Little Goffy

On footywire, the new draftees are listed as 114 years and 11 months old.

Without a doubt, Round 1. Every year it has been a bitter disappointment and put us in a bad position from the very beginning. The emotional difference between a win and a loss there would be the greatest margin of any of them. That said, I do enjoy our traditional wins over Essendon.

This is not good. Really supports the theory that somewhere along the line legitimate issues with mental health were warped to include a crippling lack of accountability to self. A mental health issue as well, but one that can all too easily be 'trained in' with poor advice and support. This photo shocks me, part of me is hoping it is 'shopped, and it all leaves me worried about Mitch. At a basic level, he simply can't take to an AFL field in that shape.

The club hasn't lost out here, opening up pick 40. Best of wishes to Dom, I hope he finds what he needs, and along the way becomes a shining light of his local footy scene.

Oh, but just to put myself on record, I think we will win ten games and uncover two (TWO) genuine rising stars of the game. Tyson, obviously, will be one of them.

The margin of error on any prediction for 2015 is enormous. Hell, we could be looking top bottom 4 for six weeks, top-8 quality for seven weeks, then look like spoon material for another ten. Variable 1 - Forward line. Will Hogan play, and play effectively? Will Garlett deliver 30+ goals? Will Dawes at least be fully functional in his role? Varialbe 2 - Defence. Will Frost provide the additional solid defender? Will McDonald take another step? Will Garland get his head steady? Will Lumumba provide the drive we've been lacking? Will Grimes finally have a full, valuable season? Variable 3 - Ruck. Will Jamar play a full season and will it be fully effective? Will either of Gawn or Spencer be able to contribute full AFL-quality games consistently? Varialbe 4 - Midfield. Just what are we going to see from the young but as yet unproven group of Toumpas, Viney, Salem, Newton, Michie, Riley, Kent and presumably Brayshaw? Variable 5 - 'X.' Between them, Howe and Watts can be anywhere from drably inadequate contributors to spectacular game-shapers. If each one of those factors could make a difference of plus or minus two wins for the season, well, I predict we will win somewhere between zero and 20 games. It is not crazy to think we could suddenly slip into top-8 contention. It is also not crazy to think we could languish in the bottom four after a couple of injuries remove our on-field leadership, cripple morale and force us to watch as the other 'gone' clubs regain some momentum around a core of genuine outstanding talent, even though their overall lists are incomplete.

Hmm, I was really expecting him to be swallowed by the Kraken as he reached the water.

There have been many fine pick 4s, but pick 7 s a freak show. Aish, Wines, Haynes, Caddy, Shepherd, Rich, Palmer, Selwood, Ryder, Lewis. Haynes is a work in progress, but you have to go back to 2002, Kane Tenace, to find someone who didn't come through as a regular senior player, and about half that list you'd be comfortable to get that result from a number 1 pick.

I can't resist making snarky remarks in response to Blease's recent public sooking. "Five coaches? I can't remember more than three coaches at Casey in the last few years." "Five coaches? So tragic that not one of them explained the need for endurance, defensive accountability and team awareness." "Five coaches? The way Blease counts them, we have five right now; Roos, McCartney, Viney, Rawlings and Goodwin."

Yep, part of my anger at the total botching of the expansion efforts is because I would really like to see AFL expand, particularly to edge out that awful Rugby League 'sport'.

I'm all for getting him, so long as he doesn't turn out to be a crank. Sigh.

Top post. If someone is struggling to enjoy games while the hope is low and the play is poor, I'd understand them downgrading from a premium members to a regular one. Maybe the better use of the money is to set it aside to participate in non-game club functions. Maintain the connection while minimising the pain and the testing of patience.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-31/dogs-hunt-narrows-to-three?utm_medium=RSS Sumich, Montgomery and Beveridge, with a few others mentioned just for the sake of making it sound like a wide search. I'm interested by the claim at the end of the article that the bulldogs are an up and coming team, and lauding the Boyd deal... I guess any deal looks good as long as you don't mention what you gave up for it. Honestly, up until they imploded, yes, I thought the dogs were set to climb, if they could acquire some depth and steadily, calmly develop. But the level of problems at the club perhaps have been masked by the presence of that small group of exceptionally promising young players. Looking at the list; Forward line should be ok, with Boyd, Crameri, Stringer and Dahlhaus. Midfield core looks strong, with Liberatore, Bontempelli, Macrae and Wallis. But it gets thin quickly after that. Wil Minson is their only real ruckman, that's a worry. And their defence is full of 'not quite' players, especially tall defenders. One thing is for sure, they need to get the coach right and it will not be an easy coaching job. They are in danger of becoming the new levitating potato of the AFL.

