Slartibartfast

As I said in another thread if I was Jordie McKenzie I'd want to be downgraded to the rookie list. Jordie has one year on his contract and I think will be really struggling to hold his place in the team next year. If he plays Casey for most of the year he's likely to be cooked as an AFL footballer. If he's delisted by us (and then rookied) every club will have a look at him. It puts the question directly to them "do you want this bloke". They may all say no but at least they've been asked the question. Keeping him on the PL means the question isn't asked. If there is someone out there that want him he'll get a better than one year contract and a better chance to extend his career. That would be a win win. And if he gets down to our rookie list as Jack says, he can be upgraded immediately due to Trenners situation. Sydney's drafting as shown earlier is hardly "excellent analysis" but merely a listing of their draft history. And reality is it's dreadful. It really rivals Barry Prendergast's at MFC. When Roos was at Sydney I felt they were very poor at developing their recruits and Roos was lucky he had such a good list when he took over. There may have been very good reasons why there was this failure to develop and I hope there was because his job at MFC is largely player development. I reckon that Roos in a nutshell (sorry Nut) was exceptional at recruiting mature players, exceptional at getting the best out of them but unsuccessful developing youth. Not a great fit for us and interesting in terms of how underwhelming our player development was last year. I'm thrilled we've got McCartney who is a proven developer of players.

Just a couple of things. I reckon our list needs talent. We have very few chances to get talent so I think we should take the best talent available at 2 and 3 regardless of what position they play. And Nut is right, in 2 years we'll be lamenting the "one that got away". Also I don't understand the 12 mids theory. 22 Players 2 Rucks Frost, McDonald, Hogan, Dawes, Jetta, Grimes, Howe, Garlett, Dunn, Watts, Garland. Surely they get games (ignoring the DL groupthink that Grimes and Watts can't play) That leaves 9. We may also go with a third tall forward. You've ignored Brayshaw (who we are certain to pick if you believe the press), Michie, Riley and others that may be drafted in or obtained through free agency. I've ignored Lumumba and Cross because I assume you think they won't go past 2016. Lumumba most certainly will and will either be a mid or in the "other" group. Your "12 mids" doesn't seem to make sense to me. I've no idea who we'll pick. I'm glad Taylor and Viney and crew will pick him and not DL. Just draft talent (which includes attributes to succeed at AFL level), it's pretty easy really.

Let me try again. How many picks do we have in the ND as of today....

What am I missing? Roos says we have picks 2, 3 and 40. The Age says we have three picks (this mornings paper). Brett Anderson has us with three picks. With Newton we only have 2 ATM don't we?

Gee, Red looks like Sam Newman in that photo.

Hey C&B, can you bring back Olivia, I really miss her.

Nut who do you think made massive steps under Roos because of Roos' regime? I thought our development last year was decidedly disappointing so I'm interested in your view. BTW, on Blease. Firstly both parties are right in this thread. What Blease said was right, he just shouldn't have said it - but that reflects the person. Secondly the concept that Blease "decided to go" is stretching the situation. He was asked to leave and Geelong would have been one of his few suitors. No developing club would want him because they can't carry his limitation. Good teams can and will have a punt as he has some good AFL attributes.

I think you're spot on Nash. And if they go through the draft who is to say they won't end up at a good club anywhere where their situation is just replicated. Just on the system. Membrey and Newton decided not to sign and are therefore out of contract. Can their original team keep them on the list or do they automatically become DFA at 31st October when the player contract expires? I think the FA system works very well for the Newtons and Membreys of this world. They weren't getting a go at their original club so they get to go where they are both wanted and think they will get a go. Works well for me.

My bad, I missed him on the bench.

Poor old Garland.

No. Grimes can't get a game. Another classic case of DL groupthink. Grimes can't play. Bail can't kick.

Which players didn't get to their club of choice this year?

It was a fact of life that the team was young and inexperienced and as such Bailey produced above realistic expectations. Neeld couldn't match Bailey's results and as a result started to explain our failures by reference to our inexperience. Bailey's style of play was not unlike PA at the moment but with a much more immature list. Whilst I accept that DL groupthink is that Bailey's game plan was redundant I'm not convinced. Neeld's game plan was awful and the reality is that Roos didn't produce as good a set of results than Bailey. Bailey was a deep football thinker and was highly respected at both PA and Adelaide. It's interesting that Adelaide and Sanderson's decline has been since Dean died. It's a moot point of course but I don't think that would have been so severe if he had lived. The point I'm making is that whilst Bailey wasn't a great coach he is significantly better than he is given credit for. If he had just followed the contested footy round the boundary press/flooding of the time (Malthouse, Roos, Lyon) I think our results would have been much much worse. Too many place too much emphasis on 186 and the groupthink is very strong.

