Hazyshadeofgrinter

Yes! 17 = Sam Blease!

Watts confirmed

Watts confirmed

You sound pretty confident that Nat will go to Melbourne with pick 1. I think that is unlikely, but not because of incompetence at MFC headquarters, rather, the exact opposite. What odds would you take/pay?

First of all your comprehension is lacking. The point was that there were only 3 players at Collingwood who polled more than Bruce, not that Bruce polled more than three players. Secondly, given that you skipped over the main thrust of my argument about needs based trading, how about you just nominate the last little part of the post which was really more irreverent than irrelevant. Lastly, do you or do you not agree that Bruce would be significantly better than many of Collingwood's other midfielders over the next 2-3 years, and thus increase their chances of a flag in this period?

I find your analysis to be over-simplistic. Even if I am over-rating Bruce I would posit that trading (unlike drafting perhaps) is undertaken more on a needs basis than on a talent basis. This is because for a trade to go ahead, it has to be in the interests of both parties. Furthermore, as more mature players represent known quantities, this "needs basis" is more reliably addressed by trading than through the draft. After all, how many of the 2008 draft picks will go on to play the 50 games that Collingwood could reasonably (minimally) expect from an ageing Bruce? More importantly, when will they play them? Bruce can hit the ground running in 2009 provinding a mature body in the midfield and a mature mind off-field. Bruce recorded his highest ever average disposals this season; over 24/game. This years pick 25ish, even if he does go on to play a few games in seniors, probably won't be playing at their best for a few years by which time Collingwood's window will probablly have closed. Finally, although this isn't exactly scientific, Dane Swan, Tarkyn Lockyer, and Heath Shaw were the only Collingwood players to poll more votes than Bruce in the 2007 Brownlow which makes me think that they might be able to find a spot for him in their side...

Bruce to Collingwood for pick 25ish Why it makes sense? Collingwood will be looking to top-up for a shot at the flag in the next 2-3 years. They seem to be ok in the tall forward department but they could probably use some more help in the midfield. Bruce is too old to play in a premiership for Melbourne. As we are in a rebuilding phase, we would benefit more from another early-ish pick than from Bruce's contributions over the next few years. Bruce has no injury concerns, is highly rated by people from outside the MFC (at least by the ones I talk to), and represents real value as a draftee. As his B&F votes will no doubt attest, Bruce will leave a hole at Melbourne. We can only hope that this will be ameliorated by our promising younger mids and other senior players returning from injury/assuming more leadership responsibilty - but: no pain = no gain.

Caveat: My opininons are based on second-hand information and youtube videos. You should probably not even bother reading it - I just want to talk rubbish about the draft. If you're talking about Watts vs. Rich then yes. If you're interested in players with VFL experience then Mitch Robinson and Aaron Cornelius might interest you though. Both have played VFL in Tas, both could go around pick 17-19 and would look good on our list (Robinson is a midfielder, Cornelius a tall, strong marking forward). I would take Blease over Robinson but he would be great too. After Watts at pick 1 I would like two, preferably outsidish-type, midfielders who can kick accurately, link play and have good pace/line-breaking, and another strong marking forward target. To my mind this means. One of either Sam Blease, Mitch Robinson, Steve Hill or Matthew Broadbent at 17 or 19 (probably in that order of preference but definatley Blease first to my mind). Robinson and Hill look a little nervous kicking under pressure which worries me a bit, but both look like interesting tagging prospects. and One of either Lewis Johnston, Ryan Schoenmakers or Aaron Cornelius with the other early pick (probably in that order). The great thing about having picks 17-19 is that you only have to risk 1 player in between, so that would influence the decision of whether to take a midfielder or a forward first (depending on who is left). Ideally, we would take another of of the midfielders at 35 or for a Cameron Bruce pick (both suggestions could be optimistic though). Schoenmakers looks like he could play attacking meidfield as well as forward so he would be a great late aquisition also. There probably isn't room on the list for a Chris Yarran/Neville Jetta forward pocket/possible attacking midfielder in my opinion. If we get a Bruce pick and a good attcking midfielder slides to 35 then it would bear thinking about, but unless there is an obvious gap in talent, I would prefer a Whelan replacement (strong, can play small). Luke Shuey looks like a good fit for run and carry if he slides to 51. Otherwise Aaron Purves sounds interesting if he's still around. I don't see much point drafting backmen or rucks in this draft (assuming we get Warnock) but I guess a big body project ruckman like Andrew Browne (although we seem to have enough of those) or a possible Whelan replacement who is a genuine "footy player" and can play small up back (maybe Kade Klemke?), could be worth thinking about come pick 51. I would hate to see any more "run off half-back" or forward pocket prospects unless they have talent as genuine midfielders. I have no idea what to make of Tom Swift but I don't think we have the luxury or gambling with with an early (17 or 19) pick. So my ideal (semi-realistic) draft without a Bruce trade? Pick 1: Jack Watts Pick 17: Sam Blease Pick 19: Lewis Johnston Pick 35: Ryan Schoenmakers/Matthew Broadbent Pick 51: Kade Klemke/Luke Shuey PSD: Warnock I'm not worried about drafting bottom-aged players who might miss out on 2009. Although in the 2009 draft I might try to draft more ready-made types. So, am I dreaming? Am I being stupid putting this much focus on target forwards and Mids? Do we need more backs with Whelan and Carrol going soon? Should Zaharakis get a mention? Should I shut the hell up because I haven't seen any of them live? (probably) Cheers P.S. , (anyone else think he looks Cale Morton-esque in this clip? (albeit smaller and faster)), , , , , , .

