Macca

I can remember a time not so long ago when players rarely, if ever, ducked into a tackle - and ... they got penalised when they did so. We need to get back to that type of adjudication with regards to the ducking of the head. Both you, rjay and JJC make good points. The real issue is that the people that oversee proceedings are just not governing things properly. They're meant to be the custodians of the sport but they do a lousy job. Since the coaches created all the congestion and demanded more numbers at the contest, the AFL have reacted like rabbits in the spotlight. I honestly don't believe the AFL have a clue on how to fix things. Some people might say there's nothing to fix but the basic issue I keep hearing is that there's too many players around the ball. I don't have any magic solutions but I'm not running the sport. Back in the day the then VFL were quick to bring in the "diamond" to ease congestion at the centre bounces (and not long after that, the centre square was introduced) That sort of thinking is needed now. Ducking into tackles is a bit of a bi-product of congested footy.

Watched a few highlights ... Had some flashback moments when I saw Tolzien & Flynn were used as the QB's for the Pack. Don't get hurt Rodgers. Just don't. Johnny football did a bit of running around and Rex is considering using Vick as part of a wildcat scheme. How is it that I'm not surprised by that? The Jets are always fun to watch though and it probably won't be any different this year. The Vikes Linval Johnson got hit in the calf muscle by a bullet in a club. Nothing like a good night out and a bit of dancing hey - later on you get shot at. Only in America. In all seriousness, it was lucky nobody was killed. 9 people were treated for injuries. 2 people for serious injuries.

In all reality, 2 more off seasons are needed if we're fair dinkum about restructuring our list properly. We've got a core of players who can make our W/L record a lot better (say, progressing to at least 8-10 wins next season ) but ... we badly need an influx of genuine talent if we're going to contend in the top half of the ladder. No startling news there but what has hamstrung our club in the past is the way we overrate our players (both from a supporters point of view and a clubs point of view) The good news is that Roos isn't the type to overrate a player and the future looks a lot brighter for our club because he thinks that way. Roos is an excellent judge of a footballer and we hired a lot more than just a match day coach. He, along with Viney, Stone and co just need the time to sort things out. There are no quick fixes but if we draw some comparisons to last year's off season, we're well and truly on the right track.

I'm not sure they will. I've come around to your way of thinking. There's no real level of fairness and to hope that the fixture suddenly becomes a lot fairer is a false hope. I reckon next year we'll get another 7-9 home games against the lowest drawing clubs (this season we were given 7 home games against interstate clubs plus 2 other home games against North & the Bulldogs) Our only real hope lies with Jackson and he might just be able to swing things otherwise. However, 4 wins is 4 wins in the eyes of the AFL and if we remain on 4 wins and win the spoon, PJ's fixture requests will possibly fall on deaf ears. Lets all hope we finish the season off well hey? The way the AFL produces the fixture is not right and it's not fair but that's how the AFL does things. All these measures for equalisation isn't going to go close to evening things up. The big clubs will find a way to use their millions and maintain an advantage. The Pies made a tax free profit of over 16 million last year to almost double their bottom line (they're over 31 million in the black and that figure is almost certainly going to increase substantially after this season) Meanwhile, we're falling further behind (in real terms) We need and deserve a good crack at things but what are the chances of that happening? The fixture remains one of our biggest issues.

Intimating that there isn't any difference between finishing say, 2nd with 18 wins or finishing 18th with 4 wins is wrong. Of course there's a difference. All the key areas of a club can and will be effected with those sort of outcomes. Good or bad. Reducing the whole debate down to a premiership or nothing is in my view, ignoring the big picture.

