Akum

Gun slipping to PSD looking much less likely

Still can't help but wonder about this. Sure the Hawks are trading like there's no tomorrow, but still hard to believe they'd seriously offer Brown. Of all the Hawks' players that they'd realistically offer for trade (i.e. excluding Buddy, Rioli etc), the one that's going to cause the most hullaballoo among their supporters is Brown. Perhaps they're just putting pressure on Port to settle for McGlynn (their first choice to trade for Burgoyne) by demonstrating that Port can't realistically expect them to offer a core player, even their least-skilled core player. They're prepared to offer pick 9 + fringe player, but not pick 9 + core player. If they're seriously offering Brown, it's going to cause a palace coup among ttheir supporters.

Fev??

I would have thought so too. Especially as the "secrecy" seems to have been breached from the Adelaide end. Unless they're trying to exert leverage on Port to settle for McGlynn, by demonstrating to them the difficulty they will have in giving up one of their "heart & soul" players for Burgoyne.

Just my opinion, that Brock would be motivated more by the role than the money. May well have been both.

Can't see either of these - nor Burgoyne nor Jolly - in the PSD. Probably just Fev.

Yep

This is the crux of it. We'll get our 4 quality picks in ND & that'll be plenty. We only need to use pick 34 if there's someone still there who's worth more to us than, say, Valenti or Bartram. Almost certainly there won't be. No point in using pick 34 if it's not going to improve our list.

The interesting part in the Brock article is what's unsaid. Inevitably diminishing role in Dees midfield year-by-year vs. Ratten telling him "where he saw me fitting in" to Blues' midfield. IMO everything else (including the money, and the drive to Casey FCS!) is fluff.

It would mean that we get our pick of all the talls at 11. Seems to be becoming more and more a midfield draft, which is why clubs with an open "window" and an OK midfield are happily trading away their draft picks.

100% agree, though the Hawks are pushing this strategy to its absolute limit.

No, Hawks just prefer to trade for what they need, they don't seem to like their chances of getting anything they need out of the draft. If they do the Burgoyne deal, their first draft pick will be fourth round, unless they're prepared to trade some tempting players. North knew they'd lost Gibson anyway and prefer to draft for what they need. It's a classic win-win because both have different preferences, unless you think that Gibson's a gun player who's worth a first round pick.

I'd say it's taking some time because they're preoccupied with the Fev deal, which is the key factor for how the rest of their trade week goes, and which they'd want to conclude before turning their attention to anything else. The Fev deal has so many elements that it will be extremely complex, especially if they're trying to use him to wangle an early draft pick.

Very thought-provoking B59. The interesting thing is that some clubs are laying more emphasis on trading rather than drafting - Carlton the main example, but also Hawthorn, Swans, perhaps Collingwood - because they think they need someone for the next few years rather than 4-5 years out, and they'll trade away draft picks for targeted players. While clubs like us, Freo & Port are perhaps more interested in trading away players for more draft picks, especially early draft picks, because picking up players who will deliver over the next 2-3 years only isn't a lot of use to us. With more active trading this year, there seems to be more of a split between drafters & traders. As opposed to last year where nobody was a trader, everyone was a drafter, for obvious reasons. This might not hold for every club, but it seems to be much more of a feature this year. And the Dees are positioned beautifully to pick up the cream of the draft. I doubt we'll be trading for players, we're more likely to trade away another player or two.

Doesn't sound right. Fev like the 50m arc to himself, he won't get that at St Kilda.

Maybe we need to look at this differently, because with Davey we're getting much more than his on-field contribution. Locking him in for 4 years as a player means locking in his indigenous mentorship role too, making it much more likely that LJ, Wona, Bennell & Jetta will continue to enjoy their time at the Dees together, and more importantly, will not be swayed by offers from other clubs that are bound to come their way during that period. That also applies to any other talented indigenous players that come to the Dees during that time. Maybe he also has in mind to develop further the NT connection on the Dees' behalf. It sounds like NT footy certainly needs someone of his status to drive it along, and it's not unreasonable that he gains some security for these off-field activities over the next 4 years and longer, especially if we get another LJ or two out of it. In 2014 Davey qualifies for the VL, and it sounds like he wanted security for himself and his family until then. Giving him the 4th year he asked for virtually ensures that he ends his playing career at the Dees. This is good for Aaron and what he would have wanted for his family, but there is a big upside for MFC too in those 3rd & 4th years.

