Red and Blue realist

I assume you've got access to Champion Data stats that aren't readily found? I imagine that unfortunately one of our biggest culprits in losing one-on-one's would be Nev Jetta. The argument would be that yes Ben Brown should out mark him because he's 30cm taller, but that's too simplistic, why is Jetta trying to man up on someone way taller (it happens a fair bit) and the answer would be what GD67 was talking about. Unless you've got stats to say who our back 6 have lost their one-on-one's too (direct opponent or covering player etc.) then the OP having a shot at OMac and Frost may have little basis. Like others have done on here I think it's better to prevent the wound rather than focus on stopping the bleeding.

I think people are now discussing is that weakness because of our defenders or because of the way the team plays? For mine nearly every team would have the same weaknesses if the opposition is allowed to move the ball as quickly away from stoppages/the center and we've allowed lately.

I think it's a bit too simplistic to blame the defenders (not all have I agree) without looking at the whole picture. It's much like when the Australian Cricket team kept 'rotating' the fast bowlers when they were beaten and leaving the batsmen alone. There's another article on afl.com.au today about where we've dropped off lately, and it probably shows some of the reasons why it's so easy for teams to score against us. In a nutshell, in rounds 1 - 13 we averaged over 7 more contested possessions a game, 2.7 more points from stoppages and 4.2 more points from center clearances. Since round 14 that's changed so we average 3.8 less contested possessions, concede 9.8 more points from stoppages and 10.3 less from center clearances. Put basically we're allowing the oppositions to get their hands on the ball too easy, which then results in getting the ball quicker and better into their forward line, so it's easier for their forwards (and harder for us to defend). If we win the ball in the middle and around stoppages, it's harder for the opposition to score because they can't move it as quickly. No coincidence that Jonesy has been out for all those games and Viney also missed 2.5 of them.

I think the majority would have Lever in a heartbeat, it's just that most are now debating his cost/value. Realistically we can't sell the farm for one player because we're still going to have to pay guys like Tracc, Hogan, Gawn, Salem, the Macs and Oliver either by the end of next year or 2019. So we need ensure that we not only have enough to keep them, but also continue to invest in the future as well.

They should have been up and about as well - they were in a game they had no right to be - we'd just returned from Darwin, had 4 guys returning from injury who were going to tire and they'd just been gifted 2 goals, on top of this Gawn had rolled his ankle. I'd like to think that other teams watching our last quarter efforts would have more fear of their ability to get back into a game with us that if we had of just ran out winners by 10 goals. What we did to kill their momentum and win the game (while slammed by some as boring???) shows we do have the ability to put the contest beyond reach even under trying circumstances.

Agree with the all that you said, one thing I think we need the coaches to work on is for a better plan with our 'bail out' kicks. OMac and Frost, seem to kick their bail outs shorter than most and on 45 degree angles so seem very easy to read. With time i expect they'll get better, but it's also up to the coaches to get them there and provide a plan for those pressure kicks. Leave the creativity to Hibberd or Hunt, or like Frost does often, tuck the ball under the arm and sprint out of trouble until they can go for those easy targets.

I liked him as well, hopefully he's matured a bit from when he was with us. I heard very early on that, nearly the opposite to some indigenous players, he actually liked the Melbourne lifestyle a bit too much and might have been focusing his efforts elsewhere rather than his footy. Maybe returning home and engaging with his community a bit more has given him greater perspective and if he comes back he'll be prepared to give it his all, in which case I'd happily give him another chance.

Doubt Adelaide would actually want a future 1st rounder, I'd imagine they'll be gunning to add something immediate to their team as they are well in the so called 'premiership window' and won't want to wait. We might need to get creative to move up the draft order if they want a really high pick, something like our first this year and a 2nd next year for a clubs 1st this year, meaning we might be able to give pick 6 or 7 instead of pick 14 or higher.

I wonder if we've spend a lot of time trying to fix our deficiency's on those other grounds that we've become less effective on the 'g. That should hopefully be pretty easy to over come, and possibly was put in place for the front half of the season, knowing we had more games away from home?

Well done with the amount of research that's gone into this! I wonder if it tells us anything, we won 6/7 on grounds less than 129m wide and then 2/6 on the G which is 141m. My guess is that when were on the wider ground we still have a higher possession rate but those possessions might be of greater distance (forwards, backwards or sideways) so our guys are expending more energy getting to the ball or give's us too much space in which to make error (then less space to minimise them)??? Maybe we'll see more direct play tomorrow night because of this.

Make's you wonder why they do it, or why this hasn't been called to attention earlier. If I were a supporter of those clubs then I'd be furious and lose a little trust that the clubs there for the supporters not just using them. I can understand the supply vs demand aspect as long as clubs don't go overboard, but only when a sell out is likely and fans are then compensated when lower attended matches have there prices reduced.

We had the chance to do it on Queens Birthday and I'm not sure if was from respect to Danners Fight MND, but we didn't. This isn't correct, I don't think any of the teams you've mentioned there WB, St K or WB have reached capacity at any of their home games and they've still used it. Same as Carlton, they got around the same crowd to their home game vs Essendon as we did the week before as a home game against them, but Carlton have used the pricing 5 out of 6 games. Maybe what we can't afford to do is shaft supporters while we're building something special. No point turning off those who might be just starting to support us or re-connecting with the club.

