titan_uranus

Strikes me as a win for us. I'd have thought Pick 61 was unlikely to be a big part of our draft this year so I'm happy to turn it into a small forward.

I don't like the COLA and I don't like how Sydney and Hawthorn (and the other top-of-the-ladder clubs) are able to continually take players from weaker clubs. However, this is an inordinately ridiculous decision. Sydney may have made the most of the situation, but it did so completely within the rules the AFL set. They now get punished because the AFL has realised the COLA was a bad thing and had to get rid of it to save face. It's also an horrendous punishment that is totally out of proportion. McLachlan's not off to a good start at all.

There's a lot wrong with FA and it's making the game worse. The compensation rules are horrendous. They don't take into account the single biggest factor about FA, and that's the hole the player leaves behind. Using the player's age is ridiculous, it seems to assume that the older you get the less value you have to a side. Rubbish. The watering down of compensation based on your net gains/losses is another joke and punishes the weaker sides. I understand that free agency can help plenty of players get more out of what are necessarily short careers. But it does more harm than good if the end result is that the AFL becomes a 6-club competition. FA cannot stand as it does and must be changed.

He has the ability. We have the need. His currency is low (given Carlton have said they are looking to trade/delist him). Assuming the price is right, and it should be, this is a good target from Roos.

It would be just our luck for Hawthorn's offer to be so low as to mean it's band 2. The AFL should be giving us band 1, but they don't always do the logical thing, so I would not be surprised in the least to see us only get band 2.

Ripper season so far. We are our own worst enemy right now. We give away way too many penalties, Kaepernick is still far too inconsistent, and our special teams has slipped from recent years. To be down 21-10 having conceded only 5 first downs to Philly's offence in the first half was rather incredible. If we can clean up the penalties, keep the O-line healthy, run the ball some more, and not be inept on special teams, we can challenge for a wild card. I'm not convinced though. AFC East is surely the weakest division in the NFL right now, right? Patriots are average at best, Bills are losing games they should be winning, Dolphins and Jets are pretty rank.

My thoughts exactly.

I don't rate Varcoe at all, never have. Having said that, he currently has the highest winning % of any AFL player. So that's something. And we are Melbourne, so by default he improves us. And we can't expect a great deal for Clark. So all things considered, I'll live.

I quite like the idea of Lumumba off half-back for us. We need midfielders as priority 1, but rebounding half-backs who can run and kick are surely priority 2. Let's hope we can negotiate a decent price.

There's a whole lot of melodrama and hyperbole going on around here. From 2001-2006 interstate sides won every flag. During the latter half of those 6 years all we heard was 'Victorian football is doomed'. It was also pretty hard in 2003 to see Brisbane from ever slipping, but they did. St Kilda and Collingwood were both dominant sides from 2008-2012. Now both of them have slid out of the finals. The Bulldogs made three consecutive preliminary finals from 2008-2010 but are similarly down the bottom. Hawthorn won the flag in 2008 but many agree it was before their time. They then missed the finals in 2009 and barely made them in 2010. They've made four consecutive PFs and three consecutive GFs, sure, but each PF has been decided by under a kick. They could all have gone the other way. It's not like they're just romping home every season. Dreary? Like NM pipping Essendon at the post? Like two upsets in the semi final round? Like Port Adelaide and Hawthorn playing some absolutely breathtaking football, and Port nearly stealing the preliminary final?

They're weaker in key position players, but yes, I see a rise for Brisbane coming soon. Game needs it too, so that suits me fine.

Surely we could do a lot worse than to take Burbury or Schroder as a DFA?

Boy do we suck. We're 52-3 in the second half through our three games. And we have the Eagles coming to visit this week. We already had a tough schedule this year, but playing like we are we're continually slipping. Some intrigue in most divisions though. Is AFC South contending with NFC East for worst division in the league now? I'm still not convinced with the Patriots but which of the others is any more convincing? Would absolutely love to see anyone other than New England win that division.Bills need to beat Houston this week to start with.

To be expected. Absolue rubbish, but that's how the AFL works these days.

