deejammin'

I’m not so sure about that, if he slides to pick 21(23) and Freo bid on him it will cost us all three of our picks 37, 49 and 57 (94 is worthless) giving us worthless picks back in the last round which we could use to upgrade Jordan and Chandler, we then would be extremely unlikely have enough picks to bid for Woey even if he goes in the 60s. So the choice would most likely be (I acknowledge we could manoeuvre with pick trades but right now): Draft Andrew at 17, draft another two players at 37 and 49 and use 57 to bid on Woey upgrade Jordan with 94 and if we are planning to find another worthless late pick to upgrade Chandler. OR Take a player at pick 17, burn 37, 49 and 57 bidding for Andrew and then use late picks to upgrade Jordan and Chandler missing out on Woey. The question is, is taking a player at 17 and hoping to bid on Andrew worth more than 3 other players, including Woewodin who it is rumoured we have made a commitment to? If Andrew is there at 17(19) I think we will take him. It’s also possible we only intend on drafting three players in which case pick 57 won’t be used.

Number 22 is vacant with Vanders leaving, maybe it’s fate?

Brilliant Premiers! Thank you!!

I have it a little differently again as I think Chandler with his 2 year contract and money slightly above the top rookie contract will also come onto the main list so after Chandler and Jordan elevated: Primary: 34 Rookie A: 4 Rookie B: 0 So 4 new players to come onto either only the main list or a combo of main and Rookie A and potentially 2 additional category B rookies. Maximum 6 new ‘welcome to demonlands’ to come. Fun times.

Also with 7 members of our GF best 22 under 22, and many more in the 22-28 year old sweet spot I don’t think our age profile will worry us as much as other teams. We can go for it the next two years largely with the team we have and then see what’s around if our stars start retiring. As long as we’re bringing in two quality kids a year we’ll be fine. I also agree that for Jason Taylor it’s a great position as he can go best available at every pick. Nice spot to be in.

Yes and no. Gawn is contracted until 2025. We’d be hoping he plays well for at least the next 2-3 years. B Brown and McDonald contracted til 2024 ditto May 2023 We’d be planning to have these guys in our best 22 for at least the next two years with the other younger guys pushing them for spots. Two of them were all Australian this year and the other two had their best year in ages, they’re hardly on the edge of the cliff and even then, with the exception of Gawn, there’s competition for their spots. I agree we need to start developing young KP players and Rucks but I think it will be split over the next two- three years and with next years draft largely touted as tall heavy I doubt we’ll take more than one KP this year (unless there’s someone there Jason Taylor really rates of course and I’d always back him in). We are also light for mids when compared with other lists. Here it is (don’t jump down my throat if there’s a few players you think aren’t mids, it’s who champion data lists as mids from each list): Melbourne now: Trac, Clarry, Viney, Harmes, Sparrow, Langdon, Brayshaw, Jordan, Dunstan, Laurie, Baker, Rosman, 12 Dogs 2021: Bont, MacRae, Libba, Treloar, Dunkley, Wallis, Bailey Smith, Hunter, Butler, Lipinski, Hayes, Roarke-Smith, Lin Jong. 13 Brisbane 2021: Neale, Zorko, Lyons, McCluggage, M Robinson, Berry, D Robertson, Ely Smith, Prior, Sharp, Ellis-Yoleman, Joyce, Bailey, Mathieson, Micheal. 14 Geelong 2021: Dangerfield, Selwood, Guthrie, Parfitt, Clark, I Smith, Duncan, Menegola, O’Connor, Holmes, Stephens, Constable, Narkle, Brownless, 14 Port 2021: Wines, Powell-Pepper, Duursma, Boak, Amon, Butters, Rockliff, Bergman, Farrell, Drew, Burgoyne, Schofield, Mead. 13 The AFL average for mids on a list is 14, we are two below that with Dunstan so need to draft at least two. A lot of clubs have 15 or 16, I can’t find any with less than 13, and the dogs 13 bats pretty deep, Ports 13 mids was thought of as thin all year. So yeah, we need to top up on KP over the next 3 years, but not urgently, we also need a developing ruck, but hopefully not urgently. We really need more mids, and this draft is laden with them, that’s what I think we’ll take. Mac Andrew would’ve been nice though, a developing ruck who can play forward who had a relationship with the club, ahhh well.

