Skuit

Very minor changes from a personal perspective and almost not worth bringing up (in the hopes of avoiding a pointless derailment) But, personally, I think: Viney has some serious development still to come (forget perceptions of a limited skill-set - with a clear run at it this kid will be Brownlow material - the question being will he ever get a clear run at it?) - High Scope Oliver - ditto on the Brownlow material. Despite how great he has already been, and how I don't actually give a toss if he handballs or kicks it, I think when he does kick it more often, and when he starts moving forward a bit more, he's going to have a massive impact akin the the very upper elite of the comp - High Scope Hunt - is more of a gamble but he strikes me as just a kid still - a late starter with some serious and unique weapons. Can also see his role potentially changing over time to make the most of his abilities - High Scope Frost - Somewhat similar to the above - Medium Scope Omac - I don't believe is set for great heights but I would be happy if keeps improving - Medium Scope Vanders - I have somewhat blinded vision for based on one live pre-season sighting where he looked ready to bust open the comp - Medium Scope Kent, Stretch, and JKH are all hovering very close to the divisional margins for me, but - Low Scope

That was essentially my point. We finished 9th this year by a narrow few percentage points. We can't account for injuries next year, but there's serious scope for improvement (to whatever degree) from the majority of the list on this year's output - with the hope that a handful will hold their form and only few will slide (with those not massive contributors this year anyhow). Upside is huge. The improvement of other teams is of course a factor, but I think we have most of the league covered in this regard. *I forget McKenna exists on our list. I have no idea what he even looks like.

Problem is not consistency. It's role and fit. Pedo isn't a natural KPF and not a starting ruck. But he plays his best footy when he's primarily involved and moving toward goals. Yet he's not a wing and not quite a roving CFH either. He is a very good utility.

Nice work P-man. I would argue three of four assessments but this is a great model of categorisation and you've fairly well nailed the majority of slots.

Interesting OP (with the naturally expected quibbles as to player catergorisation). I keep a similar mental list concerning an overall idea of expected improvement - divided by individual gains, holds and decreases in form (based somewhat on proven potential and previous form). If the majority of the following occurs we'll be sitting very pretty. Players who it's not unreasonable to expect an increased output on last season (including effectively 7 top-ten draft picks with quite a number of combined years in the system): Lever Viney Hogan Petracca Oliver Gawn Salem Brayshaw Hunt Omac Frost Maynard J.Smith Hannan Vanders Players who it's not unreasonable to expect will hold their most recent form: Jones Hibberd (AA) Jetta (AA) Tyson Garlett Pedo Tmac Melksham ANB Bugg Harmes That's 26. Plus some wild-cards like Weeds and Balic as well as our draftees. Go Dees!

For anyone who couldn't be bothered reading the article, it also mentions Lindsay Thomas is expected to join Port as a rookie. The Power strategy is like the highly speculative crypto version of money-ball.

Welcome D4life. It's refreshing to hear one of our older supporters talk in such terms

Make that 2999-3999 memberships.

It is a worry. There's no hiding from the slump in comparative figures. There may be an innocuous explanation which will correct itself, but ding has fronted up and given his personal reasoning, which whether anyone agrees with it not, fits within the narrative of greatest concern - members are especially angry with the club this year over a combination of (late or post-season) factors and are prepared to bite off their noses (for the time being at least). Acknowledging such an occurrence isn't a criticism of the club - they would have had a pretty good idea of the impact in moving on Jack - but also would have weighed it up as a one-step-back-two-steps-forward overall strategic approach. Sustained on-field success is the only reliable tonic, and we have everyone at the club now driving toward this result. It may be the membership recession we had to have. Here's hoping some of the anger will subside soon after the boys strap on the boots for pre-season training - boys including Jack Viney, Clayton Oliver, Jesse Hogan, Christian Petracca, Angus Brayshaw, Jayden Hunt, Christian Salem, and, drum roll, Jake Lever, and that chaps like ding will get back on board - but here's hoping more so that we finally win a bloody flag and don't have to concern ourselves anymore with supporters being in a huff.

