Little Goffy

Yep, I remember that game. He jogged on across open space to join the game on the wing, where the ball came within twenty seconds of him arriving. He was caught flat-footed and was second to the contest. Then made up for it by laying a crunching tackle and reclaiming the ball. which, under pressure, he handpassed to nowhere in particular, for it to be scooped up by on opponent. Not long after he was benched and I'm honestly not sure he got more than 20 mins game time. So he didn't have a great first game, but it's also another one of those stories we can think back on how Daniher kept giving young guys only half a chance, and reassure ourselves that the club maed the right decision. Getting back to the original thread here, can we not pretend the club was placing any more importance on this deal than they did? An interesting ruck prospect with great endurance and not at bottom age, for pick 37. A good trade, a useful piece of list-balancing, and cheap as chips.

It's a risk, definately. Even more so when you think about how much of a talisman they've already made him - suddenly there are Blues talking about finals and top fours and how Whitnall is going to be inspired to keep fit (they may have jumped the gun there, no?) and Fevola will take responsibility for, stuff. When Judd isn't playing, it'll hurt them badly, particularly if they get belted a couple of times the first time he misses. Worse than that would be getting beaten routinely even with Judd. We could all be toasting marshmallows on the flaming ruins of Princes Park if Carlton land bottom four again after everthing they've promised for 2008. And they wouldn't have any salary cap room to hold together the over-hyped and thus over-paid 'guns'.

The mention of Paul Johnson made me think - we seem to have decided on a ruck recreuitong strategy in the last couple of years of primarily looking at 20 year olds who have player two games for an interstate club. If it works out and only costs us a late draft pick every two years, thanks muchly. I would guess it's a recruiting strategy, on the basis that teenage ruckmen are just too much risk no matter how much promise they show. Sorry it's off topic. Big cheer for Junior. (10 more tackles to reach 700) Big cheer for Whelan and Moloney, because if they can get right again we'll all be stoked. I did a quick run for goal-based milestones, just for the hell of it. Bruce, needs 18 to reach 200. Robertson needs 21 for 400. It'd be cool if someone could check how Neitz is progressing in the all-time goals list, too. Who can he pass?

Come last and pick up next year's Johnstone? Come third last and pick up next year's Judd? But seriously, you think it's possible we could finish lower than Richmond? Side note for the post directly above mine - point 4 - miller can actually kick ok, it's more a case of someone needs to teach him to CHOOSE to kick, and to do so with confidence.

Agree completely. I often got the feeling that Daniher wanted every single player to be a utility/tagger except Neitz. I think there was a definate attitude that young players should make themselves versatile to 'give themselves the best chance of getting a game'. Hopefully we'll see players asked/allowed to make a real committment to filling a specific role instead of 'putting barriers in front of them' where they have to make themselves available for anything. So. Who wants to be the next fullback for the Melbourne Football Club? Mr. Garland, Mr. Frawley, Mr. Rance? Step up and be counted!

Ok, I've now heard it said that Travis Johnstone is our only player who can deliver to the forward line, AND is our only match winner. Christ on a Bike! I s'pose we'd better get Pickett back in, too. Travis Johnstone will be Brisbane's payback for dumping Aker on the Bulldogs.

Agreed. I'm sick of hearing it already. I got up this morning a genuinely couldn't believe the story - people getting angry at the club for trading Johnstone, when frankly we all know his attitude has had him on the edge of getting traded every year of his career. I suppose a lot of fans have invested a lot of personal committment in Johnstone - we've spent a lot of time and effort defending him and now he's gone. I really think it's done a lot of harm to the club over the years that one of our highest profile players is invariably discussed in terms of 'unfulfilled potential', 'letting the team down', 'hot and cold' and 'soft'. It's been exhausting, it's hard to let go, but it will be for the best. I promise, this trade is for the best. Especially if we use pick 14 to grab a quality young Key Defender, shifting our personell balance to where we always need more. And especially if we do manage to pick up Trent Cotchin with pick 4. Not to mention the extra opportunity this creates for CJ, Buckley, Petterd, even Dunn. For that matter, it could provide an opportunity for some of the mature players to assert themselves in more aggressive midfield roles previously earmakred for Johnstone.

Visualise a hollow read, with the gentle breeze passing through making a soothing, gentle wooshing sound.

Russell Robertson is in the Russell Robertson mould and kicked 73 goals in 2005... Sure, he had a knee injury this year but... I know it's not a Robertson vs Williams debate, but I think it's a case of the 'ol marginal utility - having one is great, but adding a second one isn't quite as good.

One would have to wear the away strip, I s'pose. Congratulations and best wishes to everyone getting married, it seems to be expanding as the thread goes on!

I like to imagine CJ will be the next Demon late developer, like Carroll (not in team, then good average) or Bell (not in team, then good good). From what I can gather he'll be competing for the spots vacated by Brown and Ward on the one hand and possibly TJ's on the other. Actually, I know this is the wrong thread for this thought, but the TJ trade looks a lot more positive when you consider that it's not just pick 14, but also an opportunity for players like Buckley and CJ to find their way into the team. We'll see what comes around.