Paying out Carroll isn't going to cost us any extra - we have to pay him anyway. Were we planning on using him on-field next year? The only extra cost comes from paying the rookie who takes his place on the side. This would be pretty inexpensive and sound list management besides.

Congratualations - that's much more ironic.

He also suggests that we take Sidebottom because we need more help in the back line but our forwards are sorted!! I like the sounds of Blease though. Decent turn of speed too from what I've read. Blease: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=e7DTWnqlg8E

I take it you're an Alanis Morissette fan?

Actually Morton got 3... but yes, It's a pity that Garland didn't poll any.

Even better, why shouldn't they, as community spokespersons, be held up to the same amount of scruitiny. I suspect that there would be a number of 3-strikes-and-outs.

fixed

Doesn't "IMO" stand for In My Opinion? So what you said was that, in your opinion, even though there is some potential amongst the other players, only Morton has the potential to become a star? Well fine, I'm just trying to say that I think your "opinion" is misguided and that it is inconsistent with the caution that you advise in the positive assessment of players. You didn't simply write that Morton is more promising than the others, you wrote that Morton is the only player with star potential in your view. Maybe that isn't how you meant it to sound but it's what you wrote. Sorry if you consider my objection to your statement to be "nitpicking", I just think that you're being overly hasty by suggesting that none of our other young players will go on to be stars. Cheers (Sheesh!)

1. All clubs are reliant upon AFL funding 2. Isn't securing that funding a good thing? 3. The club would also be in the black if we were propped up by a 2M dollar tin-rattle every year, unfortunatley this kind of charity stunt is a one-shot pistol and not a sustainable plan. 4. You're not vehemently supporting your club, you're vehemently supporting your pin-up boy "President for life (and potentially unilateral dictator) Jim." 5. My point is that even though Stynes had the nerve to suggest that P. Mac needed a "mentor" such was his "inexperiernce", he himself declined the help of Phillips who knew the ins and outs of the job and was graciously prepared to try and show Jim the ropes despite being overlooked in his cloak and dagger coup. Ask yourself who was less experienced in their respective roles and then ask yourself why Jim thought it appropriate for P. Mac to have a mentor but not himself. Contrary to what you might have been told by Shirley Strachan, it is, in fact, a dirty word. Oh, and who was the man proposed for this mentor position? None other than Mr. Schwab. Heat on McNamee as Dockers chief prepares to return home But, as I have already noted your rabid fan-boi nature, I won't be surprised to read a response more one-eyed than a filth supporter.

1999-2003: aggregate losses of $8.52 million, then with the help of a new board, 4 years of profit followed by ~ 2M loss mostly on the back of a 1.5M increase in football operations spending and two terrible years on-field (helped along by the thoughtless sacking of P.Mac I'm sure). Cue an ex-ruckman with a dreamy Irish accent and all is forgotten however. The misguided vehemence of your last post is ample evidence that you are such an incorrigible Stynes Fan Boi that you could not even entertain the notion that he might be mortal like the rest of us despite the increasing amounts of evidence. Interesting that Jim not only paid to get rid of P.Mac but couldn't even find a place for Phillips who would have worked for free. The only "obsession" here is your own and I'll remember it the next time I read one of your posts.

