binman

https://youtu.be/TV_loOV4YdQ?si=zUuhGzkmFFHqg70w

Look, I'm going to put you in ignore to join my handpicked collection of gold standard morons. Before I do, and at the risk of breaking my rule not to feed trolls, I'll just point out how hilarious this quoted post is and what a self own it is in terms of highlighting how truly stupid you must be. Do you even know what the word censorship means? Let me put it in a way that you might understand. If I choose not watch Sky news am I: A) Censoring Sky News B) A crazy brainwashed lefty victim of cancel culture C) Stepping all over your first amendment rights D) Exercising my right to ignore morons and moronic views I find offensive, not to mention moronic By the by, don't worry about replying, I have put you on ignore. But, by the way i do you hope you get censored and the mods ban you. And also, just a personal FYI - I think they should change the name of the AFL competition ti the AFLM. Any whoo, good chatting - I'm off to see my team beat the pies.

That's exactly what i'm talking about when i say stats are indicators not causation. The are not predictive - they are a representation of what has happened not will happen. Teams can't 'defy a model'. Sure you can, if you want to, use certain data sets to inform your thinking about what might happen but they are not definitive. Take the so called premiership window. It isn't predicting a winner of the flag, it is simply a statistical representation of historical fact - teams who rank in the top six for points for and points against, have won 18 of the last 20 AFL premierships (another historical fact - no team in the last 20 years has won a flag with a defence ranked seventh or lower). That of course that doesn't mean its impossible for team that's not in the so called premiership window to win a flag - and the data reflects that fact (2 teams not in the 'premiership window' won a flag - one of which being us i think). It just means the historical data suggests it is very unlikely a team will win flag is not in the premiership window (and almost impossible if they are not in the top 7 for defence). And its therefore reasonable to assume that will hold true this year too.

The problem isn't the stats, the problem is many people's inability to analyse and properly understand them. Part of that is thinking they are causation when they are the opposite - they are indicators.

Their defence IS that bad. And has been their Achilles heel during Beveridge's tenure. We won a flag because they couldn't ahut our offence down No team wins a flag conceding the 8th most points (which by the way given they finished 9th is hardly anything to write home about). Given their forward line riches, the fact they have the best player in the AFL in bont, one of the very best mids in libba, one if the best rucks, plenty of players with the skillset today's football demand (ie pace and good kicking skills) and a game style thst eas in some ways ahead of its time (ie qyick hands, get it go the outside and transition quickly from the back half) it's amazing they have not got more scrutiny for their lack of success. And the key reason for that lack of success is their rubbish defence. And its also a key reason why their record against top 8 teams is so poor - the best teams open them up and expose their rubbish defence. To be honest, the same was true of us this season.

That is an excellent sign.

100% agree. But that makes my point. Why can't they defend? Partly it's because of their system. But the biggest factor is they don't have elite defenders. And why don't they have elite defenders? Because they have spent their draft capital on forwards. And that has meant forwards take up too much of their salary cap, impacting their ability to trade in elite defenders. Ironically their best defender this season has been Lobb who.was traded in as a forward. Compare and contrast to the dees decision to trade out Watts (yes that was for cultural reasons but nonetheless he was a forward, andcl was replaced by a much cheaper option in Fritter) and Hogan (yes he wanted out but we also didn't put up a fight) and prioritise trading in elite defenders in Lever and May, a strategy that won us a flag

One of the interesting thing about the Dog's list is it highlights key forwards are no longer anywhere near as important in terms of driving success as they used to be. They just aren't that influential. And similarly it highlights the risk of loading up on key forwards in the draft.

Oh. I have have barely watched or listened to any footy media this season, probably the least ever.

Huh?

Well, Bevo would certainly be a 'different' voice.

One factor that drags down Maxy's ratings a little bit this season is his horrible goal kicking. Every involvement in a player has in a game is rated in terms of whether it has a positive or negative impact (-6 to +6 I think). Maxy kicked something like 3 goals 13 or some such, and many of his misses were complete sodas. Each of those misses are of course involvements, and for each Maxy would have lost ratings points. And he only kicked 3 goals so no points there. Those misses are negligible in the scheme of things in terms of maxy rating. But in terms of a comparison to Xerri's rating, if Xerri had way fewer misses and/or kicked more goals than Maxy that's a swing right there. The other swing factor might be pressure. I think im right in saying players get points for applying pressure and I supect xerri has a higher pressure rating, for example by tackling more.

You making it is age appropriate. Me making it is further proof most men never really grow up.