Our Home game opponents; Gold Coast, Sydney, Fremantle, West Coast, Port, Brisbane and GWS. St Kilda, North, Footscray. Collingwood. We are one change short of having the worst possible fixture for attendance and finances. Just switch in Adelaide for the 'pies. I'm disappointed in the new AFL executive. They couldn't quite go that final decisive step. We will be lucky to break 25,000 as a home game average. Under 20,000 is a possibility. Personally, I've got no doubt this must be a set strategy. You don't do that to a club you want to see becoming financially independent.

Carlton supporting friends and family mean I'm exposed to a lot of their games and a lot of the talk and reviewing of their players. Long story short. He's adequate. Not a huge number of possessions, not a huge share of them contested. Not an outstanding number of tackles. He also led the Blues for clangers-per-game, by a considerable margin. Pass. Not what we need and not very good anyway.

Neeld's legacy may yet be important, in the sense that he made outright war on parts of the playing group he saw as unfit to lead the culture of the club. Some of those tough calls may have been right. But there's no doubt he really blew the handling of it. I get the feeling he thought that senior coaches had a lot more power, a lot more command, than they really do.

Wow. That's.... proportionate. And... Mark Neeld personally told you within a month of starting that he was out of his depth? And he continued as senior coach, knowing he was failing? Yeah, that totally turns things around. Anyway, apparently he was an effective assistant coach at the Pies. Maybe he'll be fine at Essendon. Best of luck to him, interesting to see he and Neil Craig back together. Maybe he'll find himself as the emergency stand-in senior coach if Thompson is moved on, then Hird is ejected, Bassett wisely says no, and the place generally implodes.

I recall his original draft profiles had him as a potential key forward but a bit under-height, and possible to be picked anywhere from early second round to rookie list. Now he is turning up as a 'possible anything' in one conversation or another. I'd be happy to see us using a late pick or rookie pick to grab him. The best result is a valuable player, hard to match up on and capable of having an attacking impact. The worst result is a useful Mr Fix It to steady the Casey Scorpions and provide a depth option in multiple areas.

The individual pick comparison is definitely a misleading and stupid one. Obviously, the overall draft result tells an emphatic story but these dumb articles and the hand-wringing about 'oh, we could have had Jesus on the half-forward flank and Gilgamesh rucking" just don't add anything to the world.

This whole thread is agonising. Truly painful. I had even traveled up to Canberra to watch the draft camp (a fun experience in itself) and then come down to Melbourne for the 'Mates of Melbourne' draft event. Four midfielders in the top 20, all of them different types and all of them highly rated. That kind of injection should be enough to bring a club at least back to something competent. Scully and Trengove were the 'only a matter of which is 1 and which is 2' talks of the draft. It really blows my mind to think of the sheer scale of the failure. Has there even been a worse first round of the draft, 4 picks, and almost total failure*. * I still think Trengove can contribute, and Scully at least got us Hogan and screwed up GWS.

Sigh. Close thread.

Hmm, we'll need eligibility criteria for this exercise in MFCSS self-abuse. At least one of the following must apply; Minimum 50 games. Must have won at least one Mark of the Year. Contract must have been in top 25% of players at the club. Was given the jumper number of a famous player. Was at some point touted as a future captain.

I've gone with Lever in the end. Maybe I'm just amused by the suggestions he could be a midfielder and, by joining our other tall players who can rotate through, create history's tallest ever center bounce group. Gawn 208 Watts 196 Lever 194 Dunn 192 or Howe 190

We all know how this will play out. One of the 17 players between 23 and 40 will turn out to be an A-grader, and some schmucks will declare that this means we blew our recruiting and we are all doomed. The other 16 in the range could all be spuds, but that wont matter to the MFCSS machine.

About a decade ago it was around 250,000. Has slipped steadily and now lurks around 200,000 according to the last Roy Morgan survey results I saw. But, they are a rusted on bunch. You don't support Melbourne because it is the easy option They also take up memberships and turn up to games at a higher rate than any other club.