Rogue

Not sure if it's from the article you've linked to, but I read this in an article today: Not bad, not bad!

Talk about going early!

I do like Cheney. However, he's not the quickest guy going around and thus I'm concerned about where he fits in. I'm not sure he's quick enough to play on the pacey smalls that many sides have, and if he doesn't play that role I'm not sure he'll be able to cement a role in the backline.

That'd be an interesting analysis, deanox. Exams must be finishing soon... IMO doesn't warrant one on the back of Fri night's performance.

...and instead, he turned it into something beautiful! Nice post(s) deanox.

Isn't it exactly like our jumper? What do you think when we're running around.

I think this is a bit harsh. He was under the pump and everyone knew he was going to get the boot.

...because they keep finishing 9th? :D It's probably something to do with the fact that our list is bad enough to warrant the PP, as RR suggested. We had Davey and Jones on the bench n the dying stages of our close match in the west a while back.

Haha :D

He's a guy many fans will like, but I think CB makes a decent point regarding his improvement since his debut. I'm not writing him off, but he'll have to improve if he wants to be around in a few years.

I like Wheatley and was happy when he was given more scope to be offensive in recent times. However, his kicking isn't as reliable as some make out and he's fairly injury-prone. He's also not particularly physical and thus isn't really suited to playing a defensive role, IMO. We could do worse than have him on the list but with many young guys vying to play a running back/receiver role I think his time at the Dees is probably limited.

The occassions I can remember were all times where the Melbourne player could have pushed towards the ball while it was in flight, but instead they stood and waited for the ball. Regardless of whether the kick was telegraphed, there was ample opportunity for the receiver to move towards the ball and thus ensure it would not get cut off.

You're right. Do you think he'll end up playing a shut-down role, a la Wheels? Maybe he will, although I was thinking we might look to use his talents in a more offensive role. I think Strauss is one we'll look to give the ball to when we come out of defence.

Yes.

Green could play on for a number of seasons so I don't see why you'd exclude him. Bruce will also play. Whelan, Robertson, McDonald and Wheatley could all be moved on at the end of the year. Take a look at the body shapes and sizes of 18 year olds (~year 12 age) versus elite AFL footballers aged 26 - there's a massive difference.

We also need a pacey small defender.

Weird examples. Holland copped his fair share of criticism over the journey, particularly over his pace, agility and goal-kicking. However, his strengths were generally recognised. With two AA spots, a Coleman medal, a B&F and the captaincy Neitz had the runs on the board to survive some lean trots. I didn't post on Demonland when Chisholm was playing but he was an average footballer.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was a #1 pick from another Club, I'm sure there'd be a few on Demonland suggesting that X club debuted him early because of a marquee game, perhaps adding that from what they'd seen the #1 pick hadn't yet shown anything to suggest he should have been picked up so early, etc. There might be a few others who called for any and all criticism to be held off because the player is young, but I doubt these comments would cause angst and indignation on here.

:D

Hopefully they don't, because they'd probably me misrepresenting Matthews comment. I haven't seen the coverage but from what I've read it was based on either two games or five minutes of his second game, and was talking about past performance not future performance.

I dislike Docklands but not so much that it outweighs going to see the Dees play. Bad luck - that's pretty poor. I've sat on level 3 at Docklands a couple of times and I thought the view was actually quite decent. It seems a fair bit better than at the 'G, where the players can seem like red and blue ants running around. I didn't notice that (fwiw, went with a group and we were on level 1, gen admin). For example, I walked past a bunch of people a couple of times and none of them had to get up, just turn their knees a little like normal. It seemed the same as in the Southern Stand of the 'G. Haha, ouch. I know the 'Docklands' area is struggling when it comes to restaurants etc. Hahah :D

He might play better but it doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. He's not good enough to play #1 ruck, let alone sole ruckman. It makes sense that he'll play better if he's playing sole ruck because he'll be in the play more than if he's sharing the duties. I thought it was nice, but I think we're clutching at straws if we think we could mount an argument for why he went at number 1 on things like that. Fwiw, my thoughts on Watts haven't changed from the time we drafted him.

Good post.

Exactly. After his first game I mentioned to another Dees fan that it looked like he was in a kids versus parents scratch match at times. If people are surprised or unhappy with how Watts is going, they should think about how the year-12 Watts would fare against a 26-year old Watts from the future, in peak physical condition with 8 years of elite sport behind him.

That sounds like a fair comment - if you looked at what everyone else from the 2008 draft has shown, I'm sure many are looking much better. I'm also not sure Watts has shown anything too special - sure, his kicking for goal looked nice, but that's not worthy of a number one ranking. Note to those hyper-sensitive about Watts: I've not criticised him, not suggested we shouldn't have taken him at #1, and I certainly haven't said he won't make it/is no good.