Radar Detector

On the evidence available so far this season (a small sample mind you) we appear to have overtaken Brisbane, Gold Coast and Carlton and remain in front of St Kilda. We are in a pack of teams whose best footy is pretty good but who could also lose to any of the bottom teams on a given day. Teams like West Coast and Richmond are in that group. The Doggies are too (to be fair, they look a touch ahead of us at this point but in striking distance). Collingwood is another rung above IMO with the likes of North and Essendon. Geelong is anyone's guess as they have started terribly but losses to Freo, Hawthorn and North make their form line tough to read. All in all, I think we should be happy with a 2-2 start to the season. I think we should be aiming for an 8 win season which is a 33% hit rate from here on out.

What if we win 6-7 but are in the game for 8-9? Wouldn't that constitute an improvement? Reality is every team will have a couple of close losses every year.

Wowee the ecpectations on Hesse Hogan are immense! Sure he is an impressive kid with some impressive attributes but he hasn't played an AFL game and hasn't played at any level for more than a year. If he exceeds Frawley's overall 2014 output that would be a good result... Maybe 20ish goals for the season. Dawes, Garlett and Watts should also all be around that mark. I suspect Hogan should be a big improver into 2016 with some game time under his belt.

Pretty difficult to get trade mail right a week out given all the possible permutations. I for one think GNF's info is valuable to this forum and his credibility remains intact IMO.

Wholeheartedly agree with this. However it doesn't change the fact that we haven't achieved what we were hoping for.Part of the angst felt by people like myself is the hope that a spike in performance to stop the bleeding from FA. I fear for our ability to keep Hogan for example. And in reality, we don't just need to stop the exodus, we need to become a destination club. Long, long way to go.

We don't now have Hogan instead of Frawley. Last year we had both, what part of that escapes you? You can't conveniently adjust the list for injuries in hindsight. They happen every season and will happen again next year. If Hogan goes down we will have neither he nor Frawley which is significantly worse. Also, I am not "dreaming about the potential we could have had". I simply stated that our list as it stands currently is worse than this time last year. In fact, given that certain others around us like GWS and Brisbane have gained significant ground, we have arguably gone backwards. We might pass the Doggies next year but will be lucky to escape the bottom 3.

How anyone can think our squad is stronger now than at the end of trade period last year is beyond me. Hogan would have been come into the side regardless and would have formed a forward line with Clark and Dawes with Watts/Howe as fourth. Frawley would've slotted back into defence with Dunn, McDonald and co. So far we have added Lumumba and Garlett. Both are handy role players but don't address our key issues. My concerns are that: Our midfield has not been touched at all and our former captain is one year into a crippling injury with at least another year of recovery to go. Hogan is a completely unproven quantity at AFL level and is a kid who has spent a year out with injury. He is a great long term prospect but the expectations we are placing on this kid are still extreme and I question whether next year he will far exceed what Frawley produced as a forward this year. Frost is similarly unproven. He may end up the second coming of Matthew Scarlett or the second coming of Tom Gillies. Who knows? We can debate whether or not pick 3 is "overs" for Frawley but the chances that the kid we draft with will match his output in either of the next two years is remote. Honestly, unless we miraculously prise a seriously good player in the last 24 hours of this trade period, we finish well behind where we were at 12 months ago.

Humour detector not working today?

I hate the idea of trading Trengove. Even more, I hate the idea that we might actually take the pick we would bank for him to the draft. I can't see a Dangerfield trade happening. Losing Frawley and Trengove for a new pair of speculative kids doesn't excite me at all. Our list feels far worse right at the minute than it did 12 months ago.

I don't like the "he has issues" comments people are making about HL. Difference of opinion or communication style doesn't equal "issues". In any event, I do agree that pick 23 is too much but a pick in the 30s is about right.

As of right now, we are in a worse position list wise than we were last year. We are losing our best forward and best back for the sum total of one first round pick (at best). We're not even allowed to keep pace with "inflation"

Whilst I agree with the context in which you said this, the statement is ridiculous! Generally harder to find a substantiated fact on this site I would have thought

I reckon there is 0% chance that Dalhaus is 189cms. The rest of your post was spot on though

That is completely disingenuous. Watts cannot play the Gunston role effectively because we move the ball slowly and can't hit a target. I never said Watts is better than, or even the equal of, Gunston. I said he could become a Gunston type player. And his contested possession stats will improve if we can hit him on a lead. Anyway, I don't want to keep pushing this barrow as I'm not as passionate about JW as my posts would suggest. People just need to realise that our disposal makes it really hard to be a good forward in this team. Just ask Dawes.

No more than Watts does.

