Ouch!

Sorry Thomo, I think Rudeboy at the moment is worried about Liam and his welfare and well being. I have no doubt that would involve working with the MFC, and our welfare manager... not Eddie or the CFC. Any discussion of collingwood is a bit far fetched and even if he wished that it could happen, he would have to convince Liam, then trade rules have to be complied with, so without free agency, he would be required to go through the draft or pre season draft, and I don't think thats an easy path (especially given his next appearance in court is October isn't it??) It's an interesting conspiracy though. In relation to PaulRB... are you referring to the comment made by Neeld that it's unlikely he will play for the Dees this season? if so I think thats pretty apparent given he has played one game, and his fitness base is pretty low. That and the fact there are only 3 games left, the last being an interstate trip to Freo that you would not risk underdone players would you?

Sorry I know that. My point (perhaps not super clearly stated) was that Swift wasn't a star, who was hit down with injury only to come back as a gun player (See Joel Selwood, Darling, etc) 34 unforgettable games in 4 years?

Thats the point I was almost about to make. Darling's last junior year was nothing special compared to the year before... ... but then again the same can't be said for Tom Swift and how he has progressed...

A lot of people seem to think that GC will go around again in the mini-draft. I am not totally convinced that they will, There would be a fair amount of pressure on Guy McKenna to get some results in this third year, so deferring a quality player by on trading pick 2 seems a little unlikely to me. (Also need to bear in mind they need to reduce the numbers on their list further too.) Also I wonder if GWS might use a slightly different approach themselves with regards to the mini draft and perhaps look at trying to getting a package with a mature player in from another club in return for a pick in the mini draft. I am not sure if they will try the same tactic they did this year with Junior, Power and Brogan.... Anyway, just a thought I had...

Riiiiight, good luck with that. Seriously doubt he will be there at 13. No doubt the club has had enough of Blease and Strauss.

Must admit I have liked the sound of Stringer from what I have read about him. and I'll be interested to see where he goes in the draft, it doesn't sound likely that he would slide to our mid round pick, So depending on what happens with Jack Viney, then one of the picks 3 and 4 will no doubt be a midfielder, but the question is what happens with the other? is it Grundy if he is still around? a smaller forward/mid like Ben Kennedy or a player like Stringer who looks like he could hold down a similar role to Jack Darling (looking at size and weight) but perhaps ultimately moving into a midfielder role.

It's actually something I thought about for a while too (Jolly's reference to missing culture at the MFC) It's a damning statement, as TBH it suggests that MFC at the time had a very poor culture in terms of looking after young players, or indeed it's so unforgettable / non existant that he truthfully can't comment. There are several aspects of the MFC that are rock bottom, ... lets look at next year for some improvement, and the years afterwards, it's only then we can see if the changes made in 2012 were the catalyst.

Nah thats a pretty fair assessment, I agree it's hard to assess Trengove and Grimes, especially in this first year. Both players are around the 50 game mark, whilst neither has set the world on fire on the field, they haven't been terrible either. Just looking at basic stats will tell you that they are both high up on possessions etc. Not great, but not as terrible as a lot of people make it out to be either. Off the field is the bit that none of us would have a clue about. But given what has been thrown at our club all year, they have done a decent job... and it will take several years before we see results.

Oh bugger well thanks for that....

So Billy, do you think Grimes and Trengove are closer to creating a culture ... or maybe a positive culture than our previous leadership group? after seeing whats on offer for 2012? . I guess also to that extent, could our previous leadership group have turned around the culture of the club to make it remotely like the famed 'Bloods' Sydney player culture?

You have almost 2 pages of people saying that they value Rivers and what he brings to the club yet you still try to push an agenda he is no good, likely to be playing the VFL, and Joel MacDonald is the person to displace him from the side... Whilst I don't know whether I admire your determination, or pity your stubbornness, I do know one thing... This topic does not deserve another poll!!!!

.... you reckon his leadership ability would make up for the 5cm he is apparently lacking then?

So Jnrmac, Totally agree in extending this to the MFC in it's current state. A chance to create a club culture from scratch, with 'untainted' players driving this change? As you mentioned, two very young leaders in Grimes and Trengove, Clark in his first year from another club, and only Jones being retained from the old leadership group, it's a very big statement, and was viewed as harsh, and perhaps it was, but maybe it was also very necessary as well. With Trengove, Grimes, Clark, Jones etc... we have a group of players that must attempt to adjust the culture at the MFC to where it needs to be. In regards to Col, I kinda agree with the sentiments of THBT in that not every player has to 'drive' the culture of the club, but they have to be accountable. Dane Swan is a good example. Fantastic player, and probably a great guy to have around the club, but he will always need to be kept in check. What he does bring to the club is personality, which I think is something that gets suppressed all to often these days. Sylvia is probably the closest player to our list to Swan (except in the fact that he hasn't reached his potential) (This last bit is for RPFC) Footy skills and height aside, I have heard, and believe Jack Viney is rated one of the drafts best prospects in terms of leadership, and you would expect him to both thrive in a good footy culture, but equally would be one of the players that could serve to reinforce culture as required too. Grimes was seen in a similar fashion when we drafted him....