This is a cool post. I wish I had posted it.

Straight to the wing at Casey will suffice. My point was more that there doesn't seem to be too many wing specialists to come out of junior-age level. Curious why.

I'm all ears.

Once again I'm sold on your say-so. Can we send him straight to the wing though? We're always looking to push someone to the wing. Are there no wingers at underage level?

Why's that?

I so desperately want this player - who I've never seen and know practically nothing about - that even this existence of this thread is making me anxious, as if the NMFC recruiters might hear of this bloke on Demonland and swoop in before us.

Bad things against our opposition?

His stat-line for that day (in his second game) if anyone is interested: 15 disposals (6 contested), 4 marks, 5 tackles and a goal. Edit: And in his third AFL game (the WA derby): 19 disposals (9 contested), 6 marks, 4 tackles and a goal.

I actually suspect an in-principle deal was made in good faith between the clubs at the beginning of the trade period for Fremantle to receive our highest inactive pick at its conclusion - with the Watts hold-up related to what we could/would do with the returned pick. I base this suspicion on very little evidence.

Congrats to Josh and the team on a great deal and welcome to the Melbourne Football Club Harley.

Hey Steve. You've mentioned Petrucelle's explosiveness previously, but which three on this list would you personally take if you had a free hit - i.e. those with the potential-most upside as impact players regardless of current concerns for consistency etc.? Cheers.

I had a small concern like this also Gonzo. But we've had a drip-feed of firsts through injuries and trading futures: Petracca and Hogan were a year late (Hoges an extra year for being underage and then perhaps considering this year - one again), Brashaw maybe two; Oliver and Wieds a year early - in essence I don't think we're starved of young talent. And the notion that we were potentially done with trading after Lever and Balic hit home a bit. We're fighting against equalisation: it's a cycle where veterans move out, clear cap, and you develop new young players. Every club has to go through it. But we've stock-piled the best young list in the league to break the cycle and have a one-two-three-year tilt. And now, those players have become genuine commodities. If we're squeezed on cap, we trade them out for value and hopefully continue the cycle from there to powerhouse status without a serious rebuild (a la Geelong/Sydney etc).

Hehe. Woke up in the middle of the night for the Lever deal, went to work for ten hours, came home, only to read that people are still complaining about spending overs for a future, consistent AA defender. This site has gone full-tilt. I speculated that we would accommodate the Crow's demand for paying two firsts while not spending a cent more than our original offer of 10 & 28 - so as to allow them to save face. This is exactly what has happened. What I failed to predict was that our own supporters would be duped by the 'two-firsts' hype and believe that we're the ones losing face. Forgetting everything else: it's a first and a first and a fourth for a first, second and third, with one of those firsts (hint: ours) being a genuine ready-to-go first and a known commodity with a couple years in the system. What the hell is the problem with that? Anyways, congrats to Josh and the team for once again showing we're on top the game while maintaining our good reputation and getting [censored] done.

Yes, I was assuming we win the flag with the 'ish' as a small concession. Did you catch any of the latest season? I don't really want to spoil the ending, and it wasn't a realistic twist, but the Richmond Football ended up as the premiers.

So, according to the article: Lever and 18 for 10 (2017) and 18ish (2018). Equals pick 10 (disregarding any supposed and speculative superdraft adjustments - arguably countered by cashing our currency now). Or, Lever and 18 for 10 and Watts (28ish - 2017) and 18ish (2018). Equals 10 and 28ish (with the above considerations). My guess: the Crows are looking to save face and want those 'two first-rounders' in at least name, even if equates to an overall poorer deal (scenario A). We will in turn accommodate their fragile grand-final choking egos to the utmost extent to which we were originally offering (the equivalent of 10 and 28 - scenario B) but look to turn this goodwill in our favour - perhaps by seeking a later pick from the Crows in addition. Yet, we will have put our own internal price on Watts - be it 20 from Geelong or 30 from Sydney, and will be happy enough to come out on top of the overall ledger - so it may seem we get a bargain or pay slight overs.

Pretty sure you don't stay married for 12 years unless you're a reasonably decent liar.