I think it was Friday night when I was listening to some prematch footy analysis on SEN while driving out to Bacchus Marsh...

I heard Dermie & Cam Mooney discussing playing lists and how teams have managed to stay at the top.

They both had the opinion that you draft blue chip midfielders first and foremost, and as for talls their opinion is that you "let someone else train them up."

That they will be available if you let a poor team put in the hard yards identifying then developing a tall player for his first 3-4-5 years, then poach him.

And there are patterns to back up the theory.

Look at Hawthorn.

Poached Gibson, Gunston, Hale, Lake and their new ruckman McEvoy.

They dearly want Frawley, for obvious reasons.

The Cats have brought in Rivers, McIntosh, Podsiadly (although not poached, he was mature) and well before that Ottens. Could maybe include Mooney in this.

Collingwood bringing in Lynch, Jolly, White and Hudson.

It may have failed somewhat, but the pattern is there.

Swans bringing in Tippett, Franklin, before that Mumford. Trading in Richards as a defender.

Long term they enticed Hall before that.

And I think the theory is sound, in that it is easy to sell the prospect to a KPP if you can tell them you have a blue chip midfield on hand to serve them the footy in the forward line, or work to help them out in the backline.

Thoughts?

Are we better off letting Frawley go in the long run (assuming fair and decent compensation), amassing a truly blue chip midfield, and then worrying about filling in the key position posts?

As we all know, it's much easier to be a good KPP with a decent midfield.

This probably also underlines Frawley's true value by putting it in perspective.

Imagine how good he'd be in a strong side.

He'd be like Scarlett.

Also, with this coming draft looking very strong in regards to KPP, are we better off trading those picks for ready made gun mids, like we did for Tyson?

I'd be an advocate of that strategy, provided we get fair trades.

I'd aim for kids like Prestia, Shiel, Plowman, MacRae at the dogs...

roos,is meant to be a list master.

so id imagine before september last year,he knew exactly what we had and didnt have.

tried to make a start on the list this year and will be doing the figures about next year already.

i have confidence in his approach to our dilemma,

as for chip,wait and see,whats on offer i would imagine.

Just make sure CS is nowhere near the building.

Isn't that technically what Melbourne has done?

Drafted in experienced midfielders but our midfield is set for a decade-plus with Viv, Dom, Viney, Jones, Watts. However we lack depth in that department.

Brought in Clark and Dawes, Hogan (who we are "developing"), but again, lack depth.

IMO the club hasn't struggled in setting the foundations.

But if the foundation has a weak spot, what is there to hold it up?

As the first two weeks have shown, not much.

The club needs another 2 years of really strong drafting, and aggressive plays on the free agency market.

IMO atm it needs to address its depth. Because it is severely lacking it in all facets. I am not convinced that the team's scoring issues this season and last season had to do with Clark and Dawes not being on the pitch. There is certainly a distinctive lack of support across all three main areas on the pitch. The players don't seem to have the confidence to back themselves, or each other. When that happens, changes need to be made. But those changes can't be that extreme because the depth doesn't exist.

God damn, it's just a vicious cycle.

Is it too early for a beer?

While Hawthorn might have brought in Hale, Gibson, Gunston, Lake and McEvoy, they also did the hard work of drafting and developing Franklin, Roughead, Stratton, Birchall and Max Bailey. I think the ones they developed themselves have been better overall than the ones they brought in.

  On 31/03/2014 at 01:07, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While Hawthorn might have brought in Hale, Gibson, Gunston, Lake and McEvoy, they also did the hard work of drafting and developing Franklin, Roughead, Stratton, Birchall and Max Bailey. I think the ones they developed themselves have been better overall than the ones they brought in.

Yes, but Stratton was a late find, and the Hawks were able to simultaneously make a few mistakes and still build a strong midfield, due to an inordinate amount of early draft picks, owing to the priority pick system at the time.

It out them where they are now, but I think going forward, list strategies will be based around poaching big men from other teams, or developing your own from late picks.

Early picks on talls is just too risky the majority of the time, unless they are a clear cut above.

You can't tell me Malthouse doesn't wish he had Cotchin instead of Kreuzer.

There's a ship load of other examples.

  On 31/03/2014 at 00:06, Machsy said:

I think it was Friday night when I was listening to some prematch footy analysis on SEN while driving out to Bacchus Marsh...

I heard Dermie & Cam Mooney discussing playing lists and how teams have managed to stay at the top.

They both had the opinion that you draft blue chip midfielders first and foremost, and as for talls their opinion is that you "let someone else train them up."

That they will be available if you let a poor team put in the hard yards identifying then developing a tall player for his first 3-4-5 years, then poach him.

And there are patterns to back up the theory.

Look at Hawthorn.

Poached Gibson, Gunston, Hale, Lake and their new ruckman McEvoy.

They dearly want Frawley, for obvious reasons.

The Cats have brought in Rivers, McIntosh, Podsiadly (although not poached, he was mature) and well before that Ottens. Could maybe include Mooney in this.

Collingwood bringing in Lynch, Jolly, White and Hudson.

It may have failed somewhat, but the pattern is there.

