Hannabal

Enlighten me. What station ? Was it a news bulletin report (obviously no) ? Was it a footy journalist following trade week (doubtful) ? Was it a talkback caller with a whisper ? Polish this gold nugget for me.

So if one doesn't think that he was worthy top 10 this year that equates to "not rating" him. Interesting logic.

Isn't this thread meant to be about what you've heard ?

It looks like it's happy days all round. I saw the merit in pick 32, but didn't want to give up any more. Good to see Harrington hold his nerve and let him go to the Hawks (hopefully).

I didn't hear the interview, but one doesn't need to be Einstein to realise it was said tongue in cheek. This site has been the pits to read lately.

Bailey and the MC will be weighing up our structure and a better fit for Jamar. Hale will ruck on the forward line and have stints on the ball allowing Jamar to go forward. Right now PJ isn't a dangerous forward option. PJ has kicked 16 goals from his last 50 games, while Hale has kicked 76 in the same period. Some will argue that Hale has spent more time forward. The reason PJ doesn't spend more time forward is because he isn't a danger in the forward line. Nonetheless, he still does go forward for little result. Hale is coming into his best years. He's played over 100 games and at 26 he's reaching his peak as a tall. How many goals a game are we better off for having Hale in the team as opposed to Johnson ? That is the question the MC will be assessing. By my reckoning we'll be 2 goals per game better off with Hale. This is in part due to the extra goals he kicks, plus the structural improvements with Jamar and the rest of the forward line. With natural maturation right across the board, plus a better run with injuries, we ought be a 4 goal per game better team next year.

95% of neutral supporters know sweet f.a about football. Johnson is as useless as [censored] on a bull. Clearly the FD agree, because if they didn't we wouldn't be chasing Hale. Hale is a better forward option and no-one will convince me that Johnson could be a better tap ruckman than anyone. Maybe neutrals are dazzled by PJ's 16 goals from his last 50 games. Or not.

He's slow of mind, but average of foot. It's not a great combination as it makes you look slower than you are.

Best you direct your incredulity at the posts that you find incredulous.

Have you been reading the thread ? Others have already said they'd swap them for Swallow.

You've hit the crux of the matter. Hale is being recruited for what he brings to the ruck. As a stand alone forward he's not good enough. I see him playing 35% ruck. If he's a poor ruck then he's not worth having.

What ? No young player in recent memory has had Scully covered for endurance and quick hands. The knock on Scully's kicking is overblown. He occasionally makes the wrong decision, but there's nothing wrong with his kicking. It's not laser like, or elite, but the mechanics are fine and he nearly always hits his target, unless he's kicking long to a contest. I've only seen Swallow once and he looks great. He looks a better finisher than Scully, but I haven't seen enough to make a declaration on who'll be better. I had a query on his pace, but I read elsewhere it's good. Scully's engine, hands, commitment and professionalism will take the midfielders game to new levels, imo. And Trengove won't be any "Robin". They'll compliment each other, but I see Trengove being just as much a star. These two players have had the best first years at Melb since Gerard Healy in 1979 (other than more mature age recruits). I won't be questioning their ceiling. I've seen enough young talent in my lifetime and I'd be horribly amazed if they don't sit at the top of the tree for midfielders during their career. I wouldn't swap either of them for anyone else in the competition.

For a second I thought you were going to ignore my post. My initial thoughts on Hale weren't overly positive and I posted as much in this thread. Then I began to wonder why the FD would make this call. I take solace in the fact that I don't reckon they've made one bad move in 3 years, so I thought I better at least challenge my own thinking. I remember Hales 7, or so, goals against the Cats. I remember him being tall, skinny and lumbering. Like most his size I remember him not being great below his knees. I remember him getting dropped. I remember he had a really good year and McIntosh being on the trade table at the end of it. But I don't remember much else. I haven't had cause to watch him closely enough. I have scattered memories, but not enough for me to have a definitive viewpoint one way or the other. My recollections aren't so strong that I'd categorically say the the FD are wrong. I had an initial gut feeling, but they've been wrong before. I admire your expert player recall.

Yes, it's never been a strength.

