Little Goffy

Hmm, I worry a little that he looks like the next Brent Moloney. You know - if a coach says 'move the ball quickly, take the first good option' he will be thinking 'ME! I'm the first good option!' There's just something in those highlights that made me think he wasn't as aware of his teammates as an onballer needs to be at AFL-intensity.

Geez Dazzle you're on the sads about Hogan today - in two different threads. Though both relevant. Hogan will stay at Melbourne over Freo because it will be a career path choice between emulating Norm Smith or Matthew Richardson. (For the record, Richardson has played in just three finals, for one win, Norm Smith played in 16, for 10 wins, 1 draw, 5 losses, including a triple-premiership which he was a decisive factor in. Just in case anyone forgets!) As for the complex issue of who fits where, personally I wouldn't mind a structure of 2xCHF and one resting ruckman at FF. I think the 'modern game' demands a workrate from CHF that is more than any one player can contribute. By alternating who goes for the searching lead and who lurks menacingly in and out of the forward 50, both CHFs are always offering a target while also allowing for variation in the intensity of effort/comparative rest. I think it would be very good, especially for a young team, to have certainty that there will always be someone there to kick to when they look up.

It's the day for it. We're just now getting in touch with Marty McFly to get his signature for next season, last season, and 1987.

Well, that's the best thing about us having pick 3 and 7. We're in a position to be the club that takes whichever player Melbourne foolishly overlooks at 3!

If the 4-year deal is heavily weighted to match payments rather than base salary, it would be a good insurance covering time suspended, while also offering Melksham some career certainty. As for trade value... I dislike giving up picks in that top 25 range for players who aren't likely to make a major difference. I've long believed that the most efficient draft approach is 'high-low'. Be involved in the hunt for top-end talent at one end, then shamelessly turnover experimental, speculative, mature-age and 'possible' players on short contracts at the other end. The middle of the draft is much less likely to get you a major player than the top end, while actually not being that much better than the bottom end better when it comes to accumulating role-players and stalwarts. Also worth noting the 'future picks' option and the fact that with a lot of retirements coming through they'll likely be going deep in drafts this year and next. But for us, we seem to do a lot of our list-filling with mature players, and after another likely major cull this year I think we'll be quieter for list turnover at the end of 2016. Would anyone else rather trade two third-round picks than one second rounder? Call it pick 43 (2015) and 47 (2016) vs pick 25 this year?

As a side note - Essendon are rooted. Quick comparison of 'definite' talent under the age of Jack Trengove (just turned 24) Melbourne Gawn, McDonald, Tyson, Viney, Hogan, Salem, Vandenberg, Petracca and Brayshaw Plus a whole host of maybes. Essendon Heppell, Merrett, Merrett, Daniher... Carlisle and Melksham Really only a couple of other possibles - Laverde? Gleeson? They were expelled from one draft, stuffed up a couple more, and tried to cover the gap with veterans like Cooney, Goddard and Chapman, which just clogged their list and slowed the much-needed turnover. Essendon 2015 = Melbourne 2007. Sure there will still be some quality players carrying through, but they will be overwhelmed much like the way Green, McDonald, Bruce and Robertson couldn't hold a team together with so little depth and such unreliable younger cohort. They've fallen off a cliff and really Melksham should pay us for the chance to get out.

Clangers. Really highly visible big ol' clangers. Also, brainfarts. HOWEVER I was just now doing some checking back, because part of the reason Essendon fans turned him into an object of hate was that he had seemed to be developing well, but then tapered off. Melksham played the first few years of his career (to 2013) under Simon Goodwin. By the end of that time he was a useful, quick, goal-kicking midfielder. After Goodwin left, Melksham's numbers immediately declined - halving his goals, knocking a quarter off possessions (particularly kicks), and just generally not being that great. So the 'Goodwin-Melksham connection' is probably more than just nice talk or a bit of favouritism. I'd reckon Goodwin is backing himself to refresh Melksham and have him delivering in a very particular role that we do need more of. I'm feeling better about it with some more facts on hand. Still very wary, but better.