I think your view is commonly accepted here but it's not one I hold. You say "Fact is, we were never going to get any better unless things changed dramatically and they didn't." That's not a fact Jack, that's an opinion. It might be right or it might be wrong but it's not a fact. It's now part of DL groupthink. And things changed dramatically when Neeld took over but they didn't get better, they got significantly worse so I don't see that as an argument to question Bailey's philosophy. You also say "That style was good against the competition's lesser lights and worked against the weaker interstate clubs when we played them at home (eg Adelaide and a weakened Fremantle in 2011) but it failed miserably against the stronger teams". Well the reality is we were a lesser light and the youngest team in the competition. We were never going to regularly compete with the stronger teams because they were better than us. I contend that as our list developed and got stronger we would. We were a poor mans Suns or Giants and they took years to be competitive (the Giants haven't been yet and the Suns without Ablett were poor) and yet we performed much better than either of those teams in their first couple of years. I think it was unrealistic to expect us, as the youngest and most inexperienced team in the competition to be competitive against the stronger club. We weren't. People used this failure to damn Bailey. I think they judge him far too harshly. For all the obvious failings of 186 it was a few weeks before that we were being talked of as genuine finals material and even after 186 we were a chance to win enough games to compete but of course as things transpired that didn't occur. Bailey won 7.5 games in his final (part) year at a time when the club was deeply divided. That was a good performance given our situation and the players we had. Neeld, with a united club performed nowhere near as well as Bailey and they were the two coaches being compared.

Qwerty30 is right. I wasn't making a case for Bailey being a great coach, only that he was significantly better than Neeld. If you don't think that's right fine. There is so much groupthink on DL it's frightening. Bailey and his reputation for "bruise free" footy is rubbish. He has the youngest side in the competition until the Suns came in and the list simply wasn't able to compete physically. So what did he do?. He coached a brand of footy that didn't rely on strength in contests. He coached a fantastic brand of running footy where players who had the skill set of our list could compete. Sure we got knocked around by physically stronger sides that were better than us (gosh, who would have thought) but the alternative was the tripe that Neeld dished up. As the list developed Bailey would have been able to add strength to the game style and we would have developed as the ability to apply those skills became available. So many seem unable to recognize the results Bailey got regardless of those that followed. Put simply footy is about winning. In his last two years Bailey was better than anyone since Danihers 2006 - significantly. He got very good results given the players he had. I'm not suggesting Bailey was a great coach. I don't think he was the coach to take us to finals. But the garbage that gets trotted out on this site about him and others is disappointing. I remember being pretty much a lone voice regarding Daniher. I'm happy with my stance on Bailey and those that followed.

I'm not a Blease fan but the facts are that our game plan and that of Neeld didn't suit Sam. He could make it at Geelong where they are much better placed to use his attributes and other players far better at covering his weaknesses. If he makes it at Geelong so be it but I doubt he'd have ever made it at MFC and it has little to do with development.

So what would you do? Take a mid you rated between 5 and 10 or take the bloke you rated 3? I'd take the bloke I rated 3.

If Newton comes in and we draft Brayshaw then the competition for mid spots will be fierce. Michie, Riley, Jones M and others will be up for one or two spots. It will be interesting to see who rises to the top especially if Salem, Kennedy Harris and Toumpas start competing.

David Neitz - 191cm

So you wouldn't delist him?

So would you delist him?

I thought you'd be arguing for his delisting because after trying to trade him to Richmond isn't he "finished" with us? Why keep him on the list?

Well fancy that. Should we revisit the early parts of this thread? Perhaps not.

I think it would be a serious mistake to put Trenners on an extended contract (subject to advice from his surgeon). It just limits your options come 2016. Honour the contract, look to the rookie list if you need to and then go forward.

If I was McKenzie I'd want to be delisted with a promise of a rookie list spot, subject of course to what has been said during trade week. He's got a problematic future at MFC which is compromised further if Newton is picked up and only one year on his contract. His manager could actively shop him around to see if there was any interest and if there was he may well land a better than one year deal. If he goes through to the rookie list with us he's got one year at the same pay and a spot in the seniors with Trengove's injury. It's hard to see a downside for Jordie. Personally I'd pay Evans out and I wouldn't rule out Trengove to the rookie list but if McKenzie and Evans were sorted Trenners could just sit on the PL. Before putting Trenners on the rookie list I'd want to be sure Adelaide and PA didn't have a pick between 53 and R2. There is a possibility they'd take him. Edit: Jabba please don't respond. I want a nice weekend without being stalked.