A master debater? Sorry, I forgot you are the teenager.

You might even say posting on here is putting him in harm's way

If even he knows what Tik Tok and an EDM is then he is hired.

The gig is yours.

I thought he was sort of a hb/utility, then mid, then wing - but you could well be right rjay. Either way my point stands - Cullen never consistently played to a level that demanded senior selection, even in the weeks before he debuted.

Are you any good at comms?

#Goodwin myths Facts contradicting the narrative Goody was 'stubborn and never seemed to want to change up the team despite excellent VFL form': Round 1 dees had 5 players making their debut, including two players we drafted explicitly because of their excellent VFL form - AJ and Henderson Jefferson was selected in round one, unfortunately injured and when he finally put together somewhere close to a decent block of games in the VFL was given another shot at cementing his spot in the seniors and did not take it - that cycle was repeated later in the season Howes was selected in the ones after a decent block of games at Casey Culley basically played as mid at Casey, and whilst ok was never banging the doors down - Goody moved him the wing at Casey and as soon as he put a couple of better than average games together put him on the wing in the seniors (great development) The reality is no other player played well enough, long enough at Casey to demand a spot in the seniors That includes Adams who has been average at best all season at Casey and was only selected because May was out Further to the above point the only players who showed sustained 'excellent VFL form' is Billings (probably Caseys' best, most consistent player this season) and Laurie - and it seems both have had their cards stamped Goody dropped Tmac Goody dropped Fritter Goody dropped Lever Goody dropped JVR Goody dropped Kolt Goody dropped Windsor Goody dropped Langford Not selecting Adams, Kentfield or Jefferson in the last 3 weeks can hardly be blamed on Goody - he was no longer coach On the decision not to select Adams, Kentfield or Jefferson in the last 3 weeks i see the logic of not doing so as them playing at Casey increased our chances of Casey making finals, which i think is really important, and is great for their development. That said i would have preferred they 'managed' May and kept Adams in the team as May look cooked.

Yep, fair calls. On being hard at it, i hadn't really noticed that but i see your point. Perhaps more time as pure mid might help, though if it's not instinctive he'll never be a bull like Viney. Agree on Lindsay - i watched a few hours of junior vision after we drafted him and his intensity and preparedness to go hard is 100% instinctive. Fearless. And played a bit as a pure in and under mid it seems (which would be ironic if he becomes an inside mid and Langford outside runner) Linsday barely had a preseason - once he has a couple more preseasons under his belt he will be one tough bugger.

And Langford isn't, and irs that upside that makes me so bullish on him. Or should I day bisonish.

I add that in additional to heart and soul that void includes leadership too. And it's a void that was exacerbated by nibbla going. On field, and i suspecy off field, too much has been left to Maxy and Viney in terms of heart, soul and leadership this season. Langford seems a natural leader, and has a come with me boys energy. I think we saw that enegy against the pies - best on ground, his highest rated game of the season in front of 60k fans against the old enemy.

I wouldn't say disappointed, but I agree he's got some areas to work on. There's no doubt he lacks a little speed off the mark, which has become so critical in the last 3 years. Yes, his footy iq helps, and yes he can improve his speed with training, but he'll never be super quick. His overhead marking hasn't been as impressive as I expected from the vision I saw from his junior footy, though I suspect that's partly a function of not being able to monster opponents in the same way. That might change as he gets stronger. My other knock on him is, seemingly like most lefties, he can't kick on his right. Melksham, koz and even fritter regularly demonstrate the value of bring able to kick well with both feet. Langford seems a driven young man and I suspect he is type of player who can improve areaa weaknesses thri work and effort. @Gator what do you see as his areas for improvement?

63rd rated player in his first year of AFL footy - wow. The scary thing is how much more upside he has compared to other ready made midfield guns like Rowell, Wines, Daicos and Harley Reid. By that I mean those players of course got stronger and fitter after their first season. But not a hell of a lot bigger. Langford almost has the build of a key position player, and will fill out quite a bit over the next 2-3 years and like most bigs take a while to get to optimal fitness. As a comparison, Bont, who I've read Harvey based his game on as a junior, is 2 or 3 cms taller but was the same height when drafted as Harvey was drafted. Give Harvey two more full AFL preseasons and he will be taller and significantly stronger and fitter than he is now. And we shouldn't sleep on Lindsay as I suspect he'll be every bit as good the bison. If, as seems to the case, Buckley is really keen on the coaching job, I can only imagine a big part of the attraction is the opportunity to build a team around two generational talents.