binman

All good, I didn't think you were sniping. Assumimg he plays to his previous level, Allan might make us better - might being the operative word. It's not really possible to be categoric about it, particularly 12 months our of any possible trade, as we don't know what the opportunity cost would be if invested in Allan. For example, if we traded in Allan perhaps it means Jefferson can't get senior minutes, or JVR who is currently our number one key forward doesn't play aa well with Allan in the team. Other opportunity cost questions I'd we traded in Allan include: - Who would we have to give up in any trade - who would we not be able to trade in (ie who might we miss out on?- perhaps another gun who better meets our needs, a Serong or Brayshaw for example) - what would the impact be on TPP and our ability to meet the contract demands of our young guns like (particularly relevant with tassie on the horizon) We saw an example of some of those opportunity costs (and others) when we traded in an A grader in Grundy. Whilst not a key position player, his example is relevant because the initial idea was Grundy and Maxy woukd share the ruck role. That didn't work, in part because it didn't fill a need. Our need was a key forward who could give maxy a chop out (the role they have AJ pencilled in for) not another number one ruck. There's also another interesting piece of the puzzle as it relates to key position players. One of the most notable things about last year's draft is how few genuine key position players were drafted in the first two rounds. The focus for most clubs was mid size runners with good skills. Several key forwards and defenders went way later than predicted, perhaps suggesting that such players are not as important for clubs the way the game is played at the moment (ie fast ball movement and focus on transition). Which is not say key position players are not important, just that when a club has a surfeit of such players they are less likely to chase new ones. Allan to the Lions makes sense because they don't have a surfeit of talls. But as evidence of the reduced focus on talls, even then they used their second pick (25 - they were always going to use their first pick on Ashcroft) to select a mid (Sam Marshall). And like the dees, only selected a tall with their last pick - Ty Gallop described in one post draft analysis as 'a project tall forward with time to grow'.

It's amazing how similar all three articles are. That's the future of text based media - aggregated news siphoned from other sites and AI generated articles.

Without inviting a back and forth, a pet hate of mine is my comments being deliberately misconstrued. I did not say I would not want Allan because we have Turner. I said with 'JVR and Turner we are ok for key forwards I reckon'. Big difference. Demonland has been been terrific of late, in large part because the sniping has massively reduced, there is less silly back and forth and fewer straw man arguments. This had meant much more respectful dialogue and more nuanced discussions, which personally I've really enjoyed. The tenor has been really positive. So in that spirit, allow me to explain why I think we dont need Allan. Whilst surplus to requirements was a throw away comment by me, even if available, in my opinion Allan should not be, and almost certainly wouldn’t be, a priority target. Don't get me wrong, Allan is a jet. I've really liked him since he first started playing. But, irrespective of our struggles up forward (the cause of which I think is mostly about delivery and not being quick enough on transition), we are well covered for key position forwards. I think JVR will prove to be as good, if not better than Allan. He is seriously underated I think, even by dees fans. His numbers stack up to the very best key forwards at the same stage in the modern era, including Allan. I think Turner has massive upside and predict he will have the classic break out year this season. We have two genuine swing men who can play as key forwards in Petty and Tmac (who was our leading goal scorer in 2018). And whilst he has yet to play a game the club clearly think Jefferson can make the grade as a key forward. And we drafted, albeit with a lowly draft pick, AJ - who they hope will make the grade as key forward who can give maxy a chop out. On top of that we have three medium talls who will all play up forward at times, and all play tall, in fritter (our leading goal scorer for the last 5 seasons), Tracc (our leading goal scorer in 2019) and Langford (191cms now, and will likely get taller still). I made all the same points prior to the draft, correctly predicting we would target a big mid with elite kicking skills and an outside mid/wing/hb with elite kicking skills (ideally a lefitie). If a key forward was a priority for the club they would have targeted one in the trade period, and failing that (there weren't really any available) use one of our first round draft picks to draft a key forward. But they didn't. Because whilst a gun key forward might have been on some fans wish lists, it was clearly not a priority for goody and the FD. Trading in Allan makes zero sense (unless say as a straight swap for JVR) as it doesn’t meet a need (not to mention the fact we would have to pay him top dollar, causing issues with our TPP). In my opinion, our priority in both next year's trade and draft periods will remain mid size runners who are elite ball users because that sort of player remains our key need.