Well done to the Dees for being the only Victorian club not to slug an extra price on reserved seating on any games so far this season. A lot of other teams have done so every game or for their bigger games. Shows we're in a very good position that we don't need to exploit our fans anymore than the AFL already do!! http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/clubs-are-exploiting-fans-by-increasing-the-price-of-reserved-seating-at-games-afl-fan-association/news-story/bb765bc6da860e9f060592144f3cb8bc

Of every club, not just ours. In fact he's just about second in line to Rance as a key defender. If he does leave there'll be a big fight between just about all the Victorian clubs I'd think.

Yes, I'd imagine they'd be happy to 'let' Trengove go in free agency if they could guarantee a 'first' in return. Similar to the Vickery deal, if we front loaded the deal it would not only help our longer term player payment structure but also inadvertently (take that anyway you want too) push the deal into the higher compensation bracket and net them a better draft pick. They wouldn't be getting our first, we'd keep that, it'd be a compensation pick. At worst no loss to us, at best we get shuffled one pick back in the draft.

Simply, no. Carton don't really need anymore key position players, unless Casboult walks, plus they'll still want significantly more for Gibbs. I think if Lever comes to us and Gibbs goes to the Crows it'll be separate deals, or involve draft picks rather than players going back to Carlton.

I really think Trengove would be a great fit for us, and means we don't have to give anything up to get him. Have heard they might actually be happier for him to go so they can get the draft pick having traded away their first round pick this draft last year. Would cost less on-going than Lever as well, so like some have suggested we could front end his contract then have room for our younger guys coming out of contract in the years after that. Might end up a bit like the Vickery deal, except Tregove isn't a spud.

I think the big thing he's put out there this week is that he's making the decision with his girlfriend. So as much as he might love the club, be a future captain etc. As some others have said sometimes there are other things in play. As he's off contract then the price will be high, but not astronomical like you think. A first and maybe a later pick or player. Remember Dangerfield went for a 1st, a 2nd and Dean Gore (young player who hand't played but had a lot of good wraps). Lever while good, would command something less than Danger.

It seems like the Herald Sun, listens to what Gary Lyon and Tim Watson say on SEN, then add 20% and report it as credible news. Really just sports tabloids. I agree that we need to make sure we've got enough in the kitty for the players you've mentioned plus we've still got a few out of contract this year that I'd liked to be tied up sooner rather than later, in particular Salem. If we could manage to make sure we don't cause ourselves future salary cap issues, then Lever would be a great get at the right price of course.

It's still a position we're pretty stacked in, and I don't really see Motlop as being anything other than a high-half forward. For the amount we'd have to pay him, I think we've got more pressing needs. I'd only say yes, if we knew for sure Kent wanted a trade, Motlop only wanted say $400k and the coaching staff see - Tracc, Bugg or ANB playing more midfield or Harmes more defense.

Motlop is a free agent, so no need for any of the trades you've mentioned above. While his best is very good and could work well, I think he's best suited to a position that we seem to have plenty of at the moment, the high half-forward role. We've got ANB, Harmes, Hannan, Tracc, Bugg and to a lesser extent Garlett in the team (from last round) in that role. Plus Kent, JHK, T.Smith at Casey and VDB and Brayshaw (although he's a pure mid long term I think) injured at the moment. We've got more pressing needs going forward I would think.

He just re-signed last year, I think we had a fair crack and he decided to stay. Plus dealing with Essendon would cost at least our first this year and next, Brayshaw, Tracc, Oliver, Gawn, Hogan and Viney.

Don't get me wrong, I think he's a very high quality player in particular in his primary role. However, I think with the way we play he'd be asked to be part of the zone more often than not, and he got caught out a couple of times having to double back or zone off (as someone mentioned earlier he got done over by Garlett). So I think he might not work fully with our game plan. Plus the cost would be high - both $ and acquisition (draft picks/players).

I thought this before the weekend, and given our set up this has confirmed it more so for me, but May while a very good player, is more a stand next to a gorilla and nullify them, rather than fit into a zone and be able to play on bigs and smalls. He is a very good full back, but I don't necessarily see him as also potentially a CHB or 3rd tall. Given we're very much into the zone structure we need guys with a bit more flexibility, Frost, TMac and even OMac can play all of FB, CHB and 3rd tall. I still think Trengove from Port might be a better fit to the way we play, plus as a free agent won't cost us as much in what we have to give up. Might be the same $ but no draft picks or loss of players.

He'd be great but I don't think he'll actually leave, plus I think the price might be very high which some have pointed out could cost us in terms of either planning to replenish the older guys or cost us one of the younger guns. What about a free agent hit with Jackson Trengrove from Port? As far as I know he hasn't re-signed and would cover not only the key back spot but also offer ruck support if needed. I also think he'd play much better with the zone defense we're using, compared to May who's better just staying on the bigger guys.