If we re-sign Hore and Declase we have 2 picks, only one of them 3 picks, neither of them 4 picks.the most we can have is 4 picks with either 2 rookies, 2 main or 1 rookie 3 main or 4 main. We can’t gain any more picks at this stage. The Maximum new players coming onto our list will be 6 with four as above and two category B rookies.

While it’s always great to see any informed draft like this I think this phantom greatly overestimates our need for key position players. If Van Rooyen slides to us at 19 I think we’ll definitely take him but to then take another KPF/(D) in Williams at 39 seems very unlikely. That would put Williams behind Brown, McDonald, Weideman, Brown and Van Rooyen in the forward line and behind May, Lever, Petty, Tomlinson, Smith and Turner (I did a whole thread on our positional needs heading into the draft elsewhere). Particularly with next year said to be a great draft for talls at the most I see us taking one KP and one developing ruck. If we get Van Rooyen we will go a mid at 39 (or very unlikely but possibly a ruck). Two forwards also starts leaving our list a little too tall heavy, Gawn, Jackson, Daw, Brown, McDonald, Weideman, Brown, May, Lever, Petty, Tomlinson, Turner, Smith and Van Rooyen is already close to a third of our list on talls with only 10 out and out mids it starts getting out of balance. Taking 3 mids is ideal for balance having lost Jones and Vanders and possibly Declase and only bringing in Dunstan.

We currently have 34 players on the senior list (including upgrades to Jordan and Chandler). We also have 4 players on the category A rookie list. (Not including Hore and Declase who, if they stay take us to 35 and 5 leaving us with only 2 list spots). Once you have 4 category A rookies it makes no difference to total list spots whether you rookie or senior list a player as you can either have 36 senior players and 6 cat A rookies or 38 senior players and 4 cat A rookies (or 37 senior, 5 A rookie also). The total between the two categories must be no more than 42. Because we have 4 A rookies already it makes it largely meaningless whether Chandler is on the rookie list or main list next year, we would still have four spots. The easiest way to think of it now is Melbourne can take 4 players total onto our list through draft, or keeping Hore and Declase, or pre-season or DFA. So to do what is listed in this phantom we would be delisting Hore and Declase and taking all four players through the draft. Because another club has bid on Woey in this example we would have to draft him to the main list but even if he fell through the entire draft and we category A rookied him that’s it for list spots. The only additional spots we then have are two category B rookie spots but they have specific rules and I’m not sure we could cat B Woewodin even if he fell through the entire draft.

I think we need two picks to upgrade Chandler and Jordan but we also have a pick at 116 right? If we do have another pick in the hundreds then I don’t mind it, particularly if we’re keeping one or both of Hore and Declase or looking at a delisted free agent or train-on pre season draft player. 17 and 27, 94 + 116 upgrade Chandler and Jordan would get us two really good young players and then Woey or Hore and/or Declase or someone else looks pretty good. Probably need a category B developing ruck to round that out though.

I think the Victorian academy draft concessions came in to abate complaints about the northern academies after Mills? I’m not really sure what I think either, I think deep down I think all academy players should be open slather in the draft, I don’t really like anything that compromises the draft (other than F/S) but I do understand the arguments around growing the game by keeping young locals in NSW and QLD. Although this does tend to even out in the ‘go home factor’? I agree with you though that the quick rule change was not a good idea and I feel that if the AFL was going to neutralise the academy system the first time a Victorian team used it to get a top talent they probably shouldn’t haven’t introduced it at all.

I’d argue the Sydney teams have benefitted most from academy picks. But yes, I agree, a knee jerk reaction that ends up making the bulldogs good fortune even more pronounced. By bringing in this rule the AFL have made JUH’s pick match not only unfair but have stopped Melbourne and a few other clubs from keeping their NGA players who are far lower rated, making the disparity more pronounced. Did I think matching pick one for an academy player was unfair, yeah probably, but it’s even more unfair if the very next year teams miss out on NGA pick matching at pick 5-20. Would the clubs really have been upset if it was just the first 5-10 picks that couldn’t be matched? If a team wants to take Mac Andrew with a top 5 or even top 10 pick I think they should get him but 11-20? Really? A team being able to match pick 19 for an NGA player is unfair?? I agree with you re father-sons, it’s a romantic part of our game that I think most love and if occasionally a team benefits, good for them. But academy picks have been an issue since Mills and Heeney and at that time few clubs had academies at all and it was a very rigged system. Now that most clubs have academies the AFL limits it? Wtf?