Swans bringing in Tippett, Franklin, before that Mumford. Trading in Richards as a defender.

Long term they enticed Hall before that.

And I think the theory is sound, in that it is easy to sell the prospect to a KPP if you can tell them you have a blue chip midfield on hand to serve them the footy in the forward line, or work to help them out in the backline.

Thoughts?

Are we better off letting Frawley go in the long run (assuming fair and decent compensation), amassing a truly blue chip midfield, and then worrying about filling in the key position posts?

As we all know, it's much easier to be a good KPP with a decent midfield.

This probably also underlines Frawley's true value by putting it in perspective.

Imagine how good he'd be in a strong side.

He'd be like Scarlett.

Derm and Moons can revise history as much as they like but it is plain wrong.

So Derm according to this Hawthorn would have preferred Delidio and Tamblin to Roughy and Buddy.

Let's look at the 2 most successful clubs of the last decade, Geelong and Hawthorn. Both clubs where built at the draft and in Geelong's case some good luck with father and sons.

In the successful Geelong teams they only bought one high price player, Ottens. Hawthorn have cherry picked as of late.

Both Geelong and Hawthorn have modified that strategy mainly because of the 2 new clubs diluting the draft, free agency and managing an already successful list without bottoming out. The rules changed and they're using them to advantage.

With the coming draft there are a couple of gun KPP's and they are the type that will step straight in, like Hogan will when right to go. We need KPP's, we don't have any quality in this area at all. Good talls don't need extra time, of course they get better with age but the really good ones show it from the start.

As for ruck's I agree we trade for them unless it's someone coming through like a NikNat.

I think they're talking about in the current climate, not necessarily previously.

I think I went back further than I should have.

If you look at Hawthorn and Geelong especially, they have topped up their talls from outside recently.

It is good business to let someone else do the work training them up, if you can get away with it.

  On 31/03/2014 at 01:56, Machsy said:

I think they're talking about in the current climate, not necessarily previously.

I think I went back further than I should have.

If you look at Hawthorn and Geelong especially, they have topped up their talls from outside recently.

It is good business to let someone else do the work training them up, if you can get away with it.

Just don't agree with this at all 'Machsy', maybe with ruck stocks but KPP's they can either play or they can't. All the really good ones have come in and shown something from the get go.

  On 31/03/2014 at 02:24, rjay said:

Just don't agree with this at all 'Machsy', maybe with ruck stocks but KPP's they can either play or they can't. All the really good ones have come in and shown something from the get go.

So?

Gibson, Lake, Hale and Gunston could all play before going to Hawthorn.

The Hawks were still able to snatch them away.

And if a player wants to leave, a club is silly to hold them against their will, but then must take what they can get.

It's why the "feeder clubs" are pushing for the ability to trade future draft choices - so they can demand more at the trade table.

Otherwise the Hawks can keep saying "we'll give you our first pick - it may be pick 18, but it's all we've got..."

think its been said before by a few posters,but where is our champion.

every team in history has had bad times but have always had a least one champ that the club can put up as a monument.

we just dont have a champ,not one and its been a while.

cant believe the last 7 years havent produced one genuine champ.

most clubs have a young racehorse who may lack finer skills ,but everbody can see the future in that player.

we havent one.

  On 31/03/2014 at 02:41, jazza said:

think its been said before by a few posters,but where is our champion.

every team in history has had bad times but have always had a least one champ that the club can put up as a monument.

we just dont have a champ,not one and its been a while.

cant believe the last 7 years havent produced one genuine champ.

most clubs have a young racehorse who may lack finer skills ,but everbody can see the future in that player.

we havent one.

nathan jones is well on the way

  On 31/03/2014 at 02:36, Machsy said:

So?

Gibson, Lake, Hale and Gunston could all play before going to Hawthorn.

The Hawks were still able to [censored] them away.

And if a player wants to leave, a club is silly to hold them against their will, but then must take what they can get.

It's why the "feeder clubs" are pushing for the ability to trade future draft choices - so they can demand more at the trade table.

Otherwise the Hawks can keep saying "we'll give you our first pick - it may be pick 18, but it's all we've got..."

So, we're going to have to build from the ground up. We don't have anything to offer at the moment to get these other players.

  On 31/03/2014 at 02:48, rjay said:

So, we're going to have to build from the ground up. We don't have anything to offer at the moment to get these other players.

Exactly.

We need to build a blue chip midfield.

Then worry about KPPs.

its not about the actual players.

its about getting the training structures right so that the players actually improve

  On 31/03/2014 at 02:51, Machsy said:

Exactly.

We need to build a blue chip midfield.

Then worry about KPPs.

It doesn't work that way, you can't build one without the other. No club have built a blue chip midfield to success, Carlton is a prime example...a lot are now thinking it was a mistake to give away Kennedy for Judd.

Quality KPP's don't come around often, there are a few this draft and we would be mad to pass them up.

I have over-simplified it.

I think the strategy is better when talking about rucks. Often rucks take at least 5 years before you even know if they will come on or not and many have come through the rookie list. You're better off drafting a mature ruck than persevering for 5-7 years before they start to show something.

