Rogue

You're welcome. The rest of his article is a decent read too.

Great speech - nice link QueenC.

For those who want to see what Harris wrote in its entirety, check out the thread @ http://demonland.nozzs.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5904 Apparently the Dees have brought it up with the AFL behind closed doors over a period of time. Only now are they speaking about it publically, because the AFL has stated that there's an imbalance between the Clubs that can't be attributed to normal cycles. The following is an excerpt from Harris' article (link in the thread at the top of this post):

So would I, but getting Wheatley into our best 22 isn't a matter of replacing Ward because Ward isn't there either. How about Stynes in 1987? Let it go

Don't write off Moloney - I don't believe he's 'damaged goods'. Heya, You can hit the reply button and it then automatically puts the quote 'tags' around the text. You can then edit that down to simply include the bits that are relevant to what you're saying You can also do it manually - [quote name='Rogue' date='Jun 1 2007, 05:53 AM' post='77670']text here[/quote] That appears like this: When you hit the reply button it automatically adds the name and date etc, but you can simply do the following: [quote name='Rogue']text here[/quote] or... [quote]text here[/quote] Sorry for this off-topic post, but I hope that helps you and maybe some other people too

Disagree. We're better off aiming to win a flag when the majority of our best 22 are at their peak. We already have at least half of our best-22 coming from guys that have played less than 100 games, and the majority of those have played less than 50. We're going to be more successful continuing to build a team that can grow together for the next 10 years by focussing on drafting young talent. The alternative is to trade away picks chasing a star in the hope that he'll combine with a few old hands who aren't (White, McDonald, Yze, Pickett, Neitz) and they'll carry the relatively inexperienced majority of our players to a flag. In 2 years we're perhaps going to lose the aforementioned plus guys like Bizz, Ward, Brown, and Holland who are neither here nor there. On the other hand we have a plethora of guys aged 22 and under like McLean, Bate, Dunn, Moloney, Sylvia, Frawley, Bell, Petterd, Bartram, Jones, PJ, CJ, and Newton. Rivers, Green, Davey, Carroll and Wheatley also have plenty of footy in them. In two years time they should all be better footballers, and Whelan, Robbo, Bruce, and TJ should still be around. We need to build around the core group of young players instead of attempting a quick fix - the era of Neitz and Yze is coming to a close and we can't afford to jeapordise the future of the Bate's and McLean's by attempting a long shot at the fairytale ending for some of our old favourites.

Lord Travis, I didn't say that they couldn't play in the same team - in fact I'm sure I've posted suggestions for particular weeks where they're both included. Referring to Jaded's comment that Wheatley should play in the backline because we are down three defenders this week (incl. both Holland and Rivers) I simply stated that I doubted Rivers and Holland would have been playing in the same team even if they were both fit. Who is the gorilla forward in the Adelaide team? I don't see one, and thus there'd be no reason to play both Holland and Rivers. The fact that Holland has been omitted even though Rivers is out reinfoces my point.

Most of the posters on here agree that our season is shot and that we should be trying to develop young kids. While it's never good to have quality players injured I'd rather Rivers miss this year than any other. It probably opens the door for a guy like Frawley to get some game time. While it's disappointing for Rivers, the Club, and the fans not to see him playing it's not all bad and as long as his long-term future isn't in trouble I'm not too disappointed.

For those that might get turned off by the article I thought these excerpts were worth reading: While none of the article was ground-breaking I definitely thought it was worth reading.

I'd rather play PJ and White and make room for other young guys to get game time before drafting Neaves in.

Fwiw I doubt Rivers and Holland would have been playing in the same team anyhow.

RE: this week I'd prefer to have played Wheatley for Ward and perhaps brought in another young kid but overall I didn't think the selections were too bad. It was nice to see Frawley retain his spot and while Brown isn't in my 22 he played okay last week and thus shouldn't be dropped atm considering the potential ins aren't walk-up starts (CJ, Buckley etc). He's never been that strong in the contest and probably hasn't got enough of the ball. That said I believe he won the 2005 'Most Improved Player' award before injuries curtailed his past couple of seasons. I said it in another thread, but I'd like to see him in a more attacking position.

Ditto. Playstyle needs to be adopted to suit the team we have, not the team we'd like to have. You need to play to your strengths - that said the injuries and form we've had has been ordinary whatever you're trying to do.

2006 - Read, Motlop, Smith, and Nicholson departed 2005 - Armstrong, Heffernan, Williams, Hunter and Rigoni departed We should see 5-6 depart in '07.

Indeed. Holland was omitted for this match and Frawley retained his spot, so it looks like he might get an extended run - which is a good thing.

Thanks.