They're just too slow and have a bunch of ordinary footballers. They have no forward line. There's little to no depth. This catchcry about "bottom 6" is a crock. St.Kilda's better player were poor. Dal Santo and Montagna were soft. Hayes did nothing. Riewoldt had a bad one and turned it over with terrible kicks. Milne was unsighted. Goddard was the only top liner to hold his head high. These reasons are far more relevant as to why the Saints were flogged. The Saints bottom 6 last week were just a bad yet there was a draw. This week their better players had really poor ones. The "bottom 6" argument doesn't hold. There's a myriad of reasons to explain yesterday.

Sorry, but I don't reckon you've a great handle on how good Hale is or otherwise; and your feigned indignation doesn't impress.

If you honestly believe that then I'd stop posting on footy forums. The guy is a hack and turned it over at every embarrassing opportunity.

It had nothing to do with the bottom 6. They had no pace, no structure and a dozen players that would be border line at other clubs.

This post is one of the reasons I don't post as much as I'd like. I can't be bothered getting private pms from moderators.

You're not convinced he's a good ruckman because you can't remember. And nor can I. He hasn't rucked much for the last few years, so there's not a lot to go off. Our MC will have a far better idea of his ruck capabilities. I'm not convinced that he's being recruited mainly as a key forward. For me, it's equally about his rucking and the structural changes it allows.

For me this is the key. Hale needs to be a genuine ruck option. I doubt whether he'd want to come to Melb to be stuck in the forward line, as he was under Laidley. I suspect that Melb are looking at using him 35% ruck/ 35% forward/ 20% bench. This allows Jamar to be 65% ruck/ 25% forward / 10% bench. If he's on a par with Miller's best as a forward and superior in the ruck to Johnson, then there's value in the trade. 37 goals as a 21 year old is nothing to sneeze at. I know that you think that there's no evidence that he can replicate, or indeed improve on that form, but I'm comforted by the fact that he at least had the ability to produce those results. With the right coaching/development I'll back the club to get better performances. That's what good clubs do. I'm surprised that you think that PJ is a better ruck. PJ is hopeless. Most North supporters believe that Hale is the best pure tap ruckman at the club. And yes, I understand that they have a vested interest in talking him up. Hale's taps are well down due to him playing almost exclusively as a forward for years. Prior to that he was a tall, skinny, developing ruckman in his early 20's. He obviously has deficiencies, but as an understudy to Jamar I reckon it's a pretty good combination, where two ruckman can go forward and hit the scoreboard. Not a lot of ruckman kick goals, but we'd have two. We've already got plenty of X factor up forward, so it's a reasonable fit for me. The other thing it tells me is that the club doesn't think that it's a mile off being right in contention. I reckon that they see a genuine window in the next 2-3 years. Geelong: end of an era, but will still be competitive. Can those that have climbed the mountain keep their hunger ? They look old and like they've lost hunger to me. Dogs: too many players over 30. Have some excellent young talent, but not enough in the 24-27 year old range. Saints: it's their last chance this year. Hayes is 30, Riewoldt has been battered for years, and there's just not enough talent coming through. Penty of spuds in their team that are protected by a few stars. Pies: will be thereabouts for the next few years. Getting a lot out of some average footballers. Good depth. Freo: a genuine proposition in the not too distant future. Inexperienced and travel factor will be issues. Carlton: still too many holes on their list. Will be competitive, but I don't see a flag under Ratten. Poor depth and too reliant on the mercenary. I won't go through any others, but when I evaluate the top 8 sides lists not much scares me. Some lack depth, some are too old, some lack stars ... I think we're very well placed as we move forward. This is an important draft/trade period for us to dot a couple of i's and cross a couple of t's. If our youth develop as expected I reckon we'll progress quicker than some think.

Yes, I heard that. The biggest concern I have with what I heard yesterday is "Chinese whispers". Which is why I was somewhat reluctant to post what I did. It only takes Jones to tell an old school mate "I've been approached by the Gold Coast", for someone third hand to tell me categorically "Jones is going to the Gold Coast". I'd back his manager's version. Not that I overly care if he stayed or went.

Those that know me would realise that I'm reasonably conservative with my offerings. I can't say that this is 100%, but I've heard this afternoon that Nathan Jones has decided to go to the GC. I'm led to believe that Nathan went to school at Peninsula Grammar and I've heard from an excellent source via that school that Jones is leaving. Don't shoot me if it turns out to be wrong.

Director of Coaching = Crock of [censored]