DeeSpencer

Or will go in the second round depending on what the clubs with picks 6-9 do and what the AFL does with the academy rules between now and draft day.

I saw that at the carnival. I rate my ability to pick out players traits. What I know I have no idea about (and many recruiters probably don't) is to identify what flaws are fixable and which ones aren't. Can you teach that skill? Roos always has our boys doing a bunch of handball drills to work on that but I wonder what percentage improvements you get. As for Duggan the 183cm may be a concern. With the way the game is going that's short for a back flanker or mid. If his speed is only average then his limited to positions and roles. You'd probably take a guy who's 188cm with 10% worse kicking because they'd be able to take more marks, defend more opponents and probably have an easier time winning clearances etc.

Seems much better suited down back. Plays like Blease when forward. All pace, no idea. But down back he has height and strength so can be a really good two way player.

Did you go out with him and get a display of his white line fever. Or has he cleaned up his act for good

Well I thought there would be more of a age gap, but technically he is younger! And whilst suffering a freak injury that's different to Higgins' repeat injuries. I think he's faster, a better tackler, a better run and carry player and about as good as kick as Higgins. Higgins is stronger in the air, but not as good defensively and not as fast and aggressive as a rebounding player. If we recruited either of them it would be for an attacking and kicking back flanker which we don't have. Geary would fill that role where as I think Higgins would be ok at it but he doesn't even do it at the dogs, Murphy takes the main responsibility for attacking run, hence why Higgins is out of the team for someone like Jason Johannisen. Geary could be used in the midfield as well, where as Higgins you wouldn't risk his body in the midfield.

So what about us when we don't have any easy beats? Great for Hawthorn/Sydney's but not really fair on the bottom clubs. Does one week off really bother you more than us losing when we rest JKH/Tyson etc?

I'm not convinced the bulldogs are trying anything sneaky by dropping him. Simply they've got a few players back and are finally not afraid to drop some senior players. My thoughts on Higgins are that he's that fringe player with a lot of talent who at 26 could still give you 5 years of really good footy but could also slide off in to oblivion. Maybe a touch more well rounded but similar to Xavier Ellis last year. I'd take him because we have a need for skill at half back but I wouldn't aggressively chase him Geary is younger and better, he'd be a great pick up and for that reason I reckon he'll either go to Geelong or another big club or stay at the saints. There's no inducement Melbourne can offer I don't think.

The issue with bye weeks from a neutral perspective is you turn off instead of flicking over. Or that's how I feel. Saturdays and Sundays I'll watch footy if it's good but not so much if it's bad. Most rounds there's a chance to just watch the better games. And of course there is data but you might not find it! I'd rather watch a team with a few being rested than no team at all but taking out JKH, Viney and Tyson decreases our shot at winning and I don't want to watch losses. I'm willing to put with 1 bye a year instead of us losing a game with good players on the side line.

The argument against resting players is who wants to go watch a team play without good players. I know I don't. And I agree about the players earning their breaks from a mental point of view. Suck it up kind of thing. But from a physical point of view 22 weeks straight of running 15km and getting smashed up once a week and probably doing 10km on the track per week is a heck of a strain on the body. 1 bye seems to be a worthy investment as fans. You accept 1 week without your team playing and in return the players get through more games and at a higher standard with less injuries. 2 games maybe not. I'm actually for a redesigned finals system where the top 4 all get a week off the first week of finals. Then you'd have one bye in the middle of the season, if you want a second bye then earn it!

I think I prefer the 6-6-6 over 3 rounds model in achieving byes to the 5-4 over 2 rounds. No right answer. Can't help but feel this bye now is more about the finals teams. I know our young guys are probably tiring out but you could rest or manage some of them and have got on with the last 5 weeks. But that's obviously different to the finals teams who probably benefit massively from a rest now and can go harder into finals. This is for a different thread but the predictability of AFL finals and pretty much waste of the 5-8 clubs being any chance to get anywhere in them makes me think this bye is only for the 5 teams who have a shot at top 4.

If you were going on B+F votes or overall consistency of the year you'd go Vince. He's been tagged or done the tagging/defensive job more whilst Tyson has mainly floated around doing his own thing. At times he's drawn the heavy tag away from Jones and Tyson, he's also done the job on Dangerfield and others. That said Tyson has been our best in both narrow losses to Port and was great in the second half v Essendon. The main thing is we have 3 class midfielders in Tyson, Vince and Jones who complement each other. 2 more above average in Cross and Viney. If we keep getting that number going up especially with some outside mids then we will have a fair team.

The reason the succession is important is: A. Succession in game plan, no more throwing out the baby with the bathwater B. Succession of Culture C. Supporter and player confidence But the succession plan never relied on Roos being around in a permanent position after the 3 years. There was every chance he either became a hindrance to the new coach or a hindrance to the club by charging his hefty fee for a consulting job. And the alternative is we find an experienced coach to take over after Roos. Al Clarkson finishes his contract with Hawthorn after 2016. That's one alternative. Ross Lyon is 2017 but he's known to be more flexible with his contracts. Jesse Hogan, Jack Viney, Dom Tyson, we can dare to dream. If we can think negative we can think positive. The most important factor is that the next coach can actually coach! And that over rules some aspects of the above 3 points. Any half decent coach would be mad not to follow on from the template Roos has left.

When you have an arm free you have prior opportunity, that's my view. And usually the umpires. The issue is you are right it's better to fumble than to get stuck with the ball in one arm then drop it. If you can't break the tackle you should drop the ball immediately. Watts is a repeat offender as he doesn't break tackles but he tries to get out in to space and instead he should just drop the ball at times.

