old55

Defeated us by 80 in R22 last year - the wheel turns ...

True. But it doesn't happen. Contrary to fantasy a stale sandwich and a cold cup of coffee don't suddenly make a tasty meal, and 2 players each worth a 4rd rounder don't equal a 2nd rounder when bundled together, they still equal 2 4th rounders.

It was Steve da Rui. It happened right in front of me. Strawbs had a penchant for whacking people but he didn't whack Da Rui. It was a push to the face, very tame for the times (altho would draw scrutiny today) and Da Rui majorly over-acted to get a free-kick and came up laughing. Strawbs record didn't help him.

Predicted scoreline?

FMD Rumplestiltskin, I like Brad Green but he's only played 12 games.

Agreed, next year's results may be inconclusive and we'll need to offer more than 1 year extension. Bailey has shown quite clearly that he's willing to make hard decisions. Much cleaner to give a 1 year extension now so Bailey has 2 full years to fully show his wares. The contract after that is when our window starts to open up.

Daniel Bell

Hawks at $17 is value

Well done Robbo, the fact that his name is not out of place on that 10 forwards list post is a massive accolade in itself. Robbo's greatest achievement was the improvement he made in goal kicking reliability. He went from "look away" to "mark it down in the record".

They usually take one of two forms: Used soap on a rope + pick 66 for Pavlich OR Two first rounders for Shane Valenti

Rank these 10 tall forwards (alright some didn't play their entire career fwd but maybe that makes them rate higher) who have recently retired or are getting close ... Grant C Hall Lloyd Lucas Neitz O'Loughlin Richo Robbo Rocca A Tredrea

I rank them Robbo-Lucas-Lyon-Neitz-Lloyd but there's little difference between Lucas and Lyon, Lucas played 50 more games but Lyon offered great leadership. People are naturally biased towards their own players.

He's somewhere in the Robertson -- Lyon -- Neitz spectrum range.

Not sure about that Nasher, with 1/3 of the draft pool excluded pick 50 this year is like pick 75 any other year - that's pretty late. I think if it was last year Watts and Blease our first 2 picks would have been excluded from the pool. 1,2,18,34 and 50 are the equivalent of something like 1,3,27,51 and 75 in any other year if I've got my reasoning right.

just post your 10

If the Dogs chase and get Hall or Pavlich they can win the flag. With Goodwin, McLeod, Edwards and Burton almost finished the Crows just wont be able to break thru or get real replacement talent on. Ironically Craig is too good a coach and they'll continue to finish 4-8 for the foreseeble future - they need to replace Craig which will not be easy under those circumstances.

Correct weight, except you've got Richmond in limbo twice - and they probably deserve to be. Brisbane is the other limbo club but they're right on the fringe of the flag group and could go either way. WC may actually be able to win a flag within the 5 years - they may need to because Glass and Cox are already 28. The limbo clubs are paralysed by the GC and WS draft concessions. Free agency could mess with this in a big way.

Knights staying put "It's just a waste of time. I've got a contract (2008-10), we're still in the early part of our (rebuilding) program, and things are going pretty strongly." No surprise though when the alternative is the Richmond job - [censored] sandwich or cup of cold sick.

Yeah but it's not all roses because Blease and Strauss can't move up on that basis so this year's draftees need to go into the 50s - not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with that. Maybe they'll give Scully 55.

You reckon they're [censored], I reckon they're [censored] - but Knight's obviously doesn't. What would've Bailey done of he was Essendon's coach? Since R2 2008 I've been hoping for priority pick 1 this year. Bailey's about to deliver on that - it's too easy to say now that it was obvious that's what he had to do. What would Knights have done if he was Melbourne coach? I wager you there's plenty of posters in this thread who'd rather be Essendon-Knights than Melbourne-Bailey.

Oh really? And how do you reckon that rebuild is going? How well advanced are Essendon on their sole reason for existence? And who are the stars that are going to take them there? I agree that Bailey had an easier time making the hard decisions than Knights. But I think and have posted elsewhere that Eseendon is screwed. They are doomed to finish between 10th and 4th for the next 5 years and cannot win a flag in the next 10 years. Knights had tougher choices than Bailey but did not make them. I'd rather be Fremantle than Essendon, provided Fremantle trades either Pavlich or Sandilands this year. Bailey could have retained TJ and he could be sitting on 6 wins right now and be a "mathematical possibility". There's 6 clubs that can win the next 5 flags. There's 2 clubs whose coaches have gone fully to the well and possibly 3 if Freo have the cohones. There's 7 clubs in limbo, Essendon is one of them and Knights and their board have taken there. I should add that the entry of GC and WS has brought the situation to a point, there'd be ways around if they weren't coming.

List however many you want up to 10 then, like Kit did Remember that means you're prepared to let others go to GC or WS - I'd be amazed if you don't want to protect at least 10. BTW, the AFL has some secret draft compensation formula for clubs losing uncontracted to GC and WS so we don't lose the player for nothing.

You and Rogue are saying Bailey wouldn't have got the job if he didn't talk down the list and insist on rebuilding. Matthew Knights reportedly talked up the Eseendon list compared with Damien Hardwick who was much more bearish - Knights got the job. Knights has forged on with veterans, not traded them, played an attacking game style and won games - who'd rather be them right now? Bailey has taken a different route.

I thought it said "Do feed the lions"! You can ignore the instructions in the OP as you wish - hey it's an internet forum after all. But you don't need to include "Scully" and "Trengove" in your top 10, it's a current top 10 - top 12 if you include this year's pick 1 and 2.

With Morton re-signing for 2 years that protects him from being snapped up by GC as an uncontracted player but presumably leaves the WS door open. Which 10 players are untouchables (including Morton if he's in your list) and must be protected from GC and WS poaching. I think there's a strong case for signing this year's pick 1 & 2 to 3 years to lock them in - so you can leave them out of the list (or consider it to be 12). [PS. It should be said that I think we can protect more than 10 with good negotiation but 10 is a nice number to sharpen your thinking - see Pants good work below, it's not easy]