caddypgt

Gorgeous player when on ... so sad to have lived such a short life. Here is a small youtube playlist of Colin's highlights. Just let it play through, clips will automatically cycle to the next.

Haha ... it's seems that Judd's Grandmother has taken to stating the bleating obvious ?

Agreed - but only if that increases our chances of winning a flag. Jack clearly has one or two traits that tip him toward the marginal deficit side of value in Goodwin's eyes. And since the St Kilda game, we have learned that Max has one or two elements to his rucking that bring him back to the pack in the league. My suggestion here allows for all recruitment and list scenarios, some of which may exclude Jack and/or Max, and may increase the chances of us nabbing a flag: I want to win a flag AND keep max and jack At the end of the day; a flag is our objective and that is all that matters.

I see a lot of interesting 22's in here. I can't say anything definitive about the make up of our round 1 2017 side, but I confidently say this: a) I believe we will not suffer (now or later) by not participating in rounds 1 & 2 of the ND this year; and b) even if we did participate in the early rounds - for the first time in a while we wouldn't have to place an expectation on those high draftees (like Oliver, Brayshaw, JKH etc .... all the way back to Trengove and $$) as 'walk up starts' because they represent genuinely better prospects for round 1 than some of the incumbents. That is not to say that, hypothetically speaking, none of this years vintage would be able walk straight into the side at round 1; just that I'd be fairly comfortable NOW in giving top draftees an opportunity to earn a call up with consistent form in the VFL instead of gifting it to them out of necessity.

I think it is an encouraging sign that people aren't clamoring to throw Brayshaw and Petracca in at the deep end. Rightly or wrongly, I think there is more trust in incumbent players (both in clubland and on the boards) to get the job done in this era than when Trengove and Scully were automatic walk up starts after their draft. It shows three things: 1. Positive change in 'blooding' philosophy 2. There is genunie belief in the cattle. Whilst the list isn't perfect - it appears capable of executing Roos game plan 3. Those on the park are less likely now to give up their place so easily with good talent itching to get out there The capacity to climb is actually (finally) there now. Get it done Dees.

They could be part of the lobby to repeal foreign ownership restrictions in the Qantas Sale Act.

I reckon that would have been Travis Boak; but it wouldn't have been the only factor.

There is a counter theory to that, as with the 2011 Geelong premiership, that it wasn't as much the current coaches doing as it was the encumbents result (only a theory .. Who really knows??) Both slid somewhat the year after; albeit not too far.

Also ... Shaw will be part funded by the Pies in the first year of his contract - which would allow GWS to front end another experienced player if they trade any remaining picks smartly.

I think Blease plays at the feet of the talls reasonably well. Needs to add that defensive aspect, and consistency.

Has David Myers passed on us? If not, how do we get him? 190cm+ and kicks goals from everywhere. Jeremy Howe is going to be a talent without a role soon I suspect. Can he become the tall midfielder? If he doesn't become a tall mid - he is going to have to learn to play forward both tall AND small with the timber we have up there now.

I think the biggest beef is that waiting to understand what compensation clubs will receive can hold up current negotiations if they are going to involve that compensation pick.

I am starting to warm to the idea of keeping 2 so we can build some on-field goodwill and try and snaffle a free agent next year. If we can find a way to get Vince, Myers, Michie, Lyons and second or third rounder across to the MFC without having to spend more than our existing picks excluding 2, and perhaps a Blease and/or a Tapscott; I think we will have done alright.

So were some others, didn't stop them being moved on.

This is the thing. He must be pretty [censored] with the Cats right about now because he, and others on the Cats list, have accepted lower than market rates for their ability, experience and achievements - all in the name of keeping the band together for as long as possible. Now they don't want him, and he wants to ensure spread out future earnings to try and make up for lost earning opportunity. In a bit of a bad spot in my opinion. May just have to retire.

What can we expect as a club that can't afford to pay 100% of its cap.

Malthouse is not THAT arrogant. And as alluded earlier, Sheedy's arrogance is a compensatory mask for inadequacy.

What was more amusing was Kevin Sheedy talking about how he had a 'Clayton's' interview with the MFC coaching selection panel back in 07, and how he could see all these problems, and that in all reality - it was he that was interviewing us not the other way round.

I seem to recall that at the start of pre-season, the word around the camp fire was that neither Gysberts or Blease were setting the world on fire on the track. I myself had seen them looking like they had done LESS THAN NOTHING in their leave time between the 2011 and 2012 seasons. This was reflected in Neeld's refusal to play either of them early in the season, citing a lack of fitness to meet with the demands of modern footy - yet somehow, something twigged in Blease's brain - he pushed his way back. Gys did not. I think there is something in that.

This is a good place for these little AFL oddities; if anything to distract us from the grim on-field realities of Demon life at present.

Occasionally, I like to do comparisons between the Dees and other clubs - nothing deep, just looking at respective club websites. One such comparison is the make up of players lists, another is corporate sponsorship pages (if you are prone to depression, don't visit the Collingwood site for either). After the Hawks game last night, I got to wondering how it is that a team like North Melbourne can play hard and accountable football a good portion of the time without any real quality players. So, on a list comparison journey I went. Get to the front page of the Kangaroos website and I find this and nearly fell off my chair: A few thoughts: 1) A bit comical - in a HAR HAR HAR kind of way; 2) A bit silly - because dyslexia is an impairment that affects reading, not speech; and (most importantly) 3) WHO THE HELL IS MODERATING THE TWITTER FEED AT THE NORTH MELBOURNE FOOTY CLUB???!!! I vote for this guy ...

Hahaha - exactly what I thought!

Gerard Healy is not your usual source of board room scuttlebutt, more of a keen observer of the game itself. One would have to wonder how, if true, he came across this information. It's not like he is related to anyone on the board ..... oh, wait a minute .. That said, I am in 2 minds about this. Nice to know something may be imminent, not nice to be able to assert that there is a bit of leaking going on - especially one that is so easily traced.

Lack of possession is indicative of the "go long around the boundary" game plan. In the meters gained by doing this, Melbourne typically has one possession; going the other way, our opponents would probably have 2-4 over the same meters gained. It is possible that possession count discrepancies are not as big an issue as we think. F50 entries on the other-hand ... It is obvious that Neeld does not trust the players disposal to play a brand that relies on maintaining possession, and despite having such a gruelling pre season, he doesn't believe we are fit enough to spread quickly to space. Not to say that these things aren't in his thinking/future plans - I believe he doesn't think we are capable of these just things yet (combination of current capabilities, fitness base and players at his disposal). First step of what could be an evolving game plan is to achieve mastery of a very simple one that relies on one-on-one contested football. 1) Advance the ball 50 meters as tight to the boundary as possible where we have a 19th player to assist (the boundary) meaning we only have to focus on covering space on one side of the contest [we are doing this ok at the moment] 2) Create a stoppage by clearing ball to the boundary OR contest the ball to advantage if possible. [ we have been iffy at best] 3) Win the stoppage OR make the clearance. [50/50 here ... but capitalising on a won stoppage has been an issue] 4) Repeat 1-3. Playing the corridor, as attractive as it was when it came off in the Balme/Daniher/Bailey eras, is highly risky. Some sides have the ability to mitigate the risk because of their ability to be able to quickly snap back into a defensive zone and kill the turnover /rebound. Generally speaking, we were unable to deal with the rebound effectively in the past; we are even less capable of dealing with it now (3rd quarter Saturday as an example).

I would imagine that the message given at the presser does not equal the message given in the after match address. I am only guessing, but I would imagine (hope) the Neeld is taking the Allen Jeans approach. Measured publicly, critical privately.