bing181

Armstrong (Lance) has never been formally interviewed by USADA.

If he was good enough, other clubs will come calling. Let's see shall we? Not forgetting that both Craig and Roos also chose not to play him.

Not sure that that's the case (though not saying it isn't either). Watters isn't the only one to leave and I doubt that Laidley etc. would have left if Watters was the only problem - given that Watters must have been close to being pushed in any case. Brereten is pointing the finger at Pelchin, and you'd have to wonder whether or not that's not more where the fault lies. Watters had a very good record at Subiaco, and OK, it's "only" the WAFL, but he'd certainly done as well as Basset at Norwood in terms of success. Watters was also appointed from within at Subiaco, so he must have been a known commodity. Hard to see that you'd be winning premierships and getting contract extensions if you didn't know how to get on with players (and club admin for that matter). One of the interesting parallels with Neeld and Watters is that they were both sacked from clubs with disfunctional admin and footy dept. From the Board and CEO etc. down, if it's not working, hard for coaches, especially first-time coaches, to get the support they need or have the structures around them that will help, not hinder.

This is Demonland WJ.

Let's see if any of the other 17 clubs share your opinion. Or his for that matter.

Speaking of listings/delistings, anyone know what the story is with Maia Westrupp? Quick Google showed him recently being picked for a representative schoolboy volleyball side in NZ, so presumably back there. Done and dusted?

The science that's out there contradicts your assertions. Whether or not it's worth the time, effort, disruption and money is another story. Clubs have been successful with altitude/heat/you-name-it camps, clubs have been successful without.

Michie won B&F at his WAFL club, though he only played 15 full games (injured and subbed off in round 21). Ave 26 disposals across those 16 games, and had more than 30 disposals in 6 of them. Managed quite a bit more than Taggert, and also did all that coming off 2 years where he hardly played because of injury.

It's not wasted, it's the nature of the beast. Why are people presuming that every draftee we take should turn out to be an AFL player? A third of all draftees taken never play a single game. Another third (higher actually, around 43%) play less than 50 games. The total there is 3/4, 75%. At the other end, only 13% get to play more than 100 games, and only 3% more than 200. So, across the history of the draft and across all clubs, around 1 player in every 6 plays more than 100 games - and most of those would be in/close to the first round. That a pick 36 didn't make the grade at AFL level is more to be expected than to be unexpected.

Yes, but not with us. Perhaps a couple of years in the SANFL would sort him out. FWIW, from reports on some of the North boards, his fitness/attitude issues centre on weight-training.

Not exactly first dibs, we'd have equal dibs with the Dogs. Player to choose one or either. Or neither if he'd fancy his chances in the draft.

Some great stories here. To which I can't really contribute anything. A handful of U14 and U16 games for Girgarre, of which my only recollections are the orange quarters at 3/4 time.

Surely he can just put himself into the regular draft as well. If so, good for one of our low picks?

Put Morton in the same basket as the rest - did his shoulder (or hand?) when he fell while climbing over the back fence because he'd forgotten his keys. Knowing that would happen, we should never have drafted him.

That might have been the case in the past, but given PJ's emphasis on clearly defined roles and chains of responsibility, I wonder if that's actually the case here.

"Peter McFarlane, a respected journalist from the Herald Sun went into raptures about Collingwood's efforts despite losing two of their top 10 players." Overlooked everywhere, including by Pies' fans. If a top-8 side trades out two of their top-10 players, no surprises that they're going to get top picks or trades in return. Bemused.

Can anyone explain the difference between: - Andrew Nichol - Player Development Manager and - Brett Allison - Head of Development Interesting aside in all this, the three assistants to the assistants from the last two years have now found new positions: Nichol with us (promotion?) Satterley to De La Salle as head coach, and Greaves has been announced as Development coach at Port Adelaide, responsible for ruck coaching. On the other hand, Leigh Brown and Royal still without new homes.

... if only.

One of our problems, and often cited in getting rid of Bruce, Junior etc., is the absence of off-field leadership from experienced players. No matter how many coaches we have, they don't/can't bring that. Dawes does - in spades. Doesn't justify in itself a huge salary, so yes, it's essential that he plays. Hopefully this will sort out his niggles, and get him ready for a solid year next year. An important player for us, makes the whole forward setup look different, and he's a great example to players like Hogan, Fitzpatrick, Howe etc. as to what they need to be doing on the field.

Good luck with that.

Not sure why people keep suggesting we delist contracted players. Not possible. Equally, not sure how people can suggest we trade contracted-player-X. Trade period is nearly 2 weeks in, presumably we've been floating all the possible no-longer-required's already. Unless there are some takers over the last 24 hours or so, the likes of Byrnes, Bail, Tapscott, Blease, Pederson, Jamar etc. will be with us next year. As per earlier in the thread, only possible delistings are Nicho, Jetta and Taggert. Think it'll come down to: - who might be available in the PSD. - whether or not we feel we need to upgrade Clisby at this stage - who might be available at pick 57. Hard to imagine we'd use this pick unless we had someone in mind, but would imagine this would be our last live pick in any case. Perhaps we'll only need to open up 3 positions: Picks 9, 40 and either pick 57 or PSD, which would take the 3 spots we currently have available.

Given our tie-up with NT, hardly surprising.

Don't disagree, but it's easier to get good picks coming in when you're trading good players out: Dawes last year, Shaw and Thomas this year ... got good picks/trades out all of those.

Fix it? Of course not. Improve it? Definitely.

I think that we're all loving the direction of the club. Well, mostly.