Macca

It's been said that each listed player costs that particular club 200k per season - that's before that player is even paid. The cost is mainly the FD spend but if the whole infrastructure is geared around the players, then each player listed is going to cost a reasonable amount of money. That cost would apply to the best player and the last player listed - so, if that's the case, what's the difference between the last player on the list (pick #60 odd) and an overseas project player? Especially if that overseas player is only rookie listed ... Roos praises Westrupp’s courage

And we're not in catch-up mode now? We're still miles off being a top 4 side and we need to find as many good players as possible - and I don't particularly care how we get those good players. It's whatever works in my eyes - every trade or draft pick is a risk. Free agents are risky - there is no set template except a club should never limit itself to one particular way of recruiting.

In truth, they should serve as reminder that the draft is hit and miss and sometimes a club misses far more than it hits. We're starting to hit again just like we hit more often back in the 90's and and the late 80's ... is it a cyclical thing? In my eyes yes although most clubs have less disproportionate outcomes with drafting. Richmond went through a similar patch to what we did but not nearly as bad - bad enough however to stop them getting out of the lower reaches of the ladder - then they drafted Reiwoldt, Cotchin, Deledio and Martin. Hopefully we're entering a much better phase with Hogan, Salem, Brayshaw, Viney, Petracca (hopefully) and others. It is innovative when compared to just drafting high school teenagers. We've had that conversation - the club should do it again if it was the right sort of player. It's just one spot on the list - it should be remembered that there's about 200+ project players in the system anyway - listed AFL players who we don't know whether they're going to be any good or not. Each of these 200+ player "costs" the clubs involved. Would you rather an overseas "project" player or any number of C & D graders who we gave every chance? Often at least 4-5 years with many of them for close to a negligible return. I just don't see having 1 overseas player as a big deal at all - it's not like they cost that much anyway - probably a little bit more than a pick #65 or thereabouts. We're talking a negligible amount of money. Don't forget that Roos was at Sydney when they went down the path of securing the odd overseas player.

Yeah, but we could have still brought in a "project" player and in turn unearthed a good player despite the club not being a well run club. A diamond in the rough so to speak. Sometimes a player shines above the mess - Nathan Jones. I'm just a believer that good players become good players because of their own drive and ambition. Coaches can't turn a D grader into a B grader (forget A grade - that's out of the question) Development probably accounts for 10-15% improvement - Blease, Strauss, Gysberts, Cook, Tapscott, Morton, Maric et al were never that good to begin with - they were all decent or top juniors and that's where it stopped.

Willo was a top player and again, at the time we were seen as taking a big risk in giving him another chance. As it turned out it was a huge win for the club - we were quite aggressive in our recruiting during that Barassi/Jordan era even though we were a poorly performed team. In a lot of ways they set things up for Northey, Wells and co. It's very similar to what is happening now (albeit in a different sense) Roos (like Barassi) is able to see the talent in an under-performer from another club - hopefully we'll keep Roos on in a capacity where we can continue that trend of turning footballers around.

The innovation I see is as follows JV7 ... vandenBerg was a risk in some people's eyes but all we gave up was a rookie spot. ✓ Harmes the same ✓ (hopefully) We gave up pick #2 ((probably Kelly) for an injury prone Tyson and an unknown at pick #9 (Salem) ✓ We gave up a "prized" 2nd round draft pick for an ageing veteran (Vince) ✓ We also listed another ageing veteran (Cross) who had been de-listed by a club that had only won 8 games that season. ✓ The Frost/O-Mac/ANB deal could end up being a good win and if Lumumba finds his form we'll get another win there. ✓ (hopefully) We gave up pick 61 for Garlett ✓ We held our nerve and used picks #2 & #3 on Brayshaw & Petracca ✓ (hopefully) Granted, there's been a few minor misses as well but all of the above examples were met with varying degrees of derision here yet there were also a number of people here who saw each move as an innovative one. The latest is the Melksham move or the possible trading of Toumpas, Howe, Watts and/or Dawes - we need to take risks to get better. Having one spot for an overseas project player is hardly going to destroy the club - that sort of thinking can lead to other positives. We shouldn't be worried about changing things up either - to my way of thinking Roos and co are changing things up. For the first time in a long time I actually have real faith in our FD.

I have a different view - what you see as high risk I see as low risk ... it's like boundary hugging football under Neeld - high risk in my view but many here saw it as low risk. I like to change things up anytime - we're seen as a club that lacks innovation, drive and ambition. We're not trend-setters and we can be. I actually believe that Roos and co are taking us in a different direction - our recruiting strategy is different to how it once was and that's at least a step in the right direction.