You're right to a point - there's also been list management, player management (e.g. Morton developing defensive skills; Brock playing in positions other than on-ball), and getting more out of certain established players (best examples being Sylvia, Davey & Jamar). But you have actually made a very good argument for giving him a 1-year extension. Because from 2010 draft picks are no longer a part of the coaching "equation", so it's almost a different job requiring him to display a different set of skills. And the two big question marks we all have about DB are: (1) What are his skills as a match-day coach? In other words, can he make moves during a game that bring about a win that we might not have got without the moves? (2) Can he develop a good game plan that doesn't just look pretty but brings about wins, especially under pressure? It's these two aspects of coaching (there may be more) that are going to decide whether we stick with him for an extended period or not. So far, he hasn't been required to do either, so we can't say yes or no. As far as I'm concerned, we'll need at least a full season to be able to judge this. Half a season isn't going to be nearly enough to know either way, so if we leave it until the pressure's really on (at about the same time of the year that cost Wallace, Laidley and nearly Williams their jobs in 2009), there won't be enough eviodence to decide either way. IMO, by mid-2011, there will be very little doubt about whether DB is the right coach to take us to the next stage, or whether he's done the tough stuff but can't take us further. It's not out of "DB-love" that I argue for the 1-year extension, it's just to avoid the situation where the club has to make an extremely important decision based on too-little evidence.

One of the 'Ologists seemed to think this was a done deal. If so, it would surprise me greatly. It's widely thought out this way (western suburbs) that the Dogs are very very keen to do whatever it takes to hold on to Leon Cameron, as they want him to be their senior coach after Eade pulls up stumps, and they'll do anything to keep him happy. I would have thought bringing German into the picture puts a bit of heat on Cameron, who might be less half-hearted in his pursuit of other AFL senior coaching positions. My point is that German to Willi carries some potentially very serious knock-on effects for the Bulldogs, so I'd be very surprised to see it happen.

To quote the great Irish-American poet John McEnroe ... "surely you CANNOT be serious!" Jack and Jurrah will be scrambling over each other at the prospect of matching up with the best defenders each week! There's no better way to shorten the time it will take for them to graduate from "promising" to "elite". Too many posters here seem to think that these two are a bit fragile and must be kept in cotton-wool - IMO nothing could be further from the truth.

This hadn't occurred to me before, but it's blindingly obvious when you think about it. Do you think this could have been why Bell, Newton & PJ were contracted until end 2010?

Only goes to show that Robbo didn't "get it", and still doesn't. DB couldn't have left him in any doubt that he needed to change his game - second efforts, defensive pressure - but Robbo didn't seem to see why he had to, didn't seem to see why what he'd done for however many years wasn't enough in the new environment. Same with Brock. On the other hand, JMac & Bruce have tried to improve & to develop their skills - disposal, defensive pressure, decision-making, flexibility - they "get it". Robbo & Brock don't, they want to be able to go on doing what they've always done.

Carlton may have a few more 6th-8th place seasons before they slide again. As far as Brock is concerned, I don't think it was about money, he's better than that. Think he just saw the writing on the wall. A role that diminishes year by year in a young fast skilful midfield that improves year by year vs. a soon-to-be-vacated role in a top midfield that has reached its peak. And a team that demands that he develop extra skills to those he's already got vs. a team that doesn't, and won't.

Getting a bit sick of finals being decided by a string of diabolical umpiring decisions.

Difficult to see where he's put a foot wrong to date. The big factor is that he's prepared to do it the hard way, the full rebuild from the bottom up. Certain other clubs have avoided this, preferring to take shortcuts. Shortcuts such as: * Recruiting a big name or two to make up for the deficiencies of the rest of the team of NQR players. * Boosting one part of the team - for example, building a spectacular midfield - while leaving other parts of the team not up to standard. * Drilling players like automatons in a particular game plan until it becomes second nature (this is a particularly seductive shortcut, because the team looks fantastic against poor opposition, but when other teams work out how to counter the drill, it's a big problem). DB's aim is to build the whole team at the same time, so that all parts of it are strong. Our improvement will come about because all parts of the team will improve at the same time. That means that we might not see much in terms of results until all (or nearly all) the pieces are in place. And there is even a chance that it might get derailed at some stage in the long process. But as others have said, we are not looking for 8th place, or even 2nd place, to be the peak of our rise; the aim is premierships. The shortcuts may be a better way to get to 9th place or 7th place or 4th place, but we need to be more patient. The improvement may take longer, but once it starts, it will be more entrenched and more reliable. I can understand some wanting to see earlier improvement, but that's the wrong way to go. As rpfc keeps saying, at this stage it's the development that's important, not results. If we do the development right, the results will take care of themselves.

Apologies E25, didn't mean that he was one of the AFL elite in defensive skills, just that he's one of the Dees best 5 or 6. We'll need a supply of good defensive players as we move up. For the three you've mentioned, I thought their disposal wasn't great to start with, but in the way of defensive players, they've worked hard at it. And yes, CB needs to work hard at it too, but you can bet that he will.