No way Strauss is up - we don't even know him yet.

Okay. Who do you think?

Interesting that we have heads on the block already.

But for what it's worth.

Green

Dunn (Is showing a lot of enthusiasm)

MacDonald

Morton (done nothing at preseason so far)

Rivers (done nothing at preseason and in the slowest of running groups)

Spencer

One name not mentioned yet is Cook. Along with Fitz i see him to be surpus to our current tall forward stocks. With Clarke, Watts, and maybe even Jamar, Martin, MacDonald & Sellar all likley to spend time in then forward 50, he'd need to show somthing this year and the next i would have thought?

now i understand talls take time and he's still filling out etc, but Watts, Clarke and Martin arent old

Cook would be trade material only... but to trade a first round KPP after 2 years would be very, very unlikely.

Spencer is 100% gone. Guys like Bennell and Jetta i reckon they'd be happy to risk losing by attempting to acquire again through the rookie draft. Green will hopefully retire. Dunn could possibly be traded to GWS for a late pick in the same way Warnock was?

I'm really wondering about the future of our young talls primarily because there seems to be such a focus on bringing more of them into the club. Cook and Fitzpatrick look like they could be on thin ice simply because we seem to be hunting high and low for other players to fill the same place in the side that they would. We have three more tall forwards training with us leading up to the rookie draft as well as bringing Clark and Seller into the side. I know it has been an immediate need to bring some more developed talls in, but isn't this overkill if they have any confidence at all in the young guys we are training up?

One name not mentioned yet is Cook. Along with Fitz i see him to be surpus to our current tall forward stocks. With Clarke, Watts, and maybe even Jamar, Martin, MacDonald & Sellar all likley to spend time in then forward 50, he'd need to show somthing this year and the next i would have thought?

now i understand talls take time and he's still filling out etc, but Watts, Clarke and Martin arent old

Just because Martin, Sellar and Macdonald (i assume you mean Mcdonald?) doesnt mean they stay there, Cook will get 3 imo minimum 4-5 years to show what he is worth, unless we get a great offer being a good top 20 pick or more likely 15.

IMO Cook is by far in forward terms a class or two above the 3 names mentioned above as being ahead of him. He has had one season and you dont pick first round KPP players to just trade them shortly after.

Also a note that Strauss has been given guersey #19 now...wouldnt do that if he was on the block i would have thought personally.

Also looking at this thread in terms of "who needs to have a BIG 2012" may be a better way of assessing guys.

Players like: Blease, Strauss, Bennell, Jetta, Fitzpatrick, Evans and Nicholson (if they dont show something why make a spot available on the main list), Bate, Dunn, Pettered, Macdonald, Lawrence.

All need to show that they add value to our list either as best 23 players or good 24-30 types players who can come straight in when needed.

Otherwise any of them can be delisted imo Struass and Blease less so than the others but still need to show ability.

I'm really wondering about the future of our young talls primarily because there seems to be such a focus on bringing more of them into the club. Cook and Fitzpatrick look like they could be on thin ice simply because we seem to be hunting high and low for other players to fill the same place in the side that they would. We have three more tall forwards training with us leading up to the rookie draft as well as bringing Clark and Seller into the side. I know it has been an immediate need to bring some more developed talls in, but isn't this overkill if they have any confidence at all in the young guys we are training up?

You make a point, but imo especially Cook would be wasted if he is not given time, wasting a first round pick 2 years in, not many are expected to impact until they are 20-22 seriously, eg. Butcher playing 4 games in 2 years (yes he was injured) but so has Cook.

I think its simply a matter of covering bases in terms of searching for the best talent, AND Neeld wanting player that can play now ie. Clark and Sellar, also Sellar seems to be getting groomed as a back even though he can play forward.

Neeld doesnt want to play the waiting game that got Bailey fired.

It would be a bitter pill to swallow for them to cut any of our first round draft picks we have had over the last 4 years.

So I think Cook will be safe, unless his injuries he has tend to be extremely Chronic.

Blease, Strauss, Gysberts, Watts have a lot of up side.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/126882/default.aspx

Interesting to note that both Evans and Nicholson have been given new numbers. That would seem to indicate that they are getting upgraded next year unless something drastic occurs in the next 11 months.

Also interesting to note that Blease and Strauss are both carrying the numbers at which they were drafted. No real meaning in that, especially since Blease has a family connection to his no. 17, but it's an interesting co-incidence.