There's hits and misses stuie ... it's not a perfect world. What did Westrupp cost us in real terms? Look at the money, time, patience, coaching et al that clubs put into a top end draft pick - those sort of players will always get more time because they were top juniors - ruling a line through them too early is risky so the clubs persevere. These sort of players can often be very costly in real terms if that player is a bust. Again, that's just how things work. Nothing is going to change because that's how the system works ... my answer - change the system to get better results. Raise the draft age. .

Great, gutsy win by the Wallabies. To hold out Wales the way we did was fantastic (for a lot of that time we were down 2 men) ... a top performance. Next up is Scotland next week in the QF's (we've avoided South Africa who now play Wales)

That was then - this is now. Besides which those players may not have been any better with the best development programs in the world. In my opinion they were just decent or top juniors and that was it. There's any number of 17/18 year old footballers who never get any better after that age - why? No one really knows but we could just put it down to "That's how things work" ... and it's not just at our club either, every club goes through the same issue. Those wanting a definitive answer are clutching at straws or just need someone or something to blame. Part of getting our act together is taking risks - sit on your hands and you'll get nowhere. Roos and co. have been thinking outside the box unlike the previous regimes who were draft obsessed.

Brian Wilson as well

The best time to think outside the box is when you are down and out (or on your way up) ... way back when we conducted the Irish experiment, we were hardly in a position of strength. We had gone from being a complete basket case ('77 - '81) to the next mediocre level (8 or 9 wins) when the club decided to expand it's recruiting policy. In fact, the club withstood quite a deal of ridicule for quite some time until Wight and Stynes started playing regularly and well. It was a brave move and for once, we were the innovators. The credit we then received never matched the previous ridicule that came our way - but that's how things work.

Yep, the Colts have now won 2 games without Luck and with a 40 year old Matt Hasselbeck. That division is theirs for the taking - it's really only a matter of the seeding number for them if they're fair dinkum.

Yikes ... what's happened to your Blue Jays GTG? - they've now got to win the last 3 games of their series against Texas to progress. Good luck with that! Cardinals winning was no real surprise but the Mets going 1 up was really important for them. The Royals clawed 1 back after falling behind in their 2nd game against Houston. I know the MLB doesn't like messing with their traditions but having a longer post season with a shorter regular season appeals to people like me ... I'd like to see the wild-card playoffs be a best of 3 and these divisional series to be a best of 7. That would add approximately 8-10 days to the post season but is a 162 game regular season really necessary in this day and age? There is talk of a 154 game regular season anyway. I do like the 2 month long NBA & NHL playoff schedule.

But the Hawks gave up 2 x first round draft picks (via trades) as against the talk of only one pick for Yarran. Burgoyne is a better player than Yarron but the trade (or possible trade) for either player reflects that difference. And, at the time,(which is an ultra-important factor) Burgoyne was perceived as a risky trade because he was coming off a knee injury. It worked out beautifully for the Hawks but they still took a risk (at the time)

Any draft pick number might bring a club a complete bust - there are no guarantees. We've had more than our fair share of busts but so has every other club on countless occasions. Many here talk as if a certain "number draft pick" will bring a certain type of result - which is nonsense. Clubs are often willing to give up picks which they put a true value on rather than the "perceived" value of these picks. It's been going on for some time too with the Burgoyne example above being a good indication. Let's not forget that Tyson had had a few injuries before we traded for him - and we traded pick 2 for Tyson (and pick 9) and that numbered pick (#2) often has an assumed outcome of A grade (mainly by the supporters) Richmond were willing to give up pick 12 for Trengove. The risk may well come down to "Injury risk for a top player (or possible top player) vs possible bust for a top junior (or reasonable junior)" ... people here really owe it to themselves to study the results of the drafts - it's an absolute eye-opener in a macro sense. And we keep hearing about this shallow draft talk but there's always juniors who don't stand out (who get picked late) who then end up being top players - Fyfe and numerous others are good examples of that. The draft results are often all over the place and I'd argue that any given draft is all over the place (in terms of the actual results) Having said all that, I still fully understand why a club would go to the draft with a top end pick - again, trading that pick can be a risk but so can using that pick be a risk. In the end a club is always taking some sort of risk - none of this stuff is risk free.

