deespicable me

I think he is in a similar class to Dawes and Pedo. If I rated them (and I can imagine others rating them differently as they are all pretty similar in that they have good upside but they can have games where their negatives can be glaring) then I'd probably put Casboult on top ahead of Pedo then Dawes (who never ever kicks enough goals to be considered a good forward). To give it perspective I would only have Cloke marginally ahead of Casboult, but apart from his game against us I don't rate Cloke. I don't understand why Carlton are ditching him, there must be more to it because he is a reasonable footballer. Mature forwards aren't easy to find. I reckon he would be a good pick up for the right team. For us we would definately need to move on either Pedo or Dawes, preferably the latter and considering Casboult is not a huge upgrade we couldn't pay Carlton or him too much to get him. Given this scenario I don't think we will go hard enough to get him. I reckon he is a great pick up though.

I hope we pick where Howe goes rather than him, depending on who can offer the best trade. As a member I don't think we should be bending over backwards to get Howe to his club of choice. Ship the #$$%^$@ off to the best offer.

This is true, especially 10 teams out of Melbourne. Unless the AFL can create a better equalisation formula they mose well send a couple of Melbourne teams to the wall. Wallowing down the bottom of the ladder is no fun. Actually I think they have a real problem in the two Northern states as well, and there are too many teams who can't stand on their own feet without AFL assistance. Queensland is a basket case. The Hollywood lifestyle of the Gold Coast players on money given to the club from the AFL is a bad look. Brisbane are really struggling to hold players. And no-one particularly cares least of all the people who live there who don't give a fig for AFL. And yet we don't have a team out of Tassie. Oh thats right, Hawthorn have rights there, we all have to leave that alone. Actually it's all a bit of a mess really. Thank goodness for TV rights

A lot of posters, public and most journalists and commentators won't agree with you but people should ask themselves "what do Hawthorn need to add to their team to be a top four contender next year?" The answer is obviously not a lot. Now ask yourself "What do Carlton or Brisbane need to add to their team just to get OUT of the bottom four next year" and clearly the answer is lots. And yet the difference in drafting scope for each team, apart from subjective pick numbers is very little. As good as Hawthorn is, and they are indeed very good, they are now in a position where they can pick and choose as managers parade free agency players in front of them and take their time developing a John O'Rorke, Will Langford, Sicily (gun) or Jed Anderson. Have ready made players on the fringe of the team like Schoenmakers, Simpkin, Hartung or that bearded Jesus looking guy (maybe it is Jesus) ready to go when there are injuries or rotations against weak teams. Hawthorn don't need high draft picks. Look at Carlton. Liam Jones. Vojo Rainbow. Watson. No forward line. And yes all those players they gave away to other clubs. With Henderson and Yarran, both around the 25 age mark and ready made footballers about to join the long list of players that are better having moved away. And yes like us, they were crap at picking, developing and holding onto talent. But that doesn't mean they need to spend the next ten years in and out of the bottom four. (as much as we wouldn't mind that scenario at all I'm talking about the health of the competition) But surely people can see given the system as it stands the people now in charge of Carlton and Brisbane will need to be almost geniuses to get anywhere near the top four in the next five or so years. I think thats pretty depressing and potentially very damaging to the health of the competition. So yes I agree, the bottom teams should get 2 or even 3 picks before Hawthorn gets their first.

I agree with your point, Hawthorn have been fantastic. But.. It is not a question of Hawthorn. It is a question of the AFL. As a governing body do they want a lopsided competition or an even robust competition? For the first time in a long, long time I din't even watch the game today, I find it boring. I would have thought if the AFL drew up a charter that stated what they stood for and their responsibilities, they would have near the top that in the next ten years the governing body should strive to create a competition where we have ten different premiers and eighteen different grand finalists. Now I know this would be close to impossible to achieve but at the moment I think we are so far away from this ideal that the whole competition is bordering on being non-competitive. At the moment it is a contrived corporate politicised competition. The game needs to be given back to the fans, the fans of all clubs should become the number one priority for the AFL, not just a chosen few.

I like that we're moving him on. AI don't think he will hurt us at another club, he's just not that good and hopefully he can become a servicable player and remain on THEIR list for a while

That's how we ended up paying too much for too long to Dawes and Lumumba. Then Howe says pay me the same as Lumumba and soon enough you have a lopsided pay sheet and disgruntled players. People have been critical of Watts and Howe and in many cases happy to shift them off with the hope of an upgrade, but in an ideal world I'd keep those two and trade out Dawes and Lumumba. Who knows you might even get some spare change back as well. Having said that I think we are getting our payments in order. At least I hope so. I really don't want to lose one of our young guns. The only upside of paying Dawes and Lumumba overs is their next contract will be significantly reduced leaving money for those up and coming stars.