Ha! Here's my theory ... we've already smacked the Blues, Bombers, Tigers and Crows so there's those 4 done (again) ... then pick any 2 of GWS, GCS, Eagles, Saints, Dogs, Lions, North and Port (has to be at the G though) None of those 12 sides are world beaters (although Port could play a decent part in the finals) and ... we're not nearly as bad as the 4 wins next to our name might indicate. Now, where's that Scotch ... I did say can beat them Whether we will or not remains to be seen! I don't rate either of those 2 sides and again, our intensity today was much improved. We need to win our last 3 and it's possible. I agree that we'll be making a number of changes at seasons end but most of those who will be cut, didn't play today. However, I'd expect about 6 players from outside the current 22 to be regulars next season. There'll be be new recruits that will slot straight into the side and players with talent who are currently not playing like Salem, Hogan, Toumpas or Trengove will hopefully force their way into the side as well (we really need Jimmy and Jack to come good) Taking a line through the current line-up, there were 7 players who weren't playing for us last year who played today (Riley, Michie, Vince, Cross, Tyson, JKH and I'll include Barry as well) That's quite a turnaround in personnel. Gawn is a virtual new player as well - he's only played 23 games although it is his 5th year. He did very well today and I liked his game.

We did quite well today. We would have beaten at least a half a dozen other sides on the G today but the Hawks are on another stratosphere in terms of quality. There were some obvious differences between the 2 sides but our lack of a dominant forward was telling whereas for them, they've got Roughhead. Put 2 decent KPF's in our team and we would have gotten a lot closer. Hogan & ? are needed if we're going to get to 10-12 wins. Dawes is an ideal 3rd forward. If Frawley stays, we might have to make do with Hogan, Dawes & Frawley as our 3 KPF's. We also need 2 or 3 more quality mids and some better distributors off half back. Michie & Barry showed a bit of promise today which was pleasing. Riley also did ok with limited game time and big Max had a very good game. We bring that sort of game next week and we'll win and ... we can also beat the Eagles & North in the last 2 games if we play with that same level of intensity. Our skills were much better today but we were up against an extremely well drilled, quality outfit. We were far from disgraced.

Those on my side of the argument don't all share the same way of looking at things. For instance, those who "don't care" have unfortunately been labelled incorrectly by some in my camp. I don't necessarily share their views. My issue with not caring about winning the spoon is that we can't have our cake and eat it too - there's a downside. A spoon can hurt the club in the areas that have been previously noted by a few posters. Where 7 wins would leave the team on the ladder is debatable but we'd definitely avoid the spoon if we were to win that many games. 7 wins has it's relevance in that it would almost certainly mean that we would win our last 3 games. That sort of result could have an upside in a few key areas. We would almost certainly need to lose all our remaining games in order to have a chance of collecting the wooden spoon and ... if we don't win another game, it will mean that we will have lost our last 10 games to round out the season. Wins are important in the whole scheme of things. Win our last 3 and it helps the clubs development. We're not strongly placed within the league and we need to improve our standing. Winning a spoon and finishing 18th of 18 clubs is not what PJ, Roos and co would want. They would care.

And that's the point I've been trying to make from very early on this thread. However, a number of people who seemingly voted 1-3 weren't exactly talking about the draft picks at the start of the thread. Many are saying as such, more recently. Essentially, we're in agreement on why some people have voted the way they have. But, it should be noted that the OP (Pates) said this as part of his opening post ... So, we could assume that many posters have voted with an indifferent attitude to how the poll was originally designed. Where the conflict possibly lies here is the value of 3 more wins as opposed to a spoon. Many here may not believe that winning our last 3 games will make any difference at all, but I would disagree. And at no stage have I ever mentioned any other ladder finishing position other than not wanting to finish last. I've essentially only talked about winning as many games as possible.