It’s worth remembering we also have both our category B rookie spots and in the past this has been where we have tried out developing rucks. I think we will draft best available at 17 most likely a combination of multiple mids or a developing KPF if one slides. Beyond that I think we go for mids/wing with the other two 2nd and 3rd rounds picks and aim to get a developing ruck as a B rookie. Unless Mac Andrew slides, then all bets are off.

I don’t disagree with the intention to contend and the positives this has for their business at all, I think Geelong going for it every year is great, it’s about the insinuation people like Dangerfield are making that those not in the top four haven’t been contending, as our past five years have shown for many teams the difficult bit is getting to finals. We’re actually 5-1 in finals under Goodwin, our problem has been getting there due to a tendency to lose to teams we really shouldn’t, even this year! I also think Geelong misunderstand the critique. Sure there are the usual media suspects that think they should trade all their good players out and go down the bottom for a few years. I think, however, most football people are in agreement that while Danger, Selwood, Hawkins and co are still there they should go for it. The criticism is that they keep trading for players and not playing the small amount of players they do draft. They could and would have still been contending if they brought in three or four of Cameron, Smith, Higgins, Jack Steven, Zach Tuohy, Josh Jenkins, Gary Rohan and Luke Dahlhouse over the last few years and their list would have more of a balance to it with more developing drafted players. The way the debate has been framed around Geelong is too binary, you don’t either bring in older talent all the time and contend or go to the draft and be stuck in a five year rebuild, there’s a balance to strike. The last 5 premierships have had a balance of 17 drafted 5 traded, 16 drafted 6 traded, 15 drafted 7 traded, 16 drafted 6 traded, 16 drafted 6 traded. Geelong have 11 players in their best 22 who they have traded for as older players and with Seglar and Stengle in and very few drafted players pushing for spots next year that number is likely to go up. It’s out of whack. I envy Geelong fans enjoyment over the past decades but I think they would’ve and still would do a lot better to put their faith in a few more young draftees and their potential upside than relying on established players who can be great, but who are more likely to have peaked and be on the way down.

I think it’s been brewing for a number of years. The on-field culture took a marked improvement in the ‘team first area’ as you say but off-field we’ve seen incredible loyalty and passion for the club. It started with Nathan Jones’s many re-signings which filtered into Gawn, Viney, Oliver, Petracca, Salem, Harmes, McDonald (2018) and others. We’ve seen real loyalty from this whole group and a real club-first culture. Imagine our first 6 rounds if TMac had sooked it up, tried to get his trade value up having been told he should explore his options and insisted on playing the position he had re-tooled for on the wing. It’s easy to only see the success of this year in isolation but it’s been brewing for 5-7 years. I’m finding this whole Geelong narrative around contending or not interesting. Our last five years are: 9th by percentage, Prelim, Second last (injuries, the lack of a pre-season and 6-6-6 and the ruck rules killed us, we made a prelim running extra players through stoppage with the best ruckman and a lot of the last three years was us figuring out how to change our strategy to deal with the rule changes. We certainly didn’t bottom out intentionally), 9th narrowly again, Premiers. That’s a team contending, certainly not bottoming out and the key thing during that whole time was players who were committed to Melbourne. Our players had offers that in the past we would lose some of, Gawn from everyone, Petracca from Collingwood, Viney from Geelong, Oliver from Carlton, they all stayed, Premiership. That’s culture.

