DeeSpencer

Pretty clear it's pushed not walked. But that doesn't mean it's a falling out as such. Macca had issues at the Dogs, but as much as anything they didn't win enough games, you don't win games and you move a coach on for the same kind of problems that can be fine if you're winning. Plus failing as a senior coach doesn't have a lot of bearing as an assistant. If it did then people wouldn't be nearly as excited as they seem to be for Bolton or Richardson.

A few people here unfamiliar with the concepts of either: A) Contracts And/or B) The footy department salary cap Not all of Rawlings, Chaplin, Mathews, Plapp etc will be going. Nor should they be. This is still the coaching group that had us playing some very good footy last year.

From watching trainings Macca was an important voice who stressed the fundamentals and had a good relationship with players where he'd boost them up or give them a rev depending on what was needed. I think the shame here is instead of sticking with a well defined role we moved him around and probably ended up having him in the way. Whoever we bring in we need to make sure the roles are clearly defined, that everyone is on board with the game plan and that training is well rounded.

Gus has 3 more years on what I assume is a pretty decent contract, are we sure anyone even wants to trade for him? If he was at another club I wouldn't be racing out to get him with anything like a top 25 pick. Especially given his concussion history it would be a huge risk based around a number of games in 2018 where he was really prolific and strong at winning the ball but hardly all that skilled. Right now he just doesn't have any pace or confidence. I'd probably play him half back and have the game come to him, he'll get some easy touches by reading the play and winning it. See if that keeps it simple for him for the last 3 weeks. Otherwise it has to be a lack of confidence and physical limitations because he looks so far off it. It's going to take some Darren Burgess miracle work and if it does go to plan that will mean more fitness and burst for Viney, Oliver, Petracca and Harmes as well and then they can all rotate through.

Exactly. Lever, Hore and Oscar in the same backline against the Tigers would've been terrible and only 1 of those was some chance of playing on Riewoldt so they put poor Oscar in to do it. And even though Hore is a mature player with plenty of VFL footy under his belt it probably doesn't kill him to go back and get 30 kicks. If we do play Lever and Hore together - and I think we should this week - then they both have to be ball users and provide rebound. I'm never been on the Lever is a superstar track but he's shown some really promising signs against West Coast, St Kilda and in the first half yesterday. These games are important to get his confidence and some game time in to him before next season. The idea he should've sat out half a season when healthy to make it the best part of 2 years missed is crazy.

The only case for giving them pick 2 is that they aren't a viable football club without it, in which case you have to ask if they are a viable football club with it? Would be making an absolute mockery of the competition given their list and results are both better than when Melbourne and Carlton were knocked back for a priority pick after 2 win seasons. If they really want pick 2 to get the best mates in together and fix player retention there's a very easy solution - they can trade Ben King (who sounds desperate to get out of their immediately) to us for pick 2. If we aren't interested in that straight up they can add Izak Rankine, Ben Ainsworth or Charlie Ballard for our future first. Or Bowes, or Martin, or Sexton, or Fiorini, or Powell, or Weller, or Lukosius in some deal. Compare those names to the list Roos took over at Melbourne, they are miles ahead. They have a stack of talent. Giving them even more in the hope they all stick is the exact reason PP's were taken out, teams can get it right and then they rocket to the top. Sliding them extra salary cap room in ambassador payments and having then nab a few handy free agents or good solid B grade players is the way to fairly turn them around with the young players they have already and pick 1.

Can we just start banning people who suggest Frost on the wing? It's absolutely ridiculous.

Out: Oscar, Lewis (rested), Preuss In: May, Hore, Lockhart Hore in down back, Hunt back forward. If Lever's no good then either Hunt/Brayshaw at half back and bring in Stretch. FB: Hibberd May Frost HB: Hore Lever Salem C: JKH Oliver Baker HF: Dunkley Melksham Petracca FF: Hunt Fritsch Petty Foll: Gawn Harmes Viney Int: Brayshaw, C Wagner, Jones, Lockhart Go small and quick up forward. Petty can ruck for 5 minutes a quarter against Cox.

Oscar McDonald can't keep with an opponent Frost can't stop brain fading Preuss can't do anything Lewis can't put his body on the line and compete Melksham was clearly rusty Dunkley is far from a natural wingman Petracca and Baker are only good in the midfield for under a half All of that and for a half we structured up well, moved the ball in to dangerous spots with clever counter attack getting space in the corridor and whilst they stuffed around with the ball the team Why we're so incompetent when the rain came - did we not have someone aware of conditions at half time - is indefensible. We were never going to win it when the rain came but we should've adapted faster and at least kept the game alive at 3/4 time, but whatever. In the first half we didn't set back and play safely down the line. We took the game on and moved the ball against a superbly organised Tigers defensive team. I wish we could play the Tigers every week. We get such a good look at who can and who can't match it when them. Lately that's meant getting embarrassed as it becomes clear we are a mile off them. Maybe I'm delusional but tonight I thought well.... get May and McDonald back, add a couple of outside runners and a small forward and we'd at least be a chance.

