Nasher

What's Mitch Clark got to do with Jake Spencer?

Pick 56 - Brad Miller.

Will pin this for a bit.

And how would we get him here? Oops, sorry, that was my macro going off.

Mitch Clark.

It's the nodding wisely of the head thing that Chook pointed out that annoys me too, and he misses lots of opportunities to probe further on details that would be really interesting for us mugs. I think what he forgets is that he's going it for the benefit of those of us who know bugger all. Too often I see him nod enthusiastically and move on when I'm thinking, "no, tell me more!". On the positive side, his relaxed attitude and general vibe of being one of the boys really adds something to the interviews. A great example of this was his interview with Rivers after the GWS game. As he was nearly jumping out of his skin with excitement it allowed Rivers to share his own excitement more. Obviously the interview understandably wasn't rich in content, but from the point of view of getting a feeling about the general atmosphere I thought it was great.

Dunn doesn't worry me at all, I worked out that he was just filler years ago. What worries me is that we haven't managed to find a better player than him yet.

That seems cheap if Banfield is a genuine player. Is Petterd a better player than he has exhibited this year? And I assume RR's suggestion of Bate is taking the wee.

This explanation would obviously come with a few hundred grand in brown paper bags to shut up and exit quietly.

Cousins? Clubs will sack stars if they cross a line, it's just that line varies depending on how valuable the player is. Martin seems to be walking a fine line and shouldn't count on his continued employment unless things change.

Viney complicates this because there's a chance our second round pick will be earmarked for him. First rounder and third rounder seem too high and low respectively for Banfield. If we took Viney with 25 we'd need to get involved in a three way trade to get Banfield. Of course if we're forced to use our first rounder on Viney it's all a moot point.Anyway, as others have said it seems as if he's just fallen behind two genuine gun small forwards, so the usual "can't get a game" mantra may not apply here. If the due diligence indicates that that is all there is to it then I'm all for it. Haven't seen much of him play this year but he's always seemed a handy player to me in the past and he happens to play a role we're desperate for.

We should definitely draft Connors. If you believe the talk at PRE there's been some questions over Martin's "social behaviour" for some time. I don't think too many are suprised about Connors though.

I agree. Enforce it for everyone or nobody. Essendon getting away with this for so long is pure BS.

Then I look forward to the day when that pacy, classy midfielder pushes Jordie out of the side. Problem is that whoever he is he's not on the list yet. Until he is and he does, McKenzie stays.

I'd delist you on that effort. Delist McKenzie LOL When he's been passed by better players I might open my mind to the possibility of delisting him, and when that happens I'm sure he'll have a disappointed smile on his face, nod his head and take it on the chin. Until then, he stays. He's harder at it than any other player on our list bar none.

Bate, Dunn, Spencer, Bennell, Jetta, Petterd, Green gone on the first pass, and that's just those that aren't contracted. Would happily scotch Bail at this point too, though there's more to work with there IMO. Three weeks ago I had Joel Macdonald in there too, but the Garland-Rivers movement changes the balance back there. He was filling in until Tom McDonald got up to scratch last year but Garland's exit puts him higher in the pecking order; now he's filling in until Troy Davis gets up to scratch.

I had the thought earlier that we could've won if Clark had played, but decided it was probably a bit too crackpot to post. Rationale was that early in the game when we were getting the inside 50s, a few more of those non-marks, behinds and non-scores might've been goals, and the "vibe" of the game would've been completely different. 10 goals is probably a bridge too far though.

More than happy with Grimes as skipper.

Amen! Clark would have made a huge difference today. Of the options available; a million times Jones. No contest for mine. Would've loved to see TMac continue on Brown too though. He probably would've been smashed, but the experience would be valuable.

A couple of observations on today: - We're carrying far too many players that give us nothing, and in some cases are consistently giving us nothing. I'm thinking Bate, Dunn, Bail and Moloney in particular. Too much work is being left to too few; at the moment guys like McKenzie and Howe are carrying more than their fair share of load. - Whatever it is that Neeld is looking for from Blease, I hope he saw it today. I'm fully supportive of him being dropped if he's breaking team rules and not doing as he's told, but gee whiz I'll be bitterly disappointed if he plays at Casey next week while Bate and Dunn close in on being in the top few worst 100 game players for the club of all time. I'm conflicted on this. - I'm a huge fan of the Jared Rivers Forward movement, but Mitch Clark he ain't. He can't mark the ball when he's swamped with three defenders (unlike Clark!) and shouldn't be expected to. It looked to me like we need to set up much more smartly around him; you'd back him to win most one-on-one contests. And make sure the others don't drag their bloke in to the contest! - Joel Macdonald has been a positive since Rivers and Garland exited the back line. He's not the most polished guy in the world and I think he'll always be a peripheral player at best, but he gives a contest. At the moment he's easily best 22.

Playing Dunn in the ruck is equal to giving up. Sellar to ruck for 5 minutes a quarter is probably the next best idea, but I don't want to stunt his development as a defender - he's coming along nicely IMO. Look I don't disagree that Spencer stunk the house down. I do think that we need to keep in mind that 1) it was probably considered the best of a craphouse set of options and 2) it's the first senior game he's played in bloody yonks. Given this, and the fact that he was far from being on his own in the playing rubbish stakes, I think singling him out for a thread is super harsh. Not your best work GSOAG.

Is that a serious question? We speak different languages if it is.

Doesn't the report go that he interviewed the Jettas post season? If that's true there was no investigation to be done. Even if that's not the case, I still think it's impractical for the chief recruiter to follow every lead every relative gives him. Why would he listen to Neville Jetta's mum any more than the mum or aunt of other budding young footballers? How is this different to the dozens of other such suggestions the chief recruiter gets from family members?

I'm so glad I've got you around to remind me what forums are for and that each of us have an opinion. If you want to form a baseless opinion, knock yourself out. I prefer evidence based opinions myself.

No, the number of very ordinary players would change.