You must clearly be a fan of the bottom realms of the AFL Ladder as well then. You must clearly be a fan of Hawks continuing their dominance of the AFL competition and the Box Hill Hawks continuing their dominance of the VFL competition. Like it or not the lower teams need compensating or you wont get the cyclical movement up and down the ladder. You need to give the lower teams the ability to improve their lists. They need high draft picks to not only bring in young talent but to trade to the higher clubs for ready made players. The higher clubs already have a good list. They just need to control their cap spending, keep a good spread of ages through their list and tinker with a mix of draft and free agency. A pick 50 has as much chance of being properly developed on a good list as a top 5 draft pick. The lower teams need talented youngsters or well developed mid range players to improve their lists. The main reason the top clubs want an untainted draft as you suggest, is not so much about improving their own lists as it is about holding the bottom teams exactly where they are. Down the bottom. The public are being fed propaganda suggesting the competition has the ability to even itself out. It doesn't.

I think he has gradually improved almost each year and I don't think he has reached the peak of his potential, so I don't mind if the club holds on to him. I don't think he has the ability to make us a better side when we are losing but I do think he can make us a better side when we are winning. If Roos and co can get the side winning more often then Jack will be a lot better player.

I think we should put in a petition to stop him commentating Melbourne games. Not spiteful like he is. Just reminding Foxtel who their audience is and why they would choose to upset them so. I've always thought that why if you are commentating so many games of one side and you knew who your audience was that you would be so derogatory to their team. Why can't Foxtel get someone like Schwartz or a Melbourne person or someone who actually likes Melbourne to commentate Melbourne games. I mean not only were there not many at the game but the TV audience would have been low and primarily Melbourne supporters, we were happy enough because we won but when we lose and he is commentating he is boring and repetitive just sinking the boot in, quite often when the audience would again be primarily Melbourne supporters. I'm not suggesting something like Ed TV but his commentary is like the opposite of Ed TV to a Melbourne supporter. Hit him where it hurts and get him out of a job. It's only what he deserves.

And if thats not enough throw in Jimmy, out with the J's in with the H's

I like them both. Jack and Jeremy for Harley and Hall, has a certain ring about it.

Interesting discussion. I think because the top teams are generally tweaking their lists and trying to get age demographics right and maybe trading for a certain type of player almost as depth or insurance etc yet bottom teams are looking at big gaps in their lists and cleanouts and total list reconstructions etc (what were we on last year, our third list rebuild or something), then the bottom teams should get the means to do this, ie good draft picks. Gives those weaker clubs a bit of extra leverage and bargaining power around this time of year, helps them rebuild quicker, makes it a touch harder for the stronger teams to stay near the top, and you get a more robust competition. I may be wrong, Bullies being an example of good recruiting and getting the right personnel on board to coach and develop talent. Even Richmond who have been patient in holding and developing their talent over a period of years without assistance are both examples that would go against the call for extra assistance for lowly teams and sets the example for those posters suggesting we do it ourselves. I don't know, its a good discussion, I just wish it was our turn to rise, or as some may say we make it our turn to rise.

I hope you're right Chris. I hate Carlton as much as the next bloke but whenever this comes up in the media similarly to our request last year the so-called unbiased media experts all shoot it down in flames. The latest talk that is getting a good run is that compensation picks for free agents should be scrapped altogether. Where are the discussions that Hawthorn with three homes, the whole state of Tasmania to pillage and the fact they can cherry pick a free agent like Frawley for $450.000 a year when we would have had to pay $600.000 to keep him, or Geelong with their sweet Stadium deal or Collingwood who basically say when and where they will play and just keep banking cheques, where are the real discussions about true equalisation, because an extra pick at the moment is nothing compared to the run these larger juggernaut clubs are getting.

I don't think any team or more importantly any group of supporters should have to go through what we've been through in the last decade. (except of course Essendon supporters). The AFL needs a robust competition with turnover at both ends of the ladder. A 3 peat for Hawthorn is boring. I still reckon the best way to equalize on-field fortunes is through a compromised draft, ie by pumping draft picks into the bottom clubs until they rise. I think Carlton need a lot of help.

