they have a slightly better deal than us, meaning they won't shaft us, blah, blah blah. Old55, please, for your own safety, go for a walk along the beach today, don't open any more threads about Jack Viney or any threads about draft picks etc until the end of September.

Kony...

You're living in dream land if you think Sheedy will force us to take a potential pick 5-15* with our Pick 3. There is too much risk from their side. * It wouldn't be that hard from the MFC's point of view to ensure that JV is rated a 5-15 pick.

I can't see how this will "probably" happen. I think it's more likely that we will use our 2nd round pick on him, espeically given our current ladder position/form, and the fact that he's not earmarked as the obvious number 1 and 2 picks in this draft (and it should remaing that way if the MFC have any balls).

You're taking the pi$$ a bit here surely? First, you say we need a gun forward, we've just gone out and spent some $600k on one, who is doing what we need him to do - kick goals. Then you start a thread saying we need to get a key forward, but then you start anouther thread asking if we should play Sylvia as a permanent full forward. Is it school holidays?

There's a big reason why the Western Bulldogs didn't win a flag when they played Brad Johnson as their main forward/full forward. And there's a big reason why teams like Geelong, Collingwood, Hawthorn and Brisbane (do I need to go back further?) are all recent flag winners. If you don't know the answer, compare the heights/weights of their forward lines.

You've posted this one above... Then followed it up with this one? FMD Old55, you are the exact shadow jumper I'm talking about. You have far too much time on your hands if you've sat down and tried to work out the best case scenario. I'll make it a lot easier for you, and will take a fraction of the time... As it stands now, Viney is ranked between 5-15. Whitfield is a standout at Pick 1. GWS will not "force us" to use pick 3 on Viney (unless he is ranked higher by draft time), as there is a great deal of risk in that decision, most obvious is the fact that if we aren't willing to use Pick 3 on Jack, they are bound to use Pick 1 = losing the opportunity to draft Whitfield. GWS level of threat = low. Gold Coast on the other hand have a bit more thinking to do. Who is currently rated the Number 2 pick? It will be up to them to decide if they believe Viney is worth more than the potential Pick 2. If he isn't, they will not risk missing out on the 2nd best player in the country. GC level of threat = low. Old55, I'll spell this out pretty clear for you, and I would imagine the MFC are fully aware of this. IF we finish 16th (highly likely), we have 2 teams that could potentially "force us" to use Pick 3 on Jack. Both those Clubs will need to make very important decisions about what is best for their Club. Do they take the best available player at their first selection, or do they try and shaft the MFC with the risk of them having to use their first selection on Viney. If you have a good think about it, you will know what the answer is. BUT, just in case their is still some confusion, and I'm sure this us the bit the MFC is fully aware of, all it would take is for Jack to be a little bit sheltered from things too external for the rest of the season, to put further doubts in GWS & GC's minds. Jack's not playing the U18 comp, he is playing the school boys one, will play the state titles, and maybe a couple of games for Casey. I find it interesting that he is playing the school boys comp rather than the standard TAC Cup season (is that what it's still called?!), maybe that's the first decision from the Club to keep him out of the public eye. If the draft experts, ie Emma Q, at the end of the year rate Jack between a 1-5 pick, I'll accept that we will most likely use our Pick 3. If there are 2 clear standouts, and Jack isn't one, we should be able to do whatever we can to ensure we use our 2nd round pick on him. I'd like to think the Club is doing everything it can (without making it obvious) to ensure that Jack isn't rated in the Top 5.

I honestly can't believe all the tripe I'm reading on this thread about us doing deals with GWS/GC, and anything else that has been mentioned. At the end of the day, if we finish 16th (as per the current ladder), we have pick 3. If GWS or GC wish to pick Viney with either Pick 1 or 2, then we have to use our Pick 3 on him. If the MFC believe he is worth that, they spend it, quite simple. The solution is simple. We could be in a fantastic position to go in to this draft with pick 3, 4, 11(ish) and get Viney with our 2nd round pick. We MUST do whatever we can to ensure GWS/GC don't want to use Pick 1 or 2, but one thing is for sure, this DOESN'T involve some secret deal - give these bastards nothing. If they still want to try and backdoor us by putting in a dummy bid, I'm all for calling their bluff and letting them have him. We will get either Whitfield or whoever else is rated a top 2 pick - I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I honestly don't think GWS or GC would risk missing out on a true, potential pick 1 or 2, just to shaft us by trying to force our hand on a potential pick 5-15. Anyone thining otherwise really is jumping at shadows.

Oh no, Neeld is having a say in our recruiting... "''Mark's really clear on the way he wants the game played, and the attributes that players are going to need to play certain roles,'' Viney said." Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dees-boost-recruiting-network-20120420-1xcom.html#ixzz1svhns7ft One thing is for sure, I'm glad Kelly is involved and not Emma Quayle like what some called for earlier this year.