Just move the whole club down there and re-install Clarkson as coach! Kennett has been banging on for years about how there’s too many clubs in Melbourne and the AFL will eventually have to either move or remove weaker clubs to survive. Put your money where your mouth is Jeff!! 🤪🤪🤪

Tom McDonald and Alex Neale-Bullen’s character, resilience, ability to take criticism and work ethic to turn things around and prove people wrong is a huge part of our premiership and an absolute credit to them, but I think it’s also a case in point of why Hawthorn handled this badly. Its been well documented that Goodwin was super honest with Tom and Alex in their exit interviews, encouraging them to seek opportunities elsewhere but also telling them what they needed to do should they stay, how to push to get back in the team and that he’d be happy to work with them if they stayed. It’s also worth noting that Tom and Alex were struggling to get into our best 22 after 2020 and with the potential for Ben Brown and a few others coming in through trade and draft the club was letting McDonald and Neale-Bullen know that after a year where they already found it difficult to lock down a spot it was about to get much harder. Compare that to Hawthorn, all the players mooted, Mitchell, O’Meara, Breust, Gunston and to a lesser extent Wingard had been walk up starts in the team all year, they were all regularly in the best (when they played Gunston obviously had back injuries). It also took Hawthorn until half way through the trade period to start shopping people around and it seems players were the last to know this was happening, it certainly doesn’t sound like they were told anything concrete in their exit interviews or in the lead up to the trade period as they would’ve looked around. Breust seems not to have been told about the GWS deal until it was basically done at which point he said no as he was never interested in moving! It seems haphazard, unfair to the players and like it was done in a way that could really sour relationships at the club. Moving forward these are Hawthorn’s best players, in key roles, largely in their prime and while I’m sure they’ll be professional and play their roles it’s a really terrible start to a new era. The most perplexing thing is it only would’ve taken a little care, planning and open communication with their players to avoid.

Did I read somewhere that long term Rivers might eventually want to play midfield? I’m sure it’d be great but also he’s such a good HBF it might be a shame. Two of him so we could try one as a mid would be ideal!

I agree re a hybrid or outside running mid being our number one draft target if we go for need. I think if there’s an outside mid there at 17 that we really rate that’s what we’ll take. I also agree key position is less urgent and wouldn’t go 17 unless someone like Amiss slides or there’s a Taylor smoky player in the draft. I do think it would be a good idea to get one somewhere though. Mitch Brown is gone in 2023, a full year of development for a young key player behind all of those guys could be gold, rather than getting someone raw in 2023.

Melbourne list profile: With the fizzer of a draft period coming to a close I thought it would be interesting to look at where our list is at now and think about whether there are any obvious areas of need for the draft. I’ve split our list into our grand final team (minus medical sub), the players pushing for spots or there as backup for our out and out stars (obviously we’re not going to drop Gawn or Jackson for Majak for example but if one of them is injured he pushes for the spot) and longer term prospects we are developing that would be unlikely to push for a spot immediately (unless they pull a Jake Bowey) but who we would hope would be pushing for, or owning a spot in years to come. Where I have listed players in multiple roles it’s because there is potential for them to play both roles. Matchups, injuries or form may have them play a different role to their normal position. Tomlinson for example looked at his best in the third KPD role that Petty plays but if both are fit and firing there is a possibility that Tomlinson could push for a medium defender spot, like the role played by JSmith/Hibberd towards the end of the season. Or if injuries mean Brayshaw needs to play mid, Jordan can play wing (and did this year). So here goes: RUCK: INCUMBENTS: Max Gawn Luke Jackson CHALLENGERS/BACKUP Majak Daw DEVELOPING: MIDFIELD INCUMBENTS: Clayton Oliver Christian Petracca Jack Viney James Harmes Tom Sparrow CHALLENGERS/BACKUP Jakes Jordon Luke Dunstan DEVELOPING: Bailey Laurie ??Kye Declase?? WING: INCUMBENTS: Ed Langdon Angus Brayshaw CHALLENGERS/BACKUP: James Jordon Oskar Baker Jayden Hunt? DEVELOPING: Fraser Rosman KEY POSITION DEFENDER INCUMBENTS: Steven May Jake Lever Harrison Petty CHALLENGERS/BACKUP Adam Tomlinson Joel Smith DEVELOPING: Daniel Turner MEDIUM/SMALL DEFENDERS: INCUMBENTS: Christian Salem Trent Rivers Jake Bowey Michael Hibberd CHALLENGERS/BACKUP Jayden Hunt Adam Tomlinson Joel Smith ??Marty Hore?? DEVELOPING: Deakyn Smith KEY POSITION FORWARDS: INCUMBENTS: Ben Brown Tom McDonald CHALLENGERS/BACKUP Sam Weideman Mitch Brown DEVELOPING: MEDIUM/SMALL FORWARDS: INCUMBENTS: Bailey Fritsch Kozzie Pickett Charlie Spargo Alex Neale-Bullen CHALLENGERS/BACKUP Jake Melksham Kade Chandler DEVELOPING: Toby Bedford Bailey Laurie Looking at our list this way, unsurprisingly for the reigning premiers (man it feels good to write that!), we have few weaknesses, if any, and in most spots there is genuine competition. The beauty of this is I think we can go best available at the draft with no fear or regrets, as we could do with one more in most spots and we have few, if any, desperate needs. This being said the areas where our list might be a little thin are: A true backup/developing ruckman. Majak could play backup ruck but also has been more of a ruck/forward in the past, with Bradtke and Nietschke both going off the list this year we have the option of doing this with a category B rookie or a delisted free agent as well as through the draft. Another winger/outside mid would be good. Ed Langdon carries so much structurally for our team, having another player coming through in this position would be great. A young KPF/KPD, these positions are hotly contested atm but that would provide the ideal environment for a young key position player, who usually take another longer, to take their time, develop and hopefully push our boys not to get complacent. Whaddaya reckon fellow demonlanders? (Mods if there is a better thread for this please merge)

