Rogue

Haha Green for me. He's a good age because once we want to hand over the captaincy to an outstanding younger prospect it'll fit with Green being in his twilight (as opposed to giving captaincy to Moloney).

I think the Dunn call is fair. If uncontracted, a bad 2011 could mean he didn't have enough runs on the board to stay. Unlikely, but you're always going to have unlikely players when you reel off a bunch. Anyhow, this conversation isn't much fun without knowing who is coming out of contract next year. That said, I'll reel off a few names. Jetta, Martin and Maric stand out as an obvious three. Warnock, MacDonald and Bruce might be considered. I imagine we may not want to go too deep into the draft, and we might be thinking about who we want to prune in the future too - the compromised drafts might mean some players get lucky when they otherwise wouldn't.

It's all hypothetical now, but why would you have been against us letting him get to his destination? We've already told him we're through with him. It's not like that sort of arrangement would have been unprecedented either - recently Geelong got King to the Saints, while we've done it ourselves with Walsh to Port.

We're not at that point for me. Is Maric coming out of contract? ;o PS. Just in case you didn't know, Newton comes out of contract this year.

Is he any good at teaching? Being good at doing x doesn't mean you're any help teaching someone else how to do x.

Grimes doesn't play on the Milne-types, and even if he could he'd be wasted there. Bartram is the guy we're talking about replacing, so I'm not sure what's going on there I'm not sure Strauss has the pace or the smarts required. Cheney is too slow for the role and it's not surprising we sent him off to the Hawks for virtually nothing. If Bruce has ever played on the types Bartram is required to take he's long past it now, and at 31 years old he's not exactly the right age either. One of Garland and Frawley could play this role at times but they're generally needed elsewhere. Bennell's looked far too loose in the backline, which is probably a big part of why we moved him up forward and kept him there for most of the second half of the season. He has the pace, but I'm not sure whether he has the defensive discipline/smarts. Bail's really the only one of the lot. His strength is endurance running and he has looked best as a linkman IMO, but it's feasible. I'm not sure he's even played the role much at VFL level though, so it's pretty speculative. In summary, the potentials are trying to remould Bail, or go back to a guy - Bennell - who has been tried and failed (albeit still early on in his career). Not a hugely exciting list.

The trip's going to be all about the future of the Dees, building trust within the group, yada yada. I'd guess it'd be best for all involved if Cheney wasn't on the trip.

Quite a few? I'd struggle to name more than three in our best 22! I'm not sure how we lost. If he had not been contracted and we delisted him/he walked we would have got nothing. Since he was contracted, he would have been taking up a spot for a year before that occurred. We would also have had very little space on our primary list for upgrades/draftees. Instead, we created space to use pick 32. We also upgraded pick 66 to pick 52 in case we have another two departures (ie. TMac and PJ).

These two seem fair enough. I remember reading about some handy mates of mates and so on. That said, I have no idea how you can police the former.

^ I think one of the outcomes is going to be that the trend towards playing one ruck plus one guy who can just hold his own, but offers something else, will increase. The other impact will be that guys who have a good tank will benefit. I'm not sure how the sub will work - I'm sure there'll be a few different tactics before one is settled on.

Agreed.

Indeed. The sub rule also helps IMO, since it's even less likely teams will play two bona fide rucks. Newton is a keep for me - as he's on the rookie list, the opportunity cost is low.

Hale would be a second ruck/forward for us. PJ is a first ruck prospect with no other string to his bow. Newton is the one who would be happy we didn't get Hale IMO.

There's an existing thread: http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23239

I think it's worth noting that Tim Harrington doesn't update the website.

Agreed.

So, assuming no more trades we have these sorts of choices to make in the lead-up to the draft: Are we better off keeping McNamara or using pick 50-odd? Are we better off keeping PJ or using pick 50-odd? Are we better off keeping Bruce or using pick 50-odd? (Bruce would free up a rookie spot as he's verteran-listed - thanks old55!).

I reckon you've had a fair bit of practice by the time you reach ~21 years old and are in the AFL. Not many players dramatically improve their skill after that.

Smart move for two reasons. First, Cheney doesn't have a role to play in our 22. The most likely spot was as a small defender, but he's too slow. Second, Melbourne needs to free up spots on the list. With most players contracted and the likely upgrade of both Spencer and McKenzie, we need room to use our picks. As well as freeing up a spot on our list for a decent draftee, we've been able to upgrade pick 66 to pick 52.

Spencer is a #1 ruck prospect. Hale was a second ruck/forward prospect. (Newton would be happy we didn't get Hale IMO).

In case anyone else finds it easer to look at a 22 in this sort of formation, here's how they might line up: B: Bartram Warnock Bennell HB: Grimes Garland Bail C: Morton McKenzie Trengove HF: Dunn Watts Sylvia F: Wona Jurrah Bate R: Jamar Scully Moloney INT: Spencer Gysberts Cheney Newton

I think that as we improve he's ideally not in our best team, but he's got some good attributes - he takes the game on and judges the ball in the air pretty well. That said, I quite like his effort and he's handy depth at worst.

Who do you think could fill that role? I can't think of anyone, unfortunately (it's why I'd like us to look at a small defender somewhere in the draft). EDIT: Just read above - some of these guys have been a bit harsh on you E25!

Those are the types of players Bartram is in the team to do a job on.

In the replay the Saints had no forward structure. Too often they were all getting sucked up the ground, leaving no one to kick to - us at our worst. While the Saints might have been able to prevent many of Collingwood's forays forward, the ball came back pretty regularly because of the problems up forward. We lose plenty of milestone games.