True, but if you wanted to get the most out of him as a midfielder you'd play him 70% to not over do him and have him play well before ramping it up. They're trying to get a heap of run in his legs with frequent midfield stints whilst also trying to keep the forward line potent. Difficult balancing act.

The numbers haven't made the big leap yet and he's still running out of puff after 3/4's but he's at least gone from wayward to far more predictable. There's no longer any doubt that he deserves his spot and that he'll make an impact. This summer might well be the making of him. We'll probably know by March if he's going to play another 100 games at a decent level in a difficult position at half forward or if he's going to become a mid/forward wrecking ball.

He's playing 88% game time and rotating through the midfield. I think they are doing that about as smartly as they can.

Your personal insults don’t bother me so I don’t care if you’re banned or not, do your best. That said. You haven’t actually provided an opinion on Hill’s value or anything about how he plays. 800k a season and a future first round pick that reasonable could be picks 7-12, might be higher or lower but that’s my guess, no thanks. He’ll be elite for <4 years, it’s too much for 80 games on the wing. 2 of the other top 5 wingmen right now: Ricky Henderson and Mitch Robinson. Both came free of charge. We’re like a team with no ruck going all out at maximum price. Richmond had no ruck - got Nankervis for stuff all. I support the May trade because gun key defenders are very hard to find. Meanwhile every team and every draft is full of guys who can get the job done on the wing. When the Hawks turned their list around in 2009-2012 they made one big item deal for Burgoyne. A superstar. Then they found value with Gunston, Gibson, Lake and eventually got Frawley for free. They got Tom Mitchell for a great price, that helped them. Paying overs for O’Meara and Wingard hasn’t.

31 goals in 18 games last year and 25 goals in 10 games this year with an injury lay off. Very hard to read much in to NEAFL numbers but it looks like he's finding the ball and hitting the scoreboard. If Cameron, Himmelberg and Finlayson are all sticking around then surely he'd be keen on moving.

Have you seen Karl Amon play this year? He's vastly improved. Kicks the ball better than Hill and is stronger at the contest. I didn't say Cutler was on Hill's level but he's another option to fill a need at a far cheaper price. Hill's a great player, but if you have a strong outside runner to match up with him or a disciplined game plan he's not doing a whole heap of damage. He just so happens to be off the charts at one of our biggest weaknesses but that doesn't mean he's going to be worth the asking price.

I'm not interested at the price. He's 26, is he really going to be the type of player to play consistently well after 30? Elite outside runner, best in the business. Above average but not amazing skills. Below average at the contest. 68% disposal efficiency, 5.2 contested possessions a game, 2.3 tackles. If you draft Xavier Duursma you've got 3/4's of the player already in year 1 and you've got him for 3 or 4 years at a far cheaper contract and for 10+ years if you develop him properly. Karl Amon probably gets you 80% or more of the output for the next 4 years at half the price and half the trade cost. Tom Cutler at the Lions is available for a big body and booming kick. There's got to be other options rather than paying absolute top price for a player that won't give a long term return. Either we bounce back to a good side next year or we don't with or without Hill. And yeah if we do then he might get us closer to a flag next year but if we don't make a strong bounce back then we'll be left thinking wtf did we do that for.

What about Zach Sproule at the Gaints Jay?

More of a mix of Fyfe/Dangerfield/Stringer even Jaidyn Stephenson style body and game than a Bont from what I've seen. Can drift in and out of games and doesn't have that elite accumulation and pure skills but can win it pretty much any way and can use it with real burst and upside. If he was Bont he'd go pick 1. If he convinces a recruiter the rough edges and inconsistencies can be developed he'll be pick 1.

Shoulder to shoulder I doubt there's any real difference in height. Hawkins has an underrated leap, although his real quality attribute is his power off a few steps. The fat lug was a champion high jumper. He can make ground quickly. Weideman does't have a standout attribute but he has strong versatility and if he puts it together he does a lot of things to a nice level. He can kick, he can gather it on the ground and genuinely handball with fast clean hands on both sides of his body, he can tackle, his tank/speed/agility/strength all aren't terrible, he can present up and he can absolutely leap at the ball. But he doesn't get any thing easy by way of speed, agility or fitness. Plus he drops marks he gets his hands on, misses kicks he should make and then gets injured. Start holding just a couple more marks he gets hands on and making a few more easy shots on goal and he's a useful player. Develop any of his attributes to an above average level and he'll then have some weapons to work with. I feel we've missed a great opportunity to give him some games down back though.

