The Chazz

I rarely comment on the look of our away strip, but this is bog ordinary.

I guess "officially" it now is. Unofficially, I'll be still livid come draft night when the cheats read out the first player for the night. I just hope to Christ that we don't lose to them next year.

And there it is... http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-11/jobe-watson-hands-back-2012-brownlow-medal Watch how he will be treated as some kind of hero now. Will be sickening.

That's pretty crook, Vagg.

To be fair to Stuart, he did belt us with the "Green on the Rookie List" line ad nauseam in that other thread, so there wouldn't be a need to delist anyone. Green would need to nominate for the Rookie Draft though for us to get him that way. My concern about parking a DFA like Green (or McKernan, et al) on the rookie list is that we could be using that spot to develop an untried, speculative pick, similar to what we did with Wagner, AvB, etc (I could've gone back to the likes of Jurrah, Flash, etc, but wanted to keep it recent).

There's a good article about Ladhams here, and probably goes a long way in explains the reasons why he fell out of favour. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/local-footy-sa/sanfl/norwood/how-norwood-ruckman-peter-ladhams-went-from-top-draft-prospect-to-lost-soul-and-back-again/news-story/ac459cef0b19fe09d36b41cfae72d26f Considering he's a raw, young ruck, he seems to have a fair bit of coordination for big bloke, so you would think that this will only be improved with a few years in the system. I'd have no hesitation taking a punt with him, but I'm not as familiar with the players likely to be still around when we enter the draft, not compared to Jason Taylor!

And Stuart, just to further confirm what a majority of posters think, you have stated the above in you post #22 that "no one suggested putting him on the rookie list". You only had to scroll up to my post #19, which, for your benefit, I have quoted below... And when you were scrolling up, you would've gone past CBDees post #20 (the very next one following my above one), where he/she stated; "None if we rookie him. We only have two live picks (47&69) in the main draft after promoting Wagner but we have rookie pics." You accuse others of misquoting. You accuse others of changing the goal posts. It is truly baffling.

Stuart, the OP actually asked what peoples opinions of him were, specifically comparing him to Spencer. ManDee was not saying that we should give him a place on the primary list. Here is what ManDee asked; "Just delisted by EFC, is he a better FWD -Ruck option than Spencer?" Most people that have replied, yourself included, have indicated that if they would bring him in, that the rookie list would be the main and/or only way we would do this. It's just that you took it that step/s further (shock horror) and implied that because Spencer was on our Primary List, that if we are looking at someone as an upgrade on him, that they would naturally have to go on the Primary List too (your post #22).

You quoted my post about primary and rookie lists, then accused me of having a crack. There is absolutely nowhere in my post that you quoted that I was having a crack at you. And you reckon I'm changing the goal posts?

That was in relation to what I said in my previous quote. Again, please highlight where I had a crack regarding the primary/rookie list options for any potential DFA's, as per your previous quoting of my post.

If you could be so kind to point out where I "had a crack" regarding the above, that would be appreciated. What I did have a crack at you about was your inability to comprehend what Is Dom Is Good was implying when bringing up the Minson example, resulting in you beine guilty of derailing a thread for the umpteenth time. Poor form, champ. Poor form.

We have spots available on the rookie list if it were decided that we would look at any DFA, so no need to delist anyone, Stuart. Personally, I think there is zero chance that they would be looking at any of the DFAs for any spot on our primary list (as I think we have made all the changes we want to make), or the rookie list (as I think they will try their luck with a couple of project players that aren't "proven" at AFL level.

Wrong Dom, the majority of people could comprehend your post.

He's saying that McKernan isn't best 22 as forward/ruck, so if we are wanting to pick up someone as back-up for Gawn that won't be best 22, that we're better off picking a genuine ruck, which is what Minson is. Not an interpreter, Stuart, just a bloke that a) can understand what someone in meaning with their post, and b ) not someone that's always looking for an argument.

It's the Goodwin Effect. Something the Head Coach picked up from his previous employer...

That's clearly not what he's saying.

No chance. Anyway, how have you been Tiers? Hope the family is well mate. Been weird weather, hey?

That explains why their drinks and food prices are the most expensive of any race track in Victoria. God help us after the renos have been done. Will have to go back to the days of smuggling my drinks in...

I don't think it's something that is exclusive to MFC players. I'm sure most players from opposition teams work hard in their "time off", it's just something that we're not used to seeing with many of our players. Roos' message was just as much about reinforcing what it takes, as much as it was believing/reassuring that we have the players required, to take us to a premiership contender.

Not necessarily, Saty, it might be just that the expectations of being an AFL footballer are sinking in.

We can now add Fitzpatrick to the scrap heap of poor players from a poor side that didn't make it at a better side... http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-28/axe-falls-at-hawthorn-with-cult-hero-among-seven-cut

Might be Josh Green, Stuart? Pretty easy to go from ranga to white, with the assistance of peroxide. Would also help his chances of getting on our list due to the "2 ranga maximum" allowance we have.

The NT deal is a great earner for the club. The criticism of recent years is that it has really impacted the performance of the players, not only when we play in the NT, but the following round. Realistically, since the agreement has been in place, it wouldn't matter if we played all 22 games at the MCG, we were still a poor side. This year, our games in the NT are against the Gold Coast (an expected win), then one again Adelaide (which could go either way). After the Gold Coast game we have a bye, which is great, and after the Adelaide game we have a 7 day break and play Port Adelaide at the MCG, which we would be expecting to win. As we should be a better side in 2017, if we win all three of the above mentioned games, there will be minimal complaints of the NT agreement. In the coming years, it could actually work out to be a fair advantage to us, especially if the AFL continue to offer us a bye after one of the games. I, personally, am happy with the 2 game agreement, but would like to see it reduced to the one game (ideally the Alice game) in a couple of years when we are really starting to challenge.

Stuart, if you actually read the conversation that I was having with AF, you would've noticed that I was questioning how much Roos did actually rate Dawes (which AF believed that Roos may have rated CD quite highly). My response was implying that Roos may have rated him, but it was highly likely that he didn't rate the contract that he was on, and they were making plans to bring more in to line to what they (the FD) believe he is worth and the end of said contract. It's not about wanting to backdate contracts and me needing to "get over it", it's just contributing to the conversation, which is something you are quite incompetent at doing.

I don't think Roos rated how much his contract was. I would love to find the article, but I vaguely remember Roos saying that we were overpaying certain parts of our team, and he used some %'s to explain where the team was at, and that by the end of 2016 (I think), our list would've been at the right balance as far as who was getting paid what they should be. No doubt Dawes was among those that were getting paid more for the output they provided.