mo64

I don't think the B&F list of 2013 reflects that at all. You have to understand that the game has evolved. What the likes of Garland, Terlich and M.Jones offered in 2013 was perfectly acceptable at the time, but doesn't cut it now. The other 7 on the list all had talent. Some have taken their talent elsewhere, some are still playing well and some didn't live up to expectations.

If Grimes wasn't a free agent, and another club had an interest in him, the club may have arranged a token trade to soften the blow. Being a FA, it becomes a pointless excercise. I actually doubt that Grimes will be picked up. The parallels between the careers of Grimes and Jed Adcock are remarkably similar. Both former captains delisted by their club. And after watching the VFL GF last week, the right call was made in both cases.

Too early to say. 3 years ago you would have said that they were all required players. If next year we're talking about BenKen, Melksham and Bugg in the same light, we've still got a way to go.

If Oscar Mac wasn't on our list, was there anything that you saw of him at VFL level that made you think he'd be an AFL quality kpp? I see more AFL attributes in Keilty and McInerney than I do in O Mac and Spencer.

I can't speak for the 800 odd players, but until an A Grade player nominates us as a preferred destination, there is no evidence that your statement is correct. In fact, we're still trying to get our highest profile player to extend his contract. Based on your beliefs, he should have re-signed ages ago. BTW, when we were a basket case under Neeld, we were still able to attract high profile players in Clark and Dawes. How things turned out with them is not relevant to your argument.

There's no evidence of a high profile player nominating us as a preferred destination, hence you can't say that we've improved our attractiveness. Collingwood don't have a 1st round pick yet are gunning for O'Meara. There's always ways of getting the deal done, but you have to land the fish first.

There's no evidence of that. And if a big fish did nominate us, we'd find a way to get the deal done.

The goal he kicked against Geelong last year was pretty good.

Billy Stretch is not only under-appreciated by the supporters, he's under-appreciated by the coaching dept. He's regularly been dropped after playing ok the week before, whilst other young players are given extended time in the seniors despite playing poorly. His ball handling, decision making and disposal is underrated. There's definitely not enough love for Billy on Demonland.

Our defense as a whole has been bad with or without Dunn. It's obvious to nobody what role any of our key defenders have, let alone what Roos expects of Dunn. Dunn is not the cause or the cure. The coaching is the problem. But the most demoralising thing for a team is to have a player that is clearly not capable of making a physical contest (O. Mac). Same applied in previous years with Watts. If Dunn is such a problem, give Pedersen a game. Anyone bar O.Mac.

That was just one game. Thought he was ok/good against North and Richmond in the weeks preceding. Dunn was probably frustrated and bewildered with our tactics against the Saints in allowing Reiwoldt to play as a loose man in their forward line. O. Mac has been hideous in every game he's played, yet retains his spot. Bewildering.

You've gotta kidding. On what basis? Strength at the contest? No. Disposal skills? No. Reading the play? No. Dunn was no worse than T. Mac in the few games he played, and miles better than O. Mac and Garland. If he has been ostracised for not adapting to our ridiculous zone defence, FMD, neither have any of the other key defenders.

Not sure about that. Melbourne definitely wanted to start negotiations, but Hogan's management deferred.

He hasn't.

Roos was on SEN this morning and was naturally asked about Hogan. He trotted out the club line that both parties thought it was best to put discussions on hold until the end of the season. Francis Leach picked him up on the "both parties thought it was best", and Roos came out with the standard, "he's contracted till the end of 2017, he loves it at Melbourne and the players love him". If it was about money and length of contract, that could easily be made public and answered with "the club and Jessie's management need to sought these things out at seasons' end". It's clearly not just about money, and the CBA argument is garbage. What I don't understand is why WCE have never been mentioned if it's a go-home factor? Every club would bend over backwards to make room for a potentially elite player. It could become another Buddy/GWS scenario.

Unfortunately that's no longer the case. We can't just trade Hogan to the highest bidder. If he decides to leave, he'll nominate a club, and we'll have to get what we can.

But not in the same week as we've had an interstate game. Family reasons are logical, but not necessarily a good sign. Didn't we give Scully some time off for family reasons? And didn't Scott Thompson want to go home for family reasons? I'm worried.

JB stated that if he stays at Melbourne, we wouldn't have to pay close to that figure, but more like $10m over 10 years. The $15m is what it would take for Freo to lure Hogan. In 5 years time, $1m per year for an elite player will be an average salary.

But in this instance, why would Melbourne grant the request? The club would back itself in the final year of his contract to persuade Hogan to stay. His manager could try to pull a stunt like McCarthy's manager, but look how badly that turned out for everyone.

I just don't see how this is remotely possible.

Exactly. The compensation MAY net you an A grader if you're lucky, but it's highly improbable that you'll land a potentially elite KPF like Hogan. Hutchy on Footy Classifieds got laughed at by Judd, Lloyd and Wilson when he suggested that Richmond should trade Delideo for a 1st round pick. That 1st round pick would probably come from a contending team, so you're looking at pick 12-18 for an A grader. Madness.

So you are saying that clubs don't make mistakes with trades? Melksham's CV dosesn't warrant the term "AFL grade flanker". That suggests that he's been a reliable player over several years. He may well have started the season ahead of Wagner and Hunt, but unless his form was an improvement on last season, he would have found himself out of the team. And Lumumba's CV far exceeds that of Melksham. I know what Lumumba has to offer. But I was in the "Garland is not in our best 22" camp.

It's funny how players are always rated higher when they're not playing. Melksham had an ordinary year last year, and the knock on him is his disposal. On exposed form, I don't think he warrants a place in our best 22.

Can't agree with that. His one-on-one play this year has gone backwards compared to last. Someone must have got into his ear after round 2, and he's been more effective by playing as a true CHF. Haven't noticed him drawing a 2nd or 3rd defender since playing as a CHF, but his benefit to the team has been far better.

One thing I've noticed since round 3 is that Dunn and T Mac don't stray up the ground, and pretty much play as stay at home backmen. We're not getting caught out with height mismatches as we were in the NAB Challenge and rounds 1 - 3. The zone in the backline has tempered, and even Wagner and Jetta don't stray too far up ground. Dunn and T Mac are our best 2 key defenders, and that will remain until O Mac develops.