w00dy

Perhaps on dusty. Chip only netted us Brayshaw. We would have got trac anyhow.

We got Brayshaw for chip, who is currently bouncing around the 2s. Trenners I love, but never looked like being as good as dusty. He is a jet.

Imagine if... We took D. Martin instead of Trengove; and We picked J. Riewoldt ahead of Frawley A couple of draft bungles we don't often talk about...

It's not the cap, all about draft points. GWS open up a spot on their list, allowing them to take another pick to the draft which we gave them, giving them more points to use on academy players. Good to see we're still making the most of the points system, even after the rules changed.

After we land Lewis, I'd be getting in Jaeger's ear. Ask him if he wants to play in a hawthorn midfield less Mitchell and Lewis, for a club in disarray, or come and play with Lewis in a midfield ready to challenge. Next year's first round with a 2nd rounder this year or next, or maybe an ANB type, wouldn't be far off making it happen. How good would it be to screw the Hawks like that...

B: Jetta, T. McDonald, Frost HB: Melksham, O. McDonald, Hibberd C: Vince, Jones, Hunt HF: Petracca, Watts, Kent F: Garlett, Hogan, Pedersen R: Gawn, Tyson, Viney I: Salem, Stretch, Oliver, Brayshaw E: Weideman, Harmes, Vandenberg

Who was it that said the other day every week people freak out over selection we win? A good sign then. I like the changes. Great to have trenners back in, a good replacement for Viney - Jack for Jack. Dawes brings more balance to the forward line which was too small. Plus he will finally be fit - he cops a lot on here but I suspect he's only played a handful of games for us when he's been 100%. Frost will play as the third key back - which suggests that the zone defence maybe softened a little this week. VDB always gives 100%. And Oliver will make us more dangerous in the middle. I'm a Kennedy fan, but he didn't do much last week, think he'll be back in the team soon enough.

Howe's best game by far for the pies, according to the rabble commentary, he's playing in the back line... so much for the next Jack Gunston...

B: Jetta, Dunn, Garland HB: Lumumba, T. McDonald, Melksham C: Vince, Tyson, Salem HF: Kent, Dawes, Vandenberg F: Garlett, Hogan, Pedersen R: Gawn, Jones, Viney I :Bugg, Brayshaw, Watts, Kennedy E: Stretch, Neal-Bullen, Frost Trengove and Petracca could work their way into the best 22, but will need some VFL games to start I'd think. Lumumba very lucky to make the starting 18, as I'd prefer Salem on HB.

the chart on page 6 of this file on the points system gives you a good idea. http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf The R-squared of the regression indicates that around 75% of the player's salary can be explained by the draft position that they're taken. But looking at the chart, the raw data would indicate the points allocated to most picks in the top 35 tend to overestimate the value of those picks - i.e. they should be worth less, and picks 35-50 should be worth a bit more. I'm surprised they weren't able to get a better fit to the data. It looks like the number 1 pick has dragged up the regression - unsurprisingly - it's probably he who I will not name and his millions causing that. I wonder if they adjusted for him - or perhaps a general bias for number 1's to get paid more on potential - no doubt we've paid Jack Watts more than his output reflects thus far.

Agree with OP, and think he could go on and make us pay. Think we ear-marked him down back a year ago with Hogan, Dawes, Pedersen, Frost pushing for spots up forward from round 1, but when Hogan was the only one left standing for some games, I think we should've pushed him forward again. Would've been better than playing Spencer at centre half forward no doubt... Think he kicked 3 against the Dogs a year or two ago? Could ruck if needed, was athletic, think he could've played that 3rd tall / ruck role we are still looking for. Frost may well be the man, but think he should've got a couple of more chances last year when we were missing our other key forwards that he wasn't given.

Not upset with this trade, but WADA worries me. I would've sought an insurance policy, aka a swap of first round picks next season. If WADA come down on Essendon, we have pick 1, if they don't, then we still have a decent pick, probably around the range of our original one, probably slightly better. But in the Bombers eyes, a win for them... I wonder if that was ever put forward...

Gill's expression as Hodge was giving his speech says it all I think. He knows things need to change.

I'm surprised there's not much chat here about Yarran. Get him back to his best and he'd definitely add some class we need, could probably land him for our second round pick. I'd back us in to get him playing well.

Until he got injured, it seemed Frost was being groomed for this role. Still unknown how good a forward he'll be, but I think he's the man.

I'm sure Gary Lyon did praise JB!

"That's ball!" he yelled, about 2 minutes in when a Melbourne player was tackled. "Throw!" as the ball spills lose from a Geelong tackle. "The Demons might even lead going into quarter time!" as they're three goals up with a couple of minutes left in the quarter. Just a really biased commentator, with today the double whammy of a team he loves against a team he puts down at every opportunity.