Many of those who voted in the 1-3 category don't seem to care whether we get the spoon or not but ... many of them do seem to care about being better placed in the draft. The lure of the the no.1 pick is always strong so let's not disguise that fact. Coupled with that is the possible Frawley compensation (if he leaves) which could yield us the no.2 pick as well (if we finish bottom) We'd have some very strong bargaining power if the above were to happen. Those who voted at the opposite end of the scale "generally" aren't fussed about the better placed draft picks and are more concerned about the repercussions of winning the spoon. So, it's not a black & white argument, it's more complex than that. There is a bigger picture at stake though ... sponsors, foundation heroes, fixturing, reserved seating sales, membership, our ability to trade for quality footballers, prime time games, the corporate dollar, gate receipts, crowd numbers etc etc can all be adversely effected by winning a spoon. 3 more wins and those areas are less effected. Fixturing remains a huge issue for our club and the club can't make big dollars if we're continually going to have to play 6-8 home games against interstate sides We've recently seen McLachlan come out and say that the league wants to do something about maximising crowds with better fixturing - it would be nice to be able to say that we'd definitely be a part of that vision. Jackson would much prefer to be better armed (when meeting with the AFL) with say, 7 wins, rather than a bottom placed finish. I strongly believe that we can finish the season off well and we're a chance to win any or all of our last 3 games. Today is a big ask but I'll be disappointed if we don't take it right up to the Hawks.

It's often the way isn't it? Over the last 8 years we've had more than our fair share of either type of player and the frustration is for different reasons. If we had our time over again, you'd reckon the club would have imported a lot more ready to go talent. However, I believe we've already started moving in the right direction after last year's trading and drafting. Tyson, Cross & Vince were all ready to go and we've become a much better team because we brought them in. Riley & Michie might have done better if not for injuries and both are 22 years old. All 5 are playing today. As has been mentioned by others, imagine if Hogan and Clark had have played all season? No club ever expects to lose both of their 2 main key forwards for a whole season. You just can't plan for something like that and any plan B under those circumstances just isn't going to work. If Hogan & Clark had have been available all season, we'd be on at least 8 wins right now in my opinion. Hogan will be back next season and might even make an appearance before the season ends. I reckon we'll make a play for another KPF if Frawley leaves. If he stays, James could play as the 3rd big forward whenever it's deemed appropriate.

That's an interesting development Not sure if ch7 or 7mate be will doing the Thursday night games like OneHD did but we'll find out soon enough. They are doing the 3 thanksgiving day games and 3 games every Monday (our time) so who knows? For those of us with cable not much has changed and we'll still get 7 live games all up (although Foxtel might decide to do what they've done in the past and not show an early or late game on a Monday for the first month or so) ... Seven the official NFL broadcaster

I agree old dee ... the players who we'd ordinarily like to trade or offload would almost certainly have negligible value elsewhere. However, there's sure to be at least some interest in a few of our other players who we'd ordinarily like to keep. If we were to trade a player to another club who has a fair bit more than negligible value, either club has to take into account that they can lose out on a deal. To get better, we ultimately have to take a risk with our trading. Last year's trading of pick 2 by us is looking quite good so far. There hasn't been too many complaints from our end but at the time, there were a few concerns. Giving up pick 23 for Vince has been well received as well but again, there was a level of risk attached to that trade. If last year is anything to go by, I believe we've got a reasonably busy off season coming up. There will be a couple of surprises you'd reckon.

Just realised that pre-season match tomorrow is the Super Bowl replay (of sorts) Peyton & Wilson will probably only throw the ball 6-8 times max but I'll have a bit of a look at the game, all the same. All 32 teams are in action on the weekend and although the games don't mean a lot in terms of results, they do mean a fair bit in terms of how teams operate in their phases (either offensively or defensively) I'll be looking to see whether the Packers have improved with their defensive work.

Yeah, you've summed them up well. Still, they've got to get their act together sooner or later! ESPN are televising the Seattle @ Denver game tomorrow (11am) Can't see any other games listed on cable or OneHD but that may change.