..of stains?

What's David King got against @george_on_the_outer?

No need to do that today. We don't have to think or learn anymore- that's what we have AI for.

As good a place as any: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/some-good-home-truths-the-pre-season-trip-that-could-turn-things-around-for-melbourne-20250128-p5l7nx.html

Nah, surplus to requirements. With JVR and Turner we are ok for key forwards I reckon.

Let's say you are correct and by playing hard ball we are forced receive unders. We will receive that in 2027 as if we keep koz to his contract he has to play in 2025 and 2026. We have the whip hand. If he wsa tin the final year of his contrat this year it would be a differn scario. But he's not. If koz wants to get to another club in 2026 that club will have to come to the table with some decent capital. The threat of not getting much in return at the end of the 2026 season is a pretty empty one given all that can play out in two years (i'll bet Lachie Neale is happy he stuck fat with the the lions).

Yep, i reckon its a lock Windsor will play as a running half back that has license to run and carry from our defensive half. Perfect for the role - leg speed, good decision maker and whilst his kicking wasn't quite as good as i hoped (and perhaps i'm being a bit unfair) he is still an above average kick. Will be super important to how we transition the ball i think. And as i noted in another thread, his leg speed will be critical in terms of defending turnovers because like Mcvee he has the wheels to get back, whereas May, Lever, Tmac and Petty don't. Max Holmes is good comparison. I reckon another is how Goody used Hunt in 2018 - ie a run and carry half back flanker. Hunt's issue in that role was his kicking was poor and we often gave it back, exposing us on turnover (in part because if Hunt turned it over he often did so when well up the field meaning we were often one down in defence). I cant see Mcvee playing anything but occasional midfield minutes. I suspect he, and Bowey (and possibly Salem) will be tasked with taking on the high risk kicks from the back half that open up opponents and are key to the transition game (think Kitty Coleman, Nick Daicos etc). My query defensively is who will take the role defending oppo small forwards. It's been an issue for us since Jetts had his brilliant 2018 season. I have hopes AMW will become that player, but there might not be a spot for him - in which case Bowey, Mcvee and even Salo will have to share the role.

That's a totally disingenuous response to Sydee's completey reasonable post. Sydee asked, to provide some balance, what our win/loss ratio over the past 5 to 7 years was, not a single season, as your post above implies. You'll get no argument from me we have been woeful for much of the last 34 years and for much of that time a basket case off field (leading to being one onfield). You point to our woeful win loss record in the 'AFL era' (1990 to now -34 seasons) as evidence to support your argument that we're have to be close to the AFL's biggest basket case and have been a joke. And I agree, our win loss ratio is the last 34 years is certainly strong evidence of your point. But to answer Sydees totally logical question, lets use the 8 season goody has been senior coach as the time frame. In the goody era, we have played 182 games and won 104, lost 78 and drawn one, for a won loss ratio of 56.9% (50% in finals). Eight years is a pretty good sample size (almost 25% of the 'AFL era'). I suspect only the cats, and perhaps the swans, lions and port would have a better win loss ratio in the last 8 years. If we accept the argument our woeful win loss ratio in the last 34 years (second worst in that period) is evidence of the club being a basket case and a joke over that period, then by the very same logic having one of the best win loss ratios (I'm guessing top 4) in the last 8 years (that's to say recent history) is evidence of a very successful, very well run club (ie very much not a joke) in that period. It's logically inconsistent to argue otherwise. And a flag certainly supports the argument we are one of the most successful clubs in the last 8 years.

Got some talent that's for sure.

Apologies for calling Lindsay Francis. I can assure you that's not his nickname - ive just got some weird version of football dyslexia and he's my new Swallow. To avoid calling Lindsay Francis I usually call him X if that helps.

