Axis of Bob

Really good news. Dawes is a young key forward that allows us to keep (and learn) the structure that Neeld wants us to play. But, more than that, he's a noted leader on the training track and comes from a successful environment that has won a premiership. He knows what success looks like (just like Byrnes) so he will automatically be able to help set the standards that Neeld is demanding from the rest of the players. He's going to be a role player, not a superstar. He will be a cog that helps everything else work better, rather than a Mitch Clark type that is able to rip games apart by himself. And we know that he'll play that role because he's a professional that comes from a culture where playing your role is paramount. In addition we get 2 or the top 5 midfielders of this draft plus the best key position player (even if we have to wait a year).

Dawes' value would be beyond his on field contribution. Neeld is very strong on developing a culture, but I am 100% supportive of. On top of that, Dawes is a hard running and strong key forward who still has 6 years of good footy in him. We are very lucky because we don't need Dawes to be the pea (like the Dogs do) because we were fortunate enough to get Clark last year (which was an amazing move that I still pinch myself over), so we just need to provide a structure that helps support Clark. With Dawes and Pederson, we have a structure that could really work. Then we have a nice age spread with Hogan coming in next year as an atheltic, hard working gorilla forward. If we have the structure in place next year then we are able t just concentrate on improving the talent of those that make up the structure. For example, bringing in Viney plus pick 4 in the midfield, plus an earlyish pick next year,

If we pick him up it will be as a delisted free agent.

Maybe it's because you don't understand what a personal attack is. There's nothing wrong if someone says that they don't think he has any idea what he's talking about because they think his posts are worthless rubbish that are clearly designed to push an agenda that is insulting to the intelligence of Demonland. It would, however, be against the Code of Conduct to say that he's a complete dick that most of the site hopes soon dies of a quick, but unspeakably painful, venerial disease. I hope that I have helped you to understand the Demonland Code of Conduct.

The only thing between Gysberts and top level midfielder is his running ability. Unfortunately it's a pretty damn important part. He is exceptional in close and has an innate 6th sense around the packs, but he is very poor on the spread and running defensively. Neeld obviously rates running ability very highly because this directly relates to the team's abiltiy to defend all over the field. As it stands, he's offensively talented but defensively limited. If he was able to improve his running ability then he'd be a really good player. But they're looking to trade him, so I'm not confident that this can be easily improved.

I'd be OK with Rodan. He's a very good talent, but I think his running ability is a bit suspect. I'd be using him as a deep forward to provide pressure and a bit opportunism. Has good power and works really well in congestion. Just can't do it for long. If we can get him as a role player then he could be valuable.

And Lynch. They regularly play 4 tall forwards on the ground. That way the delivery doesn't have to be that good going forward because you always have a big guy that can make a contest. Then if we win the ball, we can move it on as quickly as possible and there will be another tall forward one on one. What playing 3 key forwards also allows is for us to keep our forward structure when Clark goes into the ruck.

Pretty excited about this pick. A tall, aggressive, contested marking forward who has the pace to separate and the running capacity to get to heaps of contests. We are trying to play a game that involves a lot of repeat efforts and being able to outrun the opposition. Hogan gives us someone who can run hard enough to get one out with his man, but also the size and talent to be able to dominate that one on one. Imagine him taking the 'running defender' while Clark takes the monster!

He really does look like an extremely smooth mover. There is definitely a theme with the players we are targetting. They are all very good runners. This continues the theme through the year of good runners excelling (Jones, McDonald, Howe etc) and poor runners struggling (Moloney, Gysberts etc). We play a very fitness based game, so getting our hands on high level runners certainly appears to be a priority. Barry is the rare type that has the combination of speed and endurance, so we'll see what we can do with him once we get him in an AFL system.

Nice work, Sandra.

GWS can take players from NT as part of their zone. What they can do is pre-list those players and then, if they want, trade them. Or they can just list them and not trade them. Melbourne have obviously said "We like a player in your zone and we'd like you to pre-list him and trade him to us as part of the Hogan deal". Make sense?

Another way to look at it is that, by not bidding on Viney, GWS has effectively traded us pick 3 for pick 26. So, the trade between GWS, GC and us is: MFC: In- 20, MD2, Viney Out- 3, 13, 26 GWS: In- 2, 3, 13 Out- MD1, MD2, 20 GC: In- MD1 Out- 2 If you look at all of those deals by themselves and each team benefits well. That's what a win-win-win trade is about.

