DeeSpencer

1. Roos comes to club with a laid out plan 2. Roos executes plan Then People are unhappy??? That's got to be MFCSS Consider this: I reckon Brad Scott is an ordinary coach. I reckon James Brayshaw is a bit of a peanut. I reckon a lot of North's players, both old and young are overrated. But North rebuilt with picks in and around 2009 and kept a steady core of veteran players. They missed out on Buckley and signed Scott. They compete most weeks. They had ups and downs along the way. But they've just won 2 finals and made a prelim. They've also signed (even if they are suspect) 2 free agents. Most pundits will predict them to make the top 6 next year and that's a reasonable prediction. They probably wont win the flag but they should play finals and at least be in the race for finals if not top 4. We've got a laid out plan for the next 5 years that doesn't involve tanking, playing kids or some other philosophy. It's just to get better year by year. Bringing in some good players at a variety of different spots on the list and developing kids. Roos has 2 years to develop Goodwin and just as importantly 2 years to develop the rest of the coaches. If he hasn't done it by now I don't think he'll sack Misson and fiddle with the sports science. I don't think he'll change the plan with Jason Taylor and Todd Viney. 2 years with Roos, 3 years (which probably means 2 guaranteed) with Goodwin.

Horribly inconsistent. Not sure he really makes us better. I'd probably steer clear.

Not at AFL level. But at VFL level he has a super high disposal efficiency and can lace out passes over 50-60m. Same thing at training. Very clean. The issue for him is despite getting better and better as the season went on with finding the ball and even kicking some goals he never improved defensively. If he was reasonable defensively you'd give him a whole season at AFL level and his kicking and run would bloom. It was starting to before he broke his leg. He'll likely only get another shot on a rookie list if at all. So you can't really blame the club, it's very likely they'll be proven right. But what annoys me is when we are rubbish anyway why not swing for the fences with guys who can actually use the ball. Roos' theory is clearly play the hardest, toughest defensive players we have then build from there. It's great when it gets actual improvement like at the start of the year. But by the end of the season we were so horrible again it's like why not just play Strauss. They played Watts every week.

JKH? Ben McGlynn? Ballantyne and Lachie Neale. There's room for little blokes in a Roos style game plan. Give me a big guy over a little guy in centre square clearances sure. Also give me at least a couple of tall flankers and wingers as you can then kick to them more one on one. We need a replacement for Cross. I like the height range that Tyson, Cross, Vince (all can mark and be solid bodies) then Jones and Viney give us as inside mids. Watts, Lumumba on the wings. There's height and it's a great thing to have. But we can have JKH, Viney and Hrovat in the same side. Especially if the rest of our flankers are guys like Salem and Kent who can take marks. Hawthorn did well with Cyril, Mitchell and Puopolo. A small defensive forward, a small inside mid and a small dangerous half forward.

McCartin looks decidedly not one in 10 years for me. The diabetes, the tuck shop skinfolds and all at 193cm without a big leap. He's fast and attacks the ball. Maybe he's a bit of an old school forward who gets it done on the lead and with one on one nous. But give me the big units in Boyd and Patton, the power of Hogan or brilliance of Cameron. There's a bit too much Fev in McCartin for my liking (in terms of playing style). I agree no one is talking a Tyson. But then again no one was talking Tyson this time last year. It was Selwood, Shuey, Rockliff, Shiel. So I'm patient. We wont get much from the dogs though so it's probably best to play the long game there and avoid the trade down. That last bit is key though, who exactly will we get with the draft pick? The more I look at the draft candidates and phantom drafts I can't find the guy I really like. There's plenty of guys I like in the second round, but it's all talls from 3-8 in most Mock Drafts besides the likes of Laverde and Pickett who I'm not that keen on. Lots of other mids or flankers who are worth picks in the 20's. Instead of trade pick 3 for pick 6 plus something maybe we trade it for pick 20, 26, 40, 60 etc and a player rated in the top 20's as well. If you're going to drop down maybe drop down a long way and get a raft of assets. Brisbane loaded right up in the 20's last year and got Lewis Taylor, McStay, Gardner etc. The more picks you have the better maybe. Who knows. It would be gutsy. Moving from 3 to 6 for a little something seems a pretty safe thing to do for not much benefit.

That's 2 top 10 picks for a speculative pick of a key forward. You wouldn't trade 6 and Macrae for anything but a real deal key forward. The cats gave up less when they got Brad Ottens as the missing link in their side. The dogs are doing everything they can to be Cats 2.0. Expect them to wait if they can't find a value trade. If we got someone like Hrovat it would be a nice deal for us. Macrae is ridiculous.

