green_machine

On 3/15/2020 at 11:41 AM, willmoy said:

In my opinion fold up the whole Competition for two months and in the meantime figure out some abridged alternative contest.

The players health is more important than the very healthy competition.

Just a point on supporters attending games or not. The media are desperately trying to do damage control here and i couldn't give a sh##.

If you were a supporter of any sport in Australia today and you were told you couldn't attend the game where would you arrange to go and look. Yes that's right you would drive or walk to the nearest CLUB PUB or crowded, 100 plus people, Corona ridden smoke hole to see it and come home to your wife and kids and give them the virus..... think about it. League wins, Media wins, TAB wins, Alcohol wins, even Club wins......but you don't. 

There is a big misconception regarding how this will play out. Choices are pretty basic

1)  Let the pandemic play out- overload hospital systems.  Mortality rate of at least 2.5 percent (Vs 1 percent with healthcare)   this will take 3 to 4 months

2) contain eradicate until  there is a vaccine.   Basically massive lockdown that might get rid of it (China style) or more likely extensive Italy style lockdown for months and months and months.  I reckon 18 months till vaccine.

Either way football is gone for this season even if teams don't realise it

I think an AFL player will get the virus within  2 weeks and round3 onwards will be canceled

But canceling crowds helps the smaller vic clubs and the ****ty expansion  clubs

Italy went from 20 confirmed cases to 233 dead in fifteen days.

16 million people are now in heavy quarantine.   This virus is worse than anything since small pox and possibly worse than the spanish flu.

Australia is not doing enough now and we will end up like Italy with mass hard quarantines

We are in the premiership window.   

Losing Hogan is bad.   Hogan is better than lever and Melbourne was in a much better position than adalaide (contracted vs uncontracted)

I think minimum is neale compensation, plus their first and brayshaw with seconds going back the other way.

Trading is "player worth" plus what the team can pay.   Hogan is worth more than picks 4 and 5 and freo can pay if they want him.

For those arguing differently one year of hogan may be the difference between a premership or not.  And if he stays for one year he could stsay for more.

Anyway i hope we keep him

You are all wrong about ANB.

He has the capacity to be elite.  He is only 22 improving every year.  More importantly he has elite vision.  He has the ability to spot the short option. 

Currently his execution lets him down but he will tidy that up and become elite assist player

I think he will mature into a top 50 in the league player.   AkA Jones who improved every year.

He has better vision and twenty metre execution than everyone on our list excluding possibly  Petracca (by foot).   He is already a very good player and very underrated on these boards in a similar manner to Jones early

Best to worst trades 

Weller for pick 2

Gibbs for two first rounders

Cameron for 12

Old man for 2nd round pick

Lever for two firsts

Smith for 11 with change back

Saad

Watts 

Stringer.

I think it is hard to argue with this order. 

Our trade value on Lever was about right.  All the contracted players cost more (excluding smelly ones... smith has issues with ankle) and Lever was the only good uncontracted one.

In regards to leverage blah blah blah... I am not sure Melbourne had any.  Lever would never have got to us in ND for pick 10.  St Kilda or Collingwood would have grabbed him.

I hope this is not Goodwin being a malthouse.

He disliked Betts, Garlett and Robinson and look how that worked out for Carlton.

Lever deal was not over.  Lever is a top 5 pick in all the recent drafts.

If he went into the national draft we had

North melbourne, carlton, st kilda, collingwood all ahead of us at pick 10 and given free agent speculation at least two of those clubs with more salary space than us

Lever was never getting to us via the draft and both Melbourne/Adelaide knew it.

Picks 10 & 6 to 14 next year looks reasonable.   Given exposed form I rate Lever as being worth at least pick 4.  No team would trade pick 4 for two teen picks.

We got a good deal

42 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I understand this. But if you're talking about numbers arriving from abroad, then there's no chance we'll ever get anywhere even close to near your original projections. The permanent migrant intake is what, around 200,000? How many AFL members are there? Without researching, let's say it's an average of 50,000 x 18 - so somewhere just under/around 1 mil. Or 1/24th of the current Australian population. If we had the same migrant-pop conversation-rate to paid membership,* and assuming they all opted for the MFC - both scenarios which, frankly, are in the absolute realms of fantasy - we would get around 8000 new members per year.

Skuit supporters matter just as much as members.  The number of members drives the value of sponsorship dollars.  Also if you using a population of 24 million you need to include rugby in your numbers.  Better population figure is vic, sa, tas and WA.   Which is more like 10 to 12 million.,. So 1 in 10 are members.  

If out of the 100,000 coming to Melbourne we got 5 k members and 30k supports that adds up.   There is also untapped conversion from the last five years of migrants.   So 500k people is starting pool and if you got 20k members and 200k supporters from that... if you did everything right

I do not post often, but this is a good idea.  Those attacking should have a long hard think and then apologise.