Rivers has had a good year IMO, has adapted well to playing under Neeld, and the fact that he has shown to be effective as a swing man being able to play forward and back gives him some value. McDonald does not look like he has that flexibility. That being said I haven't quite made up my mind regarding Rivers next year though, I would have no issue with the club offering him another deal, but I also see him as having enough currency to get a handy player from another club in return... and I think it's fair to say we have other options if he or the club looks to engage in a trade. To say he would spend time @ Casey is a joke, Rivers is an AFL standard player and would get a gig in the back 6 a lot of AFL teams I reckon.

But who cares if it is 3 or 25? Thats not the issue, the issue is more that we get would get to spend 3 and 4 on another pick. It's not the first F/S that has been gotten for a steal, I still reckon the bombers potentially get a bigger steal than us regardless. The difference is that they will happily pay the price, and the price is lower than what we might pay. Happy to be amicable, but you are still bending the words with this bit " if they see him as top 2 or believe we will take him wherever - they will bid for him.what you say above." That last bit irks me. They will take him if they see him as a top 2. They will not bid if there is any risk we won't take him, and if he is not worthy of one of these picks then they are at risk of screwing up their 2012 draft... and for what? I know you rate Viney, I do as well. But I don't believe the MFC are going to be hoodwinked into paying more than what Viney is worth. If they nominate him, and we take him with 3, I believe it is going to be based on him being worthy of the pick. If it doesn't eventuate, even better.

Providing Essendon can get a juicy pick. Their first live pick is like to be mid to late 20s given they will take Daniher with the F/S pick. I won't disagree that we could give up a good pick for Caddy if thats the type of player we are going for.

Ummm,... because thats kinda how the F/S stuff works. You don't hear anyone moaning about the fact that Essendon are getting Joe Daniher for next to nothing are they? The only picks that are of importance to determining the fate of Jack Viney are picks 1 or 2, therefore the only clubs risking anything are GWS and GC. I gotta stop this now... I am repeating myself in numerous threads saying the same thing....

Not quite done. Tell me what does GWS or GC get out of helping these 'pleading' teams that would justify risking pick 1 or 2 to get a player who might be worth pick 5? This seems to be the one thing that you don't seem prepared to answer. Even if he is worth pick 3 or 4.... if the MFC believe that there is a clear distinct difference between the top couple of players and those rated 3-6 then they would need to think hard on what they do. Edit: I am kinda cranky RP that in having to feel the need to answer your post we have extended this unnecessary Poll further than it deserved j/k

Ok seriously can we stop with this rubbish! It is not THAT hard! It's based on the picks ahead of us in the draft not ours just as Fat Tony pointed out. If he is worth Pick 4 then why would GWS and GC pick him. Our picks are irrelevant UNTIL we know whether anyone ahead of us is prepared to take him, and in this case it looks like GWS and GC with picks 1 or 2 are the only ones that can prevent us from securing JV. If they don't warrant him worthy of one of those picks we will get him for a second round pick. If they rate him 4th, they won't compromise their position based on that. The only exception will be IF you have to throw a blanket over picks 1-4 or 1-5 type of thing, and rarely has that been the case, at least when looking at uncompromised drafts. More often than not the ranking of these players at the pointy end of the draft becomes pretty clear.

Problem with this is that their first round pick will be reserved to take Daniher as F/S. They are going to struggle to get Caddy (If he is available) unless they offload some decent players to secure the necessary picks.

Oh dear..... I thought you gave up a little easily on the discussion yesterday... Agree with comments above, Flawed Poll as my feelings aren't supported by any of the options.

Commentator "Player 1433 Calder Cannons " Barry: "Hey Dean! We won! Bingo! B.I.N.G.O!"

given what is at stake... I won't comment either way. But just remember the game is a 'Home' game for GWS, but it is at Manuka Oval.... so not the same as playing @ Skoda stadium.

He must? Dunno if you have listened to Neeld much, but he seems pretty happy with Trengove, and if anything suggests that Trenners focuses too much on doing the 1% stuff, and is too intense. Trengove still managed 22 possessions and was one of the leading possession winners on either team in the first half. In an ordinary year he is still top 3 for disposals, and top 2 for tackles... and high up on whatever 1% stats Neeld seems to track internally. Tell me why would giving Jones a share of the captaincy make things better for anyone?

Ah, but you are forgetting, Sheeds is growling and going 'Arrrghh!!!! I've never won a spoon in my life, don't you dare call this tank.. *cough* this player management scheme anything other than that. Cos I am Kevin Sheedy .... hey look is that Brock over there?'