2 hours ago, A F said:

Let's wait and see, OD. Think you'll find we're a far better destination than Essendon.

Who in their right mind would WANT to play for the Bummers at the moment?

2 hours ago, old dee said:

But we have to want him and I don’t think he suits our game style. We don’t seem to be able to hit a leading Weideman let alone another of the same type. And why do North want him out so badly. Something does not ring right with this one.

IMHO Weid needs to play deep forward. Brown the lead up. Jackson the roaming CHF. M.Brown depth.

Edited October 13, 20204 yr by Grr-owl
Forgot a bloke....

56 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

I guess it depends how large the debt would be Old Dee. Nothing wrong with debt as long as we can service the interest and meet the repayments.

I haven’t seen any costings or plans so have no idea what kind of $$ are needed but we have a sum of $6m odd from the Leighoak club sale and could dispose of the Bentleigh club and tip those proceeds into the project as well.

The club appear set on the MCG precinct which I think is the right call (but will be difficult to secure). You can generate better commercial returns in a central location. I think the club has a large latent (we packed out the MCG for those 2 finals in ’18) following as well if we could just get on a run of sustained success (big if I know). 

 And I wouldn’t be in favour of unsustainable debt levels. Any debt has to be sensible and manageable.

A sustained period of success would make us the smallest of the big clubs, but big enough, I reckon.

Brown knocked back 3 years at north. He’ll go to the club foolish enough to offer 4 years on big coin - i.e. the drug cheats

1 minute ago, DubDee said:

Brown knocked back 3 years at north. He’ll go to the club foolish enough to offer 4 years on big coin - i.e. the drug cheats

If he wants success, he won't. We need a bloke like him and he needs a club like us.

8 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

If he wants success, he won't. We need a bloke like him and he needs a club like us.

I reckon he wants money and job security (dont blame him) but we shall see what he chooses

5 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

If he wants success, he won't. We need a bloke like him and he needs a club like us.

I think this is a very good measure of the bloke, he has had an awful year and instead of taking the deal in font of him (I was to understand it was 4 years I believe) he backed himself to have a cracker of a year and get a big deal sewn up. Instead he's now a project to revitalise that will do a lot better at a club that has a chance of competing than a team that seems to have the rats fleeing off a sinking ship.

If he chooses the bombers it'll be because he's chasing the coin, if he chooses us it'll be because he feels he can have a chance at something. I genuinely feel like we're a good fit for him, perhaps a performance based contract will be his best motivator for us.

9 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

Just wanna put my two cents in on a loosely related subject..... I stopped watching footy for about 15 years when I left Aus. When I turned back on, Carlton and Essendon were crap, the Hawks were still winning and there were two new clubs -- one in the western suburbs of Sydney, FFS, and the other in some cocaine resort town south of Brisbane. Could not believe it.

Then the thought crossed my mind... in a country of only 25 million, only two thirds of which play the sport, isn't that at least two teams too many? The talent is spread thin, IMHO. Just imagine how much better the league would be if all the talent gone to Suns and GWS was spread about.....

Wise words there Grr-owl (see what I did there). My story is pretty similar. Left these shores back in '96 and returned late in 2014 and like you barely gave the game a second thought. I too find it hard to believe that the Blues have been stinking it up for most of that time. The introduction of GC and the Giants arguably cost us more than most considering we were cellar dwellers at the time although our track record in both recruitment and development back then might suggest otherwise. 

It's hard to foresee what will become of the two franchises going forward. If nothing else they should at least look at changing the longwinded name of one that was surely born out of a focus group. Is there anything less imaginative than naming a new club after a geographical catchment area ? Give me the likes of Harlequins, Corinthians or Rangers ( but definitely not Celtic) any day.  

3 hours ago, A F said:

Weideman is not a great mark at this stage. He often two grabs contested marks. North have stuffed this up and now his trade value has diminished to our benefit. 