Didn't you guys see Viney on the weekend. If you remember at the start of the year hardly any of his possessions ended in a Melbourne players hands, he has come a long way. I'd suggest he's actually ahead of Sam Mitchell at the same stage of his career and every chance of becoming a better player by the end of it, hopefully just as decorated. Its all very well to be critical especially when we play like we did against Carlton and Essendon but give some credit to the coaches, I reckon they would be tickled pink with Viney's game on the weekend. This is just one of those negative threads that goes nowhere. Stuff Sam Mitchell, I wouldn't trade Viney for him even if he came with a first round draft pick. Some people go looking for gold when they have it lying around in their own back yard!

I blow with the wind. I think a lot of us do. Today was great. We showed great promise and considering some of the players out of the side it was a terrific effort. But geez we sucked against Carlton. It's fantastic to end the year on a win so my yo-yo feelings towards the Melbourne Football Club are optimistic and we can all look forward to the new year with hope. Imagine next years pre-season reports! But I am still wary of the teams split personality.

I prefer Salem running off half back to Yarran. Salem will hopefully be a much better footballer than Yarran, and I rate Yarran. Save the money and give it to Salem when he's got a couple more pre-seasons under his belt. Keep developing our own talent.

The first quarter umpiring was one of the reasons I get so frustrated with the "great" game. Its hard enough going over there playing against the top team, home crowd and getting an extra advantage by the umpiring. Many of the decisions were 50/50's. I think "would they pay that free against the home team" answer NO Would they pay that decision at the MCG against Hawthorn. Answer NO Then why the !@##$%$%&*^ pay it against us. Really the bias doesn't do anyone any good. Freo were flattered to get away from us so easily, but when they come over here and the bias goes the other way, they will get a similar result to what we got yesterday. Bias in umpiring is one of the biggest issues facing the game, and still its a taboo subject. A good side will generally score from an umpiring decision and only good sides can overcome bias. We were biased for in the 3rd quarter last week against Carlton and it got us back into the game.

I still think Cale Morton will make it.

Gee, not for me. I think he's a fairly ordinary footballer. I haven't seen that much of him but what I have seen I would have thought theres a strong chance he could and should make it to the pre-season draft. Pick him up for peanuts. Play moneyball. I mean look at Saints with Hickey and Bruce, they didn't pay overs for players I'd rate above Lynch. I'd rather find another Vandenberg. I'm not too sure he's that much of an upgrade on Dawes or Pedo. Oh well, I hope we don't pay him too much or offer him too many years.

Garland is pretty good one on one albeit he has got pinged a few times for wrapping arms around qpponents. On any one day he is generally never the worst of our back six and has had very good games when he only has to play his role. He suffers as many do, not just Melbourne defenders, when we are under the pump and losing because he generally just goes back to old habits of just stopping his player when perhaps the team needs someone to step up and attack off half back. I reckon Garland is a smart bloke and he has lived through such club horrors that the self preservation instinct kicks in and he sort of thinks that if he just takes care of his man he can't get overly criticized. I think Grimes sometimes plays that way when we are getting pumped. I would like to see him play with a bit more freedom if he gets the chance and we actually start winning more games than we lose, (a couple of big ifs). He deserves that. I hope he wants it for us and himself rather than the answer to the question in the change rooms when someone asks how do you go about playing better footy and it seems like they all say "go to another club". I think Suckling would be rubbish at Melbourne, under searing pressure his passing would go to crap. I would like to keep Garland and hope he would like to stay and the club and he can agree to terms. But I think that of most players. I hate free agency.

I don't think it's entirely the fault of individuals. As with Hawthorn when they lose a couple of players and a player comes in to the team as depth, they are told in no uncertain terms what to do, where to run, who to cover etc. They have a winning culture. When they are tested they dig in and fight back. There have been at least two examples of their resolve this year. The biggest disapointment on the weekend was the last quarter. This was when our losing culture shone brightly for all to see. We are showing signs of improvement in 3 of the last 8 quarters we have played, but our mistakes and lack of desire to hold on in the last quarter was shocking. This goes to the responsibility of the leaders and not the lesser players. Old habits aren't necessarily the fault of the individuals that people seem willing to highlight week in week out. In fact I would think that swap a Matt Jones into the Hawks line-up for a day and there would be no difference to their result. I saw two instances of this. One when Dunn was kicking out and the other when Watts turned it over in the last. Jones and McDonald in both instances were walking with their back to the play and crowding space. I've never seen the Hawks or any good team do that. If you're in range of the kicker you either make a lead or shepherd or get the $$$3## out of the way so someone can lead into the space you're clogging up. Jones was actually by himself but was tired and didn't even want the pill. Thats our leaders. Thats our culture. I'm not saying trade out Jones or Mc

