1858

As it stands our 2nd pick is pick 32. Under a non-compromised draft that is still a 2nd round pick. I understand your point that picks have been pushed down the order but we need to keep perspective of what a 2nd rounder actually constitutes. We've had it good over the years with early picks but this is the reality that teams at the other end of the ladder have had to deal with - a 2nd rounder in the 30's.

Smart footballer just starting to find his way in the game. Given the pressure our kids have been under and a rigorous gameplan you can forgive any single player for not "starring". I think once the intricacies of our gameplan start to flourish from the regemented level we have displayed this year he will become more prominent. One of many players who will benefit from another preseason and improved facilities. I actually prefer him midfield to forward due to his composure.

North have quite a few players who have been in the system for 2 or 3 years starting to take the next step - that is their luxury atm. I would put their midfield slightly ahead of ours. I think they have 1 or 2 more better users of the footy than us although what we will get out of Blease, Tapscott and Gysberts in the future is anyone's guess. As I said in another thread, if we could get a player like Salopek (who is good at getting the footy inside and using the footy on the run) without giving up our first pick it would be a coup for us - IMO he has McDonald like qualities from the team respect and leadership pov as well. North's forward line is an interesting one. They are all buzzing about Hansen's prospects now but it doesn't change the fact that their highest goal kicker for the year was Thomas (a small) with 29 goals and he is apparently on Adelaide's radar. I think their forwardline is too inconsistent and given two full strength forward lines ours is in front IMO although going forward we need to really iron out the wrinkles in our forward setup. Defence is even IMO. We have a good work ethic and link play on our day but still ball use is an issue and I think we tend to focus too much on the exploits of 1 or 2 of our defenders (Frawley and Garland) when evaluating the whole setup. When our system breaks down we can get in trouble. North's defenders seem a little more confident (in general) with the footy but don't have any notable stars down back. One of the main differences I noticed yesterday was the amount of mistackles on moving players we made - way too many. We need to really improve on this area along with our disposal and core strength. North always show us up in the simple things.

I think Jurrah is definite leadership material in the next few years. His body language is superb and his confidence to play instinctive football will hopefully grow on the others. What shouldn't be underrated about him is that he has a very good head on his shoulders - he isn't a smartass or a lairiser even though he does the maraculous and I don't think any of this has gone to his head - he'll be the same Liam Jurrah the day he finishes footy. As another poster put it, he sees the world from a different view and his perspective is a valuable one IMO.

Going forward I have my worries about both players. A good pre-season and the benefit of new facilities will give all our players the best opportunity to develop and perform but I just don't like the body mechanics of either player in the modern game - both very inhibited players who severely rely on space and time to be effective. Size is not the issue with Morton it's power. If he can strengthen his legs and his core significantly then he'll have more confidence to do what he wants to do on the footy field.

Yeah, definitely the most likely scenario.

I agree that this is nothing more than due dilligence and frank discussion is a welcomed thing at MFC. I certainly hope Junior takes a up a key role with the club in the future. I am a little curious as to how this quote came about: McLardy said he "did not get the impression" from either player of any distance between football operations manager Chris Connolly and coach Dean Bailey. If there was a direct question regarding this I can understand.

I won't comment on Tapscott, Blease and Gysberts until I have seen them consistently at senior level but having said that, neither Blease or Tapscott are likely to be regular inside mids and Gysberts (promising) has a whole road of development ahead of him. IMO Scully and McKenzie are very similar, play close to the ground and are quick and agile. Salopek IMO would compliment them quite well. Importantly he uses the ball well and has played as a genuine inside mid. Like you, I don't really expect the club to go "shopping around" - to the point that we don't drastically need to fill spots nor are we keen to give away picks ala WCE. But if someone like Salopek came to the club I reckon we could put him to good use none the less.

Like you, I take the Bailey comment with a grain of salt but that pick 67 comment is just rediculous. Whether you agree with him or not, Schwab outlined a goal a year or so back of having at least 12 good midfielders. Compared to our current stocks Salopek would be quite complimentary IMO. He has experience, is/was respected at Port, when fit is a decent player and IMO a little more versatile than Scully, McKenzie, Moloney, Jones. The big question is the shoulder (and to a lesser extent how much cash he's after) - if we could snare him with our 2nd pick I would regard that as a good get for us.

Saw the add and liked it. Simple and genuine. I thought the mention of a 13th flag was a nice subtle message of the fact that we have 12 flags and a great history without actually drawing on the fact and pumping our tyres up - which wasn't the aim of the add. Well done.

I agree with RR. There is more of a "rolling the dice" element to this than arrogance. Anyone could tell that they were slowing up and injuries were mounting. Some posters say they are flirting with their form but losing to Sydney at Subiaco is hardly form. If they aren't mentally affected from the loss and I doubt they would be, the benefit they will get is no different to a team having the week off in a finals series. Long trip, injured players, low chance of winning, 2 weeks before finals, a slog down in Tassie = a great game for a WA team to rest some core players. They'll run Carlton ragged next week on the big ground.

