Dappa Dan

Yep. We're in a spot of bother with him. We had Stynes, then we got White... we've had good ruckmen for as long as I've known what a footy looked like... He's on about 250 games I think... So there's no reason why he can't hold the duties for another season. But beyond that, I'd be surprised if he would play all that much more good footy. So basically, we have to look to one of the three younger guys to develop. What happened to the days when ruckmen were recruited and were immediately guns... Everyone knew White was going to be a great player from when he was shaped like an upside-down coathanger... These days you have to select them late in the draft or in the rookie draft and wait 5 years...

This begs the question.... Since Grimes is such a die-hard dees fan, I wonder if he was ever a member of 'ology or 'land? I remember when garland was drafted, people discovered he was on bigfooty as colstar or something... And the results were a tiny bit embarrassing...

I'm looking at maybe 10 or so. I'm gonna miss the start of the season unfortunately... No work in Australia in my field so I have to do without my staple diet...

I picked this a couple of years ago. In almost every players' bio in recent years it has said "leadership potential," or "potential captain," which I find interesting. With the exception of Morton and Maric who don't fall into this group, we have players like Grimes, Jones, Dunn, McLean, Frawley, Bartram, Davey and Petterd who all fit the bill nicely. In positive terms this partially solves the leadership issue at the club in the coming years, and ensures that attitude will never be the downfall of one of these players... but it also means that you have a LOT of leaders and not so many followers. I think it's a great theory, and one of the chief reasons why CAC has been able to pull so many smokies from low in the draft as they seem to rely on guts and determination, as well as pride to get themselves into AFL footy earlier than expected.

MFC: Leading the league in "M"s... Morton, McNamara, Miller, Meesen, Maric, McDonald, McLean, Moloney.... And that's assuming we don't get any more... We used to be big on the "W"s... but we've turned that around... GET IT!!!! Oh man... I kill me.

I have been dreading this day. You see I am only just an 80s kid. Now footballers' DOBs are in a different decade altogether. I'm old... CAC had already gone on the record saying he'd take best available with the first 3 picks. Looking at the landscape he absolutely did that. Grimes was perhaps a place or two lower than expected, Morton was a gem and Maric was, for mine, the last player in the draft that would attract envy from other recruiters and supporters. After him it's all horses for courses. Personally, I'm thrilled we didn't add yet another KPP player with question marks. We have so many that have holes in their games, and even some that are still looking like they may not go the journey. Just because you take Rance at 14 doesn't mean he'll play like a KP taken at 14 in last year's draft. Yes we need big guys, but it would be more damaging having a mediocre big guy taking up space on the list. CAC and co. will probably make a visit in the coming weeks when everything's settled. I imagine he has a lot to do at the moment.

3 new young'uns, only one of them with any experience in the AFL? No. Morton has the best chance of slipping in after a good pre-season. He would only need to get the pill a few times to have an impact from all accounts. MAYBE Maric given his designation and our lack of tiny dangerous forwards.

Was just about to say Bode could be pushed up the list. OH NO!!!! Jacey you beat me to it!!! I was wondering when someone would do that with their avatar...

Long winded... You obviously haven't run into me too often... I'm genuinely pleased about today. Actually, I'm even more excited about it than I was with last year when we picked up Frawley and Petterd who I like. I have failed to get excited about draft day this year given the Carltank situation with losing potential priority picks when we won round 22, and also getting pick 4 instead of 3 for a technical loophole. But given the landscape of the draft we got a ripper with our last genuinely high pick in Maric. Many of the players before him I wouldn't take, and almost EVERY player after him I would look over as well. It seems we got all the christmas presents we asked for. Morton is exciting, and really I think even HAD we had pick 3 we probably would have taken him anyway, which is pleasing. I must confess I don't know much about Grimes. I'm not sure he has star quality, which is something you just have to accept given his position in the draft, in a weak year. In the end I consider us lucky to have him. Had it been LAST year that we tried to trade Trapper, no-one would have given pick 14 (or thereabouts) for him. So we made hay while the sun shone as far as I'm concerned. Also, given our need for stars, we now have Morton who has that within his reach, and Maric who has enough X-Factor with that boot of his... I'm a little concerned about tall timber, but only really for season 2008. We may find some creative coaching sneaking in, and that's ok... there's much learning to be done in the coming years. I look forward to next season where we lose another 4-6 dead-wood players and replace them with young-uns AGAIN. So far, CAC has put a smile on my face... Yet again.

