Cam Schwab's Whiteboard

I'm glad Whateley likened this to the Stolen Generation. As I said yesterday, that was the imagery I had whilst reading the article. Robinson was Robinson, unfortunately. The continual claims of, "I just hope this isn't true" ignores, or at least fails to recognise, the realities of Australian society. It wasn't long ago that Adam Goodes was booed week after week, Eddie talking about King Kong, and Betts on the Adelaide camp. Our own Kozzie hears these attitudes every time he plays a good game. And that's just within the AFL industry itself. We have stories in this very thread speaking to terrible and ongoing experiences of racism. Removing agency from someone, particularly 'for their own good' as their race renders them incapable of knowing what's best and doing what's right is as bad as it gets. As a football community, it is as much on the fans to ensure this is not washed away or minimised through legal technicalities.

The old, "They're using their skin colour to get what they want" argument. Do you seriously think people choose to have these experiences? Come on. These are the sorts of privileged attitudes that foster environments like the one in today's article.

This is perhaps the most disturbing story I have ever read with regards to mistreatment of indigenous AFL players, and is, at the very least, equaled only by Essendon injecting unknown substances into their players. The ghosts of the Stolen Generation and decades of intergenerational trauma are hovering over this, and it is incredible to think that how far Australia has to go on these matters. Remember, the separation of individuals from their families 'for their own good' was one of the darkest periods in Australia's history, and I cannot but think about that when reading today's article. Unfortunately, as the AFL and associated parties move down the investigation track, the result is likely to be a transformation of these experiences into legal arguments and technicalities of blame/responsibility, rather than fundamentally addressing the experiences of these indigenous players and their families, and the meaning of this event for wider society. The focus needs to remain on these experiences, not the percentage of accuracy of claims, as what it is what these experiences mean to the victims that are most important, especially given the history of First Nations people in Australia. This is not a sad day for the AFL, as I have read on Twitter. The AFL must be better, and should have ensured these attitudes and behaviours hold no place within the institution a long time ago. This has been a horrific and traumatic time for those victimised, and is a sad day for all First Nations people.

Well if the coaching staff knew how unfit the team was in the early rounds, and were hoping to catch up over the course of the year, it seems logical to avoid a 'chatoic', high-pressing, physically taxing gameplay. Why not try to play defensively and scratch out a few low-scoring close games. To me, the stubbornness with which the coaching staff stuck with a plan that they knew wasn't working as early as Round 3 is just ridiculous.

Yes, but not the way in which it might appear here. Knowing the impact of injuries and whatnot, the abject failure of refusing to adjust until it was way too late (and even then only minimally) is what's inexcusable for me.

Apparently all Clubs run 1000's of scenarios on the draft, all except for Carlton who seem not to have had any idea what to do once Stephens was taken at 5...

Geez this coverage is terrible. Inane, stereotypical, and gendered questions only. 'We'll ask the dad about x's football, and we'll ask his mum about him as a young child and her emotional attachment to him.' Rinse and Repeat... Can't believe Gill isn't the worst part of this

It's not 'small minded' for people to highlight concerns over moving up very high only to drift further back. After the Grand Final, the Club also had a first round selection next year, which it now does not. I haven't read much on here that suggests people are being unreasonable and thinking the Club is imploding for moving back a few spots (and potentially more, as the story seems to be heading). Some are simply suggesting that they would prefer the Club to stay as high as they can, and that the later selections don't provide as much value and/or aren't 'free' as many believe. What if 10 is split to 14+17? With the first selection (rd. 2 currently) next year being worth something around 40-50(?) after all the F/S and Academy bidding. I like that the Club is recognising a bad year and is trying to maximise it, but I prefer to maximise by getting as high as possible in the first round this year.

