A bit late but

[youami 54]

From Round 22 2007 to Round 1 2008 Melbourne made 10 changes to the starting 22

In: Buckley, Neitz, Morton, Petterd, Garland, Bell, Moloney, Weetra, Wheatley, Davey

Out: Bizzell, Bate, Ward, Dunn, Johnstone, C.Johnson, Brown, Pickett, Ferguson, Jamar

I'm too lazy, but it would be interesting to compare the ages of the ins and outs.

One other interesting fact, 96 games were played by players who were either delisted or retired in 2007. From my calculations at this stage only 4 games have been played by those who may go, Neitz (3), Yze (1), Robbo is contracted to 2009 and there is doubt over whether white and whelan will continue. But the real difference between the Daniher/Riley 07 and the Bailey 08 is the amount of games Bailey is getting into the young blokes.

People are carrying on about Garland, Weetra, C.Johnson, Buckley probably more getting games, but would you prefer those games go to the Garlands (see above) or to the Godfreys, Wards, Fergusons, Picketts, Bizzells.

Although we havent won a game yet, I'm a big Bailey fan.

[Cards13 9,117]

Good points, I mean what is the piont of having blokes on your list if you are nto going to see if they can actually play at the highest level, the reason you drafted them...

I think the likes of Collingwood and West Coast seem to integrate 1st and 2nd year players better than most.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,952]

I can certainly see your point, but:

I would rather Pickett and Nathan Brown get games for Melbourne over Weetra and Garland because:

a) They'll assist us more in getting the 4 points. Brown was in career best performance late last year, while Pickett potentially could've been A-grade for us (he was in early 2006)

b ) Weetra and Garland are un-AFL like.

The reasons we were getting spanked in round 1 and 2, was due to the lack of Bizzels, Browns and Wards. Good for the future but depressing for the now.

I'm going to sit on the fence on this thread. While it's great to play the kids, I thought 2 of Ward, Brown, Pickett, Bizzel or Godfey should've been retained. Although Brown, Biz and Pickett retired, you would imagine MFC told them the writing was on the wall regardless.

[Axis of Bob 11,856]

If you keep two of them (ie the old players) then we don't draft the last two players on draft day.

These were McNamara and martin.

I'm happier with them on the list, thank you.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,952]

If you keep two of them (ie the old players) then we don't draft the last two players on draft day.

These were McNamara and martin.

I'm happier with them on the list, thank you.

And thats exactly why we have to be super patient this year and grin & bear the losses.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I can certainly see your point, but:

I would rather Pickett and Nathan Brown get games for Melbourne over Weetra and Garland because:

a) They'll assist us more in getting the 4 points. Brown was in career best performance late last year, while Pickett potentially could've been A-grade for us (he was in early 2006)

b ) Weetra and Garland are un-AFL like.

Bollocks.

Pickett finished as a shadow of an AFL footballer. An embarrassment. Nathan Brown gave his all but his penchant for turnovers and brainfades undermined him terribly and he was finished in the AFL. His 2004 year was better.

The reasons we were getting spanked in round 1 and 2, was due to the lack of Bizzels, Browns and Wards. Good for the future but depressing for the now.

No it was not. None of them offered us anything in 2008 and would not have adapted to the new game plan.

While it's great to play the kids, I thought 2 of Ward, Brown, Pickett, Bizzel or Godfey should've been retained.

Heavens above. If that aint a backward step.

Bob's right. You retain 2 of the very NQR footballers and you give up McNamara and Martin. I know what I got from those players and what you would get going forward. Its not good enough. I'd rather invest in the two players above.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,952]

Rhino, I'd rather see two of Brown, Ward, Bizzel or Pickett represent the club than Garland (not interested) and Weetra (clueless) when I go to the football on the weekend.

I understand from a list management point of view that they had to go, but I reckon a couple of the above blokes still had some juice in them.

[youami 54]

weetra and garland were recruited in the 2006 draft. Let's go easy on them. I cannot believe people have written two blokes off who are not yet in their 20s. We gave Ferguson to 26 to find out that he was no good.

also why in the world would you want to keep the dead weight that got released last year. the only bloke that had any right to stay on the list was nathan brown. the rest were going nowhere, and may have continued to had it not been for Bailey

the reality of the situation is that bizzell, ward, godfrey and ferguson all should have been gone at the conclusion of 2006, instead they played a total of 53 games in 2007. 53 games of experience that could have gone to players that we should have drafted in the 2006 draft.

that is an absolute indictment on the coach(es) and the recruiter/list manager.

[jacey 333]

I understand from a list management point of view that they had to go,

I don't think u do.

Ward, Godfrey, Bizzell and Ferguson were depth player. Pickett was a disgrace in 07.

We still have depth players that need clearing and you want to keep 2 of the delisted. The mind boggles.

[stretch marks 2]

Rhino, I'd rather see two of Brown, Ward, Bizzel or Pickett represent the club than Garland (not interested) and Weetra (clueless) when I go to the football on the weekend.

I understand from a list management point of view that they had to go, but I reckon a couple of the above blokes still had some juice in them.

Garland shows more interest than Pickett did in his final year in AFL Football.

[The Emblem 1]

weetra and garland were recruited in the 2006 draft. Let's go easy on them. I cannot believe people have written two blokes off who are not yet in their 20s.

I agree that Garland should be given more time to develop.

Weetra...maybe I watched his worst ever game for Sandy last Saturday . He was clueless bordering on being allergic-to-leather!

I am at a loss to fathom what he brings to the list....perhaps he is supposed to inject pace into the side?

If the game against Port is anything to go by then we should looking at Tomi Johnston. He was electric through the midfield and did some very very clever work. I could not believe that he's not on our list whilst Weetra is.

Admittedly its just one game, but first impressions are often the right ones. Tomi Johnston...similar age, only slightly less built, faster, smarter, better footballer, and more suited to DB's game plan going forward.

[Jarka 767]

BBP, we had to turn over the list and the right decision was made to delist those players. Sure an argument could be made that Garland is not up to it however that's an entirely different discussion, but at least the club now appears to be taking our list problems seriously.