Aaah. The spirit of Grant Thomas lives on.

Pat Vespremeavxzcski

Rioli.

Morton. Boring I know.

When I first read this topic title, as the page loaded Bate slipped into my head somehow, and I was surprised to see him at the top of your list. On further reflection I think it's probably a bit early in his career to lump him with that kind of expectation. He has some GREAT strengths, but also some glaring weaknesses, and what with AFL defences being so well studied these days I fully expect those weaknesses to be exploited... The only way he'll becom our most important player is if he plays 22 rounds at CHF and presents well for the ENTIRE year. If he plays there, you can bet he'll get the best and most mobile defender (maybe Neita will take him sometimes) and will be curtailed the most of any of our tall forwards. He's still a kid after all... But the topic is interesting, so I thought I'd do a top 10... 1: Rivers. Was a total non-event last season. We ALL know how important he is, and add to that the fact that we have a young defence in need of quality, particularly in the KPP stocks... Rivers will fill the biggest hole with the biggest presence. Assuming he doesn't succumb to some injury again. 2: McLean. Had his usual impact on maybe 3 games last season. If he gets right, and stays right, he and a 22 round Nathan Jones will start to make opposition coaches worry a bit. More than a bit. Our midfield were arguably more decimated than any area on the ground from last year's injuries. They stand to make a vast improvement. McLean leads the way here. Also factor in TJ. He's gone, and now it's a CERTAINTY that Brock will cop the best tagger until he reaches 32 and they think he's too old to warrant the attention. Sorry to say, we should prepare ourselves for the worst in the coming 8 or so years. 3: Robertson. With Neitz declining and becoming injury prone, and with Juice still SO green, and Bate needed all over the ground, Robbo is the only KPP (sort of) forward currently in his prime. I imagine he may begin to take the league's best defenders... To think we were going to trade him. He has always thrived under pressure greater than what he should be able to cope with. When he was our B&F playing as our CHF was a good example. 4: Bruce. Fix his kicking = damgerous option all over the ground. If it's not fixed, expect nother year of the same. He's always needed help, and does his best work when he has the team's best 10 players fit and firing. Give him too much responsibility and he seems to struggle with so many balls in the air. Assuming our injuries don't repeat, he should recover. Another of only a handful of players in their footballing prime. 5: Green. He's come good, and in as unspectacular a way as you could imagine. He's doing the hard things, has a great work ethic, and like unlike Bruce there are days where he seems to revel in added pressure. 6: Rucks... If White can handle it, we go ok, if not one of PJ/Jamar/Meesen will have to step up. I'm predicting there will be times when we are changing our starting ruckman on a week to week basis, so I don't hold out much hope. But in terms of "importance" we will win and lose lots of games based on what they manage... 7: Whelan. How quickly we forget. This guy has been a GREAT demon. If he's good to go, he'll do what he has always done... his job. How we missed him this year. 8: Carroll. yes he's unfashionable, yes he's not a prodigious kick... but he's reliable. Or reliably mediocre. What brings him into the top 10 here is 2 things... Firstly the lack of other options (Frawley too green, Holland too... well... Holland), and secondly the fact that along with Neita and Brock he's probably the most resilient player in the side. Goes in 100% of the time, sometimes gets knocked out, but always stands his post. If the team were full of tough nuts his importance may not be so great... but there's still some residual red and blue softness around. 9: Bartram. A smoky. He'll relieve McDonald and his pace and heart were sorely missed. Assuming his rehab at the moment goes well he'll slot straight back int the 22 and hopefully PLAY 22 as well. In the coming years he will be as important as JMac, if not moreso. 10: Neitz/Newton. If the big man is injured, and if the little man doesn't live up to the hype, were going to struggle. Simple as that. Rank low in this list due to the fact that it would be good to see what Sylvia, Bate, Dunn and others would do with our forward line in their absence. Apologies to Bell (important defender, will soon adopt Wrecker's mantle), Moloney (the forgotten superboot, proved in only a few outings this year his importance), Petterd (Was all class, imagine what his experience and another year will do), Sylvia (Could do what Bell did this year, and what Carroll did the year before. Tease us one season then rock our worlds the next), and Wheatley (He's one of only a few in his footballing prime. If he was to EVER become a solid footballer, now would be the time). Edit: Oops. I forgot Bate. I'd probably slip him in at 4, maybe 3.