What if it was said: Viney, Hogan and pick 20 for pick 3, 13 and 26? That would be the sweeter deal that we'd have to offer GWS to stop them nominating Viney. The way to get Viney at 26 was to offer something to GWS and GC to make it worth their while. All the deals between GWS, GC and Melbourne (including letting Viney go at 26) are linked with each other.

Tim Harrington (on Jesse Hogan): "We rate him extremely highly. We think he's going to be someone you can really develop a team around and with. That's a big statement about a 17-year-old, but he's impressed us no end." http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/149385/default.aspx

Because I could replace "you" with "me" and it's the same.

It was singular. It's not particularly relevant though. So you are reflecting 'industry experts' like Schwarz (ha!!) and talkback callers (ha!!). There's a reason Ox isn't working in a football club, but rather playing the LCD role on a talkback radio station. Citing talkback callers also doesn't help you. You don't know what is happening and your opinion, to a full time senior coach, is the same as my opinion on the works of Rembrandt - I'm allowed to have one but it's not worth anything. They don't care what your opinion on specific player trades is. They care about the things where your opinion is important. Things like member seating, event quality, possible improvements to membership services etc. These are things, as paying members, where your opinion matters because the club is selling you stuff (like a membership, event tickets, merchandise etc.). Your opinion on the implementation of key football department strategies is worthless, especially when you don't even know what that strategy is! How did the protests from Hawthorn members go when Trent Croad was traded for pick 1 in 2001? It didn't change a thing and, as it turned out, the members were wrong because they had no idea who Luke Hodge was.

Certainly wasn't a personal slur. I think it's reasonable to suggest that Neeld, Harrington etc. wouldn't consider your views on football to be worth listening to. They are part of the industry and you are a poster on a fan site. I'd be disappointed if they thought any differently. The point is that you don't know what's really happening. Nor do you have the skills that immersion in the industry would give you. And just because you have a bunch of people who are similarly misguided, it doesn't mean that it's worth listening to. It may make you feel better, but it won't make any difference whatsoever.

In the same way that I would note proclamations of the apocalypse from a crazy beggar that approached me on the street. I know that he's not worth listening to, although he's allowed to say what he wants. Just like you are allowed to say what you want, despite not being worth listening to.

Farren Ray ran a 15.3 shuttle run at draft camp. His running ability isn't the issue.

What?!?!?! That is ...... ummmm ....... an interesting interpretation of what is happening. Point 1- The difference between the merger vote and the drafting/trading of players is that one is a democratic process, while the other is a decision made by paid professionals who are experts in this specific area. The situations are related only in that they both involve football. It's like me saying that you can live on Earth, which is a planet, so you must be able to live on Mars because it is also a planet. Point 2- Dawes and Dangerfield weren't ever linked in playing ability. The only link made was: Melbourne considers a Dawes trade -> Social media campaign -> Ignored <- Social media campaign <- Adelaide selects Dangerfield over Ebert It's all about the futility of a social media campaign, despite your misguided belief that you are worth listening to.

The would be insane to factor that into their calculations. They are professionals. It's is their living. You wouldn't know a quarter of what they know about the situation, you're going by a newspaper report and you may "only rate it a 5% chance of happening". Imagine if Adelaide recruiters took the advice of supporters after they selected Dangerfield over Ebert.

Yeah, you can make a difference. You are the one that can turn the whole thing around. You are the one that can stop the club from making a bad decision based on rumour. You have information and the know how to know what's best and the club needs to know that you are the one to save them. If there's one thing that Mark Neeld rates when making decisions, it's the opinions of nuffies on Facebook. I'm sure that he reads it too, because that's an important part of his decision making process. Hero.

I'd live with pick 13 for Dawes. He's a 24 year old key forward who has demonstrated that he can play good footy. We've already had the development done for us and fills a hole that is tough to fill. Pick 4 is fairly land, but pick 13 isn't as bad as many are making out IMO.

I agree entirely. The player doesn't care which pick is given up, only the club does. It doesn't make sense.

When others were left uncontracted, Bail was offered a contract. I can see why. He's a great runner and he gives a proverbial. These are two things that Neeld appears to rate very highly.