If we could offload our worst 2 or 3 players right now and replace them with 2 or 3 unlisted free agents like Cross, you wouldn't hesitate. Our club in the last 7 years has had far too many players on our list who are seemingly always ... "developing" There's at least 16 players on our list who have questionable future's (if Frawley & Clark are included) That effectively means that a number of those 16 will still be on our list next year. It's more likely as high as 18-20 players who have questionable future's - all up. However, any more than 10 changes is awfully difficult to arrange but with some creative thinking, 12 could go. Roos won't want to carry too many into next season who he'd rather offload, so any player who can at least play a role or offer reasonable depth, may well survive. I'd expect Roos to bring in at least 2 more players of the Cross or Vince vintage. With the Byrnes retirement, we only have 3 players who you would class as veterans. Without the influence, experience and all round ability of Cross and Vince, we may not have got all the 4 wins that we've achieved so far this season. We're light on for experienced winners ... that vital area is extremely important at a club in terms of how a club develops. Our young blokes need to be surrounded by proven winners and proven leaders. How you get to that point is a tough task but it's entirely possible with good trading, good drafting and with the acquisition of some excellent veteran talent and/or free agents.

Tate is actually a very good receiver and he could be more than handy at Detroit. Good move by them because Stafford definitely needs a number of quality targets apart from megatron. They were disappointing last year and they or Chicago really should have won the division considering Rodgers missed half the games. If Bridgewater lights it up our division could be quite a bunfight. Rodgers stays healthy and we'll be hard to beat but I'm not overly confident. Cutler and the Bears will be out to make amends as well. Interesting times ahead and that's just our division! We could all try and tip our divisional winners, MVP and Super Bowl teams again ... I'd like to have a look at the some of the pre-season games before making any of my usual outlandish predictions (bet the opposite, you'll win lots of money) And Gorgoroth, your points on the tipping comp are duly noted.

I'd rather trust my own eyes EH. Stats can be very misleading. Not disputing your figures but that vital disposal from just behind the centreline or from the half back line to the next recipient is where we often turn it over (or the ball quite often goes out of bounds from that errant disposal, thus creating a stoppage) If we acknowledge that a team's offense often starts from the HBF or thereabouts, we need to get a ton better. And ... when we do happen to get that disposal right, the next disposal becomes another issue. In my opinion, those offensive turnovers explains why our inside 50 count is often quite low. We're ok once we do get it inside 50 but we don't have anywhere enough entries to kick winning scores. Also, part of our game plan is to sometimes or often work towards creating a stoppage (as an option) Winning the stoppages as a consequence is vital part of the overall plan. Whilst that style of play remains, low scores can be the order of the day. Roos just hasn't got the right players to work with (yet)

I reckon Roos looked at our myriad of on field problems and decided that first things first, we needed to get the ball and start sharing it amongst ourselves. So ... we've then often used the ball by going backwards and sideways with it which can often have the effect of frustrating the opposition into making errors. As a first step, that way of playing has had an overall effect of limiting the damage and our 4 wins have all come on the back of that style. Offensively, we've been poor but on a few occasions, we've looked quite good. Where we're falling down offensively is with our awful disposal skills. Roos can't kick it for them and only a number of list changes is going to improve things. We've got too many players on our list who can't dispose of the ball well under pressure. The springboard of attack can often come from the half back line and as we're only too well aware, we don't have great distributors on that line.

I agree ... however, Roos and Viney will need to be a lot more creative than what happened at the end of 2012 (when those 14 changes occurred) In our haste, we made a few too many errors at the end of that season. We could sign up a delisted free agent or 2, another Tyson/Salem like deal might happen, trading a contracted player or 2 for multiple picks in return is possible (and then using those picks on some more established players) If Frawley stays we could even pick up a free agent or 2 - there's still a few worthwhile choices still available. Our possible influx of players doesn't necessarily need to be dominated by drafting a whole host of kids. I'm expecting the club to have a very busy off season. We may not be able to get everything done that we'd like to get done, but Roos has to act reasonably swiftly if rebuilding the list is at the forefront of his mind.

