titan_uranus

We could offer him up for a trade, but I would doubt that there would be any interest at all. Maybe we'll end up with pick 50 or 60 or something virtually useless. Either way, he is a very, very small chance to be on our list next year.

Agree. Look at trading Newton instead.

Fair enough. But considering I've got McLean as an emergency, and Jones unlisted, I'll give McLean the nod first.

That means Rich got 5 out of 5 from all 9 judges. A bit surprising, that. Grimes is unlucky not to get a vote, but there's a lot of talent in the crop of players nominated. Hill maybe got a few too many.

FB: Garland Warnock Bennell HB: Frawley Rivers Bruce C: Morton Davey Sylvia HF: Green Bate Petterd FF: Watts Jurrah Wonaeamirri R: Jamar Moloney Grimes Int: Martin Scully Blease McLean McDonald Emg: Jones Strauss Jetta

Rich has won it, by the way.

He's played Full Back for 22 rounds. He's played on the likes of Fevola, Brown and Bradshaw. He's beaten a lot of them. He also gets his fair share of the ball and works himself into Essendon's rebounds. He has no fear in playing off his man, and sets up inside-50s by running out of defence. And he can kick OK too. All in all, playing FB is harder at age 19/20 than playing midfield, and he's done a very good job of it in his second year of AFL football.

IMO, once you've got a number, and played in it, stick with it. Whilst I would have preferred Jurrah to have been given a lower number to begin with, now that he's got 48, just stick with it. Hopefully this year's crop of draftees will get some of the freed-up lower numbers. Maybe Blease and Strauss, who haven't debuted yet, could get lower numbers as well. Doesn't really matter, though. It's just a number.

I'm with Eastie on this one, The Dee. I don't see any intent whatsoever. I see a poorly executed hip-and-shoulder.

My rank: 1. Rich 2. Pears 3. Otten 4. Grimes 5. Beams Taking nothing away from Dangerfield, Hurley, Hill or Jurrah. White is a good player, too, but won't feature in the votes.

Lloyd's decision to bump was completely within the rules. His contact to Sewell's head was not. But I will continue to argue that he did not intend to make that head-high contact. Your comment about Essendon running the game and not respecting our football club is based on what?

Just a story I've heard from a couple of people. Since I haven't yet seen it pop up in the news anywhere, it may well be completely false. But it sounds good.

Well there are some fantastic decisions. People get stuck into Wallace and Richmond for contracting Schulz and Oakley-Nicholls and Hughes and all the rest of their deadwood. Look at our list. We'll have Bell, Newton, Dunn and Johnson on it next year. None of whom should be in our Round 1 team, none of whom have bright futures, none of whom really deserve a spot on our list. So, still looking for another three spots. Miller, Bartram, maybe Buckley?

On a somewhat related note, did anyone hear the story about the guy who placed a $1000 bet pre-season on Hawthorn to miss the finals. Was given a price of $1000. That's a $1 million win. Wonder how he felt at half time on Saturday.

Not murky at all. There's nothing in that footage to suggest that Lloyd's intention was to break Sewell's cheekbone. But there is evidence there to suggest that he wanted to show physicality and leadership.

St Kilda. Not to take away from the Freo one, but I've seen plenty of players kick goals when lying on the ground (it happened a few times that round, Douglas for Adelaide, Selwood for West Coast). The St Kilda one, most commentators agree that most players can't kick a ball 30 metres over their head. I don't think anyone else could do that.

Care to explain? He's kicked 900-odd goals, has a premiership, and captained his club. Nice respect you've shown there.

I can't believe Ryder got a week for what he did. The contact was minimal. Much worse has happened. Bateman should have got 2 or more weeks for what he did. Go an have another look at the footage. To allege that his intention was to knock Sewell out by hitting his head is ludicrous and is based on nothing. His intention was to knock him over, to show physicality. His intentions were completely within the laws of the game. His execution was not, and he has copped his whack.

This is what I think we'll do. We've got 3 spots already freed up (Wheatley, Whelan, Robbo). Add any three of Bell, Newton, Dunn, Miller, Bartram, Johnson to that list and we make enough room.

Especially since their first pick is pick 6...

This is what we know so far: 1. Melbourne (PP) 2. Melbourne 3. Richmond 4. Fremantle 5. North Melbourne 6. Sydney 7. West Coast 8. Port Adelaide 9. Hawthorn

Let's judge Bailey's coaching ability next year, when we must begin to win games. At the moment he's done OK, and he's certainly done the right thing by the club. But I don't think we can be making judgements on his merit as an AFL coach until he shows he's got the ability to get us out off the bottom.

I agree with your first sentence, but none of the rest. You are unbelievable in your one-eyed hatred of Essendon that you fail to look at things with any sort of objectivity. Lloyd did not, and has never, attempted to knock a player out. His intent was to bump Sewell, and bump him hard, but not to break his cheekbone. Calm down and think about that for a moment. He screwed up, and will/should be suspended, but he is not a 'gutless [censored]'. He is one of the best full forwards the game has ever seen. Get over 2000. Agree with all that. Campbell Brown is a tool. Adrian Hamilton (is that his name?) was correct when he said that Brown's comments were prejudicial, hypocritical and insulting. It's a family thing. They're my second team (distant second, though).

Agree re: those three. We could also have won the West Coast (in perth) and Bulldogs games if some key moments had gone our way. Yesterday may have been a bit closer too if certain changes hadn't been made.

Because they're pathetic. They also had us down for the wooden spoon this year before we'd 'won' it, and they've missed out on our 1997 wooden spoon (not such a bad thing, but a mistake nonetheless).