Back on topic. Yes port were great at the one arm tackle. And it's a great tackle as the player has to drop it on their boot indiscriminately or throw it. We got away with a couple of throws - see Jack Watts. Some of our players have to be better and busting through those one arm tackles or if caught in them using their legs and strength to get a kick away before it's holding the ball. And if we could do a few of those tackles it would be nice but they do seem risking. We are still allowing too many opponents to get clean handballs out of our tackles. It was better on Sunday but needs to go to another level.

Shock horror the club willing to put the coach on one of the few rating footy programs. It's basically free publicity to our sponsors and has to be done. But I doubt Roos will have much to say. At least he gets a chance to address questions from Hutchy and Wilson (and on the TFS Barrett). They might be bottom feeders but strangely they are granted a lot of influence and they can make life hard if they persistently peddle crap rumours. Unfortunately it's better to have them onside.

Looked like a bump to me and even still there's no reason to brace when a guy is slipping off a tackle. Jack Viney's now infamous brace came when he attacked the ball and was a defensive mechanism to stop him getting hurt. Stewart, if not bumping, is at least blocking Jones and makes no effort to do anything but connect straight with shoulder to Jones' head. Sure he has a right to shepherd for his man but I thought it was the definition of a negligent action. If it was the same action when playing the ball then I'd understand giving him the benefit of the doubt. The game needs to keep aggressive attacks on the ball. But the game isn't softer for players not being so physical in off the ball stuff.

I don't believe not looking at the ball is in the rule book, and if it is it shouldn't be. Actions with the body cause free kicks, not the eyes, although it is a useful guide for umpires so I understand why they use it. There were 2 potential frees at play: 1. Front on contact - you can't make contact to someone from the front unless you get the ball as you've taken them out otherwise. This wasn't paid and rightly so as Watts got the ball. Otherwise great marks like Riewoldt and Brown's famous marks aren't valid. 2. High contact - this was paid. But I don't know if it should be. Much like if you step on someones back or head when taking a screamer it's not a free kick. Or if you take a mark and clean someone up with an elbow on the way down it's not a free kick. Now when you spoil from behind and hit the head or over the shoulder it's a free. But when coming from different angles like Watts and Wingard were I think whoever gets the ball first has a right to make accidental contact. The only case for Wingard getting a free is because he was hit in the head. But the contest was over, the ball was gone. The high contact didn't stop him getting the ball, the spoil did. My personal preference would be that Watts plays the ball and Wingard is late to the contest, therefore any contact made by Watts in playing the ball isn't a free. But I'm not even sure on the exact ruling.

I think he actually broke his ankle. And yes it was in the first 5 minutes of his only game for Adelaide last year. Possibly a bad break to his ankle IIRC, but not the gruesome break of both leg bones such as Strauss, Rohan and others have done.

I'm not sure I've ever read such crap.

If anything the saints owe the Hawks for taking McEvoy off their hands. They got a great deal for him and it's even better if Savage keeps the form he was in yesterday. The saints were just saying they'll listen to offers as all clubs will. Patty McCartin looks a decent prospect at number 1 but he's not a sure thing like Patton/Boyd IMHO. Someone like North who need a replacement for Petrie and are in their window would have to offer the Saints their first round pick, plus a nice player like Cunnington etc. But the saints wont give up pick 1 unless they get a Tyson like deal which brings them a potential elite player as part of the deal. And it would have to be even better than the Tyson deal on paper to get them interested.

1. Get more of a look at Blease and Tapscott. Can even add Strauss (or Nicholson) if you like. 2. More senior time for Max Gawn 3. Midfield time for Dean Kent 4. Aiden Riley. The more match fitness and experience the better for this guy 5. Jesse Hogan - if it doesn't happen then that's too bad. But if we get to see him play that's great! 6. Hawthorn - can we rattle some of those f#ckers and disrupt their finals 7. North - see Hawthorn, oh and maybe we could beat them, I dare to dream 8. West Coast - we've had decent road form in SA, can we translate that to WA? New stadium is 4 years away! 9. Etihad - 2 chances to break the hoodoo 10. Some more Salem and JKH magic

Gawn's always been a decent around the ground mark. Like most players he finds it harder to take a mark as a forward with a defender right on him. Hasn't yet worked out how to find the balance between going hard at the ball and pushing off his opponent. Plus he's much more athletic with the ball on the ground than the ball in air at this stage. But look at Carlisle from Essendon. Couldn't take a mark in the first half of the season. Grabbed everything, kicked 8 and could've easily had 10 today.

I'd pay him 500,000 for 3 years. But I wouldn't sign him for 3 years! I'd only sign him for 1 year at a third of that price. He was ok today. But should be suspended for bumping Jones. And that pretty much sums up his career, he's a depth guy. And if he takes the last spot on our list because there's no one better then so be it. But no way is he a 500,000 contract player no matter how many years that is over.

Saw him getting smashed in running by Jack Viney in March and that will forever be my guide for him this preseason. No doubt he's developed match fitness since then but he'd have to still be a long way from experience midfielder match fitness.

Because he put in an awful stint after that. For 4 or so weeks he was getting beaten by harder running mids, doing nothing from stoppages and struggling to get in to games. Moving him forward let him play a simpler role of just leading at the ball and not being such a liability defensively. I still think Watts is at his best off half back. But no coach will trust him at half back until he can win one on ones. And we can't afford a loose man just for Watts. Because we often struggle to score at all playing against a loose man.