titan_uranus

You assume in all this that Jackson had made his mind up prior to last year's trade period that he wanted to go home. How do you know that? He was barely 20 years old last year's trade period. It's not exactly incredulous to think that he might not have known what he wanted to do at that age. So long as he hadn't told us he had already made his mind up, we were always going to back ourselves in to convince him to stay. Who knows how likely or unlikely it was 12 months ago that he might have committed to a longer contract. Also, how do you know he never had discussions with West Coast?

He had a contract with us for 2022. He honoured it. That was the right thing for him to do. As Jimmy said earlier, your posts on the topic are incredibly childish from someone who should know better.

Getting in early before I forget: 49ers, Eagles, Chargers

If you accept the Club when it says we weren’t going to use 43 or 53, then this deal is smart. Super smart.

I don't like him, and I don't rate him. It's a hard no from me.

I like Harmes more than many, given he is a mid with versatility. But his limitations are the reason we struggle - bad decision making, bad kicking. A lot we don’t yet know, such as whether the club is on board with him leaving, but currently I’m 50/50 on this one at the moment.

This reads, like almost all of your posts, as complaining for complaining's sake. In the same post you say you don't like Bedford, but then criticise the club for failing to do something more/different to keep him. Presumably had we done so you would then have criticised the club for giving another year/contract to a player you don't like and who we don't play very often.

Ah sorry I missed this week! Mind you, I'm pretty sure I'm on 0 so far so it probably won't have made too much difference...

This line of argument is infuriating. We perform well - it’s everyone other than Goodwin. We perform poorly - it’s all Goodwin’s fault. Neither is true. The argument only serves to highlight bias.

Agree. It's not the cm size on paper, it's how they play. Curnow's a perfect example. Meanwhile Gawn's a good example in reverse - has all the height in the world, but just isn't a forward.

Didn't the club offer him a contract but he's gone looking for a longer/more lucrative one? That makes sense. There is only so much of the cap we can afford to put into a player like Hunt, who has obvious strengths but clear weaknesses too, and in an area of the field in which we have good competition. He's found a club who will pay him more money and/or over a longer time period and that is a better outcome for him than taking our offer and then battling with Bowey, Rivers, Smith, Salem and Hibberd (plus anyone else we bring in) for a spot. I'd have had no problem with keeping him but fully understand why he's chosen to go elsewhere.

If I had to pick one of Bedford and Chandler to keep, I'd be keeping Bedford. However, I don't think either of them have been that good so far. I don't think we under-played him, as I don't think his form ever really warranted more games. So if GWS have convinced him he's going to get more games up there, so be it. All the best to him.

So at what point do we put the smoke signal out to @Chook in Perth?

Which is not good. But what happened the other 36 times, when he didn't mark it and the opposition didn't mark it? I'm interested in knowing how many of those other 36 targets turned into goals/scores.

Stengle didn't change the dynamics of how Geelong plays. There is abundant evidence about Geelong stripping their gameplan back after the 2021 prelim, recognising they were too slow and controlling in moving the ball from their back half, and changing their approach to entire ground ball movement. Stengle was obviously a fantastic addition to their side but even if you accept he changed how Geelong plays, how often does a player like Stengle, C-grade at best, make that sort of change?

Yes but I think the broader argument is we want a goal, from anyone (not necessarily Brown), when we target him. So I don't care if his average goals per game is low, if the way we're scoring and winning is via targeting him and he doesn't get outmarked and either marks it and goals, or brings it to ground in a way which allows us to score. It didn't work well enough this year but that's the broader debate. One of the problems we've always had with Weideman is that he doesn't do well enough at winning/halving aerial contests and allowing the team to score when we target him.

They also brought Caddy, Nankervis and Prestia in at the end of 2016, which spearheaded their charge to the 2017 flag, so I'm not sure @bing181 was right about "no trades in 2016". Having said that, I agree with bing's general argument that people over-estimate the importance of trading in new players. And people also incorrectly assume that because a player moves club, that the player would have come to Melbourne had we asked and, accordingly, we didn't ask.

Dunkley yes. Gunston is an interesting one. They're not short of goalkickers. Losing McStay barely changes that. Their major problem is defence. Dunkley helps but I don't think he elevates them from a terrible defensive side to one which can win a flag. They get Ashcroft too, but unless I'm missing something they are short of picks/points and are going to have to do some trading to get them in (and any compensation for McStay gets cancelled/watered down by bringing Gunston in). Does that mean they have to give a player or two up?

Whether or not this is good for Brisbane is irrelevant. I don't know what you think I'm "disguising" here. You are upset we aren't bringing Gunston in. Which in my argument is a silly thing to be upset about because you don't know: whether we enquired; or whether he would have been interested in moving to another Melbourne club (given he is quoted as saying he's looking for a "change of lifestyle").

Are we going to do this every time another player goes to another club? Are we upset about Dunkley, or De Goey, or McStay, or Rankine, or Lobb, or Logue, or Rioli, or Amon? And do you know we didn't "throw our hat in the ring"? And besides all of this, isn't Gunston going for a change up to his late-stage career having won three premierships and played in Victoria for 10 years, now he wants to try something new - so would he even have moved club just to say in Melbourne?

Chiefs, Eagles, Rams

Agree with this. All this talk about managing players like Geelong did. They had easier opponents and an extra 1-2 wins than us and so were able to rest players. We hadn't locked up top 4 and couldn't afford to rest players, as our games were all against finalists or sides in contention for finals. The WC-North fortnight was probably the one time this year we had the chance to give a sore player or two a break, but I don't see what we were supposed to do in the last 8 weeks when our ladder position was on the line.

I've always liked Tomlinson more than the general vibe on Demonland. But his contract is disproportionate to his potential role in 2023 and beyond. We can't be spending as much money as we are on a player who is depth, even if I rate that depth more than most. Particularly when we have Turner coming along as a key defender, and we've just re-contracted another defender in Smith. There should be a club in the league who could use Tomlinson and if we have to pay a portion of his salary to facilitate the trade, that should be a win-win-win.

I can only see this working with Grundy doing more ground coverage and more forward half ruckwork, and Gawn sitting behind the play when the ball's in our forward half and looming as an intercepter, which we know he excels at. I don't agree that a first round pick is the right price if we're paying 50% or more of Grundy's contract, but I suspect the club doesn't care and sees a plan with Grundy that wins us another flag.

I think you can mount an argument the opposite is true. Are you telling me Collingwood wouldn't have obtained a better output from Grundy over Mason Cox's 2 marks, 5 disposals, 2 tackles and 18 hit outs? Darcy Cameron played number 1 ruck most of the year, but he's got strong forward qualities. Collingwood were beaten in CPs and clearances most weeks and Grundy's historically been a ruck who can play as an additional midfielder. I'd have thought yesterday highlighted how Grundy over Cox, shifting Cameron into the forward/ruck role, would make Collingwood a better side.