And Adelaide apparently had some interest in Frosty a couple of years ago before he recommitted with us. Keath for Frost, where do I sign?

Would be silly to give him a contract but I'd be fine with the club giving him the Sydney Stack treatment. He can train over summer and see how it goes. Maybe the Hardwick's can provide lodging?

We buggered up the back end of the Oliver draft. Although it was a weak draft. But Mitch King, Hulett, Josh Wagner, Viv Michie and the hope of Joel Smith. We've since add Corey Wagner from this year. Does Lockhart belong in this group as well? Close enough because we need it. We didn't get far with the next draft either. Weideman belongs to this year even though he was taken a year earlier. Hannan, Dion Johnstone ok whatever. But Filipovic (why not at least Ladhams if not Marshall FFS), Tim Smith and Keilty. I actually like the last two picks there, but if you're going to only have 2 picks in the main draft you better be adding some young talent in the rookie spots. The Lever deal isn't the problem. You can argue the value to an extent but we got a good player who should start to improve with some luck. You'd take Lever for pick 10 any day even with the bad run he's had and whilst the pick downgrade was a steep price we still ended up with a useful late 2nd rounder. Spargo, Fritsch, Petty, Baker. Ok that's more like it. One very good player and 3 options who all contribute something, develop them up. Sparrow, Jordon, Nietschke, Bedford, Chandler, Austin Bradtke. Ok good, some numbers to work with. The first 2 should play some games next year if they are developed well. Dunkley is part of this group as well, our crap form let us get an extra bite. The last 4 are speculative but we're looking for role players not stars. If we aren't bringing in 4 or 5 kids each year we're no chance of getting that internal replacement of depth with hungry young players as well as finding some diamonds in the rough. We've clogged our own list up, but it should be able to be unclogged relatively easily.

Roos implied that we could be winning more games and having a better year if we played to a defensive brand of football. There's a side that consistently sets up well behind the ball and does a lot of defensive things well - the Sydney Swans. They've won 1 more game than we have. Richmond defend well because their forward pressure and midfield work rate is excellent and that allows them to keep their backline deep and in position. We don't have the speedy hunting forwards. We don't have hard running outside mids. We haven't had Lever and May in place for most of the year. So trying to copy Richmond would end in disaster. We currently barely have a forward line at all so playing without any flair or attack would almost guarantee losses. Everyone at the club has a lot to improve on but going back to Roos style football isn't the answer. The best thing we can do in the last month is keep going with the general game style that Goodwin believes in and has worked quite a bit the last two years. That's the best way to train our players up for next year. And of course within that the focus should be on the absolute fundamentals - tackles, skills, hard two way running, 1% and team acts.

We won 4 games in year 1 of Roos: against Carlton, Adelaide, Ess and Richmond. And the last 3 there kicked awfully at goal. Ess and Richmond made finals but lost. The entire game plan was long down the line, stack the backline and hope the other team misses chances. In 2015 up until the final round we'd won 6 games: Against Bris, Rich, GC, Geel, Bulldogs. Dogs and Richmond both lost elimination finals. In round 23 that year we played a dead rubber against a Giants side at Etihad and it featured a far different game plan. Dunn was moved forward, Mitch White came in to the side and the team played with a zone defence for the first time, and won at Etihad for the first time. 2016 was Roos as head coach and figurehead whilst we implemented Goodwin's game plan. We were aggressive with the zone defensive system that all the top teams were using. We finally started getting some forward pressure. We moved the ball quickly and started scoring. We beat Hawthorn for the first time in forever. We added some nice away performances. But there were still heaps of negatives including losing to Carlton in round 22 after giving a Port team in contention for finals a nice touch up. 2016 was Goodwin's ideas with Roos' guidance. Then 2017 - more wins and 2018 - more wins again was Goodwin in charge. Yes, there's times he's overdone the attacking strategy but he's also never had a reliable backline out on the park and rarely had a fully fit midfield or hard working forwards. The midfield got younger as it got better, moving Vince, Cross and then Jones to peripheral roles for the young guys to take over. My point is there was no Roos sustainable excellent game plan implemented. Roos set about a simple plan of defending hard and having a crack. I don't even think at any stage this year we've lost our strong attack on the ball and outside the first 5 weeks there's actually been a lot of really hard running and defensive work. It certainly looks like we've lost a lot of the hard working culture that Roos preached but the fitness is bad, the motivation is low, the leadership is poor and the talent is awful right now.

There's problems in fitness, there's problems in list management, there's problems in coaching and everywhere else. The idea that we could fix it all by attempting to play with a particular brand of football ignores all the actual problems.