The Chazz

Does anyone see Melksham playing a dedicated HBF so if Howe does the right thing, we have a ready made (better) replacement? Will probably be costing us the same amount that Howe is asking for, and will free up H to go in to the midfield (where he was originally recruited to play). Our side looks better with him in it and Howe out of it.

Has 'deeluded' hacked your account, B59?

AFL rules out priority picks for Lions, Blues Poor things...

Is this going to be replayed somewhere? Missed it last night and the preview looked quite good.

AKA depth player that is still a kid, hoping to enter his second full, uninterrupted preseason. Pick 50 in a weak draft, plus a spud from a team on the slide. Yep, can see that's an upgrade...

Sadly DD, we have more hits in the RD than we do in the first round of the ND.

So does that mean we get Walker and pick 50 for Toumpas? No effing way would I sign that off. For a start, I don't rate Walker whatsoever, then we're getting pick 50 as well? I wouldn't have been surprised if Olisik had come up with that, but the fact that someone else did makes me concerned.

Seriously? The same bloke that is going to be playing a key role in the backline in this year's GF, in the very next season after he left us? Wow.

I wonder with the WADA stuff; if a "guilty" player has elected to move from the toxic environment that saw them found guilty, to a brand new club, if WADA will offer leniency toward a potential sentence. Kind of the player saying "The club gave me something that I didn't know was illegal, so instead of remaining "loyal" with said club, I got out at my earliest convenience". Not clutching at straws, just thinking out loud. Surely the MFC has done their due diligence on potential outcomes in November.

I could see Howe to Collingwood, Collingwood's 2nd rounder to Essendon, Melksham to Melbourne. Net result - Melksham for Howe. Pretty even deal. The above would be a "worst case" deal. Best case we get a first rounder for Howe, or we package him as part of a deal for a higher quality mid.

Not a very big disadvantage for the team receiving the player. Instead of going from 18 to 19 (if it was the top team receiving the player), it'd make it a lot more equal if they went from 18 to 36. Bigger price to pay. Ruling out ANY compensation for losing a FA is dumb, and will not support Gill's wishes of 18 strong clubs.

Best thing to do with FA compo is for the club receiving the player to give up the draft pick of the level determined by the AFL, and the team losing the player then receives this. It'll be kind of like a trade of player for pick, but more even. This would've meant last year, we would've got pick 18 for Frawley, but Hawthorn's first live draft pick wouldn't have been until pick 36. If the Hawks then wanted to enter the draft in the first round, they'd have to trade out a player, which would be of higher standard to attract a first round pick.

So Richmond, West Coast, Port, North, Carlton, the Bulldogs and Sydney had poor leadership too? For a different argument, we didn't get rid of Bruce - he left. We offered him what he was worth, he knocked it back. We won in that situation, mainly because he was a turnover merchant, a soft player and not a leaders [censored]. How did he fare at Hawthorn? Play some good footy?

Played an important role in our win v Geelong.

Exactly this. H is cream. We've nearly got the last of the ingredients for the cake. Still has to be baked yet, but there'll be times 2016 that H will have an impact (onfield). Shame they don't do stats for offield stuff though - I'm sure he'd be top 5 of the Bluey if they did.

Have a look at the players picked in 2009 from 1-20; Scully - was always going to be pick 1 Trengove - barely been on the park Martin - star Morabito - unknown Cunnington - starting to show good form Rohan - not in Sydney's Top 10 Shepphard - solid without shining Butcher - minimal impact Moore - struggles to hold his spot Melksham - good but not great Gysberts - no comment Lucas - bust Talia - star Jetta - inconsistent Howard - delisted Pittard - solid contributor Menzel - could be anything Tapscott - no comment Griffiths - can't crack it consistently Fyfe - star Not many stars amongst them, a couple of unknowns due to injury (of which you have to include Trengove in that category). A number of clubs had a bust in that first round, it's just a shame we had 2 outstanding duds. (I don't call Scully a dud - he'd be handy in our team at the moment, but not as handy as what we got for him). Let's not also forget that BP picked up Gawn in the same draft, and Fitzy (not saying he was a star, but he was terribly managed in his time at the club).