He DID say he'd take the best available... I think he mumbled something about it being a certainty that we'd take Cotchin or Kreuzer if they fell that far, so he's pretty much saying that he'll take the best available, and he's said that Morton is number 3... so... I'm more interested in picks 14 and 21, to which he's drilled out the old "best available" line again.

Touche...

I read it like this too...

I've been at this on 'land for a good couple of years now, it never ceases to amaze me how the AFL world can't seem to grasp macs... Maybe it's Victoria, or Melbourne (the city, not MFC) but it seems to me we're stuck in our ways. There's just no excuse as to why macs can't be suported.

DEFINITELY the latter. 3 players in the top 21 could become stars. Look at Rivers who was taken in the teens, Brock who was taken lower than he should have been, if only by a pick or two... After they're recruited, whether they were pick 1 or pick 81 they all have the same opportunity to impress the club. Granted the tag of first round pick can elongate a dud player's career, but as we know recruiting is just so hit and miss. We have 3 bites at the first round cherry, they have 1. I'd take our position any day of the week, EVEN WITH our lack of genuine stars...

I like the cut of your jib D. Sold.

Fair enough. It's certainly true that he has a LONG way to go before he proves himself as useful as Davey. Yeah. Look if Davey went on to kick 50 goals in the next 3 seasons, and pick up All Australian in a couple of those years then I might find myself edging towards "star." I think the reason some people have trouble getting behind him THAT much is that he might have been found out. The guy does WAY more than he should given his footy upbringing and size. For the first few years coaches probably expected him to be revealed as a VERY fortunate rookie who played his best footy in his first few years, then to diminish and become a regular player. By year 3 I think everyone cottoned on that he didn't play like a pip-squeak and had to be treated with seriousness. Now that everyone knows what he can do, every coach has a plan to nullify him. The issue is that he's really only ever going to excel for 12-15 rounds a year in the forward pocket. He COULD play games like the one against the Roos (or dogs was it?) this year, where he was everywhere, but I'd be very nervous about relying on him to do that. The reason someone like Rioli could be good is that he may be able to be a bit more versatile, as well as being a bit heavier and able to stand up in marking contests and tackles. Versatility is the key. Personally, if we're going to pick up another forward pocket, I'm not sure an extra Davey is the answer. I'd prefer a Vardy type. Sylvia could be that, but it's unlikely he'll be left that close to goal for whole games, especially over the next few years where we all want him to become a midfielder.

