I´ve been thinking in the past few weeks about what we should do if we get picks 1 & 2.

Everybody says we´ve got wealth of promising tall defenders at the moment and no decent forwards coming through so we need to get a gun forward. This on paper appears to be true.

Rivers

Garland

Warnock

Martin

Frawley

In a purely speculative sense you could add McNamara

Bailey has already thrown Martin to the forward line to see what he could offer, which from all reports was a target but not much more. I think had Garland not been injured this year he would have been the obvious ¨defender¨ to be thrown forward. It´s a damn shame that he´s injured because it rids us of the opportunity to see whether he could be used effectively as a forward. But based on his ability, good kick, natural football smarts, good mark, quick he has all the attributes.

From memory I think in his junior days he was a forward and has kicked bags of 8 in a seniors game in Tasmania. I also remember that when he first debuted it was unsuccessfully as a forward. But I´ve also read that he now sees himself as an AFL footballer and that when he began he thought he didn´t belong.

Our midfield is one-paced at best, Mclean, Moloney, Jones, McDonald, Bartram, Bruce. Davey is the only quick midfielder and he´s been playing loose in defence.

Blease is said to be quick and Strauss isn´t slow, but I still see the need for some more pace. That´s why I think that if we get picks 1 & 2 we should seriously consider throwing them at the two best, fastest, most skilled midfielders in the draft. Scully seems to be everyone´s pick 1 I don´t know who the next best is.

If Garland was to be as effective as a forward as the promise he´s shown as a defender the forward line in a couple of years doesn´t look that bad.

HF: Morton Garland Maric

FF: Wonna Watts Jurrah

With back up talls(ish), Miller, Green, Bate, Dunn?, Newton?

and smalls(ish): Jetta, Davey, Petterd

Obviously there´s a couple of huge IFS and a decent spread of the dreaded POTENTIAL in there, and if we end up with a Scully/Butcher combination or something similar I wont be complaining, but I think it is something worth contemplating.

there is no way we will end up with pick 1 and 2 now. as west coast wont win 1 more game, let alone 2. but if by some miracle that happens, i dont think garland is a good idea. i dont think ive seen him take many contested marks and he hasnt put on any muscle since drafted. I think i'd prefer to leave our best defenders just there and play with Watts, jurrah, miller, etc

While it is tempting I would still pick a mid and a key position with the first two picks and get another mid with pick 19 or whatever it is. Garland, when fit, can pinch hit forward or back depending on form/injuries etc.

Anyone like the idea of trading our second or third round draft pick for a ready made forward, ie - McKinley from West Coast? We desperatly need wins next year and we need someome capable of kicking 50+ goals in a season.

Mckinley has looked as bad as a guy who suddenly regrets re-signing with the eagles and not coming back to melbourne when he could.

Would not give more than a third round draft pick for him regarding his current form.

Regarding Garland, i stay leave him where he has been excellent! Since he has been injured i have been more worried when the ball gets kicked in our defensive fifty.

Martin should be the one as a forward. Moves excellent, great contested mark and a big target. Its not going to happen over night but you wait that is his position. Remember when everyone thought Garland was not a forward or player? It takes time, he has had to deal with getting moved everywhere. When its settled we will have a forward line something like this-

Bate Watts Maric

Wonna Martin Jurrah

Bate is not done, just needs other targets around him.

I was thinking this the other day.

I'm all for Garland going forward. As for contested marking, he may not be the best at it, but perhaps that was why he was shifted to defence, where he's shown he can contest with the biggest, fastest and best forwards going round. He'll at very least get the ball to ground.

Honestly though I can't see him shifting there permanently. As soon as disaster strikes in defence people would be calling for him to go back again. Which he'll need to do.

Martin forward for mine. Remember he's still new to the game. He can read the play, take a mark and is quick. Play him out of the square with Watts, Jurrah, Miller, Maric and Wonaeamirri and who knows. I for one wouldn't be dissapointed if we picked up 2 gun midfielders. In saying that I think we'll go with a forward with our second pick.

Martin forward for mine. Remember he's still new to the game. He can read the play, take a mark and is quick. Play him out of the square with Watts, Jurrah, Miller, Maric and Wonaeamirri and who knows. I for one wouldn't be dissapointed if we picked up 2 gun midfielders. In saying that I think we'll go with a forward with our second pick.

Martin seems like a good choice, except for the fact his kicking is suspect. Many have called for him to shift forward though, and the chorus is gaining volume and momentum.

Martin seems like a good choice, except for the fact his kicking is suspect. Many have called for him to shift forward though, and the chorus is gaining volume and momentum.

Well we do have a strong backhalf and a very weak forward half. I like his size and pace, hard to match up on. Let the opposition chase him around.

As a forward Martin makes a good backman.

He's no forward in my book.

I don't like Josh Mahoney's chances of staying on as forward line coach beyond this season...

Wellman has show a lot more progress

should we look at drafting a ruckman??

As a forward Martin makes a good backman.

He's no forward in my book.

Currently this is correct. But having only played 3 games as a forward I'd say there's an upside. It'll take some time and a full preseason of forward training. The last 2 great Demon forwards both started as backmen so I'd say the club will explore the possibility.

Everybody says we´ve got wealth of promising tall defenders at the moment and no decent forwards coming through so we need to get a gun forward. This on paper appears to be true.

Rivers

Garland

Warnock

Martin

Frawley

In a purely speculative sense you could add McNamara

I think had Garland not been injured this year he would have been the obvious ¨defender¨ to be thrown forward. It´s a damn shame that he´s injured because it rids us of the opportunity to see whether he could be used effectively as a forward. But based on his ability, good kick, natural football smarts, good mark, quick he has all the attributes.