In truth, you lost me at 'top ten draft pick means there's clearly something there'. He was taken one pick ahead of Gysberts. And you kind of managed to get worse from there. Having a few close friends who are Essendon supporters, I've known pretty much the whole of Melksham's career up close. The reason? A lot of Bomber fans get wound up every time they see him. "Here comes a turnover", "oh, let's see him go high and give away a free", or the more simply "what's the point of getting to a contest if you can't actually make a contest". I actually had a bit of sympathy for poor little Milkshake, because he definitely tried. You could see his legs pumping along all day, but the results were a lot like out-of-form Brock Mclean. Get to a contest, fail to really affect result... repeat... Finally, in a midfield crying out for speed, Melksham ain't the answer. You comparison to Garland, and dismissal of any meaning to the Melbourne Football Club Best & Fairest, is odd. I can't think of a time in fifteen years as a member where the Bluey was ever voted on by 'the board', as you say. There have been 'all the coaches', 'the head coach', 'the coaches and even some player input', 'the coaches with Cameron Schwab sending them irritating text messages', really a lot of variations, but it has never, ever gone outside the football department. Personally, I'd recommend trying our luck with a late draft pick, rather than committing to Melksham. Maybe Goodwin is convinced that all the guy needs is some special attention to really improve his game. If we get him, I'll have a little chuckle and look forward to being annoyed by my Essendon friends, but won't write him off completely, not right away. Maybe he will, like Mclean, turn things around and manage a couple of years of solid contribution before fading again.

I could've just 'liked' this but I feel it is important enough to quote it and underline it. Would be a tragedy to delist honest but sub-AFL workers like Bail and McKenzie just to replace them with some other club's clanger-ridden list clogger.

Honestly, we can make six delistings without affecting the pool we are drawing our match-day 22 from. It's a comforting though that our list is surely not going to go backwards in the off-season! I'm of the 'Howe looks gone' opinion and would be happy if we were able to package him either with our second round pick (23ish) to gain an extra pick in about the middle of the first round, or even with our third round pick to get an extra one at the start of round 2. E.g. Howe and 3rd rounder to the Gold Coast (one rumoured destination) for their start of 2nd round pick. Giving us something like 5, 20 and 25. Then a big gap to late in the draft where we can speculate wildly, which is fine because all the phantom drafts and commentary seem to be saying 'throw a blanket over everything after pick 40, anyone's guess'. I'd love for us to get Francis (5) and Hibberd (20/25) and in the process seal up our defensive stocks alongside McDonald (The Mcdonalds?) for a decade. Particularly as they are both rated for their composure and skill by foot. I'm sure that will horrify the many who (for clearly good reasons) want us to urgently prioritise midfielders. I have two reasons - First, we have so many prospective midfielders who for youth or injury reasons couldn't be expected to be big contributors this year. Trengove and Petracca most obviously. Then each of Salem, Vandenberg, Neal-Bullen, Stetch, Harmes, Newton and Kent. That's serious scope for improvement from 9 young midfielder, discounting any expectations of growth from Brayshaw or a return to form from Tyson. Second, 2016 Free agency! Rich, Sidebottom, Pendlebury, Ziebell, Hartlett, and Hannebery all come into Free Agency, as well as a handful of worthy veterans. I for one would not blink at offering 5-year, 750k/year contracts to both Sidebtoom and Hannebery, for a start. But when it comes to mobile tall defenders capable of really defending and then rebounding with poise, we're pretty shot at the moment. The adequate-at-best options we've got are getting old, and there's little future prospect to be found already on on our list.

In the Hogan v Hawkins contest going on in my head, Hawkin's pretty quiet game tonight (1 goal, no contested marks midway through the fourth) means that the 'win' on both stats is within Jesse's reach. I almost don't care about the game result on sunday, just get it to Hogan every chance there is and let him finish the season No. 1 for contested marks and top 10 for goal tally. Then again, that's probably our best chance of winning, too!

Honestly, for all that I have a lot of respect for that group of players, I don't think any of them are suited to the 'end-of-career consulting contract' we'd be taking them for. Cross clearly had time left in the game and the Dogs made a bad mistake dumping him, almost as bad as our own club's decision to toss James McDonald. We got lucky, got him cheap, and he has been everything we hoped for. We should be looking to add players at the free agency age or approaching it, who match our deficiencies. My own thinking is that players like Isaac Smith, Stephen Hill, even the currently out of form but 100% [unknown substance] free Zaharakis, are all at the right age and would each be a valuable addition of speed and 'threat' to our midfield.

Bwa ha ha. Depending on how hung up you are about draft decisions from years ago, this will either upset you or pass with barely a smirk. If Melbourne had recruited Ollie Wines, and Port had Toumpas, we would probably be ahead of them on the ladder right now. Which to me means "we are getting more right than we are getting wrong, and I wont cry over the misses". But maybe I'm just taking it easy because I'm still convinced that the Toump will be a credible and enduring AFL player.

Yeah, on consideration, looking back on his 2014 rather than thinking too much on his unlucky 2015, absolutely. A young small forward who managed to kick a decent stream of goals, despite being in the second lowest scoring team in the history of the 22-game format, that's a keeper.

