The Chazz

Sorry RR, I forgot you felt the need to respond to every post even if they aren't directed at you.

Robbie, I seriously don't know if you're taking the pi$$ with this post or not.

It is something that we will never know. For all we know Neeld might have said to BP "go out and get me a tough, hard at it mature age rookie who might have an immediate impact". The angle you take on this opinion is likely to match your angle on BP in general. I think BP had done a good-very good job in terms of later draft picks, with Howe being the obvious one. It's the first rounders that he "may" have appeared to have made mistakes, but is that only because of the direction/game plan the coach at the time was wanting to take, hence why certain selections were made? Again, your view on that will vary depending on your stance of the first sentence of this paragraph.

Would it be fair to say that BP was responsible for us taking Magner?

Good post. I think your last sentence explains how the majority on here are feeling. The new coach comes out stating that "we will be the hardest team to play against" and "we won't die wondering", well, at this early stage, he has had 3 games to give us some confidence that he is the man, and so far, we have been uncompetitive in all those outings. Don't forget - 2 of those games are against teams that aren't much good.

Your posts #36 and #39 have it covered.

What about we make GC or GWS take him, then spend 2 years on their list with a dodgy knee, then at the end of his first contract request a trade back to Melbourne. Oh the irony.

I do get it Sloonie, but what I, and you, nor anyone else on here get is that the 5 year contract would most likely have conditions in it, such as an injury clause, and I'm sure there are other clauses in there. One clause may be that if we determin his draft range between 5-9, and we finish with pick 1-3, if a club lower than us "force" us to use an earlier pick that what is not warranted, we have the right to not use our first pick on him. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but I would like to think we have our bases covered.

It's like having a one dimensional game plan where you kicked along the edge of the boundary line...it was soooooo yesterday.

That's why I would seriously get him to sit out the U18 champs, not attend draft combine. Let's make it impossible for Clubs below us to consider him, similar to the was West Coast are rumoured to have handled Darling. Give the other pricks nothing, it's time we manipulate things to favour ourselves rather than tanking. Try and throw Emma Quayle off the scent!

Struggling to find where I said he tried to do it again. No one "tries" to execute a sling tackle, well, they shouldn't. Most players are trained to bring a tackle to the ground if you get the opportunity, which is what Grimes "tried" to do on both occasions.

Who will be a better player - Viney or Whitfield?

I didn't say he tried to do the initial sling either. The first case was careless. The 2nd case had the potential to be careless, and as it was teh same bloke he was tackling, he avoided the potential of a similar outcome. That's in no way saying that I believe Grimes did it intentionally. FWIW - I challenge anyone to try and lay a tackle, like the 2nd one for example, at the pace and with the momentum that Jack had, and see if you can lay a "safe" tackle. I know when I've played footy it's bloody hard to stop your own momentum.

I'm starting to feel like Ben Hur - I watch this game in a different way to most on this thread. Would love to hear Ben's thoughts on the matter.

Frustrated to be caught? He was less than a metre inside the field, he stepped over the boundary, and Grimes tackled him. He was frustrated, but due to Jack's momentum and the speed he was travelling at, it was a pretty solid tackle, which Jackson wasn't fully impressed about, especially considering there was potential to be taken to the ground heavily again.

Sorry Sue, might have this totally wrong, but are you saying because I agree with the decision that I'm not supporting our players?

Sloonie, are you really sure that's the case? So, if we decide to take garry Lyon's son, who, in all due respect to the kid, is a muppet on the footy field, we have to take him with our first round pick? Even though no other team wants him, and we could've picked him with our 5th rounder? Again, for the umpteenth time, we have to use our first draft pick AFTER the team that bids to draft Viney. That means, if we finish 3rd last, and GC and GWS are below us, if they don't bid for him, we DON'T have to use our pick 3. If no Club bids for him, we can pick him up with our last pick (not likely to happen). We need to hope (?) that the teams below us don't bid to pick him up with their first pick, otherwise that will force us to pick him up with our first pick. It's not that difficult.

Righto buddy, it doesn't matter a flying if I was there or not. The footage you have provided does actually have the BOUNDARY umpire's whistle being blown while the sling was taking place. The louder whistle is that of the field umpire, due to the fact they are microphoned for tv, hence why there were two louder whistles. It's fair and reasonable to tackle hard in the field of play, like Trengove, and expect to not face suspension. The Grimes one was totally different - between momentum and the fact the Grimes wanted to finish the tackle ie. bring the player to ground, didn't help his cause. If you can't see it you're too one-eyed. In regards to the 2nd one. Jackson was probably within his right to make sure he did what he could not to get slung again. After facing what you would assume mild concussion after the first tackle, the last thing he would've felt like was to hit his head on the astroturf again. He used strength to protect himself, which unfortunately for Jack meant landing on top of him. To suggest Jackson did it as payback from an earlier incident just proves how little if any football you have played yourself. There was no way Jackson knew who was tackling him - he had his back to the tackler, it wasn't until he went out of bounds and with momentum was aware of the chance of being swung again and acted in his best interest. I'm sorry for slapping you in the face of reality.

If the shoe was on the other foot we would be satisfied. I didn't agree with the Trengove/Dangerfield incident, but I can understand the AFL's view on this one. The bloke was out of bounds, yet Grimes still swung him. The whistle had blown, there was really no excuse for it. As soon as he did it I thought he'd be in trouble - the fact that Jackson kept playing gave me some confidence.

Amen brother.

Tackled just inside the field of play, was taken over the boundary line and then swung after the ball was dead. Fair decision, especially given the astr-turf stuff is like cement.

If we are going to spend pick 3 or 4, I want an A grade midfielder. Have to look at the teams where we are likely to get one from in terms of where that team is at. The other option is an interstate team with a Victorian playing for them. But, the type of player I'm looking at are the likes of Gibbs/Judd/Murphy (all highly unlikely to leave given where Carlotn are at), Pendlebury/Swan (SP just signed a new contract, Swan wants to retire soon(?)), Ablett (would the AFL let him leave?), Bartel (would he leave Geelong? Maybe). I want an established star, not a potential.

Of the same opinion DD. Let's assume we finish 3rd last and end up with picks 3 & 4, and GWS and GC (who would finish below us) don't bid for Viney with their pick 1 or 2, then we have picks 3 and 4 to use on any 2 players we want. If it cost Carlton pick 3 for Judd (and a bit of extra stuff), then who would we want to get should we wish to trade either of our pick 3 or 4? Nb. I wouldn't trade both picks, but I'd definitely throw one out there.

Righto champ.

If we can get 38 palyers doing what I suggested on a regular basis, it will make Neeld's job a lot easier. If we can start to show improvement onfield, but there is still an elephant in the room, then they have a lot more weight, as a football department, to demand change from wherever else. If the players sit back with the attitude that they will change after others change, we will see a repeat of 186. If McLardy hears the players whinging about this and that, especially if they are trivial things rather than things that will directly impact their performance, and they continue to perform as they are, they don't have a leg to stand on. If he can see them making serious attempts as a playing group, including the football department, then he will have no choice other than act upon concerns. The things I mentioned I believe for 2 inexperienced captains especially, will show immediate signs, and should be well received by the entire playing group. I just don't see them either a) doing it at the moment, or b ) being given the free reign by the coach to implement such things. I'm only basing that on what I've seen on the TV coverage with just how both Jack and Jack seem to be struggling to motivate/inspire their players. I could be totally wrong on that, and am happy if I am.