One of the more interesting points out of what has been a dismal season so far has been how the backline has progressed. 

Others may disagree but I would've thought that our 'best back 6' prior to Round 1 would've looked something like this: 

B: Bartram - Frawley - Garland

HB: Blease - Rivers - Grimes

The backline is one area where we've had pretty good cover over the past 5 years or so but because of some players' inability to perform in other positions are we now approaching defender overload?

Jack Grimes has moved into the midfield, Garland and more recently Rivers have pushed forward. While Sellar, Watts & T McDonald have looked at home down back. 

Here is a run down of current/potential defenders on the Melbourne list

KPD: Frawley, Garland, Rivers, T McDonald, Sellar, Davis

Rebounding defenders: Watts, Morton, Blease, Grimes, Strauss, Tapscott

Negating smalls: Bartram, Nicholson, Bail, Macdonald (a stretch I know), Evans, Tynan

So I ask my fellow 'landers what is our best D50 structure? Who'll make it? Who can/should be moved up the ground? Should we trade out some defenders?

It's a good problem to have (oh for the day when we have similar forward/midfield issues!). 

FWIW I generally like the structure of 3 versatile KPD, 2 rebounders & 1 small negator. I'd lock in Frawley as FB, Watts off a HB but I think the rest of the spots are up for grabs. I also think we should have a horses for courses approach. I.e. No point playing Sellar if the opposition has no more than one genuine KPF. 

Our fwd line has performed quite well with Garland and Rivers. And when Chippa wasn't playing the backline did tremendously well.

It's amazing what happens when royal doesn't have control .... Oh wait now he's killing the mid field!

It's amazing what happens when royal doesn't have control .... Oh wait now he's killing the mid field!

I'll be surprised if he's not moved on on once his contract runs out at season's end.

I like Garland in the forward line but I think we need him down back negating the smalls now that Bartram's out for the season. I don't think we have anyone else who can do a decent job at it for the moment. Maybe MacDonald on a good day.

Our fwd line has performed quite well with Garland and Rivers. And when Chippa wasn't playing the backline did tremendously well.

I guess they'll probably have first crack up forward & agree on the backline's performance sans Frawley, you couldn't drop him though.

It's interesting that all of Garland, Rivers, Sellar, T McDonald & Watts were recruited as forwards but are now playing well as defenders.

It's amazing what happens when royal doesn't have control .... Oh wait now he's killing the mid field!

Unbelievable to see this morph into another Royal bashing thread.

Stick to topic.

I think our Young defenders are showing they are nearing readiness to get senior games into them. But where do we find the spots to play them, with Watts as well, now going back.

I think Riv & Garlo's experiment showed us our verstility is there, to allow, when matchups agree, to play Davis & Strauss & McDonald/Cook down back together with a sweeping Watts, letting us play Riv or Garlo, or both up forward, to create the places to play these kids.

Thjis gives us the Insurance we need to experiment further.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Jai Sheahan upgraded in the next couple of weeks. Another versatile tall who has played really well at Casey in defence.

We are to tall down back and are in desperate need for small to mid size defenders. Grimes is playing as a midfielder and doing well, Nicho has done OK down back, with Bartram out we need Bail/Strauss/Bennell and hopefully Jetta to step up. Davis will get a crack at some stage, I have concerns about leaving Watts down back playing the sweeper role, I don't see the value of him controlling the footy deep in our defense and getting cheap kicks. We have tried Garland up forward and sent Rivers there for a half against Collingwood, to me they are better value down back.

We are to tall down back and are in desperate need for small to mid size defenders. Grimes is playing as a midfielder and doing well, Nicho has done OK down back, with Bartram out we need Bail/Strauss/Bennell and hopefully Jetta to step up. Davis will get a crack at some stage, I have concerns about leaving Watts down back playing the sweeper role, I don't see the value of him controlling the footy deep in our defense and getting cheap kicks. We have tried Garland up forward and sent Rivers there for a half against Collingwood, to me they are better value down back.

I think Watts has to play in the backline at the moment as it is the only place where the club can currently maximize his potential. His rebounding work has been of good standard & I wouldn't say he is getting cheap kicks as he is using the ball well & getting it to a team mate more often than not.