Oh yeah, getting and having the ball a lot more is a vast improvement on at least the previous 2 seasons. I'm in full agreement with you there. Our backline has used the ball quite well with Jetta, Howe, Dunn and perhaps Pedersen being the standouts (with regards to their actual disposal) Where we're falling down horribly is from just behind the centreline going forward. Of course, we all probably know that so there's no news there but ... if we had far less players in the side who have questionable disposal skills, we'd be so much better off. It's not just the execution of the kicks and handballs, it's the lack of vision, awareness and decision making that goes with it.

Either way, that poor skill level will nearly always leads to losses. There's no way we'll ever win more games than we lose with our current disposal levels being where they are. You can't have too many players in your side with questionable disposal skills and as a rule of thumb, the best sides would prefer to not even have one player with questionable disposal skills. It's been an issue for us for a long time and if had a look at any of our starting 22 in any given week this season, we'd have at least 4-6 players in our team with below average disposal skills. You just can't turn the ball over and expect to win and that's been the case ever since the game became more about keeping hold of possession (over 10 years ago?) We need to continue to recruit players who can kick the ball well and who can also win their own ball. Of course, that's easier said than done, 'monoccular' The players who are not regularly in the side who you'd expect to be future regulars can nearly all kick the ball to position reasonably well or quite well ... JKH, Salem, Toumpas, Trengove, Cross & Hogan are 6 players that come to mind but that's about it (Hogan's kicking style is a little awkward but probably effective) We need a dozen more players who can dispose of the ball well as well as being able play the game at a good level. As most are aware by now, Hawthorn place a high emphasis on disposal skills as part of their recruitment and their model is one well worth following.

Playing most of the games this season may not save a few of our blokes. Let's face it, a number of our players are getting games when ordinarily, if we were a good team, they wouldn't be getting those games. These type of players will almost certainly have to make room for up to 5-8 new recruits and youngsters like Salem, JKH, Toumpas & Hogan. Unless these type of players come into the category of a "very good depth player", I can see the club trading out a few contracted types (that is, if they're wanted elsewhere of course) We've seen in the past that some fair to average players can often find new homes and I believe that is largely due to the fact that there's probably only about 35-50 worthwhile choices in the ND. Certain clubs would rather take the chance on a player who could offer a bit of depth for a couple of years rather than a speculative pick 60-70 that they'd ordinarily have to put a lot of time into (at least 2 years worth as a general rule)

Our problems have been with our poor drafting, development, and our failure to trade for talent. We also were too quick to dispense with our experienced players and we banked on youth far too much. We had other issues of course but in terms of list management, we've been shocking. However, despite all that, I believe our last off season was definitely a step in the right direction. Roosy is coming to terms with the state of our list and I believe his reference to tanking has to be strategic. Otherwise, it's out of character when we consider how measured he normally is. In other words, there has to be more to this than meets the eye.

Re the references to tanking by Roos ... The first thing I thought of was how much does he know that we don't know? Also, what if what is known, is already out in the public domain (if that's true, his references to tanking are a little questionable) Tanking as a concept doesn't always produce the same sort of results - it's not one size fits all. What if we'd picked Fyfe* and Martin instead of Scully and Trengove and in the year prior, had picked someone like Steele Sidebottom instead of Watts - that puts a whole different complexion on things. That shouldn't be interpreted as me saying we made the wrong picks - Scully, Trengove and Watts were "all the rage" at the time and besides all that, the draft is a lottery. What I believe the real issue is that the penny is dropping for Paul - a lot of our players just aren't any good. The draft pick number next to their name confuses the whole issue. The odds of us picking up one poor player after another with our top end draft picks is quite high but not as high as some might think. Sometimes the long shot gets up and wins. A perfect storm of poor picks. Roos will have to totally rebuild the list - he started doing that last off season but he may not have known that he was embarking on a major rebuild back then. He would have to know that now and he's probably quite glad that he's already offloaded 12 players (he did that at the end of 2013) *Fyfe went at pick 20 in the 2009 draft. How 'bout them recruiters hey? They sure know a player when they see one.