Assuming it is a straight swap. You'd think picks may be used to even it out a little.

Looking at the AFL-CBA there are only references to minimum salaries and senior match payments for rookies. Unless the AFL have a policy which restricts this somehow (which you'd think would be unlawful) I don't see why the club couldn't negotiate an acceptable deal with Newton and keep him on the RL. The only thing I was unsure about was whether he could stay on there which it seems he can.

I believe Hughes is a mature age rookie as well so there are 2 designations. Does anyone know if mature age rookies can negotiate salary? In all honesty I would be shocked if Newton was elevated to the senior list but if he was retained as a MAR it wouldn't be so bad. People are probably getting sick of speculation of Bruce to GC but the reality is that the impact is significant if it happens. If we have a nominated rookie for all of 2011 that is a huge lifeline (especially to someone like Newton). I'll be looking at the rookies we pick up this year with a lot of interest because by mid year 2 of them will be available for senior games and that's excluding promotions for LTIs. I wouldn't mind picking up another MAR with a developed frame given that we'll no doubt have at least 5 or 6 new youngsters added to the RL anyway.

For some reason they haven't updated that all year.

Agree with most sentiments in this thread. Thanks to Junior for his first rate service and commitment to this great club. He's certainly been one of our most important captains in history of the club given our transition and heres hoping his work ethic shines through the younger players for years to come. Wish him all the best for the future.

As an outsider I view Green as the best current option for the next couple of years at least. Moloney sounds like he has a lot of currency around the club though so I wouldn't be surprised if he got it.

For sure, I expect him to be elevated. Just procrastinating from study and the mind wondered off a little. I was entertaining the idea that if Bruce went to GC and McDonald retired it would mean that we would be able to nominate a rookie for senior football for the entire year due to only having 1 veteran (and we would also have 7 rookies). McKenzie could be that full time nominated rookie whilst giving us space on the senior list for another ND pick. The obvious obstacle is the commitment the club made to him and the salary issue as he'd be a regular starter you'd think next year. Don't mind me, just thinking out loud.

Can McKenzie remain on the rookie list for 1 more year?

I think I'm coming to this realisation. I'd prefer to keep McNamara than get a 3rd ND pick but if push comes to shove in order to free up a spot for a 2nd ND pick then I think we'll have to look at delisting or trading someone and the club will have to make an important decision here to make sure they don't throw the baby out with the bath water. This is contingent on my opinion that McKenzie and Spencer should be elevated and that we will put PJ on a 1 yr deal (not ideal but as many have mentioned - insurance). I wish the same circumstances (wrt our rookie picks this year) existed to facilitate a delisting and re-rookieing of Martin similar to Meesen/Newton but they aren't there so it isn't a feasible option. One thing that is very likely is getting up to 6 or 7 new rookies so we will have more youth stocks to tap into (future Jordies B) ) down the track which is why I hope we keep current kids like McNamara who have at least been in the system as opposed to a 3rd ND pick in this years draft. Things are very tight this year and obviously what the club ultimate decides to do will tie in with it's evaluation of the draft and any subsequent picks we make from trades.

Hawks to bring out some gutter tactics and target some of our youngsters.

Although I don't agree with your case for Miller, I must admit that (for mine) you have hit the mark in some areas. One of the things that jumped out at me during the Richmond game was that we lack steel/solidity up forward. Yes we have some underdeveloped talls who will fill out but we lack a solid player with a killer instinct up forward (not a thug) who doesn't take any crap. I'm thinking that Tapscott could become that player one day. Up forward we are dynamic at times and we do have some speed to exert pressure but we're missing an element which I think you are addressing (probably in the wrong thread though). I doubt that Miller is accomplished enough to use his size/solidity effectively against a streetwise team like Hawthorn. We'll get pushed and shoved and I reckon if any team is going to test Jurrah's nerve it will be Hawthorn - they have got in Davey's face before. So whilst I don't see a point in playing Miller I think you've hi-lighted a valid issue.

Would our Darwin game come under either of these? The only thing I can see here that Collingwood may rake in a few $ is with promotional - which I reckon could be quite dodgy. When Collingwood play Sydney in West Sydney I wonder if that constitutes promotional.

Hope I haven't annoyed anyone by bumping an old thread but I really hope this initiative continues (along with new initiatives) now that we are debt free and looking to the future. The club has been rigorous so far in getting itself into a sustainable position and I think this will continue at a rate of knots. $50 here goes to a great cause. Hopefully we can eclipse 35k members next year and continually get more juniors on board.

I have to say, I'm starting to get a little sick and tired of some of these debt riddled clubs (Collingwood $8mill, Carlton $6mill) getting fixture wellfare in the form of blockbuster games while us other debt free clubs prop them up by copping the Sunday games. B)