It would be nice, but really there's too many 18 and 19 year olds who are best 22 across the competition - Viney, JKH, Salem were all important for us. Tyson's not much older. And Wines of course. And yes do you go to College AFL and then compete against your own sport or do you leave these kids out in the wilderness in second tier unprofessional leagues. What we need is just to make sure that after 1 or 2 years down the bottom you bounce back, not off the back of kids just off the back of a quick retooling of your side. The picks as well as PSD and salary cap should give you the opportunity to trade in a little help, plus when you first go down you should trade out someone like a Travis Johnstone who's done his dash. And there should be overflow from top clubs in guys wanting a game. One of the strangest things I've heard in trade week is Schoenmakers and Hallahan want to stay at Hawthorn. Good luck to them but I think they are brainwashed. Get out, go to another club and play 22 games FFS! That's how a salary capped competition should work. Melbourne 2007-2010 is actually a fair comparison to how at the absolute worst i should work it's just we screwed it majorly post then. But whilst they contributed it wasn't so much Scully, Trengove and Watts who bolted us back from horrible to reasonable side. It was more we had a group of guys who had found some form down the bottom and then come together to produce a better side again. 2010 b+f = Green, Frawley, Jamar, Davey, Sylvia, Bruce, Moloney, Scully, Garland, McDonald. That was Bailey's 3rd year and from there it should've been that the top picks kicked in and we pushed towards the 8.

Heritier is his birth name. Since he came in to the league it's always been his official name he just used to go by Harry. I believe O'Brien was his step fathers name and his birth father is obviously Lumumba. No idea about the middle names.

Bitter but optimistic, that's a name that means something. Heritier Jinglebells Loserville Tupac Lumumba. Whatever the hell that means I have no idea how a football club let you find 'true meaning' from it. There's a fine line between spiritual and mad. I hope he's still on the right side of it.

Oh yay, we are getting a prince as well as a footballer. But seriously, 3rd round pick or later. This guy is insane.

Don't hate Blease for not buying in to the game plan. Why would you want to play in a defensive team when you can't defend. If by some miracle he got on Port's list he could probably play some good attacking footy for them. But not doubt at some stage he'd either improve or fall out of the team because Hinkley doesn't tolerate poor efforts. Anyway, Blease needed some things to go right for him by way of coaching (and some better injury luck). He never got it at Melbourne and might get it at another club. If we can find a trade it's a great result to get anything for him and get him to another list.

Surely the Danchise? Ok lets all make jokes about how fat the women are in GB to make us feel better.

Not going well. The bears played Rodgers right back to form! Still you'd hope the Vikes could stay in it defensively a little longer. Lets wait and see I guess.

Vale

It should be after the original draft contract. It's just that original contract should go for 4 or even 5 years (with option to terminate after 2). Ridiculous that drafting a player only gives you 2 years of them.

Yep. I figure guys like Grimes, Watts, Trengove etc get paid 300k to do nothing whilst Isaac Smith, Hill, Shiels etc get the same. But I'm probably more annoyed that in order to recruit them Dawes and Vince get pay rises. Frawley, Lake, Hale etc take pay cuts to go to Hawthorn. Even more so guys like Lewis and Roughy take huge unders. I guess if you're earning half a mil per year you aren't too fussed. In some regards it's why I'd like to see free agency opened up for any player post 6 years and turn it in to a proper meat market. At least that way the wages would rise across the board and maybe the superstars would spread themselves out a bit. In that way players being selfish would actually help equalise the comp. I figure every club has to pay the bottom 20 players on rookie, drafts and basic contracts the same amount. It's the top 20 where the discretion goes. It should be that if you have 5 or so superstars then they take a lot of the money and the rest of your best 20 includes a few cheap guys. That's how the saints were when they were good. Now this Hawthorn 'culture' stuff is killing me. They also do very well with veterans payments. And apparently some of their players even get AFL Tasmania ambassador payments. What a crock.

Going on what we rumour to pay players I took at stab at Hawthorn's list. Being, what I thought was conservative. 10.071 million for next year. 600k - Roughead, Lewis, Mitchell, Hodge 500k - Frawley, Burgoyne, Gibson, Birchall 400k - Rioli, Gunston, Isaac Smith, Breust, Lake 300k - McEvoy, Hale, Hill, Suckling, Shiels, Stratton 150k - Duryea, Spangher, Puopolo, Ceglar, Langford, Litherland, Schoenmakers, Simpkin 4 * 600 = 2.4 4 * 500 = 2 5 * 400 = 2 6 * 300 = 1.8 8 * 150 = 1.2 26 players for a cost of 9.4 million To fit the remaining 18 players on the list in they'd have to pay them 33k a piece and that likely includes guys like Hallahan, Woodward, Anderson, Cheney and Whitecross!!! Even if Lake goes it still doesn't free up enough cap to pay the draft scale minimums. I mean it has to be fair to ask who is getting paid what doesn't it? How is not one of those younger players forced out? Even if you count Lowden, Schoenmakers and Sewell retiring. Something is amiss about the AFL salary cap and TPP and about how much top clubs pay players compared to bottom clubs. Either that or their is just straight forward cheating.

