Macca

Fresh people may not make an ounce of difference with regards to picking top end talent from the draft. Our top end draft picks from the past were almost universally accepted as the best picks (I'm specifically talking about our top 5 picks) Those who want to continually blame those who were picking those universally accepted picks are continually ignoring what the actual truth is - that the draft is flawed and is largely a lottery. Many here have convinced themselves that Petracca & Brayshaw will be stars but those same people "probably" say the same thing every year about the "popular" picks. I guess if it's said enough times, they're bound to get a few right. I expect our club and other clubs to continue to pick "busts" because of the nature of the draft. It stands to reason. There are no guarantees when picking top end speculative prospects - no matter who is picking them.

Good point ... again, if he had a "hot" spot that would flare up in an inconsistent manner, both the player, the FD and coaches can start second guessing themselves. The advice might have been to try and play through it and they'd monitor it. Weeks turn into months and before you know it, they could have been repeating the same exercise for 2 years. Going into the 3rd year with a more professional way of doing things at the club - he's evaluated properly and gets the surgery done.

The coaching had an effect on a lot of our players, 'rjay'. but I do believe that as professional sportsmen, they had a duty to still go about things in a professional manner. Many of them didn't. Trengove had major injury issues when not many of our players did ... except for Clark. Both had foot injuries which is quite telling. Like Clark, I put just about all of it on the foot injury with Trengove ... the rest of it pales into insignificance if you've got no "take off speed" or speed in general - all other aspects of one's footy can be affected with a debilitating injury. Captaincy or no captaincy, if you're not fit enough, you can't produce. I've known plenty of people who have had their sporting lives affected because of injury - strangely enough, a lot of those injuries were lower leg issues (achilles, ankle, calf issues, stress fractures in their feet etc) I believe that Trengove probably did the noble thing and thought he could play through the injury but ... history tells us he couldn't do it. Footy clubs can be fairly unforgiving places for those who are constantly injured (especially if a player misses a multitude of games with a "mystery injury") Regardless of what happens with this "possible" trade, I hope he makes a full recovery and gets back to playing good footy. But does it have to be with Richmond? Ugh!

If we're going to look at the form of Trengove in 2012/13 then it's only fair that we look at the form of all our players in those 2 years - at least Trengove had a reason for not playing well - he had a "probable" busted foot (many here previously thought it must have been OP) Only Jones, Grimes, Clark & McDonald can hold their heads up high from the 2012 season and in 2013, only Jones (again) Garland, Terlich & Matt Jones had good seasons. As others have stated, this trade could come back to bite us unless ... the club knows a lot more than we know. There was talk that Jack was going to resume training towards the end of season but did he? And if he did, does anyone know how he fared?

Yep, mine is an opinion only but I believe I'm right. I've felt this way about Jack's issues all along - read the Trengove threads from 2012/13 if you can find them, Nash. I had a very similar opinion back then and haven't changed my stance. The events of the last day or so have just reaffirmed my view. Many here felt there was something wrong with him physically and it took until earlier this year to find out the extent of his problems. Also, I'm not actually trying to win an argument ... just offering my point of view. I can appreciate the other side of the argument and the other side of the argument might be right - I'll back my view though. Melbourne midfielder Jack Trengove will miss remainder of 2014 season with foot injury to navicular bone From Jack ...

Trengove has had a debilitating foot injury for "probably" 3 full seasons. That's why he hasn't produced - some here are trying to make it sound like he's had opportunities and failed without taking into account his injury issues. He's mostly played under duress (in my opinion) His foot injury was almost certainly misdiagnosed so who's to blame? He's had 2 full seasons to prove himself - his first 2 years. Most here were in agreement that he had a bright future after 2011. Having a crook foot in footy is a bit like having a crook AC joint or stress fractures for a fast bowler. Both types of injury can render a sportsperson close enough to useless. Also, some here are glossing over his injury concerns and only want to talk about his "form". He actually had major surgery earlier this year on a foot issue that he probably had for at least 18 months prior (probably more like 2+ years) That surgery kept him out for the whole season so we can assume it wasn't a "minor concern" Hogan has just missed a whole season with stress fractures - it's certainly not a form issue with him. By the way, Hogan still needs to find his feet ... if he plays a dozen games next season and has an impact in 3 or 4 of those games, we should be quite satisfied.

