Rhino Richards

You do! Nothing like watching the game! B)

No. Not at all. A coach can develop basic skill sets but he cannot teach what a person does not instinctly have and at 24 Miller is getting long in the tooth. If we were offered a early 3rd or 2nd round we should take it before the other party could change its mind. The reason you choose a player is what they can do for your list. Its hard to see where Miller would offer that Brisbane anything. WB is a possibility.

Rather than forming our own......

Quite possibly. I would agree. But I was curious why everyone had him pinned to Brisbane.

No they're not. He was drafted at pick 55 and has done little to suggest he should have gone earlier. As I asked before and did not get an answer.... which Clubs would legitimately look at a player with little football smarts, an inconsistent kick and being unable to take a contested mark. Hardly a legitimate sweetener. Gee this site overrates MFC players If we got a 3rd round pick. I would take it in a flash. He has had six years in the system and cant nail a game in a bottom dwelling club. BTW he is 24yo. He is at the cross roads.

Whitnall, 28, shot knees, perennial questionable fitness and weight issues, attitude problems, off field issues, struggled to get a game at Carlton and was Captain. No thanks.

Totally agree Scoop. There is nothing to gain by winning either of the next 2 weeks.

Name them and why would they want a player who has fundamental limitations in his football skills and in six years cannot command a spot in a bottom dwelling side ravaged by injuries. His experience at both ends of the ground have been failures I am sure Miller will trigger a bidding war! <_< No one in their right mind would trade their opportunity with a young draft player for Miller. If we do beeter than pick 55 it would be a steal. Brisbane will go after Miller becasue he is from QLd and a mate of Jonathan Brown. Might they consider what he woud actually bring to the club. Miller is a limited footballer who has hit his talent ceiling. His athleticism does not hide this. Jack Dyer once said about a footballer..." You cant make a silk slipper out of an old gum boot". It aptly applies to Miller. If any side were to get Miller it would more likely be through the PSD.

Why would Brisbane want Brad Miller? And why do people put trade deals up that are patently favourable to MFC with little or no benefit for the other side? CAC would be laughed at in trade week suggesting most of the trade deals mentioned?

And behind everyone of those teams is a dominating midfield. Your rucks need to be competitive. Sydney with just Jolly fell a little short. But your midfielde must be superior. Its where the game is won and lost. Your last sentence creams it. Geelong are 4 games clear this year....because of Blake and Ottens Its indicative of the hole MFC is in that we have to play him. For all his endeavour and effort, Godfrey is a disaster in the midfield. Lacking in pace, poor disposal and no peripheral vision, MFC will go no where in the midfield if it has players of that calibre. Would the leading teams like Geelong, Swans and WCE have a player like Godfrey in it? I doubt it. If it was not for the logjam of retiring players and NQR, Godfrey would be delisted. I would be surprised if a side seriously contending for the flag would pick him up.

Maybe he is not any good at AFL Jack. What's he done in the VFL this year with Box Hill? Newton has the skill set to make a go at AFL that Smith never had. Who are they?

Acknowledging those 84, his disposal will never be in Flowers league. And he will never have Flower's contested marking ability. He will be good for us and I am big fan. But having recently watching a highlights tape of Flower recently, time blurs just how truly sublime those skills were. Jones is a worthy holder of the No 2 guernsey as was Tingay IMO.

That may well be the case. But getting your hand on the ball first is negligible if you are tapping to a crap midfield. And MFC's midfield (Jones aside) has been pedestrian at best. Look at the statistics from the Carlton and Richmond games. White flogged them in the centre and how many clearances and possessions did our midfield get? When WCE had a flat patch during the year, Cox was still getting 30 tap outs and 16 possessions but in the absence of Kerr, Cousins and Judd, it did little to impact the result.

Ruckman are overrated. They few if any good ones. And if even if you have a Cox it wont help you if midfield is ordinary. A dominant ruckman is a hope and a nice to have. I think your assessment of whats needed is right. I would actually prefer a fit Cousins or Kerr or Judd to a gun ruckman.

Some of the criticism of Jones is unwarranted. He will have to be extraordinarily good to do that. Flower was something quite special from his first game in 1973. Jones is very capable and his progress for his age is signifcant. But he is no match on Flower and that is not necessarily a criticism of him. Flower was just a superior type of footballer that comes along rarely like a Hird.

The charge is rough play. We have the physical evidence of Farmers condition and the testimony of a trainer's observation. We have Baker admitting to an off the ball physical contact with Farmer. Lets see 1 + 1 =2.....

Correct. If we cant get a Dean Cox (I wish!!!), then we need a ruckman who is competitive to nullify the opposition rucks and make it a battle of the midfields. Our midfield needs to improve though. Correct Demon Dave. Nil. In both games against Richmond and Carlton White absolutely pants the opposition rucks and where was our midfield. They got absolutely thrashed. It only highlights that if you have an ineffective midfielder having a gun ruckman is neither here nor there as the superior opposition midfield will merely win the centre contest. ATM Our midfielders cant get the ball...period

I would hope we have more out the following week for Carlton. We dont want a sniff in that game or this one. Two games I would be happy to lose.

That bears as much logic and evidence as the Dr Haneef case. Farmer's history has nothing to do with it. It was an off the ball hit by one player on another player who was blindsided. There was no niggle at all based on the statements made. Correct Deanox. Many are missing that point.

Absolutely spot on Graz. QC you are missing the woods for the trees...big time.

I exercise a draft pick I get a player who has the potential to be good. I trade the pick I get a player who may never be as good as the one yo could have drafted but he is ready made to play. In both cases a team has improved their list based on what they believe they need to improve their list. So whats the problem? I dont see the benefit of restricting what you do with the PP. It merely restricts the recipient from doing what they believe is best for the list to succeed. And that compromises the system.

What I saw has nothing to do with this. Baker has admitted to making illegal contact with Farmer off the ball as you have accurately put. The absence of video evidence is disappointing but does not provide any reasonable escape of Baker from the crime. He does not have to reported for striking. In fact striking is not the issue. Its exactly the sort of act the AFL wants and needs to stamp out. And I dont think that Farmer lacked awareness. The Baker was deliberate, malicious, off the ball and targeted to catch Farmer unawares. It was quite possible if Farmer is tracking the ball in one direction, he may have had little chance to have seen Baker run from a peripheral vision. Clearly the point of contact validated that. By the looks of Farmer the contact was hard and fierce and off the ball. Its as repugnant as the Johnson incident.

In order to maintain the evenness of the competition I think there are benefits in the lower performing clubs getting a leg up with PP. But only with certain safeguards. i think abolishing the PP altogether cruels the legitimate bottom ranked side. The lottery system should reflect some bias in the system to ultimately support the lower rung club. I saw a post from another poster that outlined the probabilities that favoured the lowest ranked team against other teams. I think its important to remove the automatic entitlement to a PP just because you finish last. Its the automatic entitlement that creates the actual or perceived tanking environment. If you put that entitlement at risk then you reduce the incentive for sides to tank.

FWIW, the Johnson decision was correct. The Baker decision of seven weeks was a sensible and just move. For a much maligned group the Match Review Committee should be congratulated on these outcomes.

Agree. These days very few clubs would trade a priority pick. It would have to be a monster deal to do so. I dont see what benefit restricting the use of the priority pick what do.