I agree RPFC. We're still in the phase where we can only really afford to get rid of the players we don't need and hope we can bring in genuine best 22 players as their replacements through the draft, trading of early picks or FA. We won't get enough incremental value from trading out players like Howe or Watts or Grimes who are comfortably best 22 at this stage. We will get better by replacing those who can't get or influence games with players who can thereby pushing players perceived as marginal down the best 22 list until they are fringe or no longer required. Watts, Howe, Trengove, Grimes et al are very unlikely to deliver us a silver bullet trade that cures our ills quickly. Your list of Tapscott, Blease, Strauss, Bail, Byrnes and Nicholson will form the core of players to move on at year end. Terlich maybe, although he is still getting games and can play a role if required. I think the FD would have to be presented with a cracker of a deal to move any of the best 22 on, especially considering Clark and Frawley are unlikely to be around too.

I've said similar in a previous thread but Jack Watts has very similar strengths (and contest related stats) to Jack Gunston. He is not the Reiwoldt type that we were crying out for but will be very effective when we have a few others in the team who can kick like him. He will only need the ball a few times close to goal to influence games but won't win many in really contested situations. He needs team-mates to be able to hit him up. The good news is not every player in the AFL needs to be a contested animal and the reality is every team has players that rely on others to get them the ball. Even Hawthorn.

There's more than just a little bit of Matty Whelan about Nev Jetta this year. Love the bloke. Has always had a great attitude so it's great to see him playing such good footy.

I get the sentiment but one logically leads to the other. We are much closer to winning games regularly than we were.

That about sums it up Stuie. I'd also add Howe to the trade bait for decent offer group. I also don't think Georgiou has done anywhere near enough to be elevated and will more than likely be kept on as a rookie even if Frawley goes.

In the wake of the understandable hand-wringing after the Brisbane loss, I thought it would be interesting to have a look at the "Quarters won" stat. In particular and despite obvious skill deficiencies, how much have we actually improved and how far do we have to go? Historically, over the last 6 years, a team has to win 2.1 quarters on average per game to make the finals (a drawn quarter = 0.5). Improving this ratio to 2.5 quarters per game will place a team in contention for top 4. In contrast, the Demons circa 2013 won a meagre 0.9 quarters per game to finish second last in one of the worst seasons in our history. This season, we sit 15th on the Quarters Won table with a much more respectable 1.6 per game, comfortably ahead of GWS and St Kilda (1.2 each) and a long way ahead of Brisbane on a surprisingly low 0.9 (although this is rising steadily). As a side note, our best QW stat since our last finals appearance was 1.7 per game under Bailey in 2010 which lead to 8 wins. What does this all tell us? There are obviously many factors at play but it is obvious that the improved competitiveness that most have suspected is real. A similar improvement next year would have the side pushing for finals. That said, our fourth quarter win ratio is only 33% lending weight to Paul Roos' comments after the Brisbane game that the losing habits of some players are worse than even he expected. T_U highlighted in a previous thread that we have been in the lead in the last quarter of a number of games but won less than half which goes to the same issue. Either way, it appears obvious that the Paul Roos method has improved the side markedly in a competitive sense but we need to add some class to ensure that the improved competitiveness does not go to waste.

^ Can somebody please translate this for me?

I don't see Watts as an effective full forward in this team. He is not a contested marking beast and our disposal upfield is not good enough to utilise his talents. I see Watts as a Jack Gunston type of player who will be a great converter when he can find space in the forward line and guys up the ground can actually hit him with a pass. Hogan and Watts could be a dangerous combination but our midfield will need to improve to allow this. I'm not sure how Roos sees Watts but I suspect his trajectory would be similar to Gunston's in a decent side. He only needs a couple of shots at goal a week to be really dangerous. But putting him deep forward would be no value to either him or the side right now.

I can't work out whether the ambivalence towards Frawley is because people have forgotten how good he is in his natural role as a defender or as a result of some personal defence mechanism to avoid the disappointment of him leaving. Frawley is still one of the best defenders in the competition and by far the best defender in our team. He is in the prime of his career. I am not sold at all that we would be better off losing him for a first round pick (wherever that might end up). We are by no means guaranteed a player of his calibre and we certainly can't bank on landing Cameron or Patton or Shiel with the pick we get for him as some seem to have already done (although FWIW keeping Frawley also doesn't preclude us landing someone like Shiel in a Tyson style deal). We will never climb the ladder if our best players keep jumping ship as they hit free agency eligibility, we absolutely NEED some of these guys to stick around if we are going to improve.

I saw the same on an MFC facebook page. A follow up poster suggested his info was the above deal had been put to Frawley calling his bluff on the back of the Roos signing but there was no timeframe on when Frawley might consider it. Grain of salt stuff at this stage I think