Ding ding ding. You win a prize!

Yep, and $30m or so into the big redevelopment of Whitten oval, Which had a huge electoral effect in Melbourne Western Suburbs marginal seats. Guys, I think we need to all move to marginal electorates. Getting back to Tasmania, you've gotta remember that Geelong managed to get a very strong deal with Kardinia Park where they don't actually need a big crowd to turn a reasonable game income. The figure I saw a couple of years back (when it was still Colonial Stadium instead of Telstra Dome) was that a game at the Dome need to pass about 40,000 to be worth as much to Geelong as 25,000 at Kardinia Park. So smaller venues and crowds can still be viable. On the other hand, not yet. If some crazy freaky government actually started investing in regional development instead of just tacking on extra 'suburb-in-a-box' areas to Sydney and Melbourne, then we might see a viable Tassie team.

Bingo. Come to think of it, in the last couple of years we've a ) eliminated St. Kilda from the finals and b ) took the finals spot away from Footscray. Sadly we don't really get c) knocked Richmond out of the finals, but the opportunity only comes up once in a decade! And before anyone mentions it, it would be poor taste to point out that Brown breaking his leg under Matthew Whelan, and the belting we handed them on the scoreboard the same night, scuttled Richmond's 2005 campaign. I'm looking forward to the next Blues/Demons game and, as we steadily thrash them until they're too ashamed to look their mothers in the eye, holding up a banner "How do you like the training facilities NOW?" Carlton weren't born losers, they had to cheat to get there.

Wow, aren't you classy. Please try not to go straight to discussing looks and dropping stupid innuendos as soon as a woman is mentioned. I'd be interested if you have some info on her relative experience/resume compared to Gardner, or the off field leadership at other clubs.

There's a good stat on Jared Rivers - he's one fo only two players who come in the top bracket for both spoils and marks from opposition kicks. It just says exactly what we all see with our own eyes, he is a matchwinner. The guy could have seven possessions in a game and three of them would be goal-savers. He is priceless, and by that I really mean there is no price high enough for me to be happy to trade him. For Judd? On face value maybe, but would it be worth the bitterness?

Nah, I don't like it. Johnstone to Sydney for pick 11 I'm ok with. Miller aswell? Meh. Green I just don't think should go. I'd rather have Green & pick 21 than just pick 6 any day. And please, it's time for Jamar to start somewhere else, he's officially ^%$# me off with his weak performances. I don't know much about the detail of the draft, but I'm inclined to use our high picks on McEvoy and Rance. Would 4 and 11 get them both, though? With at least three more players to pick up, plus two rookie list places, I'd like to see a couple of speedy guys and a speculative ruckman from the late picks. I know the argument for taking the best talent with high picks rather than drafting for specific needs, as it can go painfully wrong (Smith & Molan come to mind), but by all accounts both Rance and McEvoy ARE amongst the best talent, as well as being suited to our needs. Of course, I think I'd be comfortable if we ended up with Cotchin instead.

Don't know about Martin, but I agree with the general picture you're painting. I see PJ as a tall-defender and part-time ruckman. And frankly I see him doing it well, too.

The current logo is much better. Maybe they wouldn't need to readjust the logo every few years if they actually put some thought into getting it out there, instead of thinking "oh, gee, our Brand isn't high profile, I guess the only thing to do is chuck it out and get a new one'. Grrr...

You'd be even more stoked if we got pick 11 and Jolly for Johnstone and Miller, no? I get the serious impression you'd rather have a slot on the list ready for pick 94 than keep Miller. Let's say I disagree but definately sympathise.

Oddly, TJ's efficiency hasn't been that great. I guess the issue is the number of times he takes the high-risk option (such as centering the ball with a 50m pass to a congested area.... We all love it when it comes off, but he actually loses us the ball a fair bit. I've reached the point where I can take him or leave him, sadly. I'm just not attached to him the way I am to the other near-veteran players like Bruce and Green. I'm almost to the same point with Sylvia, from the old 'five horseman' group. Who exactly was in that group? McLean, Sylvia, Moloney, Bell, ??? There was definately a fifth horseman, and this is before Jones was added (Moloney was the one who made it five) But I digress...

I guess hypocrisy isn't in your vocabularly either.

Ahhh... interesting. I'll take Tadgh then, thanks! I've gotta admit, don't see much bonus in Jolly, unless its a Johnstone-pick 11 plus Jamar direct for Jolly. Maybe it's just a psych experiment to see if we can make Jamar & Jolly REALLY hate eachother.

I don't know much about Kruezer actually, but the other day I found a draft preview that was written some time ago, I think it was 2007 AFL prospectus, so start of the year. The article was about players likely to be worth watching during the under 18s season. Interestingly, there were about nine ruckmen in their top 25 players. I've only really heard anything about Kruezer and McEvoy. Obviously if the hype has avoided others, there would be some reason, but there might be an opportunity for a couple of late-draft CAC specials. Maybe here we have the reason Neaves was pushed off the rookie list - we have new speculative ruckman in mind? One thing's for sure, we'll be loaded up with late draft picks to speculate with.

Weak. Cop out. Why did you bother saying it?