Slartibartfast

Or perhaps I'm not making mine. You suggested that Richmond hadn't turned over their list. I think they have. I'm not suggesting they have been successful, just that they have tried. As for Goffy I think he makes a good point. But it would be interesting to benchmark Richmond against the Swans, Freo or Hawthorn. Richmond have a core of good players who have performed consistently. They haven't got much else.

I'm not trying to argue Richmonds case but just point out that they have turned the list over which you suggested they hadn't. They have turned over 41% of the list in the last two years if the article is to be believed. "Forty one percent of the Tigers' list has been turned over since the start of 2014." Richmond have also tried to improve their list. They would have got Trengove except for the medical issues and this year obviously made a play for Treloar. Further we don't really know who else they've tried to get and they are turning their list over trying to find players. Interestingly players don't seem to want to go there and given they will play the majority of games at the G and in front of huge crowds that surprises particularly given that Hardwick is so popular. I wonder what influence Cousins, Martin, King and perhaps others have had.

Here's a suggestion. Don't read her if you don't like her.

This from the Age article today: Gale presented a paper to the board last December which benchmarked Hardwick against the performances of similarly placed coaches and clubs over the period of the compromised draft. It showed that Hardwick's win/loss ratio was similar to that of both Clarkson and Geelong's Mark Thompson over their first six years. It also showed that Richmond had turned over 39 players since Hardwick joined as coach at the end of 2009 - the highest number in the AFL. Forty one percent of the Tigers' list has been turned over since the start of 2014. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/richmond-tigers/afl-2016-damien-hardwick-resigns-with-richmond-football-club-until-2018-20160316-gnkrd6.html#ixzz438OPMV8I Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

They also mentioned that we have the 4th hardest draw.

Did quite a lot of goal kicking today at training. Looked good with not much stutter and most hit their target.

It was a very relaxed session with no contact at all and many of the drills at three quarter pace so it was hard to really judge Trengove against anyone else. He certainly didn't look out of place - he looked comfortable and relaxed. I went to watch him and Petracca. It was fantastic to see him with a smile on his face.

He did the full session. Looked 100% fit. Petracca and Trengove also in full training. AVB didn't train with the group but didn't look in any discomfort. Mitch White did the full session - did he play last week at Casey? Jack Viney was the notable no show.

On the website now. Procedural..

I comes down to what we were discussing earlier about evaluating a player over the journey. At the moment I don't think ANB will make it. I didn't think Brayshaw was as good as many thought in his early games but what I saw midseason was fantastic. The Watts discussion has been as much about current performance v attributes and what those attributes could bring.

I agree and hope you're right. It's the best possible structure I can see. Of course we'll probably never really know.

Who will make call on team selection and game plan? Who is effectively our senior coach based on your answers?

I look at attributes a player has. Not a strong overhead mark, not fast, not a lethal kick. He does many things well but nothing is elite. IMO to become the player many think he will he'll need to be a ball magnet and get it 30 times a game. I've not seen that. I think Stretch will be much better. Has very good pace, great endurance and is a good decision maker with exceptional disposal. It's a view, that's all.

And he attributes team mistakes to Garland. With every opposition goal kicked there will be an MFC player at fault. Garland must be easy to spell.

I'm not but it's my judgement at the moment that he will not be more than an ok player. I hope he proves me wrong but that's the way I saw it. I don't think he's played some great game BTW IT but I do think he did some nice things. Lumumba is a trade not a JT pick but IMO we'd be better off with a straight swap for Varcoe. Perhaps he didn't want to come. Newton won't make it IMO because to many others will be ahead of him.

I agree with much of this but I'd go further and say Lumumba and Newton are busts to date, ANB probably won't make it and if he does will be a FAQ player at best but I do hold hopes for OMac and Stretch. The dynasty that you talk of will come from the strategy put into place and executed beautifully by the LM team over several years. The Tyson/Salem deal was exceptional, the Hogan deal whilst not losing Viney was great, Petracca and Brayshaw dead easy choices it would appear and the manipulating of the system this year allowing us pick 3 and 9 just brilliant. Interestingly in the three years since Roos came we've traded our pick around 20 for Vince, Frost and Melksham. Jason Taylor hasn't flamed a pick yet really but it's far too early to tell. But the overall strategy and implementation gives us a chance of being a powerful club once again. JT picks from his first year: Salem, JKH, Hunt, Petracca, Brayshaw, ANB, Stretch, OMac, Oliver, Weideman, King, Hulett. Apart from the first round picks there isn't a best 22 player. That's not a criticism just an observation. His rookie picks: Harmes, King, Georgiou, AVB, White and Wagner appear to be exceptional when judged against the expectations of rookies.

