old55

Plan A, B & C is get Boak willing to come to MFC. The trade can then be worked out because we can trump Geelong. The doctor's trade plan is good - if pick 4 is too much and pick 13 not enough then 4 + 13 for Boak + 8 is a fair deal.

It's just closing a loop-hole so that all players are available to be nominated at each pick instead of going through the picks with each individual player. What it stops for example is if Stewart was the first player to be considered, we could commit pick 3 to him and if Collingwood didn't match that with their first rounder then our pick 3 would be committed, then when Viney came up next, GWS nominates him with pick 1 and we say we'll use our next available pick which is R2, pick 25 because we've already committed 3 on Stewart. In the new scenario both Stewart and Viney (and everyone else) are eligible to be picked by GWS at pick 1 so when GWS nominates Viney we have to use pick 3 on him. You can substitute Daniher for Viney in Essendon's case and their 1st rounder for ours - that's the example the article uses and is probably much more realistic because Stewart could be valued somewhere near Essendon's 1st pick. It prevents clubs with nominated F/S burning their 1st round pick on another club's F/S - it's analogous to stopping the old chestnut/furphy "let's trade our 1st rounder so we can get Viney in the 2nd round" (what's the bet someone suggests that in this thread btw?) It really is fairer - it's a good change.

There'll still be 100,000 there and I'll be one of them. The AFL has bitten of a huge bite in GC and GWS and it might take 50 years to digest but it's required if the AFL is going to dominate Australia-wide. Otherwise it'll stay marginal in NSW and Qld.

Martin's biggest problem is his contested marking, he just doesn't seem to able to read the play or the flight. If it does fall on his head by accident he can grab it. Look, he's got more to work with than Paul Johnson, that's the best I can say. The player that replaces Clark has to take 2nd ruck. Did someone mention Jack Darling? I believe NikNat was the hanky you were reaching for in this instance.

No

There's been big changes at MFC and Moloney deserves the opportunity to adapt - at least the entire season. None of us know what the FD is asking him to do and whether he's delivering on that. I'll take his continuing selection as an indicator that they think he's making progress.

It's a shocking situation - the only lining is that it will give full exposure to Martin and Sellar and enable more informed decisions at the end of the year. It will also promote Rivers and Garland forward experiments and may indirectly give Troy Davis exposure back.

Agree with this - someone's got to take the 2nd ruck load. Sellar did it on the weekend but he's been progressing well in the backline and frees Rivers forward which is good. Martin is the candidate - I don't have much faith in his KPF abilities but he needs to be given a chance. Sellar is the only realistic alternative - maybe Martin and Sellar can swap roles in a couple of weeks if Martin doesn't work out forward. Cook and McDonald cannot be expected to ruck and you can't expect Sellar to ruck from the backline. Cook plays WITH the second ruckman forward.

With both Rivers and Garland forward against GWS Joel Macdonald filled in very well but I doubt he's the medium term option. Troy Davis may be the one to step up there if both Rivers and Garland stay forward. Sellar/Martin, Frawley, McDonald, Davis, Watts, Strauss/Tynan - that's a big backline but still has pace and agility. Clark, Rivers, Garland, Jurrah will keep the opposition tall back honest.

Do you have to ask? The Sam Blease Show starring Sam Blease.

No he contradicted himself.

Ideally for what? What about support base development and fan catchment in Casey?

What, you mean like West Coast and Hawthorn?

I hate the idea of horses-for-courses in the backline. It's the area where you need to get a stable 6 or 7 that get fully used to operating as a unit. Sellar in and out depending on match-up is a disaster IMO. I think we need one gorilla-minder for the ubiquitous resting ruckman and it's not Rivers because he's too small. Sellar or Martin. McDonald could grow to fill this role. Frawley is flexible enough to enable the permanent inclusion of this role because if there's only one gorilla then he can play small - he's got the pace and agility. I'm concious that we need another marking option forward to assist Clark (until as posted above Cook comes on - which will take until at least 2014 to really start to deliver). I like Neeld's experimentation with Garland and Rivers in that role. Personally I like Rivers forward - he's a better contested mark and can compete in the air against multiple opponents and that's what we really need - his lack of pace is not an issue because we don't need him to be a leading option. He's a smart player who will be able to maximise his opportunities and is incredibly brave. Garland is also a more flexible option down back - he can play tall or small where Rivers can't play small. Sellar/Martin, Frawley, McDonald, Watts, Garland - that line-up covers any tall challenges and Frawley, Watts and Garland can all take smalls if required to negate any attempt to mismatch us. That leaves one spot - probably for small negator - Bartram unfortunately sounds finished, Nicholson has disposal limitations, Sam "Mr Unaccountable" Blease - dream on. I like Strauss and Tynan - no doubt one of them will emerge. Sellar/Martin, Frawley, McDonald, Watts, Garland, Strauss/Tynan - that backline has flexibility and presence - there's plenty of size about it without an associated lack of pace and mobility - they won't be pushed around - they'll be doing the pushing around. If you can't live with Rivers forward then Sellar/Martin, Frawley, Rivers, McDonald, Watts, Garland works but it's almost certain Frawley, Watts and Garland ake smalls - that's less flexible IMO. If you want Garland forward then Sellar/Martin, Frawley, Rivers, McDonald, Watts, Strauss/Tynan - but's that's less flexible too

TBM Bobby Skilton also apparently a dud?

That sort of logic isn't appreciated around here.

We could make it very awkward for them by offering GC pick 13 and matching Essendon's $s. We really just need to outbid other suitors and pick 13 outbids every team that finishes in the 8. If Caddy is fixed on returning to Victoria the alternative on the "get Viney in R2 plan" - we could offer GC pick 4 for Caddy and GWS pick 3 for mini-draft pick1 (Jack Martin) if they both pass on Viney. There's no way GC or GWS can do better than those deals. That effectively gives us Viney + Caddy in place of Viney + pick 25 - we're effectively getting Caddy for our 2nd rounder pick 25. Martin, Caddy, pick 13, Viney - that's not a bad deal.

I think we'll win 3 maybe 4.

I've heard that elswhere from good sources.

I think Cale and Jack should go harder.

What a surprise!

I am going skiing on the weekend we play GWS away.

be very careful

It's not the word, it's the content. Hatchman made an analogy which IMO was just acceptable, if pushing the boundaries Topophilia's reply was very witty Your's, well ... unnecessary is the best description. Hope you get the drift.

I'd suggest that it's vital to keep this kind of posting to a minimum and restrict it to this "special" thread.