Steve Harris on next season

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

May I add that earlier this year a AFL player survey was done by the Herald sun.

Pickett was in the top 5 most intimidating players in the AFL by his peers. Along with the likes of Archer, Brown, Hall. You need enforcers who make the oppostion run scared.

Big deal.

When you are fat and puffing you intimidate only your dietician.

I want someone who can consistently win the ball week in week out, maintain fitness standards, has the attitude and desire to win and abides by team rules.

Pickett fails or breaches them all.

[Guest bWell]

Big deal.

When you are fat and puffing you intimidate only your dietician.

I want someone who can consistently win the ball week in week out, maintain fitness standards, has the attitude and desire to win and abides by team rules.

Pickett fails or breaches them all.

And what, the kids can????

You've got to be joking! Get a clue mate.

It is a big deal. Melbourne need a Byron Pickett so stop bagging him. :angry:

[mauriesy 6,811]

I hate the fact that people want to keep young kids just for the sake of being young.

Young players may have more football life left but will they develop in to anything decent? 8.5 times out of 10. No!

Young players that show no improvement should be delisted. You can't have a team of young kids & string along wins.

Apart from the real figure being more like 5 out of 10, I don't believe that anyone is arguing that young players that show no improvement should be kept on the list. It is also poor form to mindlessly "bag" certain faithful players, but it's awfully hard to not discuss merits and career time remaining when you are looking at list improvement!

The young players you have mentioned (Garland, Bode, Neaves) haven't even had a decent chance to prove themselves. I can't quite work out why you chose them rather than more obvious players like Warnock and CJ, who have at least had a chance to show something. Garland was only drafted last year, and has far less time "in the system" than Newton, who has shown enormous potential but was an equivalent level draft pick to Garland two years earlier. To get rid of Garland now would be crazy.

A team must keep turning over its list to avoid getting too old (we already are) and to develop new players. Every marginal old player you keep for one more year is one less potentially good young player gone begging. So the question is not whether older players should get one more year just because they've got a bit of life left, it's whether 30-, 40-, 50- or 60-something picks at a 50% success rate offer better long-term potential than either players like Ward and Godfrey, who have shown they are turnover kings with limited skills; or young, still largely untried players like Bode, Buckley and Garland, whose games you can count on one hand. Don't forget some of our previous picks at the 40-60 level have been players like Bruce, Whelan, Bartram and Nathan Brown himself.

And I would like to remind you of our own success with rookies (Robertson, Ward, MacDonald, Carroll, Davey) and of players like Foley at Richmond, who was a rookie in the same year as Davey and looks like being AA this year. I'd love him in my midfield.

Sometimes young players, whether later draft picks or rookies, take a year or two more to develop, but they can still offer far more in the future than keeping Bizzell and Pickett for one more year and further "ageing" the list.

[Demons 32 235]

Yes this is true and I am for dropping Warnock and CJ over Bode. I really am.

What im saying is that just because they are old does not mean they should be dropped. The big GET OUT for me is Godfrey. Im sick of watching him turn it over every week for years. Ward I am fine to part with also.

However we still have a year or two of finals play from this unit. Don't cull them all. No matter how much everyone carries on. Pickett will be there next year, as will Yze (contracted). Bizzel is less likely but is a chance.

[Guest bWell]

The young players you have mentioned (Garland, Bode, Neaves) haven't even had a decent chance to prove themselves.

If they had shown improvement, they would have been selected more often.

I'm not saying drop them or keep them all.

All I'm commenting on is we need some drastic improvements on our list.

This may mean losing some of our 'older' guys but dropping them all would be a crime.

C. Johnson, Neaves, Godfrey, Brown, Garland, Bizzell or Holland (one of), Miller, Bode should be dropped or traded.

There's my eight.

I would also seriously think about trade prospects for Robertson. Although with saying that, displayed tremendous skill on the weekend. I think you'll find, due to the Coaching change, Robertson was given a new role to play more up the field. With this in mind & if he continues to play further up, I would like to see him at MFC next year.

But in reality, who really cares about all of this, I just wanna smack the Pies this weekend!

