Gator

Of course, Hogan's off-field issues may or may not have been impacted by his Father's death or his brief cancer episode. They may be completely separate to each other. Or they may not. In essence, all the club can do is make decisions on what his behaviour actually entails. Clearly, we've benefited from the decision to trade him and there's absolutely nothing to suggest he's improved his off-field behaviours. It appears worse, although it's well-known Melbourne did a good job protecting the player and the club's image while he was here. I'm only interested in the best interests of the club and they don't appear to be best served by revisiting the past with Hogan. In fact, we've made our decision.

He means Baggy Bob, not ''chap''.

AFL Trade Rumours @InformationAfl · 8m Collingwood have officially put Adam Treloar on the trade table and are prepared to pay part of his deal.

I like learning from experienced players that have played in premierships and been part of a rebuild. Players that have seen the whole journey up the ladder. And I particularly like listening to Luke Hodge. He talks sense and is straight to the point. Very recently he said that the difference between being a good team and becoming a flag team is recruiting role players. Obviously, the stars are already in place, but a handful of stars aren't enough if you don't surround them with players who can help complete the task. Think Hale, Poppy, Guerra etc. at Hawthorn. You really need 22 players performing their role to a high degree. 21 or 20 will leave you short and cost games. Richmond are a perfect example of how lesser lights who perform their role to a high level make an enormous difference. You only need to look at the top 20 of our B&F. There was a chasm between the top 12 and the performances of the rest. In reality, to win more games than we lost shows how good our better players performed, because they weren't being supported. I blame the lack of quality role players, but also the coaching panel, game structures, etc. I think we've got the core group of stars or very good players already on our list, but we're lacking quality role players to take us forward. A great core group, but not great/quality depth. Not every player we're looking at recruiting this trade period needs to be a star. They'll ALL have deficiencies that Deespencer can pick apart, but if we choose wisely we might just bring in players that can have a significant difference to our overall fortunes.

Do supporters realise there's a limited pool of players moving club each year ? Do they realise their club is restricted to those limited choices ? Do they want their list to improve ? You may not be overly excited by Polec, but do you think he'll make the list worse ? Who else do you think is available if you don't want him ? Ball butcher Phillips ? Who else ? Not to mention I reckon some people posting here have no great grasp on opposition players anyway. They see them fleetingly yet make concrete opinions based on small samples. Yet when one of their players is set to be traded, like Preuss, they're suddenly worth a pick in the 20s. What if I said to you we can recruit the player who's kicked the second most goals in the AFL since 2017 without giving up a heap ?

Out of courtesy to a player who spent many years at your club from the age of 17 you'd speak with him. It also may mean we're confident of getting Brown. Ultimately though, we let him go for a reason.

I think Polec is more damaging with ball in hand.

Posted in the last 10 minutes fwiw.

You're conflating eras. Not a great current team, irrespective of whether they win tonight, or not. However, they are a great great club, which is a different issue.

The Bulldogs aren't known as a great side. They had a great year. As I said, clearly we disagree. And there's no point having a backwards and forwards tennis match. I'll leave you to your opinion.

What ? That's what makes great teams great, i.e. consistently putting it together in finals. It's the very essence of a great team, which is where they've failed spectacularly. Clearly, we won't agree.

Selwood, Dangerfield, Guthrie, Duncan, Steven, Ablett, Simpson, Atkins Really ? Oliver, Petracca, Viney, Brayshaw, Langdon (who you failed to mention), Harmes, vandenBerg, Sparrow Steven is fat. Ablett hasn't played much midfield. Simpson has played 14 games. Atkins is hardly a quality midfielder and isn't even selected for tonight. Stack, Pickett, Caddy, etc. for Richmond also have question marks. It's easy to overrate others and underrate your own. I DO agree that we lack some depth. Hopefully Smith can balance it out. I reckon we're only one decent wingman short of rounding out a quality midfield.

Not for me. Just a team that had a great year.

His best role is as a defensive mid, as evidenced by his stellar 2018, which was kick started when he went onto a Bulldogs player in the second half. He's not a wingman and we may have Smith to partner Langdon. He's not a defender. Will he get back into Melbourne's midfield ? I don't think so. There's no room for Oliver, Viney, Petracca, Brayshaw and the emerging Sparrow plus Harmes. Could he be a defensive half-forward who hits the scoreboard ? He has pace, can take a mark and kick a goal. If he stays it's about the only opportunity I see for him. If Brayshaw stays I struggle to see room for Harmes.

