Diamond_Jim

Good points Fifty-5 but the attraction of Wells is that as a free agent we do not have to trade. If you want Hartlett someone has to go. Let's face it.... other than our few good senior players and the gun youngsters (any of which we would be mad to trade).... we do not have anyone that would excite a trade (no first round pick either,)

This is where we need to be smart. Two or three year deal with a big part of it front loaded. This leaves money next year for the Hogan deal and presumably we have some savings in the short term from the departure of Dawes and Grimes. (Of course some of that may have already been spent on T McDonald and Watts.) The riskiest part is the third year of the deal but hopefully that is the sweetener that gets the deal across the line with Wells and of course without risk... you know how it goes. Hell we have a dominant ruckman.... we need absolute class in the mid field and this guy has it.

Not sure if I wanted to hear that. I remember watching Armstrong play a final for the Weagles. His job was to run with the fabulous midfield take a handball and give it off again. He has a premiership medallion which he would never have seen at Melbourne. Good on him !

so we took Armstrong instead of Dal Santo Boy that reminded me of the lows after the relative highs of 2000 (GF excepted) The lesson really is about how hard it is to get to the top and how much harder it is to stay there. One has to respect Hawthorn and Geelong not to mention Sydney for their recent dominance. Meanwhile we can only dream of moving beyond mediocrity.

Damian Barret and Matthew Lloyd discussing our season The most disappointing thing is that both of them see us as stagnating next year and finishing around 10 wins. I know many on this forum will lambast these commentators but it shows how we are realistically perceived in the media. Consistent wins against bottom 8 teams will do a lot to put us up there. http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-09-06/time-to-put-up-or-shut-up-demons

The EFC players are still within the cocoon of the club and the AFL. Later in life as these factors recede into the background and they think about their personal legacy the bitterness will grow, To some extent it would have been good for them to go to other clubs and express their disappointment (even anger) with the EFC but that is not to be the case. Many lessons to be learnt but it may take many years for it to sink in. The next "lesson" will be the removal of Jobe Watson's Brownlow. No doubt there will be an outpouring of sympathy but perhaps in time it will be regarded in the same way as we now look at the Olympic medalists who are being stripped of their medals.

I think there is a role for a good full forward in today's football but that role is diminshing as it is replaced by the quick runner to space. In a way the hit up chf is becoming more important as the link player. Very happy to keep Hogan but if it's at a price or in a manner that disrupts the club I am also happy to see the right trade made.

I would be interested to see how 7 a side works out. One of the problems with AFL when compared to soccer is the numbers required to make the game work and the size of the ground. At it's simplest soccer can be a game in the park played by around 8 people in total with a few backpacks marking the goals. In comparison AFL with that number is just kick to kick

Funny you say that.... back in the 70's the half back flank was the traditional spot for your debutant and/or your ageing player. Now it demands one of your quickest and smartest players so Robbie would fit in very well.

so what was their excuse for the Carlton debacle ?? Those two last games should not be forgotten if we are to improve beyond our present mediocrity. ( yes we have improved from poor to mediocre but there is a long long way to go.)

And now it is revealed that they have been "secretly" trialling "7 a side" football at VFL level. The idea is for it to be a summer game apparently http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-secretly-trials-new-version-of-football-20160907-gral7s.html

My gut feeling is that it would favour those clubs with good rucks and midfields. The key position players would continue to disappear as the back and fro running would increase. The trick is like soccer to put your forward player into space and let them run onto the ball.

As an aside would people think this is a good idea at VFL level while leaving AFL lists and numbers the same as at present for now.

Actually in some ways it does the opposite in the sense that the talent pool is not spread as thinly as today (quality of game improves) , players salaries go up (less players to pay)

I think what he is saying is that the total ground covered by 16 players today would be the same as 18 would have covered say 10 years ago. The game needs to be opened up (most people agree) and the rule changes (deliberate out of bounds, 15 metre area around the mark, limited interchange etc) are all with this result in mind. 16 players is a drastic change but it is worth a think.

Seems that there is some support for trialling sixteen a side football. The old VFA was 16 (no wings) so it isn't groundbreaking. Not sure what I think but it could be a way of opening up the game. Would also make zoning that little bit harder perhaps. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-07/afl-prepared-to-trial-16aside-matches

We are not speaking about getting an "average 32 year old" when we look at taking on a veteran. Rather we are looking at a formerly elite player who can still contribute on field. The odds of us getting a similar player in the 24-28 bracket are very low and the price in both dollars and years of contract offering would be high. Hibberd and Mellksham will hopefully be good players for the club but I do ot believe anyone is expecting them to perform at a level above being a solid contributor to a regular 22. It might be different if the likes of Grimes, Garland etc were pushing for selection but they are not in the same league as the players we are talking about It is one position on a list and at the moment it makes sense for our list. (To make it clear I am arguing for this type of player.... it does not need to be Dal Santo...happy to leave that selection to the club).

No problem with this offer We have room for a top veteran that can give us one year and then a possible second. Happy for the club to determine who this player should be. Not sure how the guaranteed coaching works with salary caps. Would like to hear more from others on this aspect. Sounds like a wonderful loophole for the richer clubs.

Very good Biffen !!!

Thanks for those explanations. I also understand that although you might list a player you do not have to take him. If so he is then available to other clubs. I like the underlying logic of all these rookie categories but the rules can sometimes be hard to fathom.

Can someone explain to me how this aspect of the draft works. Are they an extra rookie spot over and above the existing rookies. I see from the linked article that Geelong and Essendon have nominated around 6 players each yet we have nominated only one. Can you take more than one? Thanks

Lucky for the AFL that the top 4 ended up the way it did otherwise there would be zero finals in Melbourne the first week. Not impossible in future for all finals (other than the GF) to be outside Melbourne

The Storm v Cronulla game was very good. Top of the table clash with the Storm ending the season on top. Incredible how the Storm are so competitive year after year. Much to like about them but those colours are not exactly high fashion !!

Sam Hayes (200 cm ruck/foward) looks like he might be the goods but my understanding is that he is too young for this years draft. Probably go too high for us next year anyway.

I remember going to the 2006 Sandringham v Geelong grand final at Princes Park when we were aligned with Sandy. We won but I came away thinking it was not really the Dees. Not sure what I would feel if I watched Casey win