The Chazz

Listening to Misson discuss our injuries, it gave me zero confidence that we will see Hogan any time in the short term. He still thinks he is 4 to 5 weeks - that takes him to the end of May. A couple of weeks at the least at Casey after that you would think, so we're probably not looking until Round 10-12 for a debut.

RPFC - just interested to know if your relative has heard anything in recent days that would help us understand Gillon's sentiments? Still an amazing coincidence that the TV rights expire end of 2016, as does Hawthorn's contract with the Tassie Government. And now the AFL are encouraging North to sign a short-term agreement to bring it in line with Hawthron's (and the TV rights) expiration date...

Our YTD total is 149 hit outs to 200 - a difference of -51. Given that we were +17 against St Kilda, in the last 3 weeks we are -68. That's our biggest problem at this stage. Hence why Jamar has to come straight in at the first sign of 100% fitness.

Jesus, I must be slow if this bloke isn't quick. That said, for me the main criteria of a competent small forward are; * Pressure the opposition when we don't have the ball * Know how to read the play, thus knowing how to position yourself around a contest * Know where the goals are, thus knowing how to kick a goal I don't want him winning the Grand Final sprint at half time. I want him playing in the Grand Final and doing the above. To date, he's proven more than capable of doing the latter should the former happen during his career.

Ah, he's learnt from his mistakes now B59. Instead of delaring one way or another, he lists a number of scenarios that could happen, with the theory that his articles will "always" be "right". Examples; Mitch Clark - Robbo reported a meeting between club and management where Mitch will either retire, ask for more time off, come back and start training straight away or head overseas for specialist treatment. Not sure what the other options would be if he didn't do one of the four that the sloth listed. Jack Trengove - Robbo said it'll either end his career or it won't. Wow, thanks for that, genius. I feel so much smarter knowing that he will either play again or he won't. I get the feeling Robbo backs 24 horses in the Melbourne Cup, just so he can tell anyone that can be bothered listening that he backed the winner.

Oh dear, Titan. I sincerely hope you were drunk when you posted this - would explain a lot. I respect your right to respond to my posts, but in future, how about you get your facts right before you go misquoting me hey pal? Do yourself a favour, re-read my post, then re-read your own ramblings. Let me know where I have said things that required your corrections.

From the little information I have heard/read, it's more groin related.

Subway is so better than that Nutbean. Don't give up on it after one bad experience - it's the most reliable and consistent fast food in Australia. Having written all that, comparing it with Sylvia is 100% wrong in my view.

This topic has all the trademarks of a Range Rover poll. Over to you Rangey, wherever you may roam.

This week will show how much we have improved. This game has turned in to one of our most important for the year.

I find it very funny that he can't get a game at Freo, and has now been rubbed out for a frustrated, off the ball incident. I also find it funny that Brisbane have turned to pure tripe since Moloney's arrival (their form and his arrival are purely coincidental), and by seasons end, it could see that we have gone ahead of them. How's your ego now, boys? And before anyone starts about the "gone to another club to play finals" rubbish, for a select group of players moved on, it was more about ego than anything else. The only player in the past 5 years I have been disappointed to see go is Cheney. Didn't get much of a go at Melbourne, seemed to be a blue collar worker when we had a fetish for white, has worked his backside off at Hawthron and through good luck (or bad luck to the injured players), is looking at consolidating a spot in their senior team, but understands that getting dropped is an opportunity to work on areas in the reserves and to push for senior selection again, rather than an opportunity to sulk. Any wonder he never got a fair go at the MFC with that attitude!

Am I the only one that hates Spencer being called "Spencil"? Yes, I realise his nickname is Pencil. Let's start calling Frawley "Chipley". In answer to the OP...No.

It means nothing because in the past 7 years, we've rarely had a player in it. Of the 2, I prefer his post season one, as it is a more accurate gauge on how players played in that season. When we start having 5 or 6 guys listed in it, that's when the list will mean something.

6. N Jones 5. J Frawley 4. J Grimes 3. J Viney 2. L Dunn 1. C Dawes

Let's not get too carried away. Spencer had less hitouts than Warnock, which in my opinion is a vital stat that we need to win, especially given the hard-working nature of our midfield (ie we need to get our hands on the ball first at stoppages more). Spencer also had a considerable amount less disposals than Warnock. That said, it was Spencer's work ethic, especially in regards to presenting and tackling that made him stand out more than Warnock. But, given how low I rate Warnock, I would expect this would stand out for most rucks in the league when playing Carlton. Playing the hypothetical game, if all our rucks were 100% fit, there is no doubt that Jamar would be in the team, and Spencer likely to be playing at Casey. Generally, Jamar wins a lot of hitouts, and while they haven't always been to advantage, the fact that we have more depth in the middle will only benefit someone like Jamar. I'm not potting Spencer, I actually had him in my top 3 of players to watch for 2014. I'm just not getting carried away with a game that saw him just win his position. To be honest, I think the game would've been more enjoyable if both teams reached an agreement to not play any dedicated rucks. They were both ordinary at best, with our bloke winning a pretty ordinary contest.