Organic growth is slow as we have such a small starting base

Supporters of other clubs - no chance Australians rarely switch clubs

kids - some possibility but over half goes for parents club.. then sucess gets another quarter then you can fight over the rest.    And every club is already fighting, Watts, Gawn and Viney can only go to so many schools

Outside of Melbourne - well there are lots of people but it is hard work and they can not attend footy anyway.... so  .... I can't see the business case

Migrants to Melbourne is a big pot.   I think there are 100,000 plus per year.  Most do not have an existing club and the Melbourne brand gives us an advantage.   It is logical to follow the team with the city's name.  Having programs to capture these people and get a large percentage is the way forward.  

I personally love the idea of MFC giving guided free tours of the MCG to Indian students (mainly cricket focused) and then giving them tickets to the football game plus some language appropriate pamphlets.. plus some volunteer Indian actual Melbourne supports to cheer with them at the game   I can see it working.   You could even dedicate a section of the ground to it.

the other point I would make with the marketing background you should be seeing if you can get on the board

This analysis is ridiculous.

we got 10th last year

We have the number 1 ruck.

I rate our forwards higher than our mids.

I also rate our defenders higher than our mids ( through this is closer)

I would have guessed our mids would have been bottom 5/6 last year

Situation was even worse in 2015 and I would have rated our mids bottom 2.   With two years folding into the analysis I would say champion data is reasonable

what it does not capture is age profile.  Anyone under 25 will probable improve anyone over 30 has a 25% chance of the wheels falling off.  Our age profile in the midfield is pretty good and that will drive improvement.

for those concerned about Vineys rating his 2015 was pretty average and that is 50% of his ranking

This thread needs to be book marked

Jodie is a solid afl c grade footballer. He would easily get a game in most/ all teams and he is improving

He will be better this year than last and will keep getting better

B grade this year to be considered A grade by 2015

Bad kick/ val player. Blah. Listen to yourselves. He adds a lot to our team

There is also an article on north melbourne's mis-handling of a concussion investigation. I would read these articles as an attempt by the afl to distract from the Tippett afair.

Bagging or commenting ?

Those, such as myself, that were concerned by Jones' output have been vindicated by his improvement over the last couple of years and especially this year. Those that thought he was terrific 3 years ago should now realise how wide of the mark they were.

I usually rate your posts but you being revisionary here. No one was arguing that he had output above a c level. the debate was more around whether he would ever be better than a b and most argued that a lack of awareness and bad decision making meant he would never get better.

Ridiculous comments on this thread. All these heroes who think they know more than the club and then will flame anyone who disagrees.

Do we know how much jordie is being paid? How many people bagging jordie bagged jones three years ago. Hint all of you ( as there were only about three people defending him.)

How many people can comment on jamar injuries? How many can comment on his contribution to training? How many of you same fools would have been screaming If he left to go to another club. Hint you will all claim that you would be happy to see him go but everyone knows how you would have been keyboard warriors if he had of left

Before mindlessly bagging engage your brain

That list tells us our recruiters did a pretty good job

If taking the best of the five plus players after our picks does not deliver a premiership team then we were sort of doomed from the start

This is the only potential useful suggestion made on the whole jack viney thing and everyone seems to slag it off. What gives ?

My thoughts are

If JV is pick 1 to 3 then he goes this year

If JV is pick 8+ then he goes this year. There is no way GWS or GC will risk nominating

The only difficulty is if JV is rated 3-7. If he is in this range and GWS or GC play funny buggers then he goes interstate and we get a two top three picks when we should have only got one but we lose JV

If he is in this range then not nominating for a year might be a win for jack. He can be guaranteed to play for melb and if some richer melb supporters steps in then he won't be out of pocket. Problem solved.

However as I have said above if he is worth pick three then pay it. If he is not then melb should offer jack options and this might be one of then. ( mind you we better have a strong legal position or else AFL won't stand for it)

I

6 rivers

3 bartram

2 jones

1 watts

Rivers underrated. Cut off was good, disposal under pressure very good. Been equal best this year with jones.

I would be stunned and expect their to be resignations if our obligation to viney is to draft him no matter what. Our obligation should be to ensure that he is drafted onto an afl primary list in 2013. This would mean that the moment another club bids for him our obligations are wiped.

Any other outcome on a 16 year old would be crazy as any 16 year old could slide from top 10 to 3rd round by the time the draft comes around. Having said that we are in danger of getting no value from viney as a father son. if he is rated around 5 ish and 4 is our first pick we will probably end up picking him up

If the 2008 draft was re-done tomorrow where do you think Watts would come ? In my opinion he wouldn't make the first round. Some of you are pretty cruisey about that.

You make some good points but this a ballsy call. You are basically saying that watts will not be top ten at a club an so will always be a borderline selection. Is this you view?

I personally think he will at a minimum reach consistently selected and will probably end up in the first five selected. Not there yet but that is my view.

