titan_uranus

1. The fact we have not done anything in the first of a multi-week period is not cause for alarm. Only Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn and St Kilda have traded players yet. That's 4/18 clubs. Just 4. 2. Inert gases actually do many things.

I'd keep Blease, under a proper coach I think there is enough to work with. Rubbish. Clisby performed at a far higher standard than Tapscott this year, and showed much more consistency, both from week to week and within a game. Tapscott has not played an AFL-standard four-quarter game his whole career.

Lucas and Bootsma are terrible footballers. I wouldn't take them even if they were free.

If I were a Hawks fan, I'd be quite happy right now.

I don't know why the original post didn't use Roos' direct quote, as opposed to Ralph's, but Roos said this: “All I can say is it is genuinely on the table. Clubs are sceptical, but if you are going to give up pick two it’s going to be a quality mid (in the draft), or (defender) Matthew Scharenberg so we want something in return. In terms of Rockcliff we would have been interested, but with a new coach (Justin Leppitsch) at Brisbane he would want to stay there. It’s that type of player, but he’s out.’’

Absolutely, but even at low traffic periods the previous site was crashing for me. FWIW, it's 12.10pm now and the site is still going great guns Damn. I knew it.

You said it's a 'reality' that lighter-bodied players are less likely to be able to effect the contest. The corollary of that is that stronger-bodied players are more likely to be able to effect the contest. I disagree. There are plenty of big bodied players who don't give us anything (remember Paul Johnson? Built as well as you could ask for, a pansy in any contested situation). There are also plenty of lighter-bodied players in the AFL who defy their size to get after contested ball (Wingard, Fyfe, Heppell, Hill x 2). It's about identifying the players in the draft who have that innate passion for a contest. If those players have lighter bodies, so be it.

See, you're doing the exact same thing, but the other way. You're assuming that the skinnier the player, the less courageous/aggressive they are. Similarly, you're assuming that muscular kids are more courageous. Neither of those are true.

Source?

Especially given that we now have the best chance to develop a midfielder that we've had for years at this club. If the best midfielder available happens to be physically underdeveloped relative to some other potential draftees, that should not (ever) be a reason to not take him. The fact that our fitness and training regimes have been pathetic in recent years is not a reason to pick less skilled players simply because they have more muscle. Moreover, as B-H said, skinniness isn't definitive of courage. Fyfe is a perfect example (also, players like Paul Johnson show that having a developed body doesn't necessarily mean you will be an aggressive player).

I don't mean to jinx anything, but I'm finding things really fast and distinctly lacking in error notices.

It's line-ball. On the one hand there is the clear motivation to win a flag. Melbourne (and St Kilda, and GWS, and arguably the Dogs) simply cannot offer that, even in the long term - the vision isn't there yet (maybe in 12 months that will be different). On the other hand, look at Caddy - struggled to get into Geelong's side, is arguably still not best 22, and didn't get a great deal of game time, for a longer period of time, without the risk of being squeezed out in the future.

I don't see why. Are you referring to Crameri? He's a FF. He'd never come here, with Clark/Dawes/Hogan, and the Dogs clearly can make him their sole FF. Moreover, the Dogs showed some great form in the second half of 2013, so it's not like player(s) are picking a different basket-case over us. If players start demanding to go to St Kilda over Melbourne, then maybe it'll be more serious.

I think that's probably right. If McDonald is the best we can/are willing to offer them, then they're probably more likely to want Pick 2, which will open doors to other clubs and other players which probably exceed McDonald's worth.

That's like saying that goals are hard to score in modern football because we don't score many of them. Our ineptitude at both choosing the right players and then developing them into the AFL players their talent suggests they should be does not change the fact that, in general, midfielders are easier to find.

Not sure. The pressing need to get elite midfield talent into this club is clear. However, McDonald could be our FB/CHB for the next 10 years, and whilst we clearly need mids now, I maintain the view that midfielders are easier to come by than key position defenders. Missing out on a midfielder now is easier to remedy down the track than losing a star defender (i.e. it's going to be harder to find someone to replace McDonald than it will be to find someone to 'replace' Shiel). If I knew 100% that we will keep Frawley next year, then maybe this would be less difficult, but, taking into account our midfield stocks, I don't know if Shiel is worth McDonald. I do agree with you though that, in order to get some elite talent, we're may well have to be ruthless, so if it ended up happening, I wouldn't be upset.

Gary Ablett? Chris Dawes? The 'challenge' mightn't be the only factor (i.e. money is regularly involved), but it is what lured Ablett to the Gold Coast, and may be a part of what brought Dawes here. Agreed. If played right, pick 2 could have extra value outside of what we directly do with it.

That's the self-perpetuating bit. The only reason you associate a lower number with a longer career is because we continually shift half-decent players down to lower numbers.

If you don't like the 'historical' stuff, why don't you mind players changing if they're in the 40s or 50s? Because it's always happened? That's historical, then. Because a number in the 40s or 50s is 'crap'? That's a myth we self-perpetuate by continually changing players' numbers. If we left our players in their numbers, then we wouldn't automatically resort to calling 47 or 51 a 'lesser' number.

I have my fingers crossed that all this number-changing crap was a Schwab thing. As I've said numerous times, I cannot stand players changing numbers. You come to the club, you are given a number, and that should be that. You take your number and you make your career in it. No one on here rates number 1 any greater or lesser than number 50, so why should the club? Viney stays at 7. And, for that matter, everyone else stays where they are. FFS Melbourne.

Mate, nice try, but seriously, you've got Brisbane giving up Rockliff for 2, Longer for 19, and then downgrading pick 6 for pick 21. Doesn't get close to adding up.

Dale Thomas to Carlton, it seems: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dale-thomas-to-sign-fouryear-deal-with-carlton-20131003-2uv5i.html

I'm with you. Regardless of whether he's an A-grader in AFL terms, he remained one of our best midfielders and one of the few talented players on our list capable of changing games. It's also a loss of 157 games of experience. That's now three of the 2013 list's top four of most experience: Rodan (185 games), Davey (178) and now Sylvia (157). We also lose Macdonald's 124 games. Jamar has 133 and many are thinking of letting him go too. Only strengthens the severe importance of securing some experienced talent. Lol.

I laughed as well. Laughed at the abysmal 'journalism' that article entails.

Don't be myopic. If we give GWS pick 2, they then have picks 1 and 2 to go out to the market and seek that top-end talent. From what I've seen of Shiel, he's borderline worth pick 2 on his own. Whether or not he is available remains to be seen, but if he is, then I want him.