DeeSpencer

I don't see how Melksham helps fix our depth. He might help give us more competition for spots next year but depth is a long term issue that requires long term solutions. You have to keep drafting and developing well for years to get a good squad of players which then provides depth. If we are giving up anything more valuable than a 3rd round pick for Melksham, and the contract indicates we might be keen to do that, then we need Melksham to be part of the best 22 and a consistent player who has the skills to feature in a finals team. If we wanted depth for depth sake we could pursue delisted players or late round pick trades.

I thought the Steelers might be ok without Ben for 4 weeks, but vs Ravens, at Chargers, vs Cardinals at Chiefs is absolutely brutal. Then when he gets back it's SeaHawks, Colts and Denver (plus Oakland) and Divisional games to finish the year. They'll need to win at least 1 if not 2 of the 4 (if it is 4 weeks) to keep on pace.

Bears season is done so tossing up between the Bengals and Bills for my new AFC team to support for the rest of the year. That said holding the Seahawks to 6 at half time is a big step forward for the bears dreadful defense. Tank well enough and get a new QB and maybe we might turn it around quickly. Rebuilding in the NFL is even scarier than rebuilding in the AFL! Thinking of having a sneaky bet on the cardinals to win the AFC West. They haven't beaten much but are red hot right now and they seem a well balanced team.

I with titan. Colts Steelers Broncos Trying to stick with my theory of backing the best QB's to get it done on the road. But also worried that Luck and Manning might not be the best QB's right now!

He panics too much as a defender. His best position is forward, whether he's AFL quality or fringe quality I don't know. He's probably a touch better than Dawes and Pedersen as a 2nd key forward but I don't think he can ruck any better than those 2 can. Then it's matter of whether we can play 2 rucks and 2 forwards or 1 ruck and 3 genuine tall forwards. Not many clubs do. North and Freo do. Whilst West Coast and Hawthorn usually play Darling and Gunston respectively as those mobile 3rd tall options. I'd rather surround Hogan with a good 2nd ruck and a good medium sized player. Schoenmakers is neither of those types.

We can't attract an A grader and we surely have plenty to attract a young gun and bring in someone of Schoenmakers quality.

Nah he can be worse than Dawes. He was dreadful when forward earlier in the year. He's a first ruckman only. I'd prefer him than Spencer as a backup for sure, but I presume North will want to keep him as a backup to Goldstein?

He's at that age that players sometimes stagnate as expectation outweighs production and a new club can really benefit them. Remember how much Nath Jones was floundering under Bailey, reduced to being a tagger and not using the ball well at all. A coaching change and big preseason later he was our best player. That's the best result with Melksham and might not happen but it is possible he improves quickly. Personally I think the team would improve quicker with a more natural outside mid or half back than another depth midfielder who probably needs to play in the centre square to be at his best. But with the interchange cap dropping adding depth isn't a bad idea. Adding another mature mid might send the message that we aren't a young side any more and expectations are real. Having a deeper midfield rotation might also facilitate better development conditions for our youngsters playing forward and back.

Picking up Sellar when Neil Craig had just axed him at Adelaide is one thing, but he did have some versatility. Picking up M Talia when McCartney is our development coach would be a whole new level of ridiculousness. McCartney played Mark Austin for the majority of the year at CHB over picking him. That says a lot about where he rates him. He might end up a good player if he gets more physical but I can't see it happening at Melbourne. The rumour mill says he'll go to Sydney and it makes a lot of sense. Personally I'm pretty keen to see more of Sam Frost and Oscar McDonald as tall defenders for the future.

I think we are genuinely in to JOM and he's every chance to leave the GC if they continue to stagnate and have associated issues. I just can't see GC letting him go this year nor am I convinced we'd be able to land him.

I think they get 500k from the AFL and the rest is up to them. The swans run their costs at close to 1 mil but hired Roos on something like 400k and now O'Loughlin on decent coin to run it to give some brand recognition. They could easily just hire a young development coach or a much lesser wage and cut the costs. GWS and Gold Coast money is just AFL money anyway so it's an even bigger con. I would start by exempting the first round picks. Anything after than they can have access to.

