old55

If he wasn't flag core © after 1 game then he definitely is after 4. The stats show that picks in the teens and 20s often don't work out - I think earlier picks are more certain, these picks are often too "safe" and later picks are more speculative, look at X-factor and deliver more hits. Grimes is a hit, Tapscott looks promising but we're looking at possible misses with Blease, Strauss and Maric in this range. That's 50:50, if one of those latter 3 can make it then we'll have done well. Cook in this range too early to say.

The problem is that he thinks he's Gary Ablett - a man's got to understand his limitations.

I don't think that's right, he does make good ground position and is able to get into a 1:1 with some space on his opponent but team-mates don't go to him in this situation because it appears they don't have confidence he'll win the contest - and there's some evidence that's true. They need to be confident he'll win the 1:1 and maybe that will come with further physical development.

Interesting that you focus on "forms of attack" when Collingwood's premiership success is based on a form of defence. Unsure if this is a step forward from your "we've got it, they've got it or it's in dispute" analysis or not.

How didn't we trade Franklin for Bruce? I guess we were worried about Franklin's kicking.

"Fev eats baby" dee-luded: It's all part of his recovery

According to ABC radio the "teddy bear" has been sent off in the Narre Warren match for fighting.

It's going to take a very good player to displace him.

Not sure if serious?

So what conclusion are you drawing about Trengove's pace? I guess it must be the same one you draw about Sumner's pace after Bennell smoked him? Trengove = Sumner? Or how about just Trengove and Sumner aren't as fast as L.Jetta, Rohan and Bennell

If Tapscott plays back the Geelong player he'd perhaps most resemble is Josh Hunt. Hunt is 185/100 and Tappy is 180/85 so there is a size difference. I must admit I've never been a big fan of Hunt and much preferred James Kelly back there in that role when Hunt was out with his knee injury - but that's at least partly because I don't think Hunt plays very accountable football. I guess a classic Geelong premiership back 6 looks something like: Hunt - Tapscott Scarlett - Frawley Harley - Rivers Mackie - Strauss Taylor - Garland Enright - Grimes

And so many people reckon they get paid too much! The current AFLPA claim for 27% or revenue should be viewed in the light of this article. Or the fact that players can't play a round of golf without a cart because they can't walk the cause due to the battering their bodies have taken.

Listening to Belly on SEN I did hear some info which fitted this. Hope he continues to make good progress with his therapy.

Turnover Differential would be worth considering

You're his mum!

Like I said rpfc - I've got a lot of sympathy for your idea. It's a legitimate question I reckon you should e-mail to Dean Bailey and Cam Schwab and ask them what metrics they and therefore we should be looking at. Don't guess - go to the source.

I'm unconvinced that clearances and I50s are absolute markers - it depends on our game-style. A clearance is often a bomb forward - we can set-up behind the ball to negate this. We might allow a lot of I50s but prevent conversion whereas we may have fewer I50s and convert at a much higher rate depending on the way we set-up and play. We could lose both these and still be on a winning model. I like relative contested possession more. I don't think it's sufficient to correlate these KPIs to wins across the league to prove their worth - as I say it depends on OUR game-style. Average score against and percentage - yeah I'd like to see a positive trend obviously but I think we arrested % last year and both of these are now very nearly proxies for winning.

Let me say I have a great deal of sympathy for your approach but ... Who says they are "K" KPIs? I want to see some reasoning why these are the important ones. That flag core list will play pretty much every week anyway if they are fit so it's not really a coaching progress meter. Maybe it measures the ability of our conditioning and medical team? Of more interest to me is how many games we get into the potential flag core: Bennell, Jetta, Gysberts, Blease, Strauss, Tapscott, Spencer, Cook, Howe, Maric etc - they're the guys we need to find out about. I reckon Jamar, Davey, Moloney and Sylvia are locks in the experienced camp and there's about 8-10 young players who are very likely - most of them in your flag core list, it's where the other 8-10 are coming from that I'm interested in.

Rivers did well on Roughead last time - there's no way he'll be dropped, you can tell Bailey loves him. Martin could play 100% on Hale fwd/back and ruck. Garland or Frawley on Buddy.

Some lateral movement needed - that's why he'll never make it in the backline - I plead guilty to suggesting he be tried at FB when he arrived and we were poor down there but I've come to see why it couldn't work. He's in trouble.

I agree with that - I think he'd be very attractive to GWS

Yes fwits did. I don't agree with Hannabal - Watts can still be a great player - as Bob says he's just not going to be the type of great player he hoped for.

It is a concern - along with Frawley he's the main attacking weapon in a backline that has a number of poor kicks. We need to address this area. I think Trengove is as strong overhead and about the same size - he may be a better option in that role. Good to see Tapscott making an impact. I'd like to see Wonna tried down there. One great aspect of yesterday was how we denied the Swan's a goal in the death - great contested effort.

Ideal GWS target

Made some great spoils.