[old55 21,356]

Brilliant. I am 110% with you on this one.

Do you think we could get Nicho back in the Pre-season draft? That would be great!

[mauriesy 6,811]

What im saying is that just because they are old does not mean they should be dropped.

Talk of dropping players is meaningless unless you look at the other side of the ledger, which is either a trade or an extra draft pick or a combination of both. In the case of many of our old, marginal players, that will mean nothing but a late draft pick as they are essentially untradeable.

We have to take four (?) players minimum in the draft. That means four players need to go. I think the obvious ones are Ward (old and can't hit a target), Neville (young player who has shown nothing), Brown (retired) and Pickett (unfit and uncommitted).

Beyond that we either:

1. Delist more marginals (e.g. Ferguson, Warnock, Bizzell, Holland, Godfrey) for further later draft picks and/or a pick in the pre-season draft;

and/or

2. Trade a good player for an early pick (for a "potential Bate, Bell, McLean or Jones" ... not saying I actually want to do it). This is entirely dependent on what is offered.

Personally, I reckon the most versatile older player who should be offered one more year is Holland. The others can all go as far as I'm concerned.

[Kit Walker 207]

C. Johnson, Neaves, Godfrey, Brown, Garland, Bizzell or Holland (one of), Miller, Bode should be dropped or traded.

There's my eight.

Actually that's 5. Neaves and Bode are rookies so they don't count and Garland is contracted for next year.

[Guest bWell]

Actually that's 5. Neaves and Bode are rookies so they don't count and Garland is contracted for next year.

They won't be next year will they?

[mauriesy 6,811]

If they had shown improvement, they would have been selected more often.

Neaves and Bode can't have been selected up to now ... they were/are rookies and not even on the senior list! And why do you think Bode was promoted to the senior list last week ... yep, because he showed something!

All I'm commenting on is we need some drastic improvements on our list.

And you're going to do that by keeping some extra older marginal players and dropping young players like Garland and Bode?

For heaven's sake, Garland was picked up in last year's draft at pick 46. Give him some time.

But in reality, who really cares about all of this, I just wanna smack the Pies this weekend!

We all do! But I want a premiership in the next few years and we won't do it by hanging onto an ageing list.

[Kit Walker 207]

They won't be next year will they?

Are you saying Melbourne should only have 5 picks in the National Draft (or 4 plus 1 in the PSD) this year?

IMO Maurie is absolutely right. Ward and Neville are gone. Warnock (if he's out of contract), Ferguson and Pickett are in real strife.

[Kit Walker 207]

Neaves and Bode can't have been selected up to now ... they were/are rookies and not even on the senior list! And why do you think Bode was promoted to the senior list last week ... yep, because he showed something!

Bode was named in Sandringham's best about 4 or 5 weeks running wasn't he?

[Demons 32 235]

Are you saying Melbourne should only have 5 picks in the National Draft (or 4 plus 1 in the PSD) this year?

IMO Maurie is absolutely right. Ward and Neville are gone. Warnock (if he's out of contract), Ferguson and Pickett are in real strife.

Do you want Sheedy? Because if your one of the people on here who do. Get over it with Byron. Sheedy will DEF DEF DEF DEF DEF DEF DEF DEF keep Byron. FOR SURE.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It is a big deal. Melbourne need a Byron Pickett so stop bagging him. :angry:

Let me see an overweight, undisciplined lazy and unfit footballer with a disdain for the team rules and a crap attitude.

Need lots of those!

[Guest bWell]

Bode was named in Sandringham's best about 4 or 5 weeks running wasn't he?

Yes. Or more. Bode's been great for Sandi but I don't think he'll shine in the AFL against a hardnosed forwardline.

Garland will be kept - But only for a year. And I guarantee, he will not play in 2009. Not enough skill. Sorry.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Do you want Sheedy? Because if your one of the people on here who do. Get over it with Byron. Sheedy will DEF DEF DEF DEF DEF DEF DEF DEF keep Byron. FOR SURE.

How would you know what Sheedy wanted?

