Little Goffy

If you want reasonably credible rankings for player from just this year, there's a few options to consider. Inside Football's http://www.aflplayerratings.com.au/ The coaches association votes appear on the AFL website after every round. You can also just run with champion data, and sort by supercoach points by position (probably easiest using footywire) None are ideal, but all are better than the 'Official AFL Player ratings brought to you by schmuck'

Lynch-Hogan could be quite the shootout, the way the Suns and ourselves are defending against marking talls lately.

Max Gawn circa 1500BC

Top effort Rance, fail to compete, drop an elbow into the back of someone's head while they are lying on the ground, and then take a dive as soon as anyone gives you a shove. You're written off, pretty boy. You'll never get those three seconds back.

Wow, here's a shocker. The only player* on our current list to have ever had a positive win/loss balance at Melbourne is Lynden Dunn, after playing in most of Melbourne's hot streak in 2006. Dunn's balance went below 50/50 in round 15, 2007. *with at least 10 games experience.

Last time we went a season without a 15 goal (90pt) or greater loss was 2010. Last time we went a season without a game where an opponent doubled our score was 2006! Also since 2006 - the deepest into a season that we've been a) in the 8, and b) had a percentage >100 would be round 7, 2011. There are some worthy targets for the season.

Clearly his poor form to start the season has been synchronised with Fremantle's poor form. His psyche is already there. Frankly I wish Ross Lyon would coach him a bit better, he's ruining his development. I still think it is most likely that Hogan is staying, and I still think he's going to be a gun, and I still think the wailing from the likes of Lloyd (who had just one really good game in his second season, by the way) is a really impressive storm in a teacup. Still, a bit of poor form might take 100k off his next contract, all good.

People worry too much and get too morose about these things. Hogan and Watts are at the very least in a wonderful bromance, and putting contract talks off might just mean they are waiting for the plebiscite to go through. "Gathered here today in the sight of light tower 4, we commit ourselves to a profoundly extended contract" "You may now contest the mark"

I should clarify - I still wouldn't support paying Hogan 1.5mil under any circumstance. We can only hope that these kids are vaguely sensible about money and will be 'content' with 10-year 750k deals that mean neither they nor any family member has to worry about money ever again. I think all negotiations for AFL player (and coach) contracts should be required to be voiced in 'number of ordinary full time wage rates'*. As in "Contract negotiations are progressing well, with the key sticking point being whether the player is worth 13 full-time-wage-equivalents or closer to 17 full-time-wage-equivalents." And "Sylvia, who failed to play a game and 'retired' prior to the start of the season due to poor preparation, breaches of team rules and lack of effort in training, will immediately be paid out his salary of 8 full-time-wage-equivalents." * I prefer median wage as a representation of 'ordinary wage', as average is heavily skewed by the peak at the top end of the bell-curve.

Except for Cameron McCarthy. Who can get as antsy and worked up and annoyed about crappy Sydney summer weather and homesick for the Fremantle doctor as much as he likes. Problem solved.

Yeah, it's a bizarre claim from Schwarz. Hogan is frankly stellar and while i share the notion that 1.5m a year starts to look unbalancing on the list, if there's any player worth it it is Hogan. But Hogan is also taking a risk... what if by halfway through this season Weidemann has cleared his injury legacy, developed the fitness and is out and about providing a credible alternative? Would knock 250k off Hogan's maximum value. Of course, I think really Hogan would just be delighted to have a strong partner up forward and the two of them could settle into becoming the game's best combo. Remember the quotes pre-draft; "When Weideman went under the knife he was rated a top-three prospect on the rise — and little has changed."

We're really having this conversation, again? Mitchell, Gaff, Prestia, Hannebery, Murphy, Steven, Jones, Adams, Hill, Wingard, Shiel, Montagna, Coniglio and Viney. The quickest way to assemble a list of 'undersized' midfielders is to look at the Brownlow Medal count. I'm not saying that being shorter makes someone a better player, but if you're imagining that being around 180cm makes you inadequate for the midfield, you're a mile off the mark. As for Clayton Oliver, I'm warming to him solely on his resemblance to Brienne of Tarth. I say these things to remind myself that I (and most of everyone else) have no idea what the detailed merits of each player are, and will trust pilot to fly the plane. My preference list for the 3/7 combo is still some arrangement of Francis/Parish/Weideman.

Some people add muscle much more easily than others, some people retain fast-reacting muscle for much longer, some people have better base VO2, some people have shiny hair and soft smooth skin even though they grew up on a sheep-station. One of those "Dr Karl Kruzelnicki factoids" is that historical family names were associated with profession, and people named 'Smith' are heavier than people named 'Taylor' even hundreds of years later. As for why people seem confident that Parish will be a Smith not a Taylor, hard to say. He does seem to have a pretty solid torso, and there's some photos around where there's a lot of sinewy muscle in the arms and legs. Really the only way to find out would be to cook him and find out if he is more like kangaroo or wagyu.

That is one of the best ruckman highlight reels I've seen in a while. Project player to pick up with 46?

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!