nutbean

I agree - but people should also take into account the positions that each of them play. The "extractors" always have less time, more pressure and congestion and usually more around the contest.

You can dump on my (ex) wives You can even dump on my children. But DON'T dump on my footy team.

I've broached this before. I don't think his skill, particularly his hands are bad. Under Neeld we developed a ball chasing mentality. Too many players rushing to the contest. You would find Jordie many times at the bottom of pack trying to extract the ball to 1 of 4 players standing right on top of him. You can have a little more leeway in precision when the player you are trying to get it to has worked hard to get 3 metres in the clear. Jordie needs to get more uncontested possession but that will never be his main game. He will mainly be in the heat of the contest. Better midfield planning and predictability combined with hard work and a willingness to spread hard will mean more and better clear options for a player like McKenzie. Look at his touches on Sunday - there wasn't too much unskilled about them. Edit - watching Bomber on AFL 360, they analysed the "Salem" play and he summed up where Essendon went wrong. Too many players got drawn up to the contest. That's Neeld like and the point I am trying to make about Jordie.

For me the jury is still out on Jordie. He does need to be more than a tagger. What I don't get is we are lauding Roos for the improvement in players. It is obvious he is setting the individuals goals and is clear on his expectation. We can see it paying dividends. So according to Saty, from Jordie's mouth - he has to be more than tagger - needs more involvement. He goes back to Casey and tears it up. He gets his chance last week and does what we expect - shuts his man down - but then does what we havent seen from him nearly enough - getting involved in offensive passages of play. If we see the improvement from Watts, Dunn , Jetta, Pederson and the like and don't put a ceiling on how much further they can improve why wouldn't we extend the same to Jordie ?

Dreaming !!! ( but if you can give me a piece of that dream I would appreciate it )

I travel a lot and use off airport parking (Jetport - fabulous service). I thought I may have been a little precious because I heard the ad, got annoyed and made a mental note never to try their service. Apparently I am not alone. It was really unnecessary.

Is there no grey for you ? Just black and white ? Jordie was not best on ground on Sunday. What he did do is keep one of Essendons highest possession getters to 13 touches - Stanton's worst performance for the year. But we have seen him tag successfully before. He has been playing at Casey because the FD have said that they need more. They need him more offensively involved. So he show some signs in the 2nd half - dishes off to Watts to Kent for a goal and his part in the last play and yet you give this comment. You well may be right that he wont be around in two years - or maybe he will keep improving and end up our Cameron Ling. All that is necessary is to say that Jordie has a good game on Sunday and play his part in the win.

Of course you are confused - a handball is a fundamental skill - but that whole play ( which included the Jordie handballs) as pointed out by many commentators - was audacious, high risk, under extreme pressure yet perfectly executed. Roos called it our best piece of football for the year. Yes - you are confused - when players have so many options and efficiency runs at around 70%, you don't seem to appreciate that besides the Jones participation which was just a kick to a contest ( 1 on 2 against us) our players did not just perform at 100% - they performed risky maneuvers at 100% efficiency in a pressured situation.

I don't think he is a superstar by any means - but you seriously dislike him. He is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Not all footballers are leaders and not all footballers are culture changers but his onfield performances are not grossly overated ( this year) by most- he has been good in quite a few games - not great. You do get that he is 5 games into the playing the hardest position on the ground ? Your judgement is clouded. (4th in our team for contested marks and 2nd for contested marks inside 50, averages 8 marks a game)

Next year is the end of the two year contract. If he gets through to end of next year without a contract he can go into the draft and the bottom team has first crack at him. That simple. So if he wants out at the end of next year and specifically wants Freo or the Eagles. 1. They have to finish bottom to guarantee that he can walk out on us and to them. 2. They can finish anywhere else and Hogan can walk and do a Luke Ball - any other team drafts me i wont play for them - unlikely. 3. We participate in a trade to get him to Freo or the Eagles. Those are his options.

I love that no matter how many times you make the "big statement" and end up with egg on your face it doesn't seem to stop you buttering up again. I admire your dedication to the cause ( and the omelette look you are sporting)

why are you oh dearing ? I asked to see the reference ! As opposed to some I didn't call BS because I didn't know if he actually had canvassed the philosophy or not. So I asked for the reference. I still believe that good teams hold onto their players they want or in the case of free agency - get compensated. I suspect the talk of trading players early is like Russian roulette. You may have threatened to trade Dunn early if he refused at the end of last year to sign because he would have worried about getting a decent gig. ( not now !!!) Would Roos trade Frawley early ? Well we have the answer on that don't we. The game hasn't changed - they wont trade anyone early unless they get a better offer than FA offers.