Agree with the rest of your post - small defenders are a real issue - Nicholson's kicking is pretty poor, ditto Bail but they both have the raw pace to go toe to toe with a Rioli type. I think Strauss gets first crack (even though he's more of a med sized def Imo). Alternatively, maybe we give it to Sammy Blease & try to make him a more rounded player?

The Col Garland Experiment © is interesting. Some are suggesting that we should chase Cloke to give us that "other" big body forward that we need, while some believe Garland could be the answer. The thing that I find interesting is that just because he hasn't played a senior game yet, that doesn't mean we should discount Lucas Cook as filling this role. He was a first round draft selection (#12), he was the AA CHF in the U18's, he is being given time to develop at a level that is more suitable for a player like him (tall and skinng frame), we are starting to see rewards for patience (has kicked 7 goals in the past 2 weeks at Casey, of which were actually kicked in the first 2 quarters of both games). He is taller than Garland, and hopefully with a/another(?) full preseason under his belt, he may just hit the 90kg+ mark that I think he will need to.

The suggestion of trading some of our defenders is a terrible one sorry. We need depth, and more than ever we need competition for spots. Our best back 6 is Frawley, Tom McDonald, Rivers, Garland and Blease. I'm not on the Strauss bandwagon like some folk. Watts will play the rest of the year in the backline, but from next year it will be a week-by-week thing - he will play where we need him. We have the depth with Davis, Strauss, Sellar, Martin, Bennell, Macdonald so I think we are in a pretty good situation, and wouldn't want to be removing any player from that area (some will be happy to see Bennell moved).

The thing with our backline is there is a lot of versatility there. Talls that can play on smalls (Garland, Watts, Davis, maybe even Taggert and Tynan), we have a star defender (Frawley), and we have defenders who can play forward if need be (Garland, Watts, Martin).

Personally, I'm not going to get used to seeing Rivers or Garland up forward. I think anything will go for the next 11 games, but I can't see changes like that made (on a permanent basis) in 2013+. It will be an option that Neeld can use - IF need be.

We're not far from having a top list - a couple of players (especially midfielders) and god forbid, a couple of seasons, and I think we still have a potential mulitple premiership winning group. Viney isn't going to come in and get us to finals in his first season, but if Blease/Jones/Trengove/Grimes can take that next step in 2013, Viney will be fine. If we rely on him, and his other graduates from the class of 2012 ©, we will not progress. Very rarely will I mention 1st or 2nd year draftees in any current plans, only becuase it is rare for such players to dominate and be match winners from day 1.

We have lots of defensive options at the moment but need to deveklop more small defenders. Most of the potential small defenders have been injured for much of this season and Bartram for half of it. We need Strauss and Jetta to get fit and get a run of games to see if they can fit the bill. Bennell has had too many hcances and flopped badly. Bail and Nicholson ar two others who can develop in this area.

Definite: Frawley, Rivers, Garland, Tom McDonald, Blease, Bartram

Flexibility: Bail, Nicholson, Sellar, Joel MacDonald, Jetta, Strauss (will end up a set member of back 6),

Potential: Davis, Tynan, Couch,

Tapscott, Morton and Watts will end up as forwards

I do not think that recruiting another bulky forward is the way forward. I agree with Billy2803 that Lucas Cook will fill this space. He will be a definite "in" for 2012 and we will see why he was a pick #12.

Watts won't be going back to the forward-line any time soon. Certainly not before 2014 and maybe not then. Get used to him down back.

Speed into the midfield is the club's greatest priority.

Watts won't be going back to the forward-line any time soon. Certainly not before 2014 and maybe not then. Get used to him down back.

Speed into the midfield is the club's greatest priority.

In my fantasy world BH, I can see a forward line of Mitch and Cook and/or Martin. I will argue til I'm blue in the face that we need 2 tall forwards to win a premiership.

During a game, if Mitch needs to ruck, or if Cook/Martin are down, I can see Watts swing in to the forward line as that 2nd tall forward. It won't be 2012, but I'd like to think we are starting to get some stability dring the 2013 season.

I'm on this Watts/Goddard comparison band wagon, and can see him playing a very valuable role in the team.

In my fantasy world BH, I can see a forward line of Mitch and Cook and/or Martin. I will argue til I'm blue in the face that we need 2 tall forwards to win a premiership.