Ok here's what you said (in cotext - not that i think that it makes any difference). So you start off saying it is too ealry to say if any of our young players will turn out well and that 5 years is a good amount of time to judge someone. Great I agree. But then you do a backflip by proclaiming that only Morton has the potential to be a star. Ironically, this is on the back of one seasons play. As it turns out, I agree that Morton is the most exciting prospect at the moment but then I think, shouldn't Rhino take his own advice and wait a little longer before writing off our other young players as not star quality? So I point out that actually, Gary Ablett Jnr. was nothing special prior to 2007 and that, given that he is probably the best player in the comp at the moment, there is every chance that other young players on our list might go on to be greats of the game. Accordingly, it is good to be cautious not only in your praise of a young player but in your "faint praise" also. If it takes five years to properly assess draft year performance then surely it takes 5 years to tell if a player is "star material" or not. 2006 was Ablett's 5th year and I would not have called him star material then. Anyway, your "better than medicore" talk prompted me to do some research and I've come up with some stats from rleague comparing Ablett's first three seasons with those of some of our young players. Obviously, there are all sorts of reasons why the stats aren't going to be completely compelling, different teams, positions, playing styles etc., but it might be worth a look anyway it is actually a pretty encouraging read for those who live in hope. In any case, I'm not trying to prove that any of our players will definitely go on to be stars, merely that you are overly pessimistic in your assertion that Morton is the only one with the potential to do so. Games and percentages are aggregates, thus, the "three seasons" row includes stats for the previous two seasons in its calculations. With the exception of Ablett and Morton, players are in no particular order. Most of the players who are under 22 and have played 3 seasons or less so far are included, but not all. No-one was left off intentionally, I just couldn't be bothered anymore. Garry Ablett jnr.’s first season (2002) aged 18 (DOB: 14-05-1984): Games---Disposals/game---Goals/game---Goals/Behinds--- Marks/game---Tackles/game 12 ------------ 8.33 --------------- 0.83 --------------- 3.33 ------------- 1.08 ----------- 2.08 Two seasons: 34 ------------ 12.56 ------------ 1.06 --------------- 1.57 ------------- 2.18 ----------- 3.00 Three seasons: 55 ------------ 13.24 ------------ 1.29 --------------- 1.48 ------------- 2.18 ----------- 3.55 Cale Morton’s first season (2008) aged 18 (DOB: 18-01-1990): Games---Disposals/game---Goals/game---Goals/Behinds--- Marks/game---Tackles/game 17 ------------ 18.06 ------------ 0.71 --------------- 1.71 ------------- 5.88 ----------- 1.12 Simon Buckley’s first season (2007) aged 20 (DOB: 18-04-1987): Games---Disposals/game---Goals/game---Goals/Behinds--- Marks/game---Tackles/game 6 ------------ 10.33 ------------ 0.17 ----------------- * ----------------- 2.17 ----------- 1.33 Two seasons: 18 ------------ 17.11 ------------ 0.17 --------------- 1.00 -------------- 4.89 ----------- 1.28 Colin Garland’s first season (2007) aged 19 (DOB: 28-04-1988): Games---Disposals/game---Goals/game---Goals/Behinds--- Marks/game---Tackles/game 2 ------------ 4.5 ----------------- * ------------------ * ----------------- 0.50 ------------ 1.50 Two seasons: 17 ------------ 10.88 ------------ 0.12 ---------------- 1.00 ------------- 3.88 ----------- 1.29 Nathan Jones’ first season (2006) aged 18 (DOB: 20-01-1988): Games---Disposals/game---Goals/game---Goals/Behinds--- Marks/game---Tackles/game 8 ------------ 13.88 -------------- 0.25 --------------- * ----------------- 2.50 ----------- 3.13 Two seasons: 29 ------------ 16.41 -------------- 0.41 --------------- 2.00 ------------- 2.79 ----------- 3.83 Three seasons: 48 ------------ 18.06 -------------- 0.44 --------------- 1.75 ------------- 2.92 ----------- 3.42 Austin Wonaeamirri’s first season (2008) aged 19 (DOB: 02-10-1988): Games---Disposals/game---Goals/game---Goals/Behinds--- Marks/game---Tackles/game 17 ------------ 11.24 -------------- 1.35 --------------- 7.67 ------------- 