With you there Dr! To think that thtere are so many on here praising the players and coach for 15 minutes of good football is a typical Melbourne supporter thing to do (aka accepting mediocrity). At the end of the day, we had some 100 possession less than our opposition. Funnily enough, the period where we out scored them was when we had more possessions than them. I don't care what game plans are being introduced, how hard it is for the players to change from their past ways, there is no excuse for letting the opposition dominate possession in such a way that we have seen in the 4 games to date.

When you are under pressure to perform RR, and if you are putting extra pressure on yourself, which I have no doubt Jack will be doing, you lose confidence if things aren't going how you want them. It can get to a stage where you have convinced yourself that you are operating at 100%, but might only be operating around 80-90%. Let's not forget, the kid is in his third AFL season, he was crucified by the umpires last year and that had some impact on his game. He is now seen as a leader at the club, when let's face it, while he has got leadership qualities he out of anyone has to work the hardest to lead successfully so early in to his career. As he is considered one of our better players, he is no doubt being tagged (I don't see what happens off the ball - someone could keep an eye on that and let me know how much other teams are working him over). Personally, I'd like to see Jack starting in the centre square more often, and basically be given a licence to do what is natural for him. I have no doubt he can be a game breaker, but at the moment, he is looking far from a number 2 draft pick. But, Neeld is so determined on teaching this team the basics of defending, which he claimed they have never been taught, I can't see any of our players being given the opportunity to play with the creativity that has happened in the past. I hope he knows what he is doing.

There's no lift when he jumps because our coach put the weight of expectation on his shoulders by making him a co-captain.

Good for you Rhino-perhaps you could share the cement you obviously had a cup of? Ski season doesn't phase me. Clubs hanging sh!t because we are soft, well, I question why the playing group doesn't change that view.

As I can't read the Hearld Sun article, I can't comment on what is written in it. I'm probably of the view that any sponsor that we can get signed up at the moment is a major deal for the Club, especially given our position 2 weeks ago.

So do you disagree with the thoughts of Mitch Robinson? Regardless of your thoughts RR, for another team to imply we are soft, is a tag that doesn't sit well with me, and it's the players that should ensure such tags, regardless of how much of a beat up it is, are not mentioned in the same breath as the Melbourne Football Club.

To be fair to Jay, I do believe he posted it before the article was on the website. Note - was posted on our website at 8am, he had it on his twiter late last night/early this morning.

If I make the same mistake over and over again, I would expect consequences. His first game for a new coach, with a history of attitude problems and he still makes the same fcuking mistake. Believe me, I'm not a MOrton basher. If I see any player do what Cale did, I would be calling for their head too, regardless of where they stand within the Club. I'm sick of my club being soft, and to be nicknamed "bruise-free" last year was an insult. It must change.

Assuming they don't play Fitzpatrick.

According to Jay Clark's twitter; "Demons sign second major sponsor, saving it from $3 million disaster..." So is it Hertz or still to be announced?

Personally, I don't see the harm in highlighting some areas that are obvious to us all. Instead of saying that we were in the game up until 11 minutes to go in the third quarter is nothing but [censored] and wind to me. I'd rather front the fact that in that last 11 minutes, we let the opposition kick 7 goals, which basically ruined any chance we had of winning that match, and that sort of effort is not what we want to see from our players. That type of response should be well within the MFC Presser Code of Conduct Guidelines, and will ensure that Neeld still has that hard-arsed edge.

It's easy to say that about Bailey now (well, probably by this time last year), but in his first couple of seasons he was going to be "that" coach that took us to a premiership. Time will tell how Neeld goes. He has been in the job for 3 official games, and my word it is very early to make any bold statements about his ability/inability to steer us straight. But so far, and having been one of those who put faith in Bailey for probably 3 and a half years, I'm going to sit on the fence on this one. However, to date, the only positive I have seen that Neeld could put his name to would be, well, I'm buggered if I know to be honest. I will give him some credit for the new look Football Department as well as getting Mitch on board. I was happy with his no BS presser after Round 1, but as always, the Club put an end to that type of talk.

I do too Jose, but that incident I mentioned above must have consequences regardless of who it is. Neeld can make a statement to the whole group by dropping him for a week, or in my view, he can play him again this week by slapping him on the wrists and therefore, what has changed in the coaches box from previous years (except the volume of people in there)?

I wasn't there so not sure it happened, but that passage of play, was on the 50m line-ish on the Southern Stand flank, Ponsford Stand end, there was a contest that Cale just gav up in. From memory it was a 2-on-2, he got pushed off the ball, and just stopped as he thought the hard work had ben done. Richmond cleared it, and left Morton standing flat footed. It's that attitude/effort that I want to see ANY player dropped if the offend. In Cale's case, as you said RP, he does need some consistency in the seniors, but if any player has that attitude, it won't matter how many games they play they will not succeed. My call would be drop him for a week, make it clear to teh entire playing group why it happened, then bring him back the week after. It's not personal, it's about playing for your team.

the trend I can see is that getting a good group of younger players on your list is the first step, then trade for your biggest deficiency shortly thereafter.

Is it something that we think the Club should publicly address? Just a question to raise, I am not sure of where I stand regarding her constant reporting of such an event. It really is getting tiresome. The annoying part is that you can't leave comments on her articles to challenge it.