I can see Watts swing in to the forward line as that 2nd tall forward. It won't be 2012, but I'd like to think we are starting to get some stability dring the 2013 season.

I agree with you, but Watts won't be playing forward next year. Personally, I doubt he'll be a forward in any foreseeable future.

I agree with you, but Watts won't be playing forward next year. Personally, I doubt he'll be a forward in any foreseeable future.

You could knock me over with a feather with that comment!

So what would Jack Watt's business card have as his title in 2013/14, and then 2015+?

It will be interesting to see how it all pans out over the 2013/14 seasons. IF Cook can hold his own as a tall forward, the need for Watts to play forward won't be there. If Cook can't, can we limp to a premiership by reinventing Garland as that tall forward? Or do we target a ready-made forward such as Cloke, or is that money better spent on trying to get an A-grade midfielder?

For us to be this "team of the decade" that the Red & Blueprint apparently have us reaching, 2013 will need to see some stability in roles for players, so it will be a very interesting 18 months.

I agree with you, but Watts won't be playing forward next year. Personally, I doubt he'll be a forward in any foreseeable future.

I'm on the other side, to me he is wasted down back and he is getting cheap kicks. This is what will happen to Watts if he stays down back, they will man him up try to get him exposed at full back or worse still get him on a small quick player, they will draw him away from the contest and make him responsible for a man. Sinclair beat him one on one. It is a short term solution playing him down back, he won't survive back there. He has to play a role similar to Adam Goodes can push into the midfield, play the link role between forward and back and then push forward to get a mis-match.

Look at Gibbs from Carlton, he was the best midfielder of his age, they have played him down back in that sweeper role and is extremely disaapointing. Davey was the same we pushed him down back gave him easy kicks he just zoned off and every since he has been extremely poor. I'm a Watts fan but if we keep playing him in his current role we are better off trading him.

You could knock me over with a feather with that comment!

I never disagree with you for the sake of it.

Look at Gibbs from Carlton, he was the best midfielder of his age, they have played him down back in that sweeper role and is extremely disaapointing. Davey was the same we pushed him down back gave him easy kicks he just zoned off and every since he has been extremely poor. I'm a Watts fan but if we keep playing him in his current role we are better off trading him.

All of those players have things in common & it isn't because their coaches have played them out of position. They were sent to the backline because they didn't play well in the positions they were drafted for. They were too... It starts with an 's' and ends with an 'oft'.

I don't want this to become another Jack Watts shitfight but I don't think he'll be the forward we hoped for when we selected him St pick 1. I agree with BH that he should play in the backline for the forseeable future (quite possibly the rest of his career). I dispute that he's getting cheap kicks in the backline & believe he can be developed into an elite rebounding defender.

All of those players have things in common & it isn't because their coaches have played them out of position. They were sent to the backline because they didn't play well in the positions they were drafted for. They were too... It starts with an 's' and ends with an 'oft'.

I don't want this to become another Jack Watts shitfight but I don't think he'll be the forward we hoped for when we selected him St pick 1. I agree with BH that he should play in the backline for the forseeable future (quite possibly the rest of his career). I dispute that he's getting cheap kicks in the backline & believe he can be developed into an elite rebounding defender.

Davey was the best tackling forward pocket in the game and the first of the new breed of defensive forwards. We had to move Davey because we had no one of half back that could run and carry the footy, the issue become Davey didn't run and carry and got the cheap handball.

This isn't a slag of at Watts it is differing opinion on where he should play. I don't want Jack Watts getting kicks in the back pocket it is a waste, if I'm coaching GWS I'm happy for Jack Watts to have the footy in the back pocket, he doesn't run with the footy, he has a great kick we limit his options get him kicking the footy where we allow him to and the players we want him to kick to. If you see Jack Watts forward of centre with the footy you are worried, he will hit a forward and this will result in a score. That is where we need Jack Watts getting the footy not on the last line of defense.

A small nuggety defender is our great shortfall at the moment. The two players at Casey who are coming on are Davis and Sheehan. Of the two, Davis is the standout, at the moment. They are both tall defenders; Davis plays CHB and Sheehan FB. We have to turn someone into a small defender, maybe Tynan?