There is an argument to be made regarding KPP's as well however not to the same extent. Hawthorn and Geelong may have done well topping up their KPP stocks but they had the foundations there to begin with and then supplemented them once they faced retirements/trades.

Overall I think our KPP stocks aren't too bad on paper, it's just about whether we can get them on the park at the same time. Clark, Hogan, Dawes, McDonald, Frawley & Garland are OK but if they go down with injury we fall away very quickly. I'd be looking at another KPF if we can draft a good one early this year but otherwise would be looking at someone like Georgiou to step up next season as a 4th KPD option.

Our ruck stocks are deplorable, Jamar has had one good year in 10 and is finished, Spencer doesn't have what it takes, Gawn could be good but is still VERY raw and Fitzpatrick is another NQR. I would be looking at which rucks are available this trade period to try and get a big body in who can help us around the clearances next year. My preference would be Clark in the ruck but as we know he is an unknown quantity at this point.

Our midfield has improved from last year but is still a LONG way off. We have a hanful of competent mids, we need about a dozen to 15 who can rotate through there. We need to replace the flankers on our list (guys like Tapscott, Blease, Strauss etc) with guys who can genuinely run through the middle and can kick goals. So I'd be looking at another draft stockpiling mids with a KPF if we get a couple of early picks.

  On 31/03/2014 at 03:34, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think the strategy is better when talking about rucks. Often rucks take at least 5 years before you even know if they will come on or not and many have come through the rookie list. You're better off drafting a mature ruck than persevering for 5-7 years before they start to show something.

There is an argument to be made regarding KPP's as well however not to the same extent. Hawthorn and Geelong may have done well topping up their KPP stocks but they had the foundations there to begin with and then supplemented them once they faced retirements/trades.

Overall I think our KPP stocks aren't too bad on paper, it's just about whether we can get them on the park at the same time. Clark, Hogan, Dawes, McDonald, Frawley & Garland are OK but if they go down with injury we fall away very quickly. I'd be looking at another KPF if we can draft a good one early this year but otherwise would be looking at someone like Georgiou to step up next season as a 4th KPD option.

Our ruck stocks are deplorable, Jamar has had one good year in 10 and is finished, Spencer doesn't have what it takes, Gawn could be good but is still VERY raw and Fitzpatrick is another NQR. I would be looking at which rucks are available this trade period to try and get a big body in who can help us around the clearances next year. My preference would be Clark in the ruck but as we know he is an unknown quantity at this point.

Our midfield has improved from last year but is still a LONG way off. We have a hanful of competent mids, we need about a dozen to 15 who can rotate through there. We need to replace the flankers on our list (guys like Tapscott, Blease, Strauss etc) with guys who can genuinely run through the middle and can kick goals. So I'd be looking at another draft stockpiling mids with a KPF if we get a couple of early picks.

If you are looking at available rucks you wouldn't have to look much further than yesterday - Sinclair playing as their third ruck very athletic and can take a grab, Roos did it with Jolly and Mumford. Sanderson did it with Jacobs.

If we have enough coin in the cap teh athletic ruckman I would be tragetting would be Zac Clarke

  On 31/03/2014 at 03:42, Pennant St Dee said:

If you are looking at available rucks you wouldn't have to look much further than yesterday - Sinclair playing as their third ruck very athletic and can take a grab, Roos did it with Jolly and Mumford. Sanderson did it with Jacobs.

If we have enough coin in the cap teh athletic ruckman I would be tragetting would be Zac Clarke

Yep, I think we need to look at one of these guys. Freo have a few and WC have another not getting a game. Sinclair looks good, maybe time to open the cheque book a ruck, who can play mid and forward would be good.

The dilema we face right now is that the list must be rebuilt, but we cannot afford even 1 more season of yesterday like performances.

People will not go. People on this site drove down from interstate to watch that garbage. Garbage that began in 2007.

We have to use 90% of our draft picks on mature age players who are ready to go otherwise the club won't exist.

Moneyball is our only option.

You cannot retrain bad habits out of players who have been here for 7-10 years.

What happened to Trengove after the sling tackle?

He has never played with any authority since...

  On 31/03/2014 at 03:24, Machsy said:

I have over-simplified it.

Derm and Moon's are the experts at this.

  On 31/03/2014 at 03:42, Pennant St Dee said:

If you are looking at available rucks you wouldn't have to look much further than yesterday - Sinclair playing as their third ruck very athletic and can take a grab, Roos did it with Jolly and Mumford. Sanderson did it with Jacobs.

If we have enough coin in the cap teh athletic ruckman I would be tragetting would be Zac Clarke

WCE also have Lycett coming through don't they? Cox is surely pretty close to retirement so Sinclair will probably be second ruck next year though.

If we keep playing like we have this year the afl will have no choice they will have to give us a pp(I know it's early in the season but let's face it we are melbourne supporters the draft is our grand final) and if chip goes that will give us the first 3 picks. We could rebuild in one draft with our recruiting team beefed up pick the best 2 mids and the best kpp or trade an early pick say pick 1 for sidebottom and Blair and still have a crack at the two best mids