He is a steadying influence down back. We really struggled when he wasn't there through injury.

Has the odd stinker but overall very reliable considering how under siege our backline has been in recent years.

Will end up playing approx 250 games which is a good effort.

He is a steadying influence down back. We really struggled when he wasn't there through injury.

Has the odd stinker but overall very reliable considering how under siege our backline has been in recent years.

Will end up playing approx 250 games which is a good effort.

His disposal is not steadying at all.

He used to be one of my favourites, but he's slipped into bad habits where he holds on for too long and offers nothing offensively. Sorry Col. Thanks for your service, but time to move on.

His disposal is not steadying at all.

He used to be one of my favourites, but he's slipped into bad habits where he holds on for too long and offers nothing offensively. Sorry Col. Thanks for your service, but time to move on.

You've basically summarised my feelings AF.

I've always liked Col and my initial vote on this poll was to keep, but after paying more attention to him this season, I'm now convinced that we'll probably be better off without him. His disposal can be extremely frustrating, as it seems all he knows is those stupid up and under kicks that leave the receiving team mate in no man's land for far too long.

Doesn't look composed when he has the ball either, and is one (of many) who dishes out handballs to stationary players on a consistent basis. Not entirely his fault, but he often does not take the smartest option.

He is a steadying influence down back. We really struggled when he wasn't there through injury.

Has the odd stinker but overall very reliable considering how under siege our backline has been in recent years.

Will end up playing approx 250 games which is a good effort.

I don't really understand why you say that. In his best performing year, he used to play on the opposition's dangerous smalls. That's when we didn't have a small close checking defender and that may have been the only time we've struggled without him. Since then, he's been pretty underwhelming. In and out of games. Turn-overs galore, stupid decision making, questionable intensity, questionable body language and rarely any offensive run or drive. We have Jetta now who has been super consistent for two years back there.

We also won at Geelong without Garland this year.

The fact that he hasn't signed as a RFA with us yet and we're coming into the last game of the season points to us wanting to move him on in my view.

For what reason would we leave signing one of our senior players until the end of the season? If we wanted to keep him so badly why not have offered a contract this year?

He is a steadying influence down back. We really struggled when he wasn't there through injury.

Has the odd stinker but overall very reliable considering how under siege our backline has been in recent years.

Will end up playing approx 250 games which is a good effort.

No he's not. He is a panicker, drops his head when beaten, makes dumb decisions and has no offensive skills.

Saw a classic in the 1st 10m of the StKilda game where he left his man Reiwoldt alone in the fwd line to run to a contest on the members wing. At the last minute he realised there was already two melbourne players in the marking contest so he didn't even jump to punch the ball over the boundary. He stood limp at the back of the pack doing nothing, protecting no ground and not covering any player. Needless to say the ball was kicked over his head straight to Reiwoldt who ran into an open goal.

All players make mistakes but CG makes too many of those. In the opening minutes of the St Kilda game and you could tell that would get pumped. A senior 'leader' of our team that can't lead. In the opening minutes last weekend cost us a goal with his poor coverage.

A senior member of our defence and he makes reprehensible dumb decisions early in a game shows he can't switch himself on.

He offers us nothing. And has no upside at all.

Bit surprised at the vehemence of the anti- Col feeling.

Think he deserves better than that. Obviously I am in the minority.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-04/dees-expect-highflying-howe-to-test-the-trade-market

In positive news for the Dees, restricted free agent Colin Garland appears set to put pen to paper on a new deal soon.

The 191cm defender has enjoyed a strong campaign, playing all but two matches after breaking his hand in the Queen's Birthday clash with Collingwood.

"I think that's progressing pretty quickly," Roos said of the contract talks. "My understanding on that is that there's an offer on the table.

"It's not far off as far as I know, but again I haven't delved too much into that, so we're hopeful Col will be fine."

Garland has played 134 games for the Dees since he was recruited with pick 46 overall in the 2006 draft and finished runner-up in the club's best and fairest two years ago.

Very happy with that news. Glad the club has recognised his value and that he sees a future for the Dees.

The other side of it is we won't have to worry about diluting any compensation if we go for free agents.

Will end up playing approx 250 games which is a good effort.

Doubt it, as he is on about 135 games. I don't see him playing another 6 years.

Doubt it, as he is on about 135 games. I don't see him playing another 6 years.

Must admit I thought it was more than that.

Very happy with that news. Glad the club has recognised his value and that he sees a future for the Dees.

Agreed.