How does a 60+ goal a year forward not suit our game style? This is another artificial barrier. Do people not want to succeed? 

He'd struggle to get within a bull's roar of 60 trying to pick up half volleys off the deck on the lead all season, which is what he'll get if he comes to us. 

I posted before the season, if TMac didn't find form we would struggle, now I'll suggest if we don't bring in a key forward that can give us around 40 goals we will struggle again. Those putting their eggs in the Weideman basket will only get  more of the same. The only saving grace would be that LJ comes on very quickly.

With the confirmed news that Tom Mc will be moving on ( if a club wants him) then i would think and hope (but this club.. not expect) they have a pretty solid and good understanding of what they will get to cover his position. 

In all likeliness, Gawn will ruck and drop across half back, Jackson will ruck fwd  half and roam, Weid will be teh CHF.. i think they need an anchor, lead out of the square fwd. Brown is that. 

I'm not fixed one way or the other on the Brown trade.

I agree with @DeeSpencer that Weid is a #1 forward. But the problem is that his body isn't quite there yet. He was very good in the middle part but dropped off in the last part of 2020 because of this.  This was exacerbated because he had minimal support. TMac and Jackson out and Mitch Brown not consistently drawing a tall defender away.

Next year we could have a combo of Weid, Petty and Jackson which would cause tall defenders to need to split attention.  But again all are immature bodies unless Weid really comes on over summer.

Alternatively Ben Brown, Weid and Jackson.  With Petty playing back in place of OMac/Tomlinson.

There's not any real fwd defensive difference between Weid-Petty and B.Brown-Weid combos.

Look at this year's top 4, none of them are going with a 24yo #1 marking forward.  Brisbane have targetted Daniher because McStay is not really good enough.

I'm leaning towards yes on Ben Brown.

15 minutes ago, Pollyanna said:

I'm not fixed one way or the other on the Brown trade.

I agree with @DeeSpencer that Weid is a #1 forward. But the problem is that his body isn't quite there yet. He was very good in the middle part but dropped off in the last part of 2020 because of this.  This was exacerbated because he had minimal support. TMac and Jackson out and Mitch Brown not consistently drawing a tall defender away.

Next year we could have a combo of Weid, Petty and Jackson which would cause tall defenders to need to split attention.  But again all are immature bodies unless Weid really comes on over summer.

Alternatively Ben Brown, Weid and Jackson.  With Petty playing back in place of OMac/Tomlinson.

There's not any real fwd defensive difference between Weid-Petty and B.Brown-Weid combos.

Look at this year's top 4, none of them are going with a 24yo #1 marking forward.  Brisbane have targetted Daniher because McStay is not really good enough.

I'm leaning towards yes on Ben Brown.

Good summation of the situation.

I too think we need to build around Weid as no.1 option, putting some faith and confidence in the kid to go to the next level. I absolutely think he can do it based on what we saw this year. His discipline and attack shows he has what it takes. Now its just a matter of continuing to build on his body while improving his forward craft/positioning.

Petty may well come through as a forward option next year. But in terms of the potential, the sample size is incredibly small. I think with Oscar most likely leaving we will need some taller back depth and we know this is Petty's natural position.

So yes I am all in on getting Brown. It appears he is the best and most attainable option out there for what we need. We need to sure up our back and fwd tall stocks and get some insurance if both McDonalds depart.

3 hours ago, Demon3 said:

With the confirmed news that Tom Mc will be moving on ( if a club wants him) then i would think and hope (but this club.. not expect) they have a pretty solid and good understanding of what they will get to cover his position. 

In all likeliness, Gawn will ruck and drop across half back, Jackson will ruck fwd  half and roam, Weid will be teh CHF.. i think they need an anchor, lead out of the square fwd. Brown is that. 

It seems clear to me that we've agreed in principle with Brown and his management, and that's why we're now being open about trading McDonald again.

I'd expect Brown to announce us as his preferred destination in the coming days.