This isn't a slag of at Watts it is differing opinion on where he should play. I don't want Jack Watts getting kicks in the back pocket it is a waste, if I'm coaching GWS I'm happy for Jack Watts to have the footy in the back pocket, he doesn't run with the footy, he has a great kick we limit his options get him kicking the footy where we allow him to and the players we want him to kick to. If you see Jack Watts forward of centre with the footy you are worried, he will hit a forward and this will result in a score. That is where we need Jack Watts getting the footy not on the last line of defense.

I never accused anybody of slagging off Watts - I just don't want my thread to be another gazzilion page tome discussing the pros & cons of Jack Watts.

If that's your opinion, fine. Theres no reason why Jack Watts can't do that in the future but there are reasons he can't do it now. Our midfield is so crap that he is having to pick the ball up on the last line because of the depth of F50 entries - it isn't entirely by design. As the midfield improves he'll be getting those kicks on the HB line & wing, playing essentially the same role. Watts doesn't offer much at the moment up the ground because he isn't a natural competitor in aerial or ground contests nor does he posses the workrate or desire to work into space & demand the football. Ergo he's a passive footballer. In my opinion the backline is the best place for him because he can sit back, read the play, intercept & distribute. It's the place where he can get hands on the footy & build his confidence whilst playing a key role in the team's structures.

Davey was the best tackling forward pocket in the game and the first of the new breed of defensive forwards. We had to move Davey because we had no one of half back that could run and carry the footy, the issue become Davey didn't run and carry and got the cheap handball.

Davey stagnated & wanted to move out of the forwardline, he gave up chasing towards the end & wanted to be an offensive midfielder. He was found wanting in the midfield & let taggers get under his skin. He didn't have the mental or physical hardness to compete up the field so was moved to the backline.

I hate the idea of horses-for-courses in the backline. It's the area where you need to get a stable 6 or 7 that get fully used to operating as a unit. Sellar in and out depending on match-up is a disaster IMO.

I think we need one gorilla-minder for the ubiquitous resting ruckman and it's not Rivers because he's too small. Sellar or Martin. McDonald could grow to fill this role. Frawley is flexible enough to enable the permanent inclusion of this role because if there's only one gorilla then he can play small - he's got the pace and agility.

I'm concious that we need another marking option forward to assist Clark (until as posted above Cook comes on - which will take until at least 2014 to really start to deliver). I like Neeld's experimentation with Garland and Rivers in that role. Personally I like Rivers forward - he's a better contested mark and can compete in the air against multiple opponents and that's what we really need - his lack of pace is not an issue because we don't need him to be a leading option. He's a smart player who will be able to maximise his opportunities and is incredibly brave. Garland is also a more flexible option down back - he can play tall or small where Rivers can't play small.

Sellar/Martin, Frawley, McDonald, Watts, Garland - that line-up covers any tall challenges and Frawley, Watts and Garland can all take smalls if required to negate any attempt to mismatch us. That leaves one spot - probably for small negator - Bartram unfortunately sounds finished, Nicholson has disposal limitations, Sam "Mr Unaccountable" Blease - dream on. I like Strauss and Tynan - no doubt one of them will emerge. Sellar/Martin, Frawley, McDonald, Watts, Garland, Strauss/Tynan - that backline has flexibility and presence - there's plenty of size about it without an associated lack of pace and mobility - they won't be pushed around - they'll be doing the pushing around.

If you can't live with Rivers forward then Sellar/Martin, Frawley, Rivers, McDonald, Watts, Garland works but it's almost certain Frawley, Watts and Garland ake smalls - that's less flexible IMO.

If you want Garland forward then Sellar/Martin, Frawley, Rivers, McDonald, Watts, Strauss/Tynan - but's that's less flexible too

Really like your thoughts old. Agree with pretty much all that you've said.

With both Rivers and Garland forward against GWS Joel Macdonald filled in very well but I doubt he's the medium term option. Troy Davis may be the one to step up there if both Rivers and Garland stay forward.

Sellar/Martin, Frawley, McDonald, Davis, Watts, Strauss/Tynan - that's a big backline but still has pace and agility.

Clark, Rivers, Garland, Jurrah will keep the opposition tall back honest.