Vanilla Gorilla

Agreed - him and PJ never miss an opportunity to roll out that old excuse. They've each been at the club for 1.5 years and must start taking responsibility for the state of affairs.

Completely different. Hird was an unproven, first-time senior coach. Bomber was a successful and established premiership coach. Bomber was brought on specifically to guide Hird. Roos needs no such guidance - so how do you have 2 giants in the same room?

I really don't think 2 guys of that calibre can coach effectively in the same team. Both are used to having it their own way, and once Roos starts to pull rank as senior coach I have no doubt sparks will fly. BUT in saying that, considering where we are at as a club, having them both on board offers stability and leadership to the playing group. It reinforces the notion that melbourne are not a basket case and dare I say it, could be a draw card to entice free agents to the club. It's not the right decision for the long term, but it doesn't have to be. Its the right decision for right now. Make it happen MFC.

I would be extremely surprised if we kept picks 2 & 3. Roos needs instant improvement, and he can't afford to wait for an 18 year old to develop. He has also shown a proclivity to trade away high draft picks. Expect to see at least one, if not both, of these picks traded.

Also with all the talk about wanting to turn the list over, but not being able to bring in quality to justify it, tell me Ball isn't an option? Would you prefer Luke Ball on our list or Sam Blease. Please.

For a list as directionless as us, this guy is worth his weight in gold. Can you imagine our first-year recruits stepping out onto the training track with Cross, Ball and O'Keefe? Talk about filling the leadership vacuum. We're not talking about David Rodan here - it's Luke Ball - A former premiership player and captain for a team that consistently played finals. If the guy doesn't play a game, the effect he'll have on guys like Toumpas, Salem, Kent, JKH et al will be immeasurable.

That should easily get it done. Any more and that's overs I reckon. Though I'm not sure about trading our first pick for 2 players with relatively low ceilings. Sure there's an argument to say that we should play the percentages and chase 2 established and more well-known players (especially given our recent drafting/development of picks) but I think we're cutting of our nose to spite our face in terms of long term development with that deal.

Blease for Hunt (as someone mentioned before) could be worth looking at. I think Blease getting dropped this late in the season all but confirms he's going to be given the boot at years end. May as well get some trade value out of him

It amazes me that people want to delist Bail. We all know we have a problem moving the ball out of half back. While this is exacerbated by the decision making of our defenders, I reckon the underlying problem is the lack of movement up-field. Often a player will look up and see 2 or 3 opposition players to our 1 up the wing, which of course causes them to hesitate, look inside, look back up the wing, and ultimately make a rushed decision. Rohan Bail is the ONLY player on our list who consistently and effectively makes an option up the field. If all our players had half the desire to do repeat leads that he does we would be an immeasurably better side. Also an article in the HUN (i think?) the other day mentioned he's leading our pressure acts for the year.

If anything, I think the last 8 years have shown us that high draft picks are inconsequential if you don't have the older leaders to show them what's required to be an AFL player. ROK is a formal norm smith medallist, former gun and most importantly former leader. In terms of overall quality, there's daylight between him and say a Byrnes or a Rodan. Even if he doesn't play a single game - ROK will be worth his weight in gold.

How could we get Wines? He doesn't come up for free agency for what, another 6 years? Would have to trade for him. Couldn't imagine Port giving him up for an unknown draft pick, regardless of how high.

Agree with all of the RPFC, especially number 1. Free agency is about transitioning the AFL from a league with a suburban footy club mentality to a professional, commercial one. So far the players have gotten their way with far easier movement between clubs. Clubs should similarly be able to trade players as they see fit in order to maximise the talent on their lists. Yes this may be an inconvenience for the players, but they are getting more than adequately remunerated for their services regardless of which team they play for. If the AFL are serious about ramping up the league to the level of the NFL, NBA etc then all parties have to adjust.

Cross and O'Keefe - couldn't think of 2 better guys to set the tone on the training track.

Yes the net effect over the last few years may be thereabout even, but that doesn't disprove the fact that Sydney have access to players that others clubs don't.Both Melbourne and Sydney can use the father-son rule, only one club can list players under their academy. Even if Sydney invest time and resources into these kids, why should't Melbourne be allowed the opportunity to do the same?

Just as an aside - Is anyone else outraged that Sydney have the rights to Isaac Heeney because he falls under their academy? They are arguably the best side in the league, and can claim arguably the best midfielder in the draft, because of a structure that is not given to all the other clubs. Why are they allowed to claim 'academy' players and other clubs aren't? I call shenanigans!

Really happy with Gawn out. I think he played well last week when in the ruck, but up forward he's a liability. Very limited once the ball hits the deck and not fit enough to continuously apply forward pressure. Slot Kent in his place, keep chippa and dawesy up there as the tall targets and you have a drastically more menacing forward line.

I thought you could only 'get them for nothing' if they were RFA or UFA? Even if they're out of contract, other clubs would still have to trade for them, or the player could nominate for the draft. Can anyone confirm?

The revisionism on this site is nauseating. In the past Dunn was an exceedingly average player, being a combination of lack of fitness, poor development and being played in too many positions. Fact is over recent times he's managed to bulk up considerably while increasing his endurance. He's nailed down a position in the team and has learned to play his role consistently week-in-week out. The transformation has been quite astounding and a three-year deal is a testament to him. But don't try and be that guy who says "I saw it all along". No one did. Get over yourself.

That would have to be the most un-roos deal imaginable

Does anyone else have a problem with this? I certainly do. It's one thing to have open and harsh dialogue with players internally, it's quite another thing to do it in public. I'm sure everything he said was completely founded, I have no problem with candid feedback. But I think it's unnecessary to make those comments in a public forum. And for those who say that the players need "a kick up the arse" or that players "shouldn't be so precious"…I believe a guy by the name of M. Neeld had a similar mentality.

"Pedo" surely the best nickname in the AFL. Slightly ahead of "spitta" swallow at Norf

wut?

Mmm more player comparisons. Please, tell me more about how a bloke that hasn't played a game reminds you of a triple premiership-playing coleman medallist...

Bang on the money

Definitely a bit of Yze - good call. Not saying he will be as good as Yze, but looks like him in style.