Wow. Rubbish. Ask anyone who was around in the mid-late 50s. MFC won 5 out of 6. We were regarded by the vast majority as the biggest and the best because we WERE the biggest and the best. CFC were strong too, but we were the strongest. As usual the knuckle-dragging Collingwood fan quotes irrelevant statistic after irrelevant statistic while missing the point completely. We had the bigger membership base, more money and facilities etc etc... If you're going to bother coming on here, answer peoples posts instead of derailing them... Debatable? No. Unless you're a Collingwood fan. Over the journey, yes. But as with everything in footy, things change. A large supporter base has always been a guarantee, but what's to say Collingwood won't lose their in the way MFC did? Or do I have to repeat myself again? Incorrect... and Rubbish. Collingwood has for the majority of the history of footy had the most recognisable brand. But what about before CFC existed? Certainly in our lifetimes (assuming you're not, like, 90) your point is valid... but then you wouldn't care about whether or not MY point was taking into account the 100 year history of footy would you? WHAT?!!! The AFL is up and thriving when ANY club is up and about. Collingwood had a good year this year and the difference wasn't that stark! I would say when ANY of the interstate teams are in purple patches (Brisbane, Sydney, WC and Freo) the AFL is immesurably stronger as they gain support where there was little before, and can help win the war against the other codes. Jeez you're full of it. You keep telling yourself that. Collingwood has a few more members than everyone else, and these members watch their games REGARDLESS of how well CFC go. A non performing Collingwood, like the one that last won a flag in '90, the one that hasn't been able to win a flag for one of their greatest ever players DESPITE their dominance financially... has gone from strength to strength regardless of what kind of on-field problems they've had. your point is wrong. Yeah. No [censored]. The point is that he DOESN'T DO ENOUGH for Collingwood, it's the fact that he GOES TOO FAR.... but once again, we make a point and it is disregarded... Before you whinge and moan, look at it like this. He's free to jostle for position all he likes, that's the nature of any competition. What we're objecting to is that the fairness of the competition is being tampered with. My god. You're unbelievable. READ what I've written, don't come up with your own ideas of what I meant... If Melbourne suddenly vanished, the AFL would lose the vast majority of its supporters, including me. If we moved interstate the damage wouldn't be as severe, but there would still be thousands of desperately needed fans that would be lost to Australian Rules Football. If we went out, the comp would go down to 15 teams, but there'd still be 22 rounds. There'd be a bye and Collingwood would still get their unfair draw. The point... ONCE AGAIN... is that the philosophy is inherently dangerous for the game. You're claiming that if another team were dissolved or moved that it wouldn't hurt Collingwood. In the short term, you wouldn't see less money, that's for certain. But as usual you have no regard for the AFL or the game itself. You keep this up YOU WON'T HAVE ANYONE TO COMPETE AGAINST!!!!! And that's to say nothing of the rich history you share with our club, but I don't expect you to respond on that front because it doesn't serve your inane arguement. Unlike Melbourne?! Jesus. Do you know what you're talking about? Others have answered this. your credibility here is getting stronger every sentence. You mean the distractions that cracked 5 flags in 6 years? You need to do your homework you schmuck. We are weak now, but then so were all of the teams you mentioned at one point or another. That is true, but you're preaching to the converted. We, more than you, know what memberships mean to a club. NO-ONE'S SAYING you're not powerful. Were saying you're misusing the power. Or at least Eddie is, since the buck stops with him. Once more, I'll remind you and hope your staggering intellect can grasp what the intelligent people are trying to impress upon you. Once upon a time there was a club that was EVEN MORE POWERFUL THAN YOURS. They came out of the woodwork with a coach and a number of players that redifined parts of the game, played hard, real footy and walked away with a dominance of an era that even Collingwood couldn't boast. In this club's arrogance they became lazy, made a few decisions that tore at the fabric of the club, and before you could bat an eyelid, they had lost all their strength. At the time they were hated by everyone because they had all the money and class, and every other club took joy in their pain. This club was MFC. Your club is CERTAINLY the most hated in football. Even moreso than Essendon and the Blues. Now. For the last time, try to look at what people are saying to you. You are arguing points that we agree with. NO-ONE CARES how powerful you are. We were powerful once, and we certainly don't think temporary power and success amounts to anything. And anyway, for all your power you've won exactly one flag in the last few decades, so it's no skin off our noses anyway. What we, and the rest of the comp want, is for you to be subjected to the same mandatory limitations as everyone else. NO consideration for money, or attendances, or anything else should come into play. It's a lovely luxury the AFL has to be able to shuffle Vistorian games so that we get the most people we can, but they're shuffling OUTSIDE of Victoria, and pushing clubs who's home games should be played at the 'G OUT of the 'G. Why? Money alone. The rich get richer. And that's ok, but NOT at the expence of the weaker clubs and NOT at the expense of the fairness of the competition. Answer me this simply. WHY is it logical that just because you have the most fans you should be able to shift the draw to suit your own financial needs? When did this become a directive of a fair competition? No-one's questioning the value TO COLLINGWOOD of this kind of arrangement, and it's certainly a healthy short term situation to cram as many fans into the grounds as we can, but why at the expense of the draw? The answer is pretty simple. The AFL is more concerned with attendances and money than an even comp and draw. Of course it is. Isn't that sort of the point? We're sick of being shortchanged. What's wrong with that? Absolutely. I'd LOVE to have someone with Eddie's business nous at the helm of the club (though PG aint half bad). He's great for Collingwood, and a lot of the time great for footy, but only when it suits Collingwood, and sometimes he goes too far. He believes his team should not be subjected to the same rules as everyone else. Has done for a while now. In short I want a leader at my club that wants it as much as he does, but not at the detriment of ethics and morals like he does. Wholeheartedly agree. Unlike this jerk, I never offered a hypothetical, and WOULD never offer a hypothetical of what the game would be like without Collingwood. I love footy, and Collingwood are 1/16th of the greatest comp in the world. Long may they be a part of it.