Garland? You'd have to be joking.

you question garland's exit but accept rivers, runner up in our best and fairest last year, is a certainty to go?

garland basically has the same attributes as morton (+3kg -1cm) and morton is too skinny to be a winger...

garland doesn't have the pace to be a rebounding defender, but his frame is too light to crash a pack.

seems like he's in no-mans land, though i'll concede his name could probably be in a "needs to have a big 2012"

thread rather than one about "who is getting axed"

(also at time of original post thought that tom mc might continue down back but that seems unlikely. added to that, with sellars

at hb galrand might be able to play the 3rd tall but would hate to see both him and rivers as stand-offish 3rd man up only defenders)

garland basically has the same attributes as morton (+3kg -1cm) and morton is too skinny to be a winger... garland doesn't have the pace to be a rebounding defender, but his frame is too light to crash a pack. seems like he's in no-mans land,

Do you actually watch these guys play or just read their stats?

Garland is up there with our most consistant and corageous defenders. Spoils like a beast, marks well and uses the ball effectivley.

Comparisons to morton are so far off the mark its not funny.

Given that we hung onto Newton for 7 years (or was it an eternity?), I would not write anyone off at this stage.

Dear Rolly,

Don't even try to compare Rivers with Garland.

92 kg and slow as an Ox.

I have never known him to win a one on one.

They say he is a great 3rd man, that's only because he starts off -- one on one and ends up being third when the ball gets near them.

Garland held whatever backline we had last year together. His run and rebound was superb.

garland basically has the same attributes as morton (+3kg -1cm) and morton is too skinny to be a winger...

garland doesn't have the pace to be a rebounding defender, but his frame is too light to crash a pack.

seems like he's in no-mans land, though i'll concede his name could probably be in a "needs to have a big 2012"

thread rather than one about "who is getting axed"

Wow! What chemicals are you on? And where do I get me some? B)

Garland and Rivers both have room for improvement- which will happen .

Morton is fringe best 30 in my opinion .

Given that we hung onto Newton for 7 years (or was it an eternity?), I would not write anyone off at this stage.

Got rid of Maric after 4 seasons and he was an early 2nd rounder. Talls get more time... Juice was ridiculous though.

Dear Rolly,

Don't even try to compare Rivers with Garland.

92 kg and slow as an Ox.

I have never known him to win a one on one.

They say he is a great 3rd man, that's only because he starts off -- one on one and ends up being third when the ball gets near them.

Garland held whatever backline we had last year together. His run and rebound was superb.

i compare garland to rivers because there is noone else to compare him to, except that rivers regularly picked up the 2nd big last year.

when rivers was gettin destroyed by the black and white filth why wasn't garland moved onto dawes or cloke?

garland may be quicker than rivers but he's not the man to provide the run and carry out of defence we need, having said that who on our list does?

alot of people on this site want grimes, tapscott and nicholson in the midfield so who does that leave to run the ball out of the back half, especially if davey and blease are going to be playing forward this year...

in my "highly chemically altered state" my conclusion is that the club seems to have put alot more sotck in rivers (not that i agree with that) considering how he polled in the B&F sp garland finds himself in a tricky spot

don't get me wrong, he has the stones and the potential to play the game and i would like to see how he's looking after all the running that neeld and misson have the lads doing but i really do believe (again thanks to all the chemicals coursing through the system) garland needs to work his core strenght up and become a genuine 3rd tall defender otherwise i can see tynan stepping up very quickly

this is how i believe the clubs defence will line up for the NAB cup at metricon (which i will be attending live, who else will be there?)

FB strauss frawley bartram

HB rivers sellars tynan/grimes

both barrels please

What this discussion does show is that our list is developing more depth. Inevitably, the 3 - 5 players that need to go off the list are exposed one way or the other during a season. On balance, it's a good problem to have and I'm happy to leave it to the list management people.

Nasher, I feel it's too early to know who is going to go next year. But for different reasons to most.

Because we are changing the way that we play and will be playing a very structured style, it depends very much on which players are capable of playing a specific role. This may mean that a player like Bartram is untouchable, yet a player like Blease becomes trade bait ..... or vice versa. Does Joel Mac go because he turns the ball over, or does he stay because he's got a big body and wins contests? Does Sylvia stay because he powerful and classy, or do we trade him because he doesn't work hard enough defensively?

It'll be hard to have any idea until we start playing.

I guess anyone could have a terrible season, and any of those "on the chopping block" could turn out to have a blinder, but as of now. Would see the following as having to put in above average (and I don't mean above their average, but just a really good consistent solid contribution to the team plan) seasons to be retained:

Bartram will have to use the ball a lot better.

