bing181

People talk about entries into the forward line and we let two of our worst disposers of the ball leave. Perhaps just a coincidence.

= I don't understand the decisions the FD are making, it must be because Goodwin is stubborn.

Lachie Neale always gets off the chain, that's what makes him a midfield gun.

As with any of our players, sad to see Bedford go. But if you can't cement a place in the firsts after 3 years, understandable that he would be open to offers elsewhere and equally understandable that the club wouldn't be banging down his door to get him to stay. Good luck to him.

No he's not. He was playing in the twos for a reason.

Sad to see him go, but understand. If both Salem and Bowie get back to their best, not sure there's a place for him. Also, OK to have speed, but he was never a great one-on-one defender, which is what we perhaps need more than anything else. Still a bit of a hole down back since Neville Jetta left us.

Wonder if Yze will now move on to another club, perhaps with a bit more responsibility/higher profile? Once you start the "I'm thinking of leaving" ball rolling, can be hard to put the genie back in its bottle.

Yes, I was wrong on that one ... put it down to the layout changing on the Wikipedia draft pages, but mea culpa. Point I was making is that very few players change clubs through trade or free agency. If you want to improve your list, you go to the draft, which is where we've been proactive for a number of years now.

Seriously? If you read Demonland, Van Rooyen is the second coming, Blake Howes has so much upside he's a future Brownlow winner and the only reason Turner isn't a regular down back is because the coaches are stubbornly refusing to play him.

But even if that's true, so what? It's as if Trade week itself has become some kind of spectator sport. Richmond went back to back in 2019 - 20, yet didn't trade in a single player in the 2019, 20 and 21 trade periods, and haven't traded in a player since 2018. Also no trades in 2016 and 2017 either, so only a single traded-in player between 2015 and 2021, yet they still won the flag 3 times across that period.

Last year, there were 10 players who changed clubs*. No club traded in more than one player, and around half the clubs didn't trade in anyone. If we trade in even one player, we're already batting above average. Further, that that player is someone of Grundy's calibre is a huge tick for the club. * And half of those traded players had been delisted, so you'd be taking a punt on them.

And speaking of fantasyland, the idea that we would have won the premiership by bringing in the likes of Weideman, Mitch Brown or Baker is just that.

I know this is Demonland, a fantasyland where reality doesn't count and there are no consequences, but go ahead: with hindsight we know the players who were available as trades last year, who would you have brought in? And how would you have got them without giving up Van Rooyen, Howes etc., i.e., you have no draft swaps available for compensation. (And let's stay in fantasyland and ignore that at least some of the players available might not have wanted to come to the Demons.) As for Norm Smith, apart from the fact that he didn't have to deal with salary caps, drafts (at all), bidding, points, father-sons, academies and the whole heavily regulated palaver, he was at the club when training was Tuesday and Thursday nights after work but heh, let's run the club the way it was run in the fifties. Back in Norm's day, you would pick up some kid up from the country, give them a month of training, a few matches in the under-nineteens and they'd be ready to park down on the HFF in the firsts. Yes, he was bringing players in but in those days, bringing players in meant the equivalent of drafting. Which we were very proactive in, so rest in peace Norm, we're following your guidelines. In any case if we're talking about trading as opposed to drafting, the "if you want to go back to back you have to bring new players in the year after a premiership" is demonstrably untrue. e.g., the last team to win back-to-back was Richmond in 2019 and 2020, and outside of the draft they didn't bring in any new players in either of those years.

You're not only making assumptions as to the attitude of the coaches/club, but ignoring history yourself: for a club coming off a premiership and with very few picks in hand, we were very proactive in the draft and brought in Luke Dunstan who is more than capable of filling a role in the first 22. But have a look at the players who were available and changed clubs in 2021 and let us know who we should have picked up to "improve the list". Mabior Chol?

Agree with the post, but Sydney have enough players coming through thanks to their Academy etc to keep themselves relevant. Geelong on the other hand ... that was their last hurrah with this group. 12 players over 29 I think it was, the only way now is down. Demons v Pies GF for me, Freo could be thereabouts depending who they lose/keep/gain, and don't feel you can rule out the Dogs, strange as that might seem. They've had the same post-GF hangover as us this year, but will start afresh in 2023. But ... very even comp and if a team can make it deep into the finals and keep most of their players on the park (injuries) anything's possible.

"We were a little bit banged up at the end of the year." Simon Goodwin (He also reinforced what Gawn said, that it felt like two continuous years, that the players didn't get much of a break last year.)

Or perhaps not. Perhaps the long double season with a minimal break, a non-existant bye (10 days as opposed to 2 weeks), travel and 6-day breaks, and having to knock ourselves out against the best teams in the comp week in week out all got a bit much.

Perhaps. But AFL players are monitored to within an inch of their lives with any amount of fitness technology, and signs of over-training are pretty easy to pick up. More likely it's because of what Gawn spoke about post-elimination, that 2021 just rolled into 2022 without much of a break. This started to catch up with the players mid-season. Even seeing more injuries is an indication that the players were just cooked. (OK, not impact injuries ...) One of the reasons winning back-to-back premierships is so hard to do.

Perhaps. All clubs employ opposition analysts, I don't know that there are that many unknowns apart from specific match-day preparation - who's playing on who, who's carrying an injury, rotation strategies etc.

They had a 2 week block of increased training loads around the bye, like a lot of clubs, and Scott mentioned that they'd gone a bit harder across this 2 week period. (Helped no doubt by the easy draw they had immediately after it.) Burgess' mantra was train hard all year round, or just train hard, period. Perhaps Shannon Byrnes had a part in bringing this to Geelong's attention, but it wasn't exactly a secret.

Say what you like about the coaches, the players, the game plan, the fitness, we never lost a one-sided match like this - including against both these teams.

Not to be confused with The Felonious Monks. (I'll let myself out.)

Because even an underperforming Gawn is streets ahead of *checks notes* Sam Weideman. Same goes for the likes of Petracca and Lever and their likely replacements. There's also the question of structure and team balance: everyone on the field knew how to setup around Max, Lever etc. Not saying it's an ideal solution either, but with the likes of Tom McDonald and Joel Smith injured and Daw retiring, the cupboard was bare. Just not our year.

I lay the blame for the second half of the year squarely on the players. I thought they gave their absolute all and admirably left nothing in the tank, but they were cooked and/or carrying injuries.

This whole thread is premised on the fact that lower draft picks are less likely to become decent players, a likelihood that really drops away after the second round. https://www.draftguru.com.au/analysis/pick-value-comparison