If you're referring to the "in striking distance of a flag" part, then I'll ask again. Why? The Swans did it with great effect, you could argue West Coast did too. Good coaches, PREMIERSHIP winning coaches go on the record as saying they don't take the pre-season comp seriously in an attempt to prolong the years of their older players. Unless I'm mistaken... In which case: What did I gloss over?

You are a tool. And most of your comrades are as well... 50 years ago we were the greatest and most powerful club in Australia. It was so agreed on, and understood by all that everyone who went to the footy simply assumed we'd end up winning the flag "because they win it every year." We had more of everything, just like you... Within 20 years of our last flag we were a basket-case of a club. We had a great history, but had somehow become weak. Let's wait a few decades, with the national competition thriving, and Eddie's influence waining with the public wising up to his [censored]... Collingwood may do what we did. It doesn't take that long. If that happened, I would be all for keeping the Pies around. They are a foundation club, and we have a rich history... And in the end, you massive, massive jerk... That is what makes MFC supporters, and the vast majority of supporters of other clubs BETTER THAN YOU. And your mob of uneducated, toothless nuff nuffs. You see, we did what was right for the game when we were strong. You, and your knobhead of a president do what's right for your club, and Australian Rules Football is weaker for it. Now. Without Melbourne, Collingwood would play one, maybe two, less games a year, and miss out on the revenue of 25,000+ members and even more supporters who wouldn't want to watch anything but the red & blue run around. And as long as we're at it, why not say without Hawthorn, St. Kilda, Kangaroos etc. etc. Yeah. While you're at it, why not relieve Victoria of its 6 least powerful clubs. What would happen then? Just a few hundred thousand supporters giving the game away? We get your support because we have EARNED your support. We are 1/16th of AFL Football. We take up a place in the fixture and allow players and fans more room to enjoy the game. I can't wait for the day the dazzling intellect of Collingwood supporters matures enough for them to realise that just because they have a lot of supporters DOESN'T MEAN they can change the draw to suit their own ends... but experience suggests that it will never happen. You're living proof. Go back to Bigfooty.

Yes. Good day. And try not to bring your brand of excuse making back... Simple fact - Your draw is easier. Has been for some time. This is one of those situations where you don't need to "explain" it to other people. You just wasted 10 minutes writing stuff we all already know that hasn't become any more relevant since you wrote it here. Why is it that when people say something simple like "the draw is unfair" one of Eddie's little trogolodytes crops up and says "well, no-one comes to the games. We have more members so we should be able to play in Melbourne more." What they're saying is "we want more money so we can get EVEN stronger. And we're willing to sacrifice, bit by bit, the integrity of football in general to suit our club's needs." What the game needs is someone more powerful than Eddie to bring it back to being a sport, not a business. There are times I envy the Irish and their logic.