Cubs through but St Louis will be tough opposition - if they can beat the Cardinals they might go on and beat the curse ... here are the 4 match-ups with my tips in dark italics (for what it's worth) St Louis vs Cubs Royals vs Houston Blue Jays vs Texas Dodgers vs Mets

Seattle New England Denver

Week 5 games ... 2 points on offer this week Leaderboard in the comp 2 - JV7 1 - Gorgoroth, cowboy_from_hell titan_uranus, Georgiou R.R. Martin, Macca 0 - Everyone else

It seemed like the commentators & the special comments guys didn't know about the rule either - they all seemed suitably bemused when the rules guy came in and said that batting the ball out in those circumstances was an illegal move. I didn't pick up on it nor did a few people that I spoke to about it today know either - seems it's a "judgement" call but it looked quite blatant to me and the ref was right there to see it. If the call had have been made in Detroits favour they would have been 1st and a half a yard with 1min 50 odd seconds left to play ... here it is again for those who haven't seen it. Btw, what's with all the missed field goals? That Jags kicker couldn't hit the side of a barn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLL1ByAJb6M

A lot of close finishes in today's games ... 7 games decided by less than a TD (most within a field goal) Redzone couldn't keep up in the early games - still great viewing though. Many of the games carried a fair impact too ... Biggest losers were the Eagles, Raiders, KC & probably Dallas Biggest winners were Atlanta, Carolina, Denver & Cincinnati again whilst the Giants, Jets, Redskins, Chargers & the Rams all had important wins. Seattle should win comfortably tomorrow so a Lions win really would surprise. No points won this week in the tipping comp ... Leaderboard 2 - JV7 1 - Gorgoroth, cowboy_from_hell titan_uranus, Georgiou R.R. Martin, Macca 0 - Everyone else

What we think a player might be worth might be entirely different to how another club might view that player So ... "Trade him, he's no good" can be associated with "We could get a 2nd rounder for him" ... it's often a buyers and a sellers market. That "want" often depends on the player involved - it's not an across the board thinking. 2 identical types of players may not be of any interest at all to any club or maybe one will attract interest. Or both might attract interest. Chaos can often rule with these type of things. We've seen it happen countless times before ... often the "said" player might have had a good game against a certain team and that team's hierarchy remembers that good game. There are other reasons too of course - role player required or such like. Look at the interest that the Tigers suddenly had in Trengove - who saw that coming? It should also be noted that T-Mac played forward towards the end of the season and Frawley played forward for most of the 2014 season - we might trade or draft for a tall or 2 who can play forward and O-Mac, Frost and even Petracca and vandenBerg can't be ruled out as tall(ish) forward options. Roos has no doubt got some firm ideas about how he wants to structure our forward line ... we supporters are almost certainly in the dark on those ideas.

Flower finished 2nd in our B&F 4 times, he also finished 3rd twice whilst finishing 4th once and 5th once as well. By contrast Greg Wells won it twice, was 2nd twice, finished 3rd three times and 4th twice. So both champs had 9 top 5 finishes. In the case of Wells it was 9 top 4 finishes. Any player would take that sort of record, anytime, As supporters, we may see it differently but we should see it though the eye of the player. Finishing in the top 5 of a B&F is quite an achievement in my eyes. There are some years where the team performs so poorly that a top 5 finish loses it's gloss but as a general rule, it's a great guide. Robbie's Brownlow record is possibly a better indication of how good he was - a total of 150 votes when in those days 20 votes in any given year went close to winning the Brownlow (apart from 2 years in the 70's when the 2 umpires gave votes) .

Well, not only did we defeat England to guarantee a QF spot but we knocked them out of the tournament to boot. That's what I call a win/win TD. We'll need to defeat Wales to top our group ... finishing 2nd in our group would probably mean a QF match-up against the South Africans. A win gives the team an easier passage to the Semi finals. We can, in theory, avoid the All Blacks until the actual final ... so far, we're on track to do that.

There are ways and means to have way more than 9% of your salary cap available at any given time. By the way, is that figure accurate? Rather than being overly concerned about removing the minimum salary cap, I'd rather the club look at ways of making sure that the 10 million is spent wisely. As an example - the club could set aside x amount of the salary cap for the top placegetters in the B&F. If that was standard practice then we could at least (in theory) not be necessarily overpaying the lesser lights ... or we could just pay our best players more than market value or pay bonuses to the best performed players whilst at the same time be on the lookout for some genuine A grade talent. Setting aside 8 million for the standard player contracts with other 2 million "floating" is one way of doing things. It just needs a bit of creative thinking - the real issue is that this club just hasn't made a big enough effort in the more recent past in bringing in some genuine A grade talent. We spent the money on Clark & Dawes butt neither of those 2 could ever be described as stars of the game. In many ways, our whole strategy lacked substance ... we just kept pointing towards the draft as our salvation - and it didn't work. Basically we put all our eggs in one basket - high risk in my eyes. The club was draft obsessed and what we ended up with was far too many unproven players on our list. There are a number of ways that a club can bring talent into a club ... drafting, trading, free agents, delisted free agents, targeting A graders and role players .. and then there's developing the existing players. Roos and co are doing all that as well as trying to build good culture. .