I wonder where this leaves Andrew Nichol who I would've thought at least covered the education coordinator part of the job description? Either way, happy to have well qualified people and a focus on development.

I think it will be the white O linemen (not to make this a race thing they just happen to be white!) that will hurt Kelly. They had an amazing running game and he got rid of the 2 guards in Mathis and Herremans who powered a lot of that run game. And now they are spending money on expensive running backs who can't make any running yards because the line isn't blocking for them. And then the QB can't complete deep passes (partly because he's not great) because he's worried about getting sacked. You can't have everything in the NFL and be under the salary cap but I'd rather have a good O line and average running backs with 1 or 2 receiving weapons than a bad o line and whatever backs or receivers you want. Then you at least get a running game and from there you can help your defense.

As for the Bears. Well, it's a dumpster fire. I hope they keep pouring petrol on and ride out a lowly season to the number 1 pick. Tanking baby! It might work in the NFL if you're LUCK-y. The defense just can't make a play. No sacks. Dreadful secondary. Confused LB's. They aren't as bad as last year yet but they aren't much better and things probably won't improve for the rest of the year unless the D line which actually has some level of talent can make some plays. Cutler is spending most of the time being highly efficient and capable before throwing the costly pick. No bears fan will be disappointed if he's out, even if he gets unfairly blamed for every thing he just makes the killer mistakes all too consistently.

It's the American equivalent of liking Collingwood but I was very high on the Cowboys this year. For some reason I've gone from loathing Jerry Jones, Garrett and Romo to respecting the way they back each other. Will always be a fan of Marinelli's defense. So now I'm a bit sad that their season might be in big trouble. I wouldn't give up on the Eagles yet. Bradford's missed so much time it's going to take him a while to get to whatever his best might be (even if that's rubbish). The one thing I haven't liked with the Eagles is the way Chip has weakened what was a great O Line 2 years ago. I get him letting skill position players go and changing up the defense but if you have a great O Line and play hurry up running offense then why would you wreck that by not paying guys? Good to see the Bucs, Browns and Raiders (costing me the tip) bounce back with wins. 3 young QB's with interesting futures.

I see him only as depth as a forward. Might have more of an AFL future as a key defender but his lack of physicality worries me. Rookie or PSD level talent from what I've seen.

But they already can't play Ryder and Lobbe in the same side. Adding Dixon to that mix gives them 3 x 200cm+ talls. And reportedly they won't trade away Lobbe. In hindsight if they knew Dixon was available 12 months later they should've avoided Ryder.

Arizona Baltimore Edit: Late change at 1am. Going for Atlanta for the 3rd tip.

He's a lot of what we need and had 3 consistent injury free years. But I thought he was a little down on his best this year. He'd be great, but I'm not sure I'd go super hard in a trade for him. If you pay top dollar for a trade in you need top results. To get Hartlett I think we'd have to give up nearly a kings ransom. Surely Port would rather squeeze out a lesser player than one of their best 5-10.

He should go on season 2 of the recruit

His lack of progress this year has frustrated me. Freo seem reluctant to pinch hit him in the ruck and/or play him Pav and 2nd ruck. He'd probably still be part of their future alongside McCarthy. Michael Apeness is a 201cm ruck/forward who I'd be keen on of the Freo back ups.

If we have to give out 4 year deals to attract mediocre players then I'd rather we kept Toumpas, Watts, Garland and Howe. There's no point having a bunch of 2nd or 3rd picks if you can't deal them for anyone and the draft isn't good.

Surely we are. All it costs is a rookie pick to replace them if you're looking to do it cheaply. You have to pay the guy if he stays, so is just the extra cost of a rookie. I don't what the specifics of the rules are but that's what I'd be doing and if that's all it costs financially we can afford it.

Was just reading a bit of Port discussion about him. A fair few Port fans seem to favour the other tall forward they've delisted in Mitch Harvey. Similar build. Similar concerns over lack of athleticism. I'd consider both for a rookie spot.

Presumably Viney, the coaches and recruiting staff evaluate players. Mahoney helps grade the finances. 400k isn't excessive. The AFL player earns 340 and in 4 years time 400k with be basement rates. But someone has to be responsible for the 4 year deal and whatever we trade (likely overs) and they better realise they are putting their balls on the line.