Are you aware of their finals record since 2011 ? They're a good and consistent team, but they're hardly a great team and over recent years many of their finals teams have just been making up the numbers.

Yes, you are. Their first goal is to not be out marked. If they're constantly being out pointed by opposition defenders then your team is in a world of hurt. Scoring chains often start from defence. It's hard to retain the ball in your forward 50, build pressure and create forward 50 re-entries if your key forward is being out marked. Not to mention the opportunities that aren't being created for your smalls. How many contested marks do you think key forwards take on average per game ?

It's fair to say I don't overly rate them even though they're on the cusp of another flag. Do I put it down to 2020 being such an unusual year ? Great coaching ? Or the lack of great teams due to the affects of equalisation ? I suspect the latter with a sprinkling of the first two. Seventeen of the 22 who run out tonight were part of the team that looked cooked as they trudged off the ground having lost an elimination final to Melbourne in 2018. The new five are the flaky Stanley, a pacy small in Miers, the 8 possession/1 goal per game Rohan, third year improver 14 gamer Sam Simpson, and Dahlhaus, who's having a down year. They certainly addressed forward-half pressure and pace. But it's hardly a star-studded injection of talent. I'd like to be able to say that it shows the value of role players, but they're not overly inspiring fringe players, who'd be bottom 8 or 9 players at just about every other club. That said, who am I to argue ? They play a role and their team is in the GF. The bulk of the improvement must have come from the 17 who took their place against the Dees in 2018. Guthrie and Menegola have stepped up, while their evergreens have had good years, including career best years for Hawkins and Duncan. But it's fair to say I still don't overly rate them, although they are certainly well-drilled and predictable to each other (coaching). This brings me to my frustration re Melbourne. We really should be a top 4 side based on list talent. Yes, our depth may not be as good as some others and no doubt there was too much left to too few this year, but with a few savvy additions we really should be competing for top 4 next year. Fwiw, the departed five from their 2018 team are Tim Kelly, Abbott, Scott Selwood, Murdoch, and Menzel. As a collective, the five that have come in are definitely better than the five going out. Kelly has been replaced perhaps better than they expected.

From a disgruntled North Melbourne supporter: ''If Melbourne get Ben Brown for pick 23 that is such a ridiculous bargain and we are hugely losing that trade. I don't think too many people will be surprised when he comes back next year and wins the Coleman. The bloke is a top 3 full forward in the league, who had a down season in this mess of a year. I wouldn't trade him for a top ten pick but it seems inevitable that we are offloading him for a second rounder, so Melbourne (or whoever gets him) should be absolutely laughing. I've liked a lot of our offseason decisions, and nobody knows what's going on behind closed doors, but this one seems absolutely terrible from an outsiders perspective.''

I was at a supporters function a couple of years back with a senior employee and it's fair to say that the MFC did a very good job of keeping Hogan's issues under wraps. He was often an off-field challenge. There's a reason a contracted player was traded.

I wasn't comparing their careers at the same age, more-so when (good) key forwards start to regularly impact games of footy and elevate their career. Many start doing it in seasons 5 or 6.

I'd like 40-50 good games from Smith. That would be highly beneficial on a wing opposite Langdon. As a supporter, why would I care if he's given 2 years or 3 ? What's it to me (his length of contract) if he gives 40-50 good games ?

I'm ambivalent, but can see the merit, especially as I think the next two years are crucial for the club. Weideman starts next year as a 23 year old (is already) and it's his 6th season, which is the year many key forwards, such as Hawkins, really made their move. Big year for Weideman, big year for the club.

No. They got rid of Watts and Hogan for cultural reasons. They want to be a serious football club.

The bloke isn't driven by success. He left a team he thought was on the cusp of serious success off the back of a prelim to join a bottom club back in his home state. He let Tom McDonald take over as the big dog in the forward-line when he was still the main man. He's at best half-dedicated. Put simply, in football terms, right now he's a loser. The club won't entertain the idea, because they're not stupid.

Hogan is a particularly fine example of millenial fragility. It's a no from me.