I know exactly what you're saying but a view of a player develops over a period of time and changes as that player changes. Some observers change more slowly than others and a smaller group are too proud to change. Grimes does have a history of "bloopers" and I can understand people having concerns about that. When you say "to allow some players the possibility of improving while condemning others" probably misses the point. Demonland doesn't "allow some players the possibility of improving" we just commentate on what we see, and of course we only see a fraction of what the FD sees and knows. It's the FD that evaluate the players and they will make the decision and unless you're like Biffen who thinks a comment or two on our situation from outside the club will panic us into making decisions (and we know that's just dumb) you can relax about the views expressed on DL.

I reckon PD is more flexible in his views than many. Grimes weaknesses are his speed and his lateral movement. He also has a "mechanical" kicking style. He has a lot of good attributes as well but I wonder if the two weaknesses I've mentioned are deal breakers.

And you'll find the Garland and Grimes haters will just make things up. Just look at Jnrmac's little effort yesterday on Garland. I'm undecided on Grimes and whilst I love the guy I think he will struggle to get a game in a full team this year. Harmes, Bugg and Kennedy have made it hard for Grimes, Stretch and ANB and the prospect of Trengove and Petracca confuse the situation even more. If we have a good run with injury I think Grimes will struggle because it would appear that the FD don't rate him much either. But like Trenners I hope he can find his early career form.

Perhaps you should watch the game rather than shake your head. Saints kicked 4 goals for the quarter. Goal 1: Salem kick out to Roberton who kicks long to front of goal where Bruce out marks Oscar McDonald. Garland not involved. Goal 2: Salem clears defensive 50 to Ross who kicks into Billings inside 50 on the lead. Garland not his opponent and not involved. Goal 3: Point kick out to Wagner who kicks across goal where Billings intercepts and kicks goal. Garland not involved. Goal 4. Garland kicks across goal to Lonie who marks and finds Billings 20 metres on his own and goals. Garland involved and responsible for turnover. So he didn't give away 3 goals. He was involved in one goal. Shake your head all you like but you're wrong. Reality is Garland is obviously respected by the FD who offered him a new contract last year. You don't. That's fine but don't make stuff up to pot him.

I think he's a player with good potential but I don't think he'd get a game with a lot of the better teams. When I said I don't know how good he is I meant I don't know how good he is as a defender because I haven't seen him play in defence.

I don't think anyone is suggesting he leave before the end of this year. I'm certainly not.

I don't think you can pick someone based on "insurance" alone, I think you've got to work out whether you'd be better to have Hogan, Watts, Pedersen and Frost and miss out on having someone like Harmes or Oliver in the team or leave one of the talls out and get another solid contributing mid. There will be games where injury catches you out but that's footy. Over 22 games you're best to have the best 22 on the ground IMO. Reality is I don't think either Frost or Pedersen are genuine AFL footballers and they are just holding the fort until Weideman or a King gets going. Clearly opposition structures will be considered in selection but if a team stretches us forward would you play O Mac or Frost back to counter them? I've not seen Frost do a defensive job yet so while he has all the physical attributes I don't know how good he is.

You change things because things change. A decision made 2 years ago should not be adhered to if a better alternative arises. The players won't be concerned by the change and they may in fact like it. Rather than showing the club is not strong enough to follow through its planning it would show we can be agile and respond to situations. If you really think that Jackson and Mahoney will let David King "dictate how and when we transition head coach" you're a very poor judge of situations. King raised the question. It's one I've had for some time and it's one I'll continue to ponder. I'm not sure he even offered a position on this question.

There are definitely dilemma's aren't there. On last years form Lumumba is nowhere near my best 22 but he might really benefit from the new game plan. Interestingly for a mature body I just don't see him as the sort of competitor that fits with our philosophy. I also wonder if you need both Frost and Pedersen now that Watts seems to be a genuine threat in the air. Pedo might miss anyway. And I agree that Harmes is competing with Kennedy and Kent but I think he plays. All have staked good claims to a spot but Harmes brings what the other two don't which is a threat in the air. He's also a better kick than Kennedy. If Lumumba misses Vince can move back allowing a spot for Harmes. What will happen when Petracca and Trenners are fit (yes, I've decided to just assume that happens) I don't know. With a fit list there will be some very disappointed players. I'm still hoping that Billy Stretch pushes but he's not in line for a spot yet. Perhaps like some other clubs he'll spend 2 or 3 years at Casey and then just come in a look the part. What is clear is we've move past playing guys that "do a few nice things" to players who contribute at AFL level for the whole game. That will take me some time to get my head around. Interesting times ahead.