I think a sausage is a goal. Or it it could be a player, who acts the fool - silly sausage.

The brain is a funny thing. Like all dees fans, when claz first started his career, I was blown away by his spatial awareness and how incredibly fast his hands and decision making were. Incredible. But it becomes easy to take for granted, and I sort of stopped appreciating it as much. And then he has a year where he's not in condition to play at his best and It's almost as if I had forgotten it. Watching that clip was a reminder he can do things that very few players can, things that can't be taught. i have to say im feeling a sense of excitement about this season I haven't for many years. Not so much in terms of expectation of success, but more seeing claz back to his best, tracc happy and firing, Windsor and Kolt's second season, Turner going up a level, Langford and Lindsay's debuts and JVR perhaps becoming the best key forward in the AFL.

This is an incredibly positive article about today's training (big chunk about claz, but covers multiple players):Star midfielder set to explode again in 2025; gun duo take big step in rehab - Dees Track Watch "It was during match simulation where Oliver came into his own and showed he is ready and raring to go for a monster 2025 season. But it was his work rate that really caught the eye. Oliver worked hard all session getting to as many contests as possible and running hard so that he could become another option for teammates. He tackled strongly and corralled when necessary, but it was the multiple diving smothers that were most impressive, Oliver literally throwing everything he could at the footy."

Like any passionate football fan I've seen any number of uber talented players accross all teams over the years. With no exaggeration in my 50 plus years of watching footy, claz is in my top 10 in terms of pure football iq and talent. From 0.56 of the vid above suggests we should all be very excited about claz this year. A reminder just how bloody good he is - and what a bounce we'll get having him fit and firing next season. He'll be like adding a ready to roll number one draft pick straight into the side.

I went to that game. Loved it. Brought back memories of going there in the 70s and early 80s. (I went to the footy every week in, I think 1979, with a mate who supported the roos. We used to alternate dees and roos games so I saw plenty of games at Arden Street that year). It's on my side of town, so I'm absolutely wrapt the praccy match is at Arden Street. I'm a lock.

But given only three drafteees have left because of the 'go home factor' in the last 10 years the evidence suggests it simply isn't an issue. And you could argue we actually did very well out of Hogan, Jackson, and to a lesser extent nibbla, leaving to go home. Trading Hogan got us May (do we win a flag without him?), Jackson mutiple first round draft picks and Nibbla sharp. It koz goes to freo we will do very well in any deal because he is in contract - at least a couple of first rounders and/or players who meets our needs. And if we were to prioritise vic boys in the draft, perhaps we dont have JVR, McVeee, Koz and Rivers at the club. That's nearly 20% of our starting 22. So if the go home factor is not an issue we need to be concerned with, prioritising Victorian players in the draft isn't being pragmatic - it is the very definition of a solution looking for a problem. The opposite of being pragmatic.

Agree. And the reality is we haven't lost that many players in the last few years because they wanted to return to their home state. Working backwards, nibbla, Jackson and maybe Hogan? Am I missing someone? If not, that's 3 in aprox 10 years. I reckon in that same period we've traded in more vic players from interstate sides than vice versa - langdon, Lever, sharp all immediately come to mind.

Agree He'll be a best 22 lock by mid season, if not before. Take it to the bank.

My understanding is Nibbla was only ever going to the crows and the deal was basically done mid season, with only the deets to work out at season's end.

Good to know you don't read replies and reactions. Can I ask you a few questions? Why do you post a football fan forum? Do you take the same approach to texts and emails? Are you wanting other posters to make a note of some sort that you don't read replies and reactions? Are you a bot?

Yeah, i reckon he'll almost certainly get taller. He's 191 cms atm, which is pretty bloody tall. Talls always grow a bit after being drafted. As an example, Bont, a player Langford has many similarities with, is now 194 cms. Admittedly he was younger than Langford when drafted, but like Langford Bont was 191 cms when drafted. By the by i got that info from this draft profile - makes for interesting reading, particularly in terms of the similarities to Langford's draft profile. 2013 Draft Profile: Marcus Bontempelli - Aussie Rules Rookie Me Central