Carrying one player the likes of Trengove is no biggie for me ... after all, we've been carrying a multitude of C & D graders every year for the past 8 years. I can almost guarantee that once our list is finally settled upon after this drafting and trading period, we'll still have 6-10 "iffy" players on our list. Even the best clubs take a chance with 2 - 4 spots on a list. Drafting any 17/18 year old is a risk. Often it's a high risk especially when considering what a top end draft pick may or may not deliver. There's basically 2 camps here - those who believe he will or might recover from injury and start displaying good form and ... those who don't - they want to cut their losses and move on. Then there's the loyalty factor and how that can effect the culture of a club. We decry the attitude of many of our players wanting out (Scully, Clark, Sylvia, Rivers, Martin, Moloney & Frawley etc etc) but when we've a chance to show a bit of faith, suddenly a player becomes "expendable"

I believe he's had a debilitating foot injury since sometime in 2011. Because of that, he hasn't been able to perform anywhere near his best. I think about it in the same way as if a player had to play with a debilitating knee injury. In sport, there's excuses and reasons but having a debilitating injury is a reason for not performing well, not an excuse. Contrarily, the club might have done some tests on him since he's recovered from his major operation and those tests may not have been pleasing. Jack may or may not have been unable to join in full training yet. A couple of other points ... 1) We shouldn't necessarily be looking at Richmond over evaluating Trengove here and, as an extension of that, us being opportunistic. 2) A player almost certainly can't lose his natural pace so quickly unless it is injury related. (Trengove could run a 2.9 for 20 metres when tested) Athletes do not ordinarily lose that sort of pace in the space of 18 months to 2 years (unless there are other factors involved) 3) He's a former captain and has shown real loyalty for the club when many others haven't. We're trying to improve our culture and a show of faith in Trengove would be a very small price to pay (if, in the end, it doesn't quite work out) If he gets himself right, he could become a very good footballer. I may be prepared to write him off in terms of becoming a very good player ... down the track - but not yet. He's a keeper for mine.

I cared little about the result and that was never my point Trengove dominated Why do you think the Tigers have made an offer?

Trengove dominated in this pre-season game against the Tigers ... I remember thinking he was back in business and commented as such at the time... maybe they thought the same? Match report and stats ... Melbourne 1 13 11 98 defeated Richmond 1 10 15 84 Trenners ... 29 disposals ... 13 marks ... ran to position well all night and was arguably best on ground ... only 8 months ago. So often a team will go after a player who plays well against them. This bloke could burn us if we let him go. There are others who I'd let go before him.

Couple from Paul Simon ... these 2 tracks are from his acclaimed album 'Graceland'

Week 6 tips ... Denver San Diego San Francisco

TV games ... Friday 11.30am Indianapolis at Houston (ESPN) Monday 4.00am - 10.30am RedZone (ESPN) 4.00am New England at Buffalo (7mate) 7.25am Washington at Arizona (7mate) 11.30am NY Giants at Philadelphia (7mate & ESPN) Tuesday 11.30am San Francisco at St. Louis (ESPN) All the week 6 games NFL Week 6 Elo Ratings And Playoff Odds

I expect some surprises 'rjay' but the template was set last year. It's early doors but last year was a real step up from previous years (in terms of our overall recruiting) Last off season we brought in a cross section of young prospects, some talented players in their early 20's and a couple of senior players. More of the same could be expected. Roos will still draft at least a few young prospects (4?) I believe we have to have at least 3 "live" picks anyway but I think I'm right in saying that Stretch is already one of those 3.

There is a chance we might trade picks 2&3 for a multitude of players and picks. History tells us that there are some very good players found in the draft right up to pick 40 ... sometimes further on. Identifying them is the hard bit. A lot might depend on how many on our current list are delisted or traded out. I've a feeling we might trade out at least a couple of players who we ordinarily might have kept in previous years. Sometimes you just have to change things up to give yourself a chance to get better. We'll probably keep either pick 2 or 3 to use in the draft but it wouldn't surprise me if we traded both picks. I would be surprised if we didn't trade at least one of those picks (another Tyson/Salem type deal beckons) Ordinarily, it's difficult to bring in 4 or 5 ready to go "best 22" players but with the trading power that these picks gives us, that scenario is possible. Last year we brought in Tyson, Vince & Cross who were ready to go and with the extra top end draft pick that we have this time around, we might be able to bring in at least another 3 likely types. Riley & Michie were in the same sort of category but obviously not as prominent. It promises to be a fascinating couple of weeks for the club.

Yeeeeaaaahhhh !! Well played PJ (and the club) Fingers crossed we get value out of the pick.