Do you believe Hawthorn and Sydney only finished top 4 because they played easy sides in their double-up games? They didn't, so that argument is rubbish. The less weight you give to the top 4, the less weight you give to the 23 home and away rounds in favour of the first three weeks of the finals. The GF should feature the best two teams of the year, and to ensure you get that, you need to put emphasis on winning home and away games. You get that by giving the top 4 an advantage. If you want to win the flag, don't settle for being 5-8. I haven't heard a single Port person complain about the finals system or the fact they had travelled two weeks in a row whilst Hawthorn didn't play. They rightfully will rue losing to Fremantle in Round 23 (and their other losses meaning they missed top 4) and they will also rightfully rue kicking 3.9 in the first quarter. Port could, and arguably should, have won that game. Additionally, Hawthorn has now played in 4 consecutive preliminary finals, and won 3 of them. Each one of them has been decided by less than a goal. It's not as if the teams losing in the QF round of the finals are never having any chance. The finals system is fine.

I'm fairly sure he wants to get out of Victoria, so I highly doubt he will bother looking at us. As for the breach of duty of care clause, using that would be speculative and risky, there are a lot of unknowns with how that clause works, so he'd want to have some seriously good legal advice before he tries to rely on it. I'd have thought the better option would be to request a trade, on the basis that Essendon stands to get something (on current form a decent draft pick at the least) and avoids more legal fees in dealing with the contract clause.

Conversely, it could be a sign that the current finals system is adequately and properly rewarding teams who finish top 4 and win their QF... Beating Hawthorn anywhere is hard. I take faith from their ability to beat Fremantle in Perth (something like three losses over there in two years prior to that), but a PF against Hawthorn is another step up.

There has never been a suggestion that the playing contracts signed by AFL players are not binding. The anti-competitive argument raised in regards to the salary cap (and the draft) is completely unrelated to whether there are binding contracts signed by players.

Additionally, the last time a side had the week off in the finals but lost the Preliminary final was Adelaide in 2006. Doesn't bode well for Port...

Surely not just yet? They may be 2-0 but they've only played Oakland and Washington, so nothing to write home about. This week is the Giants, again not exactly stern competition. I'd love to think Miami, the Jets and Buffalo are legitimate AFC East chances but I just can't bring myself to actually believe New England won't win it. I'd have thought San Diego/Denver would sort out the first wild card which leaves Baltimore/Cincinnati and the AFC Easters to battle for the second. 8-8 may well get it done! Our defence is already doing well despite no Aldon Smith and no Bowman either. Smith's not due back until mid-November, Bowman's less clear. Would be great to be still in the game by the time they come back and we go up another notch. Kaepernick can definitely play that badly again, that's the thing about him. His best is good enough to win a Superbowl, his average is more than good enough, but there are still too many mistakes in his game.

That's not answering Nasher's question. It's one thing for Melbourne to say 'we're going to look to trade Tapscott' because, yes, otherwise we'd just delist him. It's another thing altogether for Tapscott to nominate his preferred club. Firstly, as Nasher said why would you pin all your hopes on one club? Why not say 'look, if it's not working out here I'd love to get another chance anywhere you can orchestrate a trade'. Secondly, what makes him think he has any power?

De Boer's signed with Fremantle for next year - http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-09-19/de-boer-staying-put

Big game, sure, but not a 'season definer' as I'm pretty confident our season's been defined already - we just aren't at the level we need to be to stay competitive in the NFC West. Our schedule is pretty tough and I don't think we're consistent enough on offence to get the job done. Buffalo hasn't made it since 1999. Then there's the Browns and Raiders in 2002, and the Rams in 2004, and the remaining 28 teams have made it at least once since 2007. That's not so bad. 22 of those 28 have made it in the last four seasons. The change-over rate is pretty good, notwithstanding the sustained success of the Patriots, Packers and Steelers over that time.

Or not.

He also was the first person to say Franklin was going to Sydney, when everyone was sure he was going to GWS. As good a source as there is at this time of year IMO. Adelaide's done a Brisbane and sacked its coach to ensure it gets the one that's available before he signs with Melbourne. Only this time they've managed to do it in time.