Instead of bumping the thread you could have just created a new thread making your point and referencing (linking to) the 06 poll. Would have saved some confusion and it seems people are voting on the poll today which probably skews the results in favour of PJ (whereas I imagine Jamar would have had more of a lead back then).

Reasonably happy with the in's considering most of the other guys I'd like to see are probably injured. Newton must be close though. As for outs I'm surprised Holland was omitted considering Rivers hasn't come up, but I guess it means Frawley should get a decent run in the backline (which is good). I probably would have played Dunn over Ward but it's good to see relatively young players return in his place. A break might be good for Dunn anyhow. Bate would be my preferred candidate but Sylvia should play up forward. I don't think Wheatley is strong enough and that's probably my biggest criticism of him as he uses the ball pretty well. He'd be better in a more creative position IMHO. I posted in another thread that he was reported as saying he'd prefer to play in a more attacking position like the wing.

Has he played AFL previously?

If you're talking short-term then Frawley is probably neither here nor there when it comes to key defenders, and whether he'll have a big impact in the short-term as a 'third tall' type is also arguable although I'm optimistic. When it comes to other defenders you've mentioned, I'm not sure what the output of Bizzell and Holland will be in two years time...I'd be mildly surprised if they were both on the list for 2008 tbh, and more surprised if either was around in 2009. It's fine to assert that I'm commenting on leg speed simply because we're being beaten, but I said the same thing at the end of last year (after we made the second round of finals) too Green, McLean, and Jones might not be slow but they're not the quickest guys going around either, and neither are the likes of McDonald, Bruce, Bartram, Godfrey, TJ, Moloney, and even Bate & Sylvia if you swing that way. I imagine Ward's run was a prime factor in him playing so many games in '06, and Davey's pace would also be a factor in why we're pushing him up the ground (something I seem to recall ND has mentioned in the past). While White may go for another 3 years it's just as possible age will increase the speed of a decline that started when the ruck rules were changed. We're then left in all sorts of trouble short-term when you look at our current ruck stocks. Even factoring in some quality young talls being recruited the next two years they're not the kind of players that tend to dominate at 18 or 19. You're arguing a point I never made - I never said leg speed was more important than getting clearances.

I don't see room for Warnock, Frawley, Carroll, Rivers, and Bizzell can all play in the same team on a regular basis. I also wouldn't play CJ and Buckley (although I don't know as much about him) in the backline, but would be happy to see them getting a run. I wouldn't insist on playing Sylvia in the middle this season either, given his potential as a forward and his fitness issues. Other than that it's pretty standard...except perhaps for sidelining Pickett and Yze. I'd be playing him in the forward line. Not sure he's a 'CHF' - certainly not in the mould of the dominant CHF's currently, but it's mroe about how your forward line functions as a whole. I'd rather see him up the ground, perhaps on the wing or somewhere thereabouts. I recall a poster stating that Wheatley had said he would prefer to play in a more attacking position (back when he played in our back six fairly regularly). I think Bartram would have been playing ahead of Godfrey if he weren't injured. While I agree we can experiment a little it's also important that we have a decent structure so that the team can learn to play good footy (even if we're outgunned and don't have a positive w/l). I'd like to see PJ play forward a bit more (so he has more game time) as I think he has a decent kick and played up forward when he was younger. However I think Dunn and particularly Bate are wasted in the backline and it's probably better for them to play in positions they're comfortable in while they settle in at AFL level.

Interesting point.

I don't think Moloney should be delisted - far from it. I also find it odd that Wheatley - 26 and most improved in '05 before injuries in '06 and start of '07 - is on the list while Brown (31), Bizzell, Ward (30) et al aren't featured. Furthermore, I imagine Pickett would have more value than a couple of those I've just mentioned. Happy with draft picks instead of trades though I also agree that Holland probably has value as backline depth while Yze and White are unlikely to have much trade value.

Are we? We still lack a key defender and I imagine that next year Holland will be less effective than he is now (should he be retained). I don't see Warnock of Frawley able to step into a bona fide key defender role in 2008 and imagine Ferguson will be old news. Our ruck stocks are still dire and even if we draft a young gun ruck there's no guarantee that a young tall can come in and play AFL footy straight up. White will also be another year older and the alternatives are Jamar (will he be listed?), PJ, and Neaves. While I quite like our midfield it lacks leg speed, and while our young mids look really promising none of them are that quick - Moloney, McLean, Jones, etc. Our young players will still be prone to inconsistency by virtue of their age and inexperience, and a conservative estimate puts them at about half our 'best 22' right now - and more next year I'd imagine. Considering the potential decline or retirements due to old age and the upside of our inexperienced players, and taking into account the horrific injury run we've had, I do think we'll be a better team in '08. However, we were too optimistic before this year and it seems we might be once again