Jump to content

Lampers

Members
  • Content Count

    159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

377 Excellent

About Lampers

  • Rank
    Demon

Recent Profile Visitors

2,493 profile views
  1. My guess is Melbourne will be keeping spot on the list open for after draft day, be them main list or rookie, given the unusually high amount of quality available from DFA given the list shrinkages, plus the precedent of prior years where Melbourne have added players just before the season and mid year. I think this means we will see some more delistings, perhaps Bedford or Chandler or maybe KK as I doubt any would be snapped up by another club so Melbourne could just redraft them ultimately. I also guess that Melbourne will be trying to take advantage on draft day during live tradin
  2. Have you listened to the Sacked podcast. Very hard to reconcile what he says against a what is happening and come up with an innocent explanation.
  3. If you listen to the Sacked podcast with Beams what he says in that aligns with the above. He also says it was his choice to retire, and he is retired. He also says Collingwood have been very supportive. HOWEVER, something isn’t adding up. If he is in good faith retired, why is he expecting more money when he has chosen to not fulfil his end of the bargain? I can think of a couple of reasons. Collingwood want to spread his contract out over several years as irrespective of real dollars out the door the AFL is making sure the contract hits the cap, and a Beams retirement bri
  4. I’ve been trying to reverse engineer Melbourne’s approach based on what we can see. This is what I think it is. List management is a multi year discipline and includes contracts, drafting, trading, free agency, current list development projections, junior footballer development projections and finally industry assumptions (e.g. salary cap increases). There are a hell of a lot of assumptions and guesses in there. As time progresses assumptions become less risky as you learn more. Melbourne appear to want to position themselves where they hold the least risk (i.e. highest con
  5. At least with Franklin he was clearly the most marketable player in the competition, and close to the best. You could see the off-field upside of that deal given Sydney market needs something shiny to keep their attention, even if it was clear it would be painful onfield and restrictive to the salary cap as he aged which has proven true. Grundy is a really good player, but he isn’t exciting or marketable, and Collingwood have no need for something shiny. Easy in hindsight to say they should’ve let Grundy go or at least stuck to a more moderate offer and rolled the dice. List manageme
  6. Not being critical, but I dislike the whole “First round pick” thing. As reflected by the points for draft picks, which is not the be all and end all, there is a chasm between a pick 5 and a pick 18. But they are both first rounders. Back to the trade, if Melbourne are backing themselves in to be in finals next year (which they must) and do something with 18 and 19 it looks good. Move up in 2020 with 18 and 19 (or a different later pick) together, or perhaps trade back into 2021 first round with someone Melbourne thinks will drop in 2021 like a Collingwood or maybe a Bulldogs (n
  7. If Melbourne are only planning to use two picks in 2021 due to reducing list sizes, or a rookie list upgrade, then they’ve moved up 10 spots in 2020 and lost nothing they value doing it (i.e. a 2021 third they weren’t going to use). Assuming Preuss brings in something in the 30s and Hannan similar or maybe 40s, Melbourne are starting to build up a decent set of picks to swap with a club wanting points for NGA or father/son picks for a substantial pick upgrade or maybe a player.
  8. ** Sorry, butchered quote [email protected] about going after Daicos ** I agree. For two reasons, first being he would improve the team on the slim chance it happened. Second is even though I don’t think Daicos is gettable, but going hard at him might raise the contract he signs at Collingwood by 50k or 100k. That puts more pressure on their salary cap and increases the likelihood of someone else shaking loose - whether that’s to Melbourne or not is irrelevant in the end. Collingwood need something to happen early to free up cap space so they can deal with JDG, Moore and Mihoc
  9. Wonder no more, I certainly did. I still think there’s sensationalist click baiting going on though.
  10. Why on earth would Melbourne look to trade arguably the highest impact player in the 2020 season? These footy journos are following the US Fox News formula of outrageous comments to generate eyeballs, to generate revenue. It is ramping up out of this world and I suspect it’s because traditional print media has been on life support for years now, and COVID means advertisers are keeping their money too. Anything news.com was already sensationalist and heavily biased, just as other publications have biases, but it’s now on its way to National Enquirer and British tabs levels. “DUST
  11. The problem with Caro is she always has agendas and takes revenge on anyone critical of her. That’s not journalism. It’s frustrating because she obviously has some good sources but sorting her thin skinned bias vs. fact is hard. I feel she now gets a free ride because she is a woman. Sure, she has had some unfair criticism because she’s a woman and no doubt had some really rough and unfair treatment in her career, but it also gets her protection in this politically correct time. Remember the “holding her under” the water comment and how that was pitched - if anything that was eq
  12. The one disadvantage of a dominant player is how predictable it makes the team, and I guess over reliance too. We’ve seen opposition much more effective with clearances due to this. I’m sure every opponent has some contingencies planned as a dominant opposition player can always be a late withdrawal or in-game injury. The advantage for Melbourne is Collingwood don’t know if it’s Preuss, Jackson, McDonald or even Weideman/Tomlinson they need to prepare for if it’s not Gawn. AFL level players need 6+ hours a day of PlayStation. You can’t eat into that and expect them to memor
  13. I never wanted Oliver dropped, but his foot disposal was underwhelming up until the last couple of weeks (against comfortably the two worst teams this season). It looked like Oliver at times was over thinking things, trying to pull off dinky little kicks and failing. They always look bad, a botched 55 metre kick frustrates the fans much less. But his hands are so good you can never seriously contemplate dropping him. Even if he kept ignoring coach’s orders I’d want him being “punished” by being played deep forward or on a half forward flank, not out of the team. I hope the penny has dropp
  14. The AFL are dealing with this too simplistically. Punishing poor technique is the only thing they are doing (and I don’t know what ANB could actually do differently on this one). It’s part of the puzzle. Players need to be trained to protect them self in tackles rather than trying to dispose of the ball. This adds one layer of protection. I’d suggest a minimal 10 minutes per week per player of “getting tackled safely” training rather than the “get my arms clear so I can dispose of the ball” training they are clearly doing. Umpires need to pay the free kick as soon as the tackle stick
  15. I think it’s a perfect game to play Preuss if fit and has some level of scratch match or training track form. He would’ve rucked against Goldstein a thousand times at training so is likely to know how to nullify him in ruck contests. Yes Preuss is nowhere near Gawn for marking prowess and a saviour in the backline, but Gawn didn’t do much of that last night anyway as it looked like he was being managed forward rather than dropping into the backline. Gawn is too valuable to run into the ground. Jackson looks to be finding his feet as a second ruck. Not to underestimate
×
×
  • Create New...