Bate will have to find a place and be consistempnt in it - I believe he could be the hard strong mid but if not, arriverduci.

Bennell likewise needs to find a spot and make it his own but? Where.

Morton just has to toughen up and be a regular contestant- I doubt if MN will put up with and perceived softness

Dunn - trouble is, what will be his role? Can he focus all year and all game on a specific task? Tends to lose focus.

Rivers - depends a lot on young McDonald if played as a back, and Davis; also Martin if used as a defender may squeeze him out.

JoelMacD - looks as if he will be a depth player, a fill in defender and must be on borrowed time.

Davey needs to get fit and put in consistent hard efforts: like Morton, perceived softness will not be tolerated.

Spencil- currently well behind Jamar, Martin if ducked, Gawn, Clark and (mental block the new guy from Adelaide) and lacks the versatility of Fitzy.

Lawrence will need to display application, interest and get some games into him.

That's about all - I know that ALL players are under scrutiny and reassessment all season (or at least should be now under the new regime, unlike apparently in years past) but these are the ones I would pay special attention to.

i compare garland to rivers because there is noone else to compare him to, except that rivers regularly picked up the 2nd big last year.

No he didn't. Garland would take the mobile CHF who was invariably the second tall. Rivers would take the resting ruck or the more hulking CHF like Cloke. This would answer you question that follows.

when rivers was gettin destroyed by the black and white filth why wasn't garland moved onto dawes or cloke?

garland may be quicker than rivers but he's not the man to provide the run and carry out of defence we need, having said that who on our list does?

alot of people on this site want grimes, tapscott and nicholson in the midfield so who does that leave to run the ball out of the back half, especially if davey and blease are going to be playing forward this year...

in my "highly chemically altered state" my conclusion is that the club seems to have put alot more sotck in rivers (not that i agree with that) considering how he polled in the B&F sp garland finds himself in a tricky spot

Garland came 6th in the Bluey and 9th the year before, keeping in mind he missed a month with an ankle and was rushed back into the side (it was initially thought to be a longer absence).

He is highly thought of at the club.

don't get me wrong, he has the stones and the potential to play the game and i would like to see how he's looking after all the running that neeld and misson have the lads doing but i really do believe (again thanks to all the chemicals coursing through the system) garland needs to work his core strenght up and become a genuine 3rd tall defender otherwise i can see tynan stepping up very quickly

He can be a 3rd tall with one skillful arm tied behind his back - he is doing a great impression of being a 2nd tall...

And Tynan?

I will take that as just the grandiose statement of a fan who always sees the kid we just got as better than the bloke doing the job.

He's just a kid, taken at 52, he has a long way to go to get near where Colin is at.

this is how i believe the clubs defence will line up for the NAB cup at metricon (which i will be attending live, who else will be there?)

FB strauss frawley bartram

HB rivers sellars tynan/grimes

both barrels please

I won't be there but I will tell you that if that is the line up for the NAB it is because they are resting Garland for the important stuff...

Honestly, Sellar has been here 5 minutes and he has taken Garland's position? He has played 21 games in 5 years and this is just another case of the new bloke being better than the bloke doing the job.

And Rivers on a HBF?

One name not mentioned yet is Cook. Along with Fitz i see him to be surpus to our current tall forward stocks. With Clarke, Watts, and maybe even Jamar, Martin, MacDonald & Sellar all likley to spend time in then forward 50, he'd need to show somthing this year and the next i would have thought?

now i understand talls take time and he's still filling out etc, but Watts, Clarke and Martin arent old

IMO he'll be a very likely CHB. Great vision & decision making, with nice reliable kicking. I see him as a quarterback type. Just needs time to mature physically and mentally to start to believe he belongs, IMO.

Cook will be a very good player in two or three years time, We got Clark for the now and a lot of forwards developing for the future. You do not draft these types of player to get rid of them before they are given the time to develop and put in the work to get the best out of them

Remember it took D Neitz three or four years to be the type of footballer that he became

Spencil- currently well behind Jamar, Martin if ducked, Gawn, Clark and (mental block the new guy from Adelaide) and lacks the versatility of Fitzy

Lawrence will need to display application, interest and get some games into him

That's about all - I know that ALL players are under scrutiny and reassessment all season (or at least should be now under the new regime, unlike apparently in years past) but these are the ones I would pay special attention to.

Lucky typo. Have a look at your keyboard at the relative positions of r, d and f. I assume you meant to type r, but you could so easily have hit the f.