3 minutes ago, A F said:

It seems clear to me that we've agreed in principle with Brown and his management, and that's why we're now being open about trading McDonald again.

I'd expect Brown to announce us as his preferred destination in the coming days.

I tend to agree AF

8 minutes ago, A F said:

It seems clear to me that we've agreed in principle with Brown and his management, and that's why we're now being open about trading McDonald again.

I'd expect Brown to announce us as his preferred destination in the coming days.

yep agreed. However I can’t see Brown coming out publically until we think we have a genuine taker fr Tmac. We can’t afford to have both of them. Brown would  limit his options if he chooses us and we then pull back. 

10 minutes ago, A F said:

It seems clear to me that we've agreed in principle with Brown and his management, and that's why we're now being open about trading McDonald again.

I'd expect Brown to announce us as his preferred destination in the coming days.

I agree with this.

I'd also say that given Pickering mentioned Dees keen on Smith this one is a fair way down the road as well.

You need to read between the lines with these types of things until the news comes out.

12 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

yep agreed. However I can’t see Brown coming out publically until we think we have a genuine taker fr Tmac. We can’t afford to have both of them. Brown would  limit his options if he chooses us and we then pull back. 

I actually think Brown nominating Melbourne makes McDonald seem more appealing to other clubs, particularly if those other clubs see Tom as a defensive option.

57 minutes ago, Pollyanna said:

 

There's not any real fwd defensive difference between Weid-Petty and B.Brown-Weid combos.

Look at this year's top 4, none of them are going with a 24yo #1 marking forward.  Brisbane have targetted Daniher because McStay is not really good enough.

I'm leaning towards yes on Ben Brown.

If Hawkins, Lynch or Dixon were 24 I think those teams would be pretty happy going with them as the number 1 guy. And the Lions surely hope Daniher rediscovers the form he was in when he was 24! 
 

If we don’t bring in another tall forward I think plan A could easily be going small with just Jackson and Weid and hoping Melksham finds his form again. Plan B would be Petty, likely in Melksham’s spot, and I think there is a defensive upgrade there over Brown/Weid. Petty has very good agility, even without great pace he can make the quick changes of direction to cover an outlet. One of Brown or Weid up the ground just won’t cover off or make that crucial tackle 
 

In their respective age 23 seasons, Dixon kicked 24 goals from 14 games. Hawkins kicked 27 goals from 18 games, and Weideman (this year) kicked 19 goals in 13 games. 

You're right, he's just not big enough at the moment. Will he be? He's never been the power athlete Dixon and Hawkins are/were, but has the class that those two may not. 

14 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

In their respective age 23 seasons, Dixon kicked 24 goals from 14 games. Hawkins kicked 27 goals from 18 games, and Weideman (this year) kicked 19 goals in 13 games. 

You're right, he's just not big enough at the moment. Will he be? He's never been the power athlete Dixon and Hawkins are/were, but has the class that those two may not. 

He needs to get stronger again.

He showed signs this year of being able to compete in the air against bigger bodies, but he still double-grabs too much for my liking.

If McDonald is leaving and Brown is coming in, Weideman needs to become stronger in the air. I'd be playing him up the ground and keeping Brown deeper.

17 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

Who in their right mind would WANT to play for the Bummers at the moment?

Its called money!

This year Weideman took 1.31 contested marks a game. Hawkins took 1.68 and Dixon took 2.53 a game.

But if you break it down, before Weideman became the number 1 forward (starting against the Bulldogs in round 13) he took 1.75 per game, whilst after that it was only 0.6 per game. 

His ability to jump at the ball and work one on one make him a very dangerous forward target, but he's not a wrestler at the moment and we suffer for it. Sure, he can do it, but we losing a lot of his ability as a player if you sacrifice him. 