A slightly left field one. I apologise to H Petty. At his first game, a very disappointing loss to the Saints by 2 points in round 15 2018. My Dad and I sitting in the stands had a lengthy discussion centring on why Harry wasn’t up to it and wasn’t a defender. Sorry Harry! Proved us so very, very wrong!!

The thing I find most unsettling and bizarre about this situation is if this was the plan; short term pain, trade out some of the higher profile established players to top up on a large number of draft picks this year and next. Then why would Mitchell push Clarkson out to coach while that’s happening? Mitchell could’ve kept Clarkson as a shield for the next year, he could’ve softened the blow of the trades, with both the players involved and the supporters, taken the heat if the next year is tough due to losing established players and blooding kids and then Mitchell comes in as coach in 2023 with a range of young talent on the list and a fresh slate in terms of how the turnover of the list was handled. The only thing I can think of is that Clarkson didn’t agree with this direction. Was either unwilling to trade players out, disagreed on which players or thought it would be bad for the culture to force out good players in their prime? If that’s the case it’s a double whammy for Mitchell because not only does he have to do the hard, dirty list work and take the heat for it, both externally and internally. But one of the greatest coaches of his football club, his coach, fundamentally disagrees with his strategy. Yikes!!!

Any bulldog fan complaining about umpiring needs a reality check. The dogs had a +79 free kick differential for the home and away season! That’s one of the highest ever! That means they AVERAGE 3.4 more frees than their opposition EVERY GAME! For contrast our Dees were -11! That’s -0.4 frees a game on the opposition. The nearest team to them, Geelong had literally half the frees they got, thats unheard of, and it’s a consistent trend, the umps love the doggies! Two of the six games for the year where the dogs lost the free kick count were the prelim and the GF, the two games the best 6/3 umpires umpired, coincidence?! They can whinge about whatever frees they want in the GF, we had a clear GOAL taken from us that would’ve put us 13 points clear in the second quarter. Whinge it up umpires pet dogs, we’re Premiers without all the assistance! https://www.sen.com.au/news/2021/08/31/the-full-2021-afl-free-kick-ladder/

Whoops meant to quote.

I think it’s worth noting that GWS have said they don’t want to trade Bobby Hill and he’s contracted so we or any interested parties have to pay overs to get him. In terms of his salary and our cap who knows? I doubt Chandler’s salary would have much impact on our ability to get him, Bobby would be comfortably better paid than him already and while our cap will be tight in the future I’m not sure we’re too tight right now. If we want him I think we could offer a reasonable salary, not what he could get at non-premiership club, but it would come down to whether he’s willing to take less money to be at a contender. Then there’s his role, our small forwards number 1 job is pressure, Kozzie, ANB and Spargo all offer more than Hill in this area, he's super talented, quick and if he was interested in a move to a wing then I think he’d be a good fit, but he’d still be fighting for a spot. All in all to come to us he’d have to be willing to fight for a spot in a different role for less money. If he’s willing to do that and we rate him then we’ll be able to get him. I think it’s far more likely that he wants to go to a team where he’s a walk up start, on more money and that can afford to pay overs for him trade wise, like North.