Roos had a bad day in the box on Monday, he made two errors. First one was starting McDonald on Cloke - he just doesn't have the body strength. I was asking myself why that was the match up as soon as the game started, with Dunn being the obvious option. McDonald is our best key defender, but it doesn't mean he's best suited to playing on the oppositions best key forward. The second was not manning up Oxley as everyone has noted. Even if the players were meant to man him up, physically shift one of them down there. They were pretty short in the forward line. Move Fitzy forward, make Oxley man him up and give ourselves a height advantage. He changed the momentum of the game twice, I can understand if the players didn't listen once, but there was plenty of time to make it happen and that's on the coach. But overall, I don't things are too bad. We've played 10 games. That includes 8 of the top 9 sides currently on the ladder, with West Coast the only team from the top half we haven't played, and Richmond the one team we've beaten in the 8. We've also beaten the Bulldogs and Gold Coast. Five of our next six games come against teams in the bottom half of the ladder. We should win four of those games if we're on our game, St. Kilda, Brisbane, Essendon and St. Kilda again. We might even sneak a win against Geelong or the Eagles at home. That should put us 7-9 or even 8-8 and we'll see how far we've come. It gets harder again at the back end - we could only win 1 or two more after that. We're doing better than we thought - we've had the toughest run of all the clubs so far this season. But the next 6 weeks will really be telling for how our season looks overall.

Michie in for Frost seems the smart move, liked our balance in round 1. Anyone think that Howe could take the centre bounce when Jamar is resting? I imagine he could jump over most ruckman. It's a bit out there, but could work for short periods. Then use Dawes/Dunn around the ground to nullify the opposition ruck.

This just in from Purple, the Hawks were quoting Demonland posters to sledge Mitch Clark during the Easter Monday clash at the MCG. Melbourne players are considering visiting the site ahead of their clash with GWS on Saturday to put high-profile signing Tom Scully off his game.

Vince in for Toumpas is straight forward. Give him time to develop in the VFL, and get some game time under his belt. The team comes first, and while not getting much opportunity, the team will be better without him in it. I really liked what I saw from Frost, but every time I think about it he has to make way for Dawes for team balance. All of our other KPPs get picked ahead of him. We'll be too tall otherwise, and I think we can get by without him as 2nd ruck. Dunn could follow Tomlinson into the middle and relief ruck when Jamar and the Mummy rest. Mcdonald and Garland take Cameron and McCarthy, with Howe to help out if needed. If Mumford rests forward, it could get a bit complicated, but that's a win for us, and when we should have Jamar in the middle so he can dominate the 2nd ruckman, and Dunn stays back. JKH is next in-line to miss, but for team balance, he stays.

I think Strauss was the only one that we could have handled better. We drafted a wingman with an elite kick, so we tried to turn him into a defender, which he clearly never was. I was disappointed we didn't just try and let him be a midfielder at any stage. Blease was never fit enough after how many years on the list? Posters are right, talented but lazy. And Tappy just never quite got it all together unfortunately.

I think this is how we'll be looking. But the interchange / emergency spots you could raffle. I think a lot of the teams named are too top heavy down back, and too small up forward. We name 4 key defenders in our backline, but only 2 key forwards? There's no need to play T. McDonald, Dunn, Garland, and Frost all in the same team. I think we'll see Frost come in and out depending on the opposition forwards. The third tall forward / ruck role should be Pedersen's again, as it's only really him and Fitzy who are really suited to it. And, I think Grimey is in a bit of trouble. He'll need to find some form, or maybe re-invent himself (tagger through the middle?) to hold his spot, if everyone is fit and firing. B: Jetta, T. McDonald, Garland HB: Lamumba, Dunn, Howe C: Vince, Viney, Watts HF: Garlett, Dawes, Kent F: Kennedy-Harris, Hogan, Pedersen R: Jamar, Tyson, N. Jones I: Cross, Newton, Petracca, Brayshaw E: Bail, Frost, Grimes, Toumpas, Salem, Riley, Gawn, Michie

but would the correlation between those diets and disease be as strong as the correlation between disease and being overweight? So for the normal people amongst us, if this type of diet gets people to a healthier weight, then I'd imagine this is better for them than eating less meat at a heavier weight...? I was reading about the outcomes of some new research released recently... obviously there are lots of studies, and you could almost find one to justify anything, but these are pretty big claims they're making... and they seem to fit in with the paleo style diet... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/11246112/High-fat-diets-not-as-dangerous-as-high-carbohydrate-plans-claim-scientists.html as an aside note, I've made a conscious effort at the start of the week to be eating better... thought i'd base that loosely around the paleo diet after reading the coverage earlier in the week, and I've already started to drop weight i wanted to lose. i've been avoiding bread, and eating more fatty foods including meats (particularly bacon), avocado, etc. along with larger amounts of veg, and I think it's definitely making a difference...

did Sean Charles really arrive at training in a helicopter?