Nice. Did you see KC line up a 350lb lineman at fullback at run him at Vince Wilfork, that was a clash of some big bodies! On all available form with one team having a short week and another team the bye it should pretty much be a non contest. I'd back the Pats defense to bounce back, they've had 2 good performances and 2 bad ones. But Cinn should be able to do a lot of things that KC did offensively in terms of running the ball, screens etc that really hurt NE. Revis is a great corner but if a team is cutting you apart with short passes and runs it doesn't matter much. Bit cruel for Brady to have a horrible offensive performance, with stuff all O line and no weapons firing and then come up against what I rate as the best defense in the league. If they are even half as bad as they were the other day Brady will be running for his life or throwing the ball straight to them or in to the crowd. If it went the way of the KC game you'd be tempted to give Brady a mystery injury at half time and put the young guy in just to save Brady from getting smashed. Every team with an abysmal O line should carry a Tebow like player for when nothing is working and your QB's getting smashed. Put it a mobile college quarterback who can take some hits and run some read option and other trick plays and try to get some yards that way.

3 teams had or have QB controversies and the other team has Tom Brady and still can't score! Yet you get the feeling all 4 teams can play defense, If any of them get consistent at all they can win games. Kyle Orton will be interesting to watch. Bills have most things besides a QB. Miami have a lot of things going for them but at the same time they are Miami! I think AFC South probably just pip them for worst division simply because of how bad Jacksonville and Tenn are. Indy and Houston will fight out the division but I don't think Indy are even that good and Houston can't feasibly be any good at all with the Amish Rifle at QB! Even if their defense is good. Both the West divisions (NFC and AFC) probably have 3 teams better than any team from the AFC South or AFC East. Oakland would probably be horrendous in any division poor team. But I really feel for St Louis. They'd be a contender in several other divisions. Yet they are stuck with 3 fantastic teams and they aren't even in the West of the country anymore!

Mummy, Crameri and Yeo might be better deals but they weren't want we needed nor were they available to us. We needed Vince to get a level of confidence in the midfield. I'm not sure we need Lumumba so much for the same pick.

Moneyball is finding statistical value in players that other teams don't rate and then bringing them in for cheap and having them exceed expectations. It has no place in describing our 2012 recruiting. What we know is: - Our list sucks. At least 8 or so spots (Clark, Frawley, Byrnes, Nicholson, Strauss, Blease, Tapscott, ?Evans) will be need to be filled and we only have 1 rookie upgrade in Jetta. We can then use extra rookie spots but committing to more lower paid players isn't really backing yourself in. We have 2, 20,42,60, 80 PSD pick 2 plus the assets brought in by Clark's trade and Frawley's free agency compensation. It's still a pretty young (though no longer that young) list and definitely an inexperienced list. We are losing the 2 experienced players. Given all that and Roos' philosophies and game style it would be crazy not to get some experienced players in with the draft picks. Neeld went for keeping most of the draft picks (or spinning them in to Hogan). Plus trading for Dawes. The rest of the high currency he mainly spend on 18 year olds (Viney, Toumpas, Kent, Barry). He's then used late picks in the draft (M. Jones and Terlich), made a trade for Pedersen and brought in Byrnes, Rodan and Gillies for very low cost. In the end he paid peanuts for the depth experienced players and spent the top picks on a bunch of kids as well as Dawes (who has disappointed but not been horrible). How this gets labelled moneyball I don't know. Lumumba and Frost would both be good options and if we could some how secure them for the price of whatever we trade out Clark for and for a mid/latter pick then that would still be preserving our draft position. You give up a little but you get much more guaranteed results. Then we use our top picks either on kids or on true class players. Smart recruiting not denying yourself options based on principles of keeping all your picks or spending this pick or that pick is probably the right thing to do. I'll be happy if every decision we make seems to hold good value and if we get the balance between experienced players and keeping high draft picks.

Collingwood's 3rd rounder at this stage is 45 and it will likely go out further after compo. Which is probably fair enough for Frost. I'd still rather give them a lower pick to start with. We need 22 at the draft table. Let's see what Mitch Clark fetches. We can always swap them 22 for 28, it at least keeps us a top 30 pick.

Dunn says he's a little disgruntled but overall it's good for Mitch. Garland says Frawley going is what's best for him and he's a mate first and a team mate second. 2 of our senior players and better performers of the last 2 years simply don't care when 2 of our top half dozen players leave. I yearn for the good old days of Beamer giving Brock a send off. No wonder we don't win. The jumper and the club mean nothing to these guys.

By the way how good did Kelce the TE for the Chiefs look. That's my kind of TE. Making blocks, catches, running from short passes and making hard yards as tacklers miss. Looks like the next great TE in the league. Of course he'll need to stay fit. I've often thought if I played US football I'd be a TE. I'm 6'3 and solid, but have no interest being morbidly obese lineman and have no speed so I'm out of the rest of the positions! But I'm not overly keen on getting drilled by a hard hitting safety as I run over the middle. Dominant pass rushing DE my other dream! In reality I think I'd be the punter! Has anyone played or thought of playing? Who's going to nominate themselves for demonland QB?

Duncan's a top 5 player. Murdoch is a regular 22 flanker. Schroeder and Stringer are delisted, no point worrying about trading for them. Smedts can't hold a regular spot either forward flank or back flank and Kolodjasnij is a first year key defender/3rd tall defender.