olisik

Whose saying the Western Bulldogs wont playball with GWS and GC and offer them something to bid for Viney which will bump there first rounder and compo up by 1.

good overview of potential top 50 http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=931219

If we are forced to use Viney at #3 and do not take Whitfield or Toumpas instead it would be a mistake

I know its bigfooty but heres a phantom top 50, give u a vague idea of where players are placed and a bit about them. alot of early mids http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=931219

What is everyones thoughts on taking Viney at #2 if his worth 5-10? Do you guys actually think his old man would entertain the idea of not taking him? Tough gig for old man Viney this year possibly, hard calls may need to be made. Could come down to family vs mfc for him.

How does the bidding work? anyone have a link? is it a meeting or do clubs do it anonymously at there own discretion? Could GWS pass on Viney if we inherit the risk of bidding for Daniher as part of a deal? It will give GWS the same benefit as if they nominate for Viney which is 1 pick higher up the pool. Same benefit, less risk. Safe for us to, id take daniher at #3 and then we would get vines with our 2nd rounder.

What if we nominate our first rounder to daniher. Then we dont have a first rounder left nd can use our second rounder on Viney. Or if we tell GWS we ll absorb the risk of nominating to take Daniher so they dont have to, as long as they dont bid for Viney. And hell if somehow we end up with Daniher for pick 3 then i dont see it as a loss.

I was being sarcastic in my earlier post to someone elses post saying we should negotiate. MFC should walk in and just tell them 'If you dont take Viney, we wont take Whitfield' implying to them that we will take Whitfield if they take Viney Will make them think twice before risking using a #1 pick on a player who isnt a #1 pick.

If we finish 16th and they nominate Viney and we choose not to take him with our pick #3 then it could be #1 GWS (Viney), #2 GC, #3 MFC (Whitfield)

Personally i don't think multiple bids should be allowed... This extra pick could be a Dustin Martin or a Trent Cotchin we may lose out on...

2 birds with 1 stone in Sheedy's eyes.

Why would GWS nominate Viney over Daniher? Isnt Daniher touted as being higher valued player?, if there going to risk messing up a team then wouldn't they be more likely to try to mess up Essendon?

Who we take does impact them as if we take Whitfield then they ll be forced to take Viney with a #1 draft pick.

Negotiation will be "You do not choose Viney and we will not choose Whitfield"

I hope so after the blast he gave to Watts about the media early in pre-season. I like everything about the guy except his constant media coverage. Hopefully like you said, it seems magnified due to the Mifsud incident...

Im a big Neeld fan but is it me or is he venturing into the media spotlight alot more then other senior coaches?

I actually see this year as a training year for the team, I also think Neeld is on that page also, see how each player performs in specific roles and situation and how they all work together, then do a list clean up next year and start the push. Like yourself and like Neeld, I would be satisfied this year with a hard contested team play, regardless of win or loss. As we all know by now that losing good games is probably better then winning pathetic games.

What if JV simply refused to play for GWS? what options can occur then? Like what Luke Ball did to the MFC Would JV end up in the rookie draft? or just have to miss a year of AFL experience?

Thinking about the situation i cant see GWS risking so much that will barely gain them anything It would make absolutely no sense to do this and it is just media beat-up. Not sure why this story is not including anything about GC possibly doing the same, or either GWS or GC forcing Essendon to use there first pick on Daniher either. The only possible gain that GWS could get outa this is that there will be 1 extra player left in the pool come there 2nd round pick. Not worth losing a first pick in a draft on Slow news day

Gysberts, Taggert, Cook, Evans, Tynan, Grimes (Though i admit i dont think injury has stunted this fellas skill), Bail, Jetta somethings not right somewhere

Do you criticize the post? Yes Do you suggest an answer to the question "Why does every MFC player get injured in there first 2 years stunting there development?" No

How much research have you done on overtraining? See below for injuries which can be caused from over-training 1. Runner's knee 2. Stress fractures 3. Iliotibial band syndrome, a.k.a. ITBS 4. Shin splints 5. Plantar fasciitis 6. Achilles tendonitis 7. Muscle Pulls 8. Ankle sprains 9. Blisters

or why people say that the team dosnt know how to address its issues

so you would rather a Colin Sylvia running around as a 25 yr old who had his development stunted due to constant injury (or sensible and cautious approach) rather then a Dustin Martin. I know who i would prefer on the list out of those 2 maybe its this type of approach which is why MFC is getting ripped apart on the field. i would rather have players who want to play with injuries rather then ones who always need a 'sensible and cautious approach' maybe its just another example of why people call the mfc soft

well maybe its this sensible and cautious approach which is stunting player development. take Cook for example, has probably been out injured for more then half of his time at the MFC, and people are complaining about his development. If this is the result of a 'sensible and cautious' approach then the MFC has some big problems