I'd have Dunn playing the defensive forward role on Gibbs. I'd have Tyson going head to head on Murphy. I'd potentially look at Watts tagging Daisy. Make Watts accountable, and at the same time, he will get a good lesson on how to play as a true outside mid. Jordie can tag Simpson, as he often kills us. Depending on where Walker plays, I would like to see possibly Bail go to him. Carrazzo will have to go to Jones or Vince. Either way, one of them will probably be tagged by Curnow, so I expect that is the match-up that we need to smash. Gives us some good match-ups, and considering I haven't got a "role" for Viney and possibly Matt Jones (he's due for a good game isn't he??!!), it's nice to know we are matching a club in terms of midfield depth. I haven't picked us, I don't expect a win, but a forward showing wouldn't surprise. I just hope our players have a different mindset than me!

I probably worded the original question/statement wrong, and apologise for the confusion. I was meaning the top sides as a collective, rather than just picking one side. Rivers is a great example, he looks a required player at Geelong, but there wouldn't be too many other sides that he would get a game at. This is based on needs. Howe would not, in general, be a starting 22 player in most sides, especially on this year's form (and let's face it, he wasn't anywhere near consistent enough last year that would earn him a regular spot at a good side), which is all I can go on, hence why I crossed Clark off your list. Hogan hasn't played a game, so I struggle to believe he would be a certain starter in the top sides - 1 side maybe, but not as a collective. Vince has been good for us, but I can't see who he would force out of a Geelong or Fremantle midfield. Garland could be vaulable to some of the top clubs, but not all. Jones is the only one who would walk in to any side's midfield immediately. I didn't intentionally shift the goal posts to suit my argument, again I apologise for the confusion.

At the time of his draft, there is no way Darling would've seriously been considered a nuber 1 pick. I also find it hard to believe that any club, including ours, wouldn't have had some form of discussion with potential draft picks at some stage throughout that year, whether in the form of a formal interview or an informal one. Corrected for reality's sake... The sheer fact that you are putting Clark's name up there makes your argument very weak. Not trying to offend, but I prefer to look at current form - Clark hasn't played for 18 months, and on top of that, he's actually retired from the game.

So you would prefer 1 superstar than half a dozen blokes that would walk in to any other teams starting 22? That won't get us far. While you do have to take Top 50 lists (like Sheehan's) with a grain of salt, what they do highlight is how important it is to have mulitple A-graders in your team. The teams up the top end have 5 or 6 each, the teams in the middle have 2 to 4 players. We barely have 1. Now that the Gold Coast are starting to get more output from some of their players, they are starting to see a rise up the ladder. It won't be long until O'Meara, Swallow & Martin (to name a few) end up in the top 50 in the league, and it won't be coincidence that they will be playing finals when this occurs. It's also why Carlton are where they are - after Murphy and to some degree Judd, their next best player drops down the rankings significantly.

What we really need, Sassy, is having multiple players considered in the Top 50 at the start of the year, then that number increasing at the end of the year. We will barely make finals, let alone win premierships, when our B&F winner isn't considered in the top 30 of the compeition.

Olisik, with "examples" like the one above, how can you blame me? At best, we could possibly get pick 1 & 2. You want to trade one of those picks for Patton, and the other for Danger? That IS an example of a trade, but so is me saying trade our pick 68 for Ablett. What a "get" that would be.

I fully appreciate (and hear) what you are saying. Regardless of the "rules" that are/were in place, the AFL had no option in giving us assistance last year. It was the year we were found "not guilty" of losing games for priority picks, then a matter of weeks after that decision, we are asking for a priority pick? To further complicate our case, we had an AFL endorsed CEO appointed, who went to the AFL, cap in hand asking for a financial bail out package, which we were successful in obtaining. While I, and most supporters are no doubt disappointed we didn't receive a PP last year, I can understand some of the things that we had working against us. I can picture Vlad rejecting our claim, mainly because of the vibe of the thing! This year is a totally different scenario. We all expected some sign of improvement, which is barely visible (as of Round 3). I hold little hope that it'll be a number 1 pick, which will no doubt disappoint some on here. But, when there is no clear understanding of the formula used, and more to the point, the definition of any outcome based on what the formula results are, then it'll always be a grey area and open to discussion/disagreement/argument!

You're an example of someone who is all over the shop with they way they think, and has NFI about a list management/recruitment strategy. But go ahead and keep throwing your darts at the board. As I said, I find it amusing.

Wasn't it Peter Jackson who said having the footy department and the admin department away from each other was not an ideal situation?

I think that's what we all want to see. It made me sick when I saw $cully take that mark running back with the flight last week. He is far from a courageous player, but he knew he had nothing to fear from his opposition. Perfect opportunity to teach that dog never to do that sort of thing again, and it could've been done in a "legal" manner. He knew he was safe.