Let's see Vanders make an impact in 2016, and ensure he's not depth by the end of the season. (Nb. I actually said he could be depth this time next year). Reality is, most of those players you mentioned are depth as well, although I would argue that Jetta is by far our best small defender. But you are proving my point - when players like Watts, Howe, Lumumba and Grimes are our depth players, mainly because players like Vanders have gone ahead of them, we are starting to get decent depth. If we Vanders is playing poor and we can replace him with Lumumba, then we should see a more consistent team performance.

Like the other 19 opportunities presented to other clubs that didn't take him? Not saying you didn't see the talent in him prior to the draft, but a lot of it is revisionism at its finest, and like the Wines/Toumpas argument, and many other similar ones, it gives me the shits.

I've kind of covered it in an earlier post, STMJ, but it's quite possible that by the end of 2016, ANB, Stretch, Vanders, Harmes and White could become our "bottom" depth. And before any of you jump up and down, these are basically 2nd year players, it's totally acceptable that they haven't consolidated their spot in the best 22 - that's what happens to most young players at the good clubs!

It's possible that Fyfe would turn it over because of the heavy tackle that Trengove put on him, which spilt it out to Toumpas, who put it down Watts' throat, who went back and kicked his 150th for the year, giving Freo their first flag. Moral - it's just as effing irrelevant.

I didn't say Harmes wouldn't be elevated. From memory we need to go to the draft with three live selections. I'm not sure if a promoted rookie counts - if so, Harmes may still get promoted this draft. Ideally we keep him on the RL, but if we can't, then I too would be staggered if he wasn't elevated. With regards to the names you mentioned, you can tell our list is in a much better state, especially if Grimes and Toumpas are in the "bottom" group of depth players. Grimes in particular is generally reliable (kicking not so much), but you know he puts in 100% when he gets the opportunity. If he's one of the weaker players on our list, that's when we're starting to get "better" depth. If the likes of he, Toumpas, MJones and Terlich don't step up next year, they will go. All of a sudden, our "bottom" depth will be the likes of Newton, Michie, JKH, even potentially Melksham. Given those four I just named have shown ability at senior level, if they are all of a sudden the weakest links, we're well on track. Just need to develop those "mid-range" kids (Stretch, ANB, White, Vanders, etc), so that they don't become our bottom depth. I know it's a Captain Obvious call, but our success will rely on Viney, Brayshaw, Tyson, Petracca and Salem becoming high quality players (better than Vince in 2015 and Jones in 2014). If that happens, and the Stretch/ANB/White/Vanders group become solid, best 22 players, that's when we will be a serious chance. It's exciting, but we've been here before so I'm not reaching for the tissues, yet...!!!

I spoke with someone in our FD before the start of this season, and one thing he pointed out was that 2015 would be a bit rocky, mainly because the team had played bugger all footy together. However, he did say that 2016 was going to be the start of the exciting times for us (implying the team will know each other better after 12 months with each other). Keeping that in mind, and the fact that we've had 6 players gone already, I'd be surprised if there will be too many more list changes, unless the "deal of a lifetime" comes up. While we still need to remove a number of players to improve, we also need stability. The upside of keeping the likes of Matt Jones and Dean Terlich around for another season is that they will play a lot of footy at Casey in 2016, but if needed in the seniors, they will know the role they need to play, and will know the players around them. That's not to say they'll play that role well, but there were games this year where M Jones wasn't a liability. Doing this will then see us needing to move only a handful on at the end of next season, giving all players the opportunity to develop as a team. With AVB being upgraded, we have 5 spots on the list. I'd imagine we will be trying to get two players during the Trade/FA period that will be starting 18, leaving 3 spots to take to the draft. If we find other "starting 18" players wanting to join us, then the likes of MJones/Terlich will be pushed out, otherwise, they'll be with us in 2016.

Pity there's only one Vanders though, ManDee! Although, we do have him, so that's a positive!!

Not sure how you can categorically say that I'm "wrong". You disagree with my view, that's fine, you may end up being right, but until such time as 1) Lake retires and 2) Frawley takes over that role, my view is as possible as you think it is impossible.

He'll be a lot better next year when Lake retires.