So what do you think was our biggest problem since '98? (Danners/Bailey)

The message communication. Danners was a roller coaster. Bailey lost deal sometime mid 2010. Was it communication or $$$ or a whole lot of things. Was our recruiting network to small?

My view was recruiting has been fine. In Danners years we were one of the better performing Vic teams

My view is that we were missing $ spent on footy department. There is a pretty good correlation between high spending team and success

Btw. Baily did ok. He had a young young team with out any quality in the 25 to 30 year bracket. ( this was caused by a range of reasons including. Scott Thompson going home, draft penalties for salary cap breaches and trades for established players by Danners)

Yes there is a lot of science involved in recruiting and that's why those with the biggest budget will have more information than those on much smaller budgets, but that more than likely involves the later picks not the top ten or twenty. There is ample information available and certainly enough exposure of the top twenty draft selections up to two years prior to the draft itself, so to get it wrong is inexcusable.

I would very much doubt that the average punter on here wouldn't have picked the same players in the top 20 that BP did but therein lies the problem, he gets/got paid to get it right and in many cases he didn't. There are recruiters at other clubs that have reaped the benefit of our misses and you can blame sports science, or deficient budgets or whatever excuse you like, but put simply he missed many opportunities to set us up for the future and that's a fact.

Big reds post was great and most of you missed the point

Over 50% of people recruited after our picks were undeniably bigger duds than the ones we got

Looking at his analysis there are two selections that hurt. Sculls for Martin and tapscott for fyfe. Too my mind these are the only superstars we might have missed and both of the demon selections over the next ten years might match these two. Apart from that there are swings and round a outs in that later selections might have been better but not much better ( Morton excluded and as I understand it at te time we was considered a top three selection and arguably at the time might have gone top two).

Stop blaming the recruiting. Development arguments have a point but even the best have some pretty big blunders. See hawthorns recruiting. They stuffe up some of there early picks too. A high pick is less than 50% chance of getting a good player ( top 3 picks excluded )

Decision on talent aside. You have listed plays up to pick 35. Therefore 25 picks for three years. So you are saying for each pick we have a 19/75 chance of getting a better player. Using both compo picks we have less than 60% chance of getting a better player. I think I would take gaff as it is certain but that is just me

In any case even on your judgement of gaff he is close to being worth two compo picks

However I suspect a lot of people list gaff higher than a number of people in your list

You know Ron, all we're doing is quibbling on price. If I don't reckon Gaff is worth two first round draft picks in this year's super draft it doesn't mean I don't rate him. It doesn't have to be either or. I do rate him and I'd happily give up two first round draft picks if the draft was the equivalent quality of 2003. I reckon that a pick around 11 or 12 in this year's draft may well be every bit as good as Gaff. If I'm right why would I want to give up two Gaff's for one ? Remember, Gaff comes from a compromised draft pool. I'd certainly give up one of those picks and a player, or another pick. Under the right circumstances I'd give up both picks, just not for a player that presently has one year under his belt. Who knows, by year's end I may have changed my tune based on another year of footy.

Right now, I rate Gysbert's the equal to Gaff. In fact his stats are better. Btw, I'm not basing my opinion on stats and I accept I've seen more of Gysberts. Perhaps I overrate Gysberts. Maybe I rate him more than some other supporters. But 190cm inside mids with great decision making who know how to find the footy don't grow on trees. We've only seen a glimpse of how good Gysberts will be. Do you think other clubs would give up two first round draft picks for Gysberts in this year's draft ?

Forgive me if I'll not place too much emphasis on a coach's comments about an out of contract player that he's trying to retain (once again, that doesn't mean that I don't rate Gaff, as I do).

And to answer your final question, no, we're different posters. We just happen to try and evaluate decisions without typically blinkered supporter emotion.

With all due respect it seems like you do not understand how the draft works

Two picks at these levels represents a chance of getting a good player, but probably an avg player Dunn/bate anyone? I think there are about ten players in the last ten years taken in the range of our picks that are better than gaff

Quick statistic course that means that in the draft we have a 20% chance using both super compo picks to get someone who will be top ten at there club

As for people linking this to sully it is a terrible argument

Look at g abelett. Geelong got two compo picks let's say 8&12

Only comparable trade is Judd which was for pick 3, 20?, and Kennedy ( probably equivalent to pick 3 in terms of value)

Geelong got screwed on the same basis melb got screwed

We are not getting sulky back we have two picks that from a trade perspective might get a decent player and or gamble in the draft and probably get nothing.

Yes I am going on record that our recruiting people paid less or the same as the other 17 teams are not some how superior because they work for Melbourne.

Let us try to put some realism into our arguments

Btw if you going to do a rebuttal try to base it on the facts. Ie in this past draft we would have got xy&z therefore draft is better

If you can't do that don't do anything. Quoting this is a super draft so .... Does not count