Absolutely. My apologies - what I meant was that it would be pretty tough to bank on anyone in particular being there at that stage, so it's an unknown quantity. Maximising the draft position this year to me would be about finding certainty in getting who we want. I know it's only a slide of 2 spots, but the more certainty you have, the better the chance is that you get the best outcome. As I said, the Club must either be certain that they will get the same player at 10, or there are 4-5 they would be happy with and know at least 1 would be there.

I don't know much about drafting - they're just names to me at this stage. However, this suggests to me that it's definitely Jackson at 3. He seems to be the outlier in the top 10-12 and so by selecting him at 3, there must be 4-5 similar players that we feel are similar/happy to draft and will be there at both 8 and 10. Selection 28 is surely a complete lottery, and so all this feels a bit underwhelming to me after how much I liked the initial swap to get to 8.

I did not realise Newnes was available and think it is definitely worth a chat to his management if enquiries into Jack Martin don't go anywhere. At the right price, I can see him as a defensive wing / half-back. I really think we need to work to have Salem up the field to kick into the forward 50 rather than out of the defensive 50. Perhaps Newnes offers an ability to do that?

I voted 'A'. I don't like losing Frost's athleticism, but essentially swapping him for Tomlinson makes the team better overall. Indeed, Tomlinson and Langdon on either wing is an enormous upgrade over the absolute disaster we all saw on the wings throughout 2019. Just that alone will hopefully make a huge difference. Really loved the swap with North Melbourne. Next year's draft looks like a joke with all of the concessions, so preferencing this year whilst the Club has high picks is perfect, even if nothing further happens and we pick at 3+8. After the year from hell, I like that the Club is looking to maximise the 'reward' rather than denying it being there. Further improvement would be bringing in Martin and perhaps punting on Murray. The forward line remains problematic, but there didn't seem much out there, and I think Bruce or Jenkins would have been underwhelming solutions. I'm also happy to give Stretch and JKH another year. People say we have no depth, but they should be very good depth as long as there aren't 15 injuries at the same time. Overall, the FD added two very good wings and two of the best 8 kids in the country for Frost, a 2nd rounder, and a compromised 1st. That's good work imo.

Not sure if this has been floated, but what if GWS offered 6 + 40 (Tomlinson compensation) + 2020 1st for Selection 3? I think it should be a player like most here, but if there is no possibility of getting a player what would it take?

If we finish bottom next year, none of this matters anyway...

Alternatively, they have nothing further lined up and value this year's draft much higher than next year. With the bidding next year (that we have no part in), I think it makes a lot of sense to go hard this year whilst the opportunity presents itself. There's also the potential of 2 years worth of salary cap relief from 2 players that should (!) be of high quality.

I'm probably wrong about this, but maybe Kyle Dunkley counts as one of our draft selections for this year? Otherwise, we may have already agreed to upgrade a rookie? All of these concerns might be moot in 24 hours time anyway..

I see what you mean, but that also assumes that the guy available at pick 14 is the one the Club wants. If the FD think that all the good players are gone before that, or are tied to F/S or Academy selections after, they might be looking at the equivalent of pick 25 or so available at 14.

So completely contrasting reports - Wanting to draft high vs. Lining up a big trade I love Trade Week

I don't think the points matter in this one because of the compromised draft next year. Let's say Melbourne finish 7th, that's looking like being end-of-first under normal circumstances, and if the Club wasn't planning on using 50 this year, the swap is 26 and approx. 16/17/18 for 8 in a non-compromised draft. I like it a lot!

I love this!! Finally some creativity from the FD. My initial thought is that either 3 or 8 will be split again, with the Club looking to cash in with 3-4 early selections this year and ignoring next year. If it's with a player in mind, I'm a bit confused as to where that leaves our draft picks. One of these going out would leave us with one early pick and potentially nothing for a long, long time (this draft and next). For the first time this offseason, I'm perfectly happy to take those straight to the draft too.

Football Department meetings:

Maybe, but then why are all the coaches going?

The Football Department are probably eyeing off an inside midfielder to take Frost's role once they ship him off. They should just cut anyone with any creativity this offseason and be done with it. Unreal