From memory I think in his junior days he was a forward and has kicked bags of 8 in a seniors game in Tasmania. I also remember that when he first debuted it was unsuccessfully as a forward. But I´ve also read that he now sees himself as an AFL footballer and that when he began he thought he didn´t belong.

If Garland was to be as effective as a forward as the promise he´s shown as a defender the forward line in a couple of years doesn´t look that bad.

HF: Morton Garland Maric

FF: Wonna Watts Jurrah

With back up talls(ish), Miller, Green, Bate, Dunn?, Newton?

and smalls(ish): Jetta, Davey, Petterd

This has been mooted previously on these forum boards, throwing Garland forward. You are right about his junior days. Definitely an option for Bailey next year. With Watts and perhaps Jurrah? You could have a good mix.

I think we'll see one of our young tall defenders traded for a forward at the end of this season.

McKinley could be a steal - poor recent form but has the track record to show he's capable.

Doubt the Eagles would make it that easy though

Still not sold on Gangles as a fwd option, then again Bails is one to try and set up all of our players to be versatile so who knows.

It has been a growing thought in my mind we might need to look at drafting some ready made, mid aged players in this coming preseason draft. As our current mid aged players we currently have I don't think are up to it ie the Dunns, Bates, Millers I doubt will be able to sustain us whilst our younger guys develop. Now whether there is anything of value in the preseason draft or not is a different story.

I don't like Josh Mahoney's chances of staying on as forward line coach beyond this season...

Wellman has show a lot more progress

Wellmans' boys see a lot more footy than Mahoneys'. (Not sure about the apostrophe...)

Martin forward for mine. Remember he's still new to the game. He can read the play, take a mark and is quick. Play him out of the square with Watts, Jurrah, Miller, Maric and Wonaeamirri and who knows. I for one wouldn't be dissapointed if we picked up 2 gun midfielders. In saying that I think we'll go with a forward with our second pick.

could not have put it better myself, i fully agree with all you have said here roost it

Garland and Martin to the forwardline?

There is another thread where people want to trade Rivers because our backline has Martin and Garland...

I hope people aren't arguing for both, is all I'm saying...

Garland has 1 good year and he is the player that can play every where, I would like to see him play another good year down back before we move him anywhere.

The problem with playing Garland as a forward, is that it significantly impacts not just our backline but also our midfield structure.

Garland is quick enough to play both short and tall. If you remove him, you are essentially forced to play someone like Frawley on a small type player, and IMO Frawley does not have the speed or athleticism to do so. This means that in situations like we had on Monday, when the opposition has 2-3 small quick forwards, we will be forced to play both Bennell and Grimes down back, which significantly decreases our midfield quality.

In the long term, if we want the likes of Bennell and Grimed to play through the middle, and we do, we cannot send someone like Garland up forward without finding another quality defender who can play tall and small and provide us with the necessary attack from the half back line.

Garland is the most important element of our backline IMO.

I don't think it would work at all. Garland is a key defender who is quick on his feet and great spoiling skills. Not essential for a forward.

For all of last year (and one game this year) he was playing as our main defender and he is clearly the most dangerous defender on our team, in my opinion. I think that no player needs to be moved forward at the club, including Martin.

I´ve been thinking in the past few weeks about what we should do if we get picks 1 & 2.

Everybody says we´ve got wealth of promising tall defenders at the moment and no decent forwards coming through so we need to get a gun forward. This on paper appears to be true.

Rivers

Garland

Warnock

Martin

Frawley

In a purely speculative sense you could add McNamara

Bailey has already thrown Martin to the forward line to see what he could offer, which from all reports was a target but not much more. I

MARTIN HAS BEEN GIVEN 1 PROPER game IN the forward AGAINST ST KILDA = it went inside 50 - 30 times the whole game - he was not properly kicked to once for him to even mark it let alone kick goals

the other 2 games - his first he gave off two fantastic unselfish assists to brad miller who kicked goals, and the other game he scored two goals when our MIDFIELD DECIDED TO DELIVER IT TO HIM

Bailey has barely given him a go

MELBOURNE has no tall FORWARD TARGET

GARLAND = skinny and by no means has a strong physique to be a tall target forward - we need to be looking for the next Buddy, Roughhead, BROWN, LLOYD.

Garland is not going to be that player he should remain in the backline we have already got 10 small forwards

melbourne NEEDS A TARGET and it should be MARTIN

why he was even dropped for watts last week is beyond me.

The problem with playing Garland as a forward, is that it significantly impacts not just our backline but also our midfield structure.

Garland is quick enough to play both short and tall. If you remove him, you are essentially forced to play someone like Frawley on a small type player, and IMO Frawley does not have the speed or athleticism to do so. This means that in situations like we had on Monday, when the opposition has 2-3 small quick forwards, we will be forced to play both Bennell and Grimes down back, which significantly decreases our midfield quality.

In the long term, if we want the likes of Bennell and Grimed to play through the middle, and we do, we cannot send someone like Garland up forward without finding another quality defender who can play tall and small and provide us with the necessary attack from the half back line.

Garland is the most important element of our backline IMO.

Frawley is as quick if not quicker than Garland. He had a bad game on Monday, but the whole backline was in disarray. He plays well on both short and tall players, has more body strength than Garland, and a lot of mongrel in him to [censored] off the small forwards.

He and Garland are both going to be very good players, Garland has more variety and better foot skills to his game which would see him have a pretty decent crack at becoming a forward.

But as far as defending goes, they're both capable of defending talls and smalls.

Just for the sake of the topic, Garland had played forward before during under 18s i heard a commentator say he kicked 9 goals once? I think it was nine it was a high number.