Still no points to allocate in the tipping comp (otherwise known as ... "Intolerable Cruelty" - the sequel) Cinci put most of us out. No change in the points tally ... 1 - Dappa Dan 0 - Anyone who can still be bothered. Week 6 games - can someone please tip 3 winners? Otherwise we might have to make it the home teams for a week!! It does look a little easier next week, all the same. No real surprises in today's games and Dappa summed up things quite well in the above post ... as for tomorrow's game, I give Washington a sneaky chance but Seattle should be too strong ... Seahawks 31 Washington 24.

I might also add that we need to have our "possible" free agents stitched up on longer term contracts (if we want to retain them of course) We can't be leaving those negotiations to just prior to their last year either. The trading window starts tomorrow and if Jones or Garland aren't re-signed in the next 2 weeks, we run the risk of losing either or both as free agents next year.

I probably should have explained the idea of front ending contracts a bit better in my original post. As an overall example ... 1) Our 1st and 2nd year draftees (and rookies) are on whatever the base salary is for their initial 2 years (unless a rookie is upgraded) 2) Our bottom 10-15 players should be on the base contract (or not much more) plus maybe match payments if that's how their salaries are structured. This particular area may need to be addressed going forward. 3) Our top 15-20 players should get the bulk of the TPP but again, they shouldn't be getting paid "overs" so ... we can front end their contracts so as to leave space in the cap for ...... 4) Incoming free agents or other talented, experience recruits.

Once again, the TV games ... Monday 4.00am - 10.30am RedZone (ESPN ... "Every Touchdown From Every Game") 4.00am Houston at Dallas (7mate) 7.30am NY Jets at San Diego (7mate) 11.30am Cincinnati at New England (7mate & ESPN) Tuesday 11.30am Seattle at Washington (ESPN) All the week 5 games NFL Week 5 Elo Ratings And Playoff Odds

The advent of free agency has in effect, opened up opportunities for other players to change clubs (mainly those who are out of contract) The law of unintended consequences or is it? The cynic in me reckons that the players association and the AFL knew where it would all end up. They'd only have to take a glance at how things work in other sports. Next we're going to see contracted players wanting a move ... in soccer, that sort of player movement is widespread. Over time, conclusions have been reached that keeping a contracted player who wants to move is often counter productive. Under those circumstances, a player can decide to not play up to expectations if he's not granted a move so a club will therefore often decide to trade the player concerned. The problem we've got as a club is that we're probably paying our lesser lights far too much money. A way out of that is to front end the contracts of our best players until we've got a much better list. Given the state of our list we should have a lot of room in our salary cap but I'm not sure we do have that room. The problem isn't and won't be confined to free agency.

Which is an enormous advantage if true. Makes you wonder how in that 3 year period we beat them twice and on the other occasion, they completely obliterated us. Of course, there's a lot that doesn't make a lot of sense but if we had more information, it might make sense.

So, in effect, they may have been receiving the benefits of taking PED's for at least 3 seasons (if we count this season as well) By the way, with some PED's, the benefits can be long term - especially with regards to muscle building and core strength. Weren't they on the "good stuff?" Apparently they were at least asking for the good stuff. I've also heard that a prominent "journo" wanted to write an exposé about a prominent retired player but the story was pulled for various reasons. The exposé was going to highlight how he was heavily into PED's in his playing days. There's a lot we don't know or will ever know.

Yep, and let's not forget that they did indeed qualify for the finals in 2013 before being disqualified from participating. In my opinion, the benefits of the PED's that they "probably" took has been glossed over because of the drama surrounding the whole saga. Again, many associate taking PED's with winning but more so with winning overall. If I were to say that Essendon won an extra 5 or 6 games in 2013 and an extra 4 or 5 wins in 2014 because of PED's, many here would be asking me for proof. Of course, I wouldn't be able to offer definitive proof but I may still be on the money.

Whilst you may be correct, 'hoopla', wasn't it Dank that said that he kept records so, as an extension of that, might he still have them? The records may have also been put "aside" (conveniently) Who knows? The other thing you won't hear the media talk about (or indeed the general footy public) are the benefits that the players might have received from "possibly" taking PED's. Again, if it were say, a professional cyclist, we would almost automatically assume that they're performing better because of the PED's. You rarely if ever hear people or anyone in the media say that Essendon are playing finals because they took PED's. That probably would have happened if they'd snagged a flag but in my eyes, improvement can come from taking PED's without winning - per se. An example of that is the 'Tour de France' of say, 10 years ago ... if an abundance of cyclists were on the gear, it stands to reason that a number of those cyclists gained benefit but didn't even come close to getting a podium finish in any of the stages. They still took PED's though. I've got an acquaintance who used to ride in the smaller events in Europe and he reckons that at one stage 90% of the cyclists were on the gear.