I still maintain that he could be more damaging for us as a forward, with Frost going down back to play on the talls alongside McDonald and Dunn.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-04/trade-whispers-leuenberger-smith-in-giants-sights

The futures of Melbourne pair Jeremy Howe and Colin Garland remain up in the air. Out-of-contract utility Howe is understood to have remained on Greater Western Sydney's radar after the Giants made a late play for him in last year's trade period. Restricted free agent Garland's negotiations with Melbourne remain on-going but a new deal appears some way off.

Garland isn't a world beater, but he has done more than Lumumba on the field this season . Garland has copped a bashing for his shortcomings, yet there are other senior players that skate by and get minimal criticism.

Would have Garland ahead of Dawes and Lumumba this year.

Garland offers good defensive flexibility and coverage and wont cost us a fortune if he stays. When playing well he is a lot better than he is given credit. As we move forward he is the type of player who will be on the cusp of our side and in if in good form but no longer a mainstay if he doesn't perform. This is what improving sides do and doesn't mean we shouldn't contract him.

He is a clearly a keeper for me if he wants to stay.

If Garland does stay, which is sounding more likely then not. Then I'd like to see them move him forward next year as a 3rd tall who can push up the ground in the manner Tom Lynch does for Adelaide.

This would allow a spot for Sam Frost in our back 6 with Tommy Mac and Dunn.

Garland isn't a world beater, but he has done more than Lumumba on the field this season . Garland has copped a bashing for his shortcomings, yet there are other senior players that skate by and get minimal criticism.

Would have Garland ahead of Dawes and Lumumba this year.

Ideally, I'd have none of them. That's not a valid reason for keeping though.

I don't understand why, but is there any player on our list more polarising than Garland?

People have strong views on Watts and Toumpas, but with Garland people seem to either think he's an underrated superstar, or an overrated VFL hack. There really doesn't appear to be much in between.

Personally, I fall into the 'overrated' category. I don't think he's that talented really, but that to one side I cannot stand his attitude, lack of leadership and body language on the field. For someone who, whether he likes it or not, needs to be a leader of the club, he is failing big time, and that is the main reason I wouldn't mind moving him on.

If Garland does stay, which is sounding more likely then not. Then I'd like to see them move him forward next year as a 3rd tall who can push up the ground in the manner Tom Lynch does for Adelaide.

This would allow a spot for Sam Frost in our back 6 with Tommy Mac and Dunn.

Wouldn't be against moving Garland forward next year if he stays.

I don't understand why, but is there any player on our list more polarising than Garland?

People have strong views on Watts and Toumpas, but with Garland people seem to either think he's an underrated superstar, or an overrated VFL hack. There really doesn't appear to be much in between.

Personally, I fall into the 'overrated' category. I don't think he's that talented really, but that to one side I cannot stand his attitude, lack of leadership and body language on the field. For someone who, whether he likes it or not, needs to be a leader of the club, he is failing big time, and that is the main reason I wouldn't mind moving him on.

As long as we can get players to replace them, blokes like Garland and Watts should be tradeable. We need to be thoughtful, but ruthless at the end of this year. We need to get some A grade midfield talent in and cut away the soft underbelly still clearly present within the older statesmen of our group.

I've been a Watts fan and defender in the past and I've been similarly a fan of Col, but the club's position on these guys really is untenable now. Another season where our experienced players have failed to stand up at crucial moments. You keep blokes like N Jones, who clearly has a huge standing amongst the group, but move on the rest of those that embody the old Melbourne.

Col should be signed. Versatile. Calm. Injury free. Resilient. Loyal. Two year deal IMO

I don't understand why, but is there any player on our list more polarising than Garland?

People have strong views on Watts and Toumpas, but with Garland people seem to either think he's an underrated superstar, or an overrated VFL hack. There really doesn't appear to be much in between.

Personally, I fall into the 'overrated' category. I don't think he's that talented really, but that to one side I cannot stand his attitude, lack of leadership and body language on the field. For someone who, whether he likes it or not, needs to be a leader of the club, he is failing big time, and that is the main reason I wouldn't mind moving him on.

Garland polarises because he is a good player but his body language when the chips are down symbolises what it means to be Melbourne'd. Cross by contrast leads from the front when others go missing.

Would have Garland ahead of Lumumba, Dunn, Howe, Dawes and Pedersen.

We underrate the job he does on the resting best midfielder.

Sure he always looks knackered and his body language isn't brilliant, but he is a guy that does his job and that's what Roos likes.

Garland re-signed yesterday. not sure of terms.

Garland re-signed yesterday. not sure of terms.

awesome. We would miss Col more than we realise, especially with the retirement of Cross whose intercept marking down back has helped as a lot (believe it or not). Would leave a few holes, that's for sure.

Col is one of those: don't notice how important he is until he is gone type of players. Never flashy, but important structural etc.