Thanks for the reference - I cant read anything except the first line - but that's enough for me. I somewhat disagree with him for the first time. I question one thing - Apparently Frawley was asked last year about extending - why didnt Roos trade him ? I would suggest that his name would have been floated at trade time and Roos has weighed up the offers against what he could expect to get as FA compensation. I would love to see the guts of the article - the only reason you would trade Frawley a year before his free agency is because you are offered more than you think you will get as a compensation pick. FA guarantees you a pick and in most case you know roughly where they will be. So most think we will get a first rounder. You wouldn't trade Frawley last year unless we were offered more than a first rounder ? Its a demand and supply thing - as it always has been.

Second last game of the season if I recall and I also remember what happened - Immediately dropped - didnt play those last games. Exactly the same thing I would imagine Roos would do. If you are going you dont play.

It would only be easier if you bought me a beer.

The philosophy of trade a player if you have doubts that you can retain him ? I seriously would love a reference as to where he said that because it would be the first thing that has come from his mouth which I utterly reject. Good teams retain the players they want to keep. The big disclaimer in that is free agency where you know you will be compensated for the loss. But I would interested to know of the players anyone has traded not on FA because they were scared they were going to lose them. There have absolutely been some trades on players that have wanted to go home but they have been very few and far between.

Unlike some others,I don't have a problem with Jordie handballing. It can become predictable if you're team-mates are standing still but an offensive weapon if your team-mate is moving. The simple handball give from Watts to Kent. The handball from Jordie to Tommy Mac. Both great examples of how dangerous good handballing can be. It will be interesting to see how he goes going forward as I have been a great supporter of his and in previous threads have suggested that when the team learns to spread hard and run hard, when the teams learns better running patterns to create space, Jordie can be more than useful. Jordie will always be an extractor and a feeder. What he has been lacking in the past few years is anyone to give the ball to. Whilst I am not comparing to him Mitchell I can somewhat compare the roles. Mitchells main brief is to get the ball in tight and feed it to his faster and more polished outside runners. For the past two years we havent had any of these. Mitchell secondary role is to then provide another attacking running option and whilst he does this less than he "extracts" he does it successfully enough that he needs to be tagged. This is the string to the bow that I think Roos wants Jordie to have.

I only disagree with your premised that he would tell the coach. I don't believe any player would. It is called poaching. And in this free agency era and "working together", there is nothing that can be done prior to him leaving except asking him to make sure that the new contract is worth a gazillion dollars to up the pick we might get.

Watt's kicking is streets ahead because you need to combine his execution with his decision making . He takes some delightful options. It is early days but I have seen Salem do a couple of things that could place in the Watts category. The kick to a running Bail in the Port Adelaide game that resulted in a goal was poetry - both the kick and the audacity to try the kick.

Again - you have no doubt that a player would risk telling a coach who wants you to stay at the club that he has committed an illegal action that will see him leave the club ?? You think that Roos would say - thats ok mate - I understand ???? I have no doubt that if a player still contracted came to Roos and said I have signed with another club - he would not be playing in the first seconds or fifths , and the action of the player manager and the opposition club would be reported to the AFL. Note that Roos has said many times that he is educating his players on how he wants them to play. You suggest that if Frawley told him he wasnt going to be with us next year that he would still play him ? I will repeat that I am not naive to think that players don't make arrangements prior to contracts expiring. I have no doubt that our recruiting staff who talk to people industry wide may have an inkling of whether they think he will go or stay. I also have no doubt whatsoever that the player would not tell the club that he is going prior to trade period.

correctski

I don't disagree with him putting out feelers - I don't even necessarily disagree that his management may have made an arrangement already ( I wouldn't know). But to suggest that he would tell the club that he has broken the AFL rules and signed elsewhere because he is a good bloke and cares about our future ? There has also been mentioned regarding Frawley that he is being played forward because we are trying to get a backline that is structured and used to playing without him because he is off at the end of the year. I have my own loopy theory - I reckon Roos moved Frawley into the forward line because we didnt have any big forwards. (loopy , I know)

I mentioned this before but my daughter suggested that she wanted to stop barracking for Dees when she was 16 - too much heartbreak. I told her that this was ok but I would never go to the footy with her again and I would cancel her MCC membership. Tough love ( but necessary ) The aftermath - she is 24 and we happily attend the footy together every week.

Hey Dawesy, When you lead out from goals to the right your last few steps need to be predominantly on your left foot, cutting back inboard so when you mark the ball you have actually reduced the angle of the kick at goals. You're welcome !

I can't stomach the bile on Big Footy and I don't even play the game ( have not visited that cesspool for over 2 years) . I would be more than surprised if players actually went there. I have no evidence but I would suggest that many players would probably read the Hun and the Age - but read Demonland ? I would think - nah.....