I would have thought Ed himself would have pulled it. Surely he is embarrassed by that performance. Daicos was O.k and at least tried to be rational. left Melbourne alone and just talked about Collingwood. Tony Shaw should never see the inside of a commentary box again. He was boring, ranting, objectionable and by my count (I didn't really) thought the free kick count should have been 68 to 0. He was terrible Peter Hellier hadn't done any homework for the job and thought he might get by with his casual wit, and clearly didn't. Had one joke repeated 7 times about the "Straunie" pocket.

I actually think Brisbane probably should get a priority pick as I thought Melbourne should have in previous years. But let me indulge. There is Capitalism, or no restrictions for the rich, even concessions for the rich to prosper as they then filter the money down to the workers. There is socialism which is everyone should have access to a fair go. Even playing field. Then there is Equalism which is where a governing body actively interferes in order to raise up the less fortunate and restrict the powerful to somewhere in the middle. Again please bear with I am not trying to be condescending I just think for my argument it is important to establish three different styles of governing. It is worth noting that the equalisation fund is very close to what it intends to be. The AFL have identified using a formula the poorer clubs and those clubs receive more each year than the richer clubs. For example I think we get 9 million per year where Hawthorn or West Coast get ???, I'm not sure but not as much. That is equalism. But I have a feeling the rich clubs may have signed of on this equalisation funding model under the proviso of keeping the draft "pure". This is where I think the AFL need to recognise that if you actively engage as a governing body to equalise the competition on field you will get a much more interesting and robust competition. The consequence being all 18 sides can and will survive. So I'm actually all in favor of Brisbane getting a priority pick. But I'd go further. I don't think Hawthorn should get their first pick till around 30 or so. Their second may not come in till 60 or so. For me the way it should work is by key factors as in the equalisation fund. ie when was the last time the team played finals. When was the last time the team finished top four. How many years has the team been in the bottom four. etc Then break up the ladder into performance indicators ie bottom 4 (18 to 15), Bottom half (10 to 14) (5 to 9) and top 4, and from there give out a sliding scale of picks. So if Brisbane finsh bottom with 2 wins they might recieve picks 1 then pick 5 and maybe depending on other triggers a further pick before the top four teams get their first pick, say pick 17 or so. Melbourne by fact of their fantastic bottom 4 representation (go Dees) and lack of finals appearances over the last 10 years if they finish 15th with 6 wins might get as worked out by the formula picks 4 then a pick between the bottom half and the 5 to 9 group so a pick that might come in around the 13 mark. Carlton might get pick 2 then a further pick at the end of the first round before the top 4 and if they show little improvement in 2016 and finish bottom 2 they might get picks 2 and 5 etc. I know it sounds a bit complicated but thats because every extra pick you give out pushes everyone down the list but to give an example Brisbane 18th 2 wins, second year bottom 4, last played finals 2002 receive picks 1,5* 17* 31, 61 etc Melbourne 15th 6 wins, fifth year bottom 4, last played finals 2000 recieve picks 4, 13*, 18*, 35,65 etc St Kilda finish 11th 8 wins, haven't played finals since whenever recieve normal picks with an extra pick end of first round or maybe a second round pick straight after their pick in the second round. Geelong say they finish 10th, because of their recent successes obviously don't get any assistance and just take their place in the queue for draft picks Hawthorn blah,blah end up with picks after priorities have been given out approx pick 30, 60, 78 etc This I think distributes talent from the draft reasonably fairly for an equalised system. Hawthorn who have a superb culture and can turn stones into diamonds are challenged to work with their picks to get them up to their high standards. Also due to the extra picks given to the lower clubs and their desire to look for a mix of kids and experience, all of a sudden a player like Shoenmakers (25 man bun) who was a fair player would be more chance to be traded out to a lesser club rather than winning a premiership with Box Hill Hawks. Well I hope that makes sense. it's what I believe. Just like the "equalisation funding model" does fairly well for clubs off field fortunes, I think a similar system for the draft would work to equalise clubs fortunes on-field.