In the end, I think the real elephant in the room is Fritsch, whose 'tallness' as a medium forward means that crafting a forward line with the pieces we have is very difficult. Without him you could play 3 talls (if one of them is Jackson) and let them all share the workload of contesting the long ball as a flexible trio who can all do it. But playing Fritsch forward means that you have to leave one of the 3 tall forwards out (because you can't play 3 talls plus Fritsch) and that means you probably need a single player to do most of the grunt work because they will draw a lot more of the footy against the heart of the defence. A forward line with Weid and Jackson is tall but also very mobile, but you lose that if you're asking for one of them to spend most of their game wrestling with 2 defenders. 

Personally, I'd have three talls (as long as Weid and Jackson were two of them) and three smalls up forward, and play Fritsch at half back. I think he's probably played his best footy at half back, even if he may think of himself as a forward.

Edited October 14, 20204 yr by Axis of Bob
Apologies for the word soup in the second last paragraph!

17 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

This year Weideman took 1.31 contested marks a game. Hawkins took 1.68 and Dixon took 2.53 a game.

But if you break it down, before Weideman became the number 1 forward (starting against the Bulldogs in round 13) he took 1.75 per game, whilst after that it was only 0.6 per game. 

His ability to jump at the ball and work one on one make him a very dangerous forward target, but he's not a wrestler at the moment and we suffer for it. Sure, he can do it, but we losing a lot of his ability as a player if you sacrifice him. 

In the end, I think the real elephant in the room is Fritsch, whose 'tallness' as a medium forward means that crafting a forward line with the pieces we have is very difficult. Without him you could play 3 talls (if one of them is Jackson) and let them all share the workload of contesting the long ball as a flexible trio who can all do it. But playing Fritsch forward means that you have to leave one of the 3 tall forwards out (because you can't play 3 talls plus Fritsch) and that means you probably need a single player to do most of the grunt work because they will draw a lot more of the footy against the heart of the defence. A forward line with Weid and Jackson is tall but also very mobile, but you lose that if you're asking for one of them to spend most of their game wrestling with 2 defenders. 

Personally, I'd have three talls (as long as Weid and Jackson were two of them) and three smalls up forward, and play Fritsch at half back. I think he's probably played his best footy at half back, even if he may think of himself as a forward.

I'd play Fritsch high half forward and wing, but I can also see the half back argument.

1 minute ago, Axis of Bob said:

This year Weideman took 1.31 contested marks a game. Hawkins took 1.68 and Dixon took 2.53 a game.

But if you break it down, before Weideman became the number 1 forward (starting against the Bulldogs in round 13) he took 1.75 per game, whilst after that it was only 0.6 per game. 

His ability to jump at the ball and work one on one make him a very dangerous forward target, but he's not a wrestler at the moment and we suffer for it. Sure, he can do it, but we losing a lot of his ability as a player if you sacrifice him. 

In the end, I think the real elephant in the room is Fritsch, whose 'tallness' as a medium forward means that crafting a forward line with the pieces we have is very difficult. Without him you could play 3 talls (if one of them is Jackson) and let them all share the workload of contesting the long ball as a flexible trio who can all do it. But playing Fritsch forward means that you have to leave one of the 3 tall forwards out (because you can't play 3 talls plus Fritsch) and that means you probably need a single player to do most of the grunt work because they will draw a lot more of the footy against the heart of the defence. A forward line with Weid and Jackson is tall but also very mobile, but you lose that if you're asking for one of them to spend most of their game wrestling with 2 defenders. 

Personally, I'd have three talls (as long as Weid and Jackson were two of them) and three smalls up forward, and play Fritsch at half back. I think he's probably played his best footy at half back, even if he may think of himself as a forward.

I have a similar view, in that Fritsch and Melksham are almost limiting factors in our forward half, rather than improving/complimenting it.

I would love to see Weid and B.Brown as the two pillars, Jacko roaming as he pleases and then 3 quick smalls. Assume Brown picks up the 20 odd goals Fritsch would kick, Jacko provides a better aerial contest and then we have room for 3 smalls.

I think we are a better side with Fritta and Melky out, provided we can find some proper smalls