Wiseblood

That would be a HUGE risk - it leaves us open even more to be completely run off the ground if we go too tall. I'd rather someone like Riley got the gig instead.

Ins: Watts, Hogan, Riley, Gawn, Newton, Fitzpatrick Outs: Dawes (calf), Salem (hammy), Michie (dropped) Watts and Hogan both named in the 18 which means they will play, one of the rest will definitely play. Raffle it from there if someone like Stretch or Toumpas is dropped as well.

Great to hear that Daniher is mentoring Goodwin at the moment. Brings a smile to the face after a tough three week period.

As long as Dunn goes nowhere near Crameri I'll be happy. He cuts him up every time. I'd put Vince on Murphy as that defensive half forward. He can still be smart enough to be a damaging player while limiting Murphy's influence.

He would tell them not to put any stock in what he is saying to the media. He would go out there, give a straight bat response and do his best work with the players when it really matters. They would know that I'm guessing.

Good point SS. Plus I don't think Roos puts too much stock in the media - he says what will cause the least amount of problems so he can concentrate on other things, rather than something controversial and have to defend himself for days. It's not worth it. Roosy no doubt tells the public one thing but tells the players something very different behind closed doors, and that's the way it should be.

The endless argument about who did and didn't play on Saturday highlights only one thing - Hawthorn's depth is a hell of a lot better than ours. They could cover the players who were missing, we couldn't. This is the crux of it, and until we change that with good draft picks and some frugal trading, we will always struggle when we are hit by a few injuries.

A good, reasoned response. Thanks jnr. I agree re: the senior players and their effort. Jones gives his all each week, and if Brayshaw and Viney can do it, why can't others? I hate the 'injured' excuse, but someone like Tyson, for me, is not 100%. We've seen what he is capable of, and they aren't just glimpses either. We've seen him string together numerous terrific games, and we aren't seeing that this year. Is he getting more attention or is he carrying an injury? God knows we need his clearance work and gut running abilities at the moment as we simply can't cover that. This weekends game against the Dogs will tell us more. Do we respond, or do we throw in the towel early? I'm nervous but quietly confident we can rectify what happened last weekend.

7 games in and we have a thread on a potential priority pick. Some posters on here never cease to amaze. This is pretty close to spot on. We've gotten our worst stretch out of the way and we will certainly win a few more games before the season is out.

So all the things you mentioned above were not evident in our wins over GC and the Tigers, or in our darn good performance over in Adelaide? We've seen it in more than glimpses, but the thing we lack is consistency. We can absolutely do the things you mentioned above, and to say we fail miserably at them is a gross over-statement, but we do lack that leadership to keep us on track and to put those things into place on a consistent basis.

Couldn't agree more Ron. I understand the frustration from some supporters, particularly after a promising start to the year, but I am 100% behind Roos and his belief that we will be in such a better place come the end of 2016.

And that's the crux of it for me. I think we have enough quality up forward to match it with most teams, but, we don't get it to them with nearly enough quality. We also don't get it down there often enough either. Our backline has shown it can match it with most as well. But our midfield can't compete and therefore the rest of the team can't compete either. A fix to our midfield was always going to take time, although it's disappointing to see us lose by so much regardless of who the opponent is.

Probably put pen to paper very quickly after watching our performance on Saturday arvo.

Not to mention Kent's looked horrible at the time. The club likes to be conservative though so I wouldn't expect to see Salem for a month.

I thought you only have a crack in retaliation? Hypocrite.

Someone is a little butt hurt. Take a chill pill big boy.

The burden of proof isn't on Nasher, it's on you. You're the one who has made the claim and not backed it up.

This article from the HUN is a terrific read: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-features/play-on-neale-my-battle-with-the-beast/story-fnl1gf6j-1227354646941 The Rev is just a genuinely brilliant bloke and he is facing this disease in the best way possible.

We've got Mark 'I worked with Malthouse and therefore that makes me great' Neeld to thank for that one.

An assumption you have yet to support I might add.

I have no idea how you can go from rolling Sydney, to losing to the Saints and then potentially beating the Dockers. Let's hope the up and down trend continues next week...

Harsh. I didn't say at any stage that it's a win for us, but to right off next week as unwinnable against the Dogs is wrong. If we get a few players back like Hogan, Viney and Jetta we instantly become a better side.

It then went straight back out to 5 goals again. Dockers are just holding them at bay. Next week the Dogs will start favourites but it's not unwinnable.

Are you trying to suggest you never play the man? Give me a break. And you post like a leech C&B - someone else will put forth a thought on something, generally negative, and you latch on to it with a vitriolic rant with paragraph after paragraph about how the player in question is horrible and that you're sick of the club and that we are going nowhere and on and on and on. It's the same over and over again. Col Garland is no world beater but he isn't even close to being the problem. Those guys we call a 'midfield' make things terribly hard for us at both ends of the ground. Until we get it sorted then teams in the top half of the competition will continually keep us at arms length.

Your over the top post on Garland contributed nothing, like you claimed Lamashtu was doing, and therefore both are related. I thought even you could see that. So if they already had plans they have to cancel them after a loss? Really?