4.18 ----------- 3.53 Ricky Petterd’s first season (2007) aged 19 (DOB: 24-07-1988): Games---Disposals/game---Goals/game---Goals/Behinds--- Marks/game---Tackles/game 9 ------------ 13.78 -------------- 0.67 --------------- 3.00 ------------- 5.67 ----------- 2.00 Two seasons: 10 ------------ 13.5 -------------- 0.60 --------------- 3.00 ------------- 5.40 ----------- 2.00 Shane Valenti’s first season (2008) aged 21 (DOB: 29-01-1987): Games---Disposals/game---Goals/game---Goals/Behinds--- Marks/game---Tackles/game 9 ------------ 17.11 -------------- 0.33 ---------------- 1.00 ------------- 4.56 ----------- 3.34 Addam Maric’s first season (2008) aged 18 (DOB: 18-04-1990): Games---Disposals/game---Goals/game---Goals/Behinds--- Marks/game---Tackles/game 4 ------------ 14.75 -------------- 0.5 ---------------- 2.00 ------------- 5.00 ----------- 0.75 Matthew Bate’s first season (2006) aged 19 (DOB: 24-05-1987): Games---Disposals/game---Goals/game---Goals/Behinds--- Marks/game---Tackles/game 14 ------------ 15.79 -------------- 0.57 --------------- 1.60 ------------- 5.50 ----------- 2.71 Two seasons: 33 ------------ 15.61 -------------- 0.82 --------------- 2.08 ------------- 5.18 ----------- 2.94 Three seasons: 47 ------------ 16.26 -------------- 0.83 --------------- 1.63 ------------- 5.49 ----------- 2.96 Lynden Dunn’s first season (2006) aged 19 (DOB: 14-05-1987) Games---Disposals/game---Goals/game---Goals/Behinds--- Marks/game---Tackles/game 11 ------------ 9.36 -------------- 1.18 --------------- 1.30 ------------- 3.82 ----------- 1.18 Two seasons: 23 ------------ 11.22 -------------- 0.96 --------------- 1.29 ------------- 3.61 ----------- 2.22 Three seasons: 38 ------------ 11.50 -------------- 0.74 --------------- 1.22 ------------- 3.63 ----------- 2.68 Even though I'll be the first to admit that many of these comparisons aren't exaclty fair, I have taken the liberty of highlighting the stats of Melbourne players when they are better than Ablett Jnr's stats of the equivalent season (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd). It's not exactly scientific but Ablett seems to be consistently out-performed for marks and disposals by our boys (probably due, at least in part, to different playing styles i.e. over-use of the ball at Melbourne) but, as one would expect from a forward, does better in the goal department. Ablett's tackling is probably his most impressive stat for these seasons. It would be interesting to hear who people would have hypothetically traded for a 1st, 2nd or 3rd season Ablett jnr. if both players had the same debut year. Hopefully this will also make encouraging reading for any young Melbourne players who might stray onto the forum. Cheers

Well, what you actually said was that: The "only" part being the significant bit as it implies that no-one else has that potential. I was just pointing out that if it's "too early to count your chickens" it's also to early to discount any of our other young promising players from becoming stars in the future. And Ablett may well have been "beter than mediocre" but that's about it. Are you saying that Morton is the only young player who is better than mediocre for their age level and experience?

Not that I think that Martin should be played forward or anything but Newton shouldn't have been given two years and Watts will be too young to play in 2009.

I find it odd that you advise caution but then go on to say that only Morton potential "star" quality. Especially given that, until last year, Gary Ablett Jnr. was a mediocre small forward. I do agree however that many posters somethimes get a little carried away with hope.

I've changed it back again. I might need some help maintaining it though. Schwarz is an excellent choice. I always loved the ox.

Well my comment wasn't aimed at you personally but given that you like simple facts try these ones on for size, posted by "Rflowerwing" in another thread I started: I agree that over time and given that nothing major happens, the MCC membership will trend away from MFC support in percentage terms. However, I also know that the proportion of high ranking MCC members is strongly skewed to Demon allegiance. I say make the most of it while this remains the case! If they won't be our longterm saviours then what will?

Great memory that. Thanks for reminding me of it.