I'm not sure of the contract status of most of our players, but the list changes end of year look to me like - Retirements; Mark Jamar Delistings; Rohan Bail Aiden Riley Viv Michie Jordie Mckenzie Dean Terlich Question Marks; Dean Kent Matt Jones Jack Fitzpatrick The unfortunate fact for these guys is that you can cut this entire group without affecting our match-day performance. Some still have a chance to prove themselves, and in what is rumoured to be a weak draft the club might persevere rather than start fresh with draftees. A 5 or 6 player 'churn' is pretty appropriate for a club still looking to develop their list.

So far this season not even Lance Franklin has managed to get over Tom McDonald. Just quietly - McDonald, Dunn, Jetta, Garland and of course Salem... Something is going alright in our defensive group. JADE RAWLINGS – BACKLINE COACHRawlings, the club’s backline coach, joined Melbourne in September 2011. He was the only coach from the Mark Neeld/Neil Craig era to be part of Paul Roos’ coaching panel.

Jesse Hogan has never lost an AFL game at the MCG. (Just thought I'd get that out before this four-week rough run). But seriously, I think my favourite feature of his game against Richmond came to attention late, when we had to stay cool and stop any momentum riding against us. Over and over he was there on the wing, making a contest and quite calmly nudging, bumping, and bullocking the ball safely over the boundary for a stoppage. The relentless Paul Roos momentum routine of old. When the game needed to be kept steady he just did it - totally calmly accepted that since a given contest was a mess then a 50/50 after a bit of time to reset was better than risking a breakout from that mess. A professional there to do a job for the team; remarkably little ego in those decisions considering the boldness and confidence it takes to do the other things he does!

Tom Scully for 2 picks / Callum Ward for 1.

That's the trouble with playing in Canberra, as soon as you're ahead for 51%, you think you're set for the next three years.

Beams at Collingwood = 1st for clearances and inside 50s. 2nd for possessions and contested possessions 3rd for goals Don't forget Luke Ball is gone too (3rd for clearances, 4th for tackles). Sidebottom, Pendlebury and what's left of Swan will all need to play more time in the middle, reducing their regular contribution to rebounding. That exacerbates the departure of Maxwell and Lumumba, leaving basically a couple of kids and Clinton Young to try to provide drive for Collingwood's counterattacks. Under Buckley, Collingwood have managed three fewer wins each year, going from 20 wins in Matlhouse's last season (2011), to 16 wins, 14, 11... Seems like something special has now been pulled out to keep that rolling.

The truth of it all is, we MUST get pick 7. Aish, Wines, Haynes, Caddy, Rich, Sheppard, Palmer, Selwood, Ryder, Lewis, You have to go back to Kane Tenace to find a player who hasn't made it to a full career, and almost all of those selected have become or look like becoming A-graders.

Darling, Shuey, Martin, hell, some fool even suggested we dudded ourselves with the Tyson trade because 'we could have drafted Lewis Taylor'. Some people will always sink into the second guessing and ever so superior hindsight. I really hope this thread works and keeps that sludge out of the main threads.

Thinking about Brayshaw, would North be interested in packaging something/someone with their first pick to get our first pick, thus ensuring they collect him? Would be a nice combination of sentiment and suitability. Adding to that, North must be one of several clubs who would be very interested in using an early pick to collect one the the multiple tall forward targets that are hovering in the top-5 range. We may have several suitors for that first pick, and I agree with a few others that it if Petracca will be gone by our choice then the value of that pick goes down for us. One the other hand, there look to be multiple good prospects - midfielders and effective rebounders - that would suit our needs around the 10-20 mark. Ellis, De Goey, Marchbank, Duggan, Laverde, Blakely, - a lot of these profiles suit, and we'd only need one to slip. Even the previously much-touted Hugh Goddard is floating in predicted position.

People complaining about Tom McDonald are just lining themselves up for participation in the 2016 'humble pie' thread. Anyway, an overall disposal efficiency of 73% for Tom isn't horrendous, but there is definitely a clanger problem throughout our defence. Mcdonald 2.4 Garland 2.4 Dunn 2.3 On the other hand, for the 1%ers count - McDonald 9.7 Garland 4.9 Dunn 4.6 I think we can persevere with the young fella a bit longer.

If there's one thing we can be sure of, it is that a North Melbourne tall forward on his last legs will have a final hurrah against the Demons. It's as frustrating as Daniel Bradshaw or Peter Matera record against Meanwhile, Tom McDonald by the numbers on sunday - 18 disposals at 77% efficiency, with 3 clangers. Also, ten 1%ers. If I recall right, McDonald has been not just our leader for 1%ers all season, but has been the leader in 1%ers in every individual game. The kid goes alright. Definitely has flaws. Got beaten by someone taller, more experienced, and better supported.