And does not that damn your argument that Pickett requires someone else to motivate him when he cant motivate himself beyond his Club XVIII demenour?

[mauriesy 6,811]

Bode was named in Sandringham's best about 4 or 5 weeks running wasn't he?

That's why he was promoted, given Bartram's long-term injury status.

[jacey 333]

WE have too many depth playas. They need to be cut 6 of these depth playas.

Bizzell, Brown, Ferguson, Godfrey, CJ, Miller, Neville, Ward, Warnock, Wheatley, Pickett, Holland.

Bizzell's gone. Dropped when he wasn't playing bad doesn't bode well.

Brown's gone. Sorry.

Ferguson gone. I know Rhino doesn't agree but IMO MFC are playing him in hope someone will trade for him. Has played pretty good so far. Why else would Ferg be playing? Rhino.

Neville gone.

Holland/Warnock? One will go

Wheatley. Safe barring trade.

Pickett. ?. The ball's in his court. He needs to make a convincing case.

Ward/Godfrey/CJ. One, prob 2 will go.

Miller. ?. Trade or keep. Will be on a AFL list only for the pure fact his KPP.

[Kit Walker 207]

That's why he was promoted, given Bartram's long-term injury status.

Was somewhat of a rhetorical question. "Somewhat" because I was relying on memory not research.

I thought he did okay from limited game time on debut. Not overawed and a good tackler. With Whelan's injuries. another small defender is important.

[DemonTux 95]

Yes. Or more. Bode's been great for Sandi but I don't think he'll shine in the AFL against a hardnosed forwardline.

Garland will be kept - But only for a year. And I guarantee, he will not play in 2009. Not enough skill. Sorry.

In response to the comments on bode, just to clarify what you said, you want the club in a week to hire and give someone a promotion and after their 1st day firing them because they didn't bring instant results?

On a brighter note, it was good to see you were down at Sandy yesterday and saw how good Col Garland was... but then couldn't have been there otherwise you would be keenly aware of how good he was and how wrong you are.

[Guest bWell]

Pickett. ?. The ball's in his court. He needs to make a convincing case.

Good post.

Good to see your atleast giving the man some respect.

He will prove himself.

[Guest bWell]

In response to the comments on bode, just to clarify what you said, you want the club in a week to hire and give someone a promotion and after their 1st day firing them because they didn't bring instant results?

On a brighter note, it was good to see you were down at Sandy yesterday and saw how good Col Garland was... but then couldn't have been there otherwise you would be keenly aware of how good he was and how wrong you are.

No. Sorry, missed that game. Had better things to do than watch the 2's.

Was there Sat night though & saw Byron put on a clinic

And all I said was that Bode will struggle to get a game next year due to his height.

THAT WAS ALL..!!!

[deanox 8,633]

Garland will be kept - But only for a year. And I guarantee, he will not play in 2009. Not enough skill. Sorry.

your stupid comment to post ratio continues to climb, but this one got me...

do you know anything? have you paid any attention to the club in the past? you advocate keeping older players with average skills instead of developing the skills of younger players who at worst will most likely be capable depth players (in a similar mould to our current crop of nearly 30's) and at best could be players of the future.

then you make a stupid comment like this one?

garland is in his first year at the club. he is a long term project because of his lack of footballing background. on top of that you have seen that players get more than 2 years to prove themselves - CJ and miller are but two examples. the best example might be ferguson. you advocate keeping him because he is still developing (at 26 years old mind you) yet you want to sack a 19 year old kid who has been showing glimpses in only his 2nd or 3rd year of football and his first year at our club?

[Kit Walker 207]

No. Sorry, missed that game. Had better things to do than watch the 2's.

Was there Sat night though & saw Byron put on a clinic

And all I said was that Bode will struggle to get a game next year due to his height.

THAT WAS ALL..!!!

Byron was okay on Saturday night but a "clinic"? Some people are easily pleased.

Bode is 183cm, Whelan is 180cm and Pickett is 179cm. I would have though 6 foot is a good height for a small defender. Wheels certainly does alright at 5' 11"

[Guest bWell]

You will have to see won't you.

I hope he proves me wrong...