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. 

 

52 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’m a little skeptical of some of the details. It might well have been that some players used the club as a defence for their desire to break up. Then found themselves delisted and went back to their old relationships and put the blame on the club. I know that’s pretty cynical but don’t tell me it’s implausible.

 

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.

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What sort of adjustment were you looking for?

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. 

5 hours ago, poita said:

"We just weren't prepared for what the game was going to demand". 

That is inexcusable on so many levels.

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. 

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

AFL Twitter has come to life:  Cal Twomey's intel suggests the Blues' bidding spree is an attempt to buy time as they look for a pick swap... foiled by GWS who matched the bid quickly and started the clock on the next trade

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

15 hours ago, Ohio USA - David said:

We need to look at the wider strategy here and it appears to me to be that the Club want to bring in as many early picks as they can and I believe that by this swap we lose very little within the top ten picks but definitely gain improvement up the pick line.

The day after the Grand final our pick range was:

Picks: 3, 22, 40, 58, 76

Now we have picks : 3, 10, 28, (future 4th round pick) 97

Overall we have achieved 2 first round picks and brought our third pick overall number 97 down to pick 28. This position is what is more important than all the small minded comment here on this post.

Frankly I applaud the MFC recruiting department for their fortitude in our desire to be a successful team into 2020.

Thinking "out of the box" and out smarting rival clubs is the way to move ahead. Well done MFC

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.

9 minutes ago, JTR said:

Surely a bit less of a lottery than having 97 as our third selection?

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? 

4 minutes ago, Kelpien said:

Just playing devil's advocate here but what if we finish bottom next year?

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

1 minute ago, Jaded said:

We traded our 5th round in the Langdon deal didn't we?

I still don't think we would do this deal if we didn't have something else up our sleeve.

I don't care how highly we rate the top 10 this year and how poorly we rate everyone outside it. You don't trade 3 picks for 1 unless you have something planned. 

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.

3 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Must make a minimum of 3 draft selections. As it stands our 3rd pick will be up near or even over 100.

That would be fine if we were upgrading a rookie with that 3rd pick, but doubt we'd looking to draft a youngster that late? Further trades to happen bringing our 3rd pick back into an earlier round?

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..

7 minutes ago, Greendale said:

Let's say we finish 9th next year, which is where the betting agencies have us approximately finishing. Then we'd start off with pick 10 in the draft. There will probably be about 4 father son and academy picks before then leaving us with about pick 14. For me picks 14 + 26 + 50 is a lot better than pick 8 this year, which will actually be pick 9 after the Greene bid.

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

Just now, Greendale said:

I think we've overpaid big time. Looking at the draft value index this trade only evens out if our first round pick is pick #34 next year, which is obviously impossible. Now the draft value index doesn't tell you anything about the individuals available or the overall draft quality, but it just feels like a desperation move. Take out the pick 50 and I'd feel like the trade is fairer.

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:

8 hours ago, deanox said:

Or

5) with 666 the coaches made significant positional and tactical changes to our game plan, including moving us from a purely zone defense to a combo man on man and zone. Preseason injuries limited our opportunity to practice and ingrain the plan within the squad before the season started and as a young team (close to the youngest in the comp during the first few rounds at least) we didn't pick it up very quickly and, without runners, weren't able to provide on field direction throughout the game. 

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