autocol

Good post, 55. Bear in mind that 81% TOG is the value you'd expect for each player if they all spent an equal amount of time on the bench. Shaw, Mattner, and to a lesser extent Johnson are rotating off a reasonable amount, which you'd expect for the rebounders who cover a lot of ground. Shaw in particular covers plenty of the park from the back half. Still, it shows that your three key backs pretty much have to stay on the paddock almost the whole time, so that the burst players can recuperate on the bench.

I like you, BH, and I gather you're a much more rational thinker than the average footy fan, and that's good. However, history would show that the odds of drafting a true superstar with pick one are not that flash. Really, Reiwoldt/Hodge/Goddard (00/01/02) are the only three superstars taken at pick one since the inception of the draft. It's a hit ratio a touch above 11% (even discounting the last few years where they haven't had time to develop yet, you're still only looking at 20%). I think punters continue to overrate the value of the draft, both in terms of the value of an existing player a particular pick is worth at trade time, and also in their expectation of the performance of a player taken with a particular pick. Personally, I think trading pick 20 for Chris Dawes is a sensible move, and that "a very good player" is exactly what you should be hoping for with pick one. There's probably been just as many superstars taken at pick 30 or below (or the PSD / Rookie drafts) as there have been from the top ten picks. It's obviously very difficult to know, as a recruiter, what to look for exactly when attempting to pick an AFL footballer out of a field of talented kids. Clearly too, some recruiters are better than others and, on the evidence we've seen over the last five years, ours were shithouse, but i still think you have to accept that "a very good player" is a decent return from pick one. Thus far, I don't rate Watts a very good player. He's too soft, and my fear is he always will be.

Not with the ball, he isn't, and the statistics for it are provided in this post on the first page. Sure, he carries on like a try-hard Hayden Ballantyne, but given the ball he makes good decisions and executes them well. He doesn't only kick to the first open man, he kicks to the right open man who will also have an option going forward. Personally, I'm all aboard the Dunn train.

I entirely agree. The particularly troublesome ones can have their IP blocked, which not only prevents them from choosing another psuedonym, but actually prevents them from visiting the site at all. The average football fan is unlikely to know how to circumvent such a punishment.

I agree. In fact, I reckon being the number one draft pick is a significant burden to carry in any case, let alone one as trumped up and overblown as MFC handled it. I think the best draft position to have is pick two, because you get the second-best choice, and he gets to develop at his own pace without all the media attention and criticism, and the prefix "Number One Draft Pick" every time the commentator calls his name. All that said, I think Watts lacks the mongrel required to really compete at this level, and I don't see him developing it at this stage of his life. As a result, he'll never be a star. Viney will have more impact than Watts this year (and beat him in the B&F), because the strongest muscle in his body is his heart.

So if we had Nick Reiwoldt in the team, you'd play him in defense because we've got Pedo and an untried 18 year old to play forward? By that logic we should never have moved Wattsy back... Anyway, whatever. I'm not here to argue that we should be moving him forward today, just that the potential for him to be a damaging roving CHF is there. I'll be quietly chuffed if I turn out to be correct.

He's only a kid. It's a common progression for a player to start in the backline - in a negating role, as you say - and move forward as they mature. Tom has the perfect combination of attributes to become a monster key forward if he continues along his current path. Tall defenders are a dime a dozen. Monster key forwards, most certainly are not. Let's revisit in two or three years.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I reckon Tom McDonald will be the next Nick Riewoldt. He's got the tank to wear a backline into the ground, and in three years time I expect him to do exactly that.

I notice you and your family almost never drink alcohol, Robbie. Despite the fact that it is legal, socially acceptable and readily available, you choose note to partake in it. Yet, you claim that if other drugs were legal and readily available, suddenly everyone is going to be a junkie. You seem to be experiencing some cognitive dissonance on the issue here. Alcohol is a drug. Just as THC (weed), MDMA (ecstasy), opiates, amphetamines, etc etc. They're all drugs, and alcohol is no less "druggy" than the others. It's just as damaging mentally and physically (I would argue much more damaging than THC on both fronts, in fact), yet you don't seem to be calling for alcohol to be banned. If you did, of course, everyone would refer to the prohibition laws in the USA in the 20's when alcohol was illegal, which served to achieve nothing except make the likes of Al Capone fabulously rich. Clearly, prohibition was a failure. Yet, it lives on today under another name - The War on Drugs. It's failing just as spectacularly now as it was then. People are using drugs regularly, despite their illegal nature (just as they did with alcohol), and the profits from the sale of those drugs is not going to the government to help fund education programs and harm minimisation techniques, but to organised crime gangs to fund violent criminal lifestyles (as it did with alcohol). Making drugs legal, all of them, every single one, and making them available in safe doses which are clearly marked and regulated will not correspond with a sudden increase in the use of drugs. It will, however, correspond with a sudden an immediately noticeable drop in organised crime and violence. The sad truth is that some people will always choose to use drugs to alter their minds. You're not one of them, but you must concede that they exist, the evidence for that is irrefutable. So, if we accept that as the truth, we must decide what to do to create the best society we can around the problem. The present method encourages and rewards violent criminals, pushes drug-users away from healthcare, family and friends, pushes drug-users towards engaging in criminal activity themselves to fund their drug habits, and attaches to them a social stigma that makes it even more difficult for them to leave the drug taking culture (over and above the physical withdrawal symptoms they experience). A society with legal and regulated supply of recreational drugs would not encourage or reward violent criminals, would keep regular drug users under the watchful eye of healthcare professionals, would generate a source of revenue with which to implement educational programs about the harms of drug abuse, and remove (some) of the need for users to engage in criminal activity to fund their addictions (price dependent). Again, I ask. If illicit drugs became legal, would you and your sons suddenly start taking them, and if not, why do you assume everyone else would?

I frickin' LOVE Lynden Dunn. He's a legend. His body looks like a killing machine this year, I hope he can cement a spot in the side.

So you've never seen steam?

What a ridiculous thing to say. This is the sort of attitude which, in other times, causes soldiers to do horrific unspeakable things on the orders of the sociopaths directing them. It doesn't matter where your allegiances lie, a strong person will make their own judgements based on their own moral code... "no matter what the facts are"?? Far out mate! What's wrong with you!? Personally, I'm absolutely sure that Melbourne tanked (if that word means "structure the second half of the season to make a fifth win improbable). However, I also don't think we broke any rules that were in place at the time. I thought the behaviour of the club was disgusting, and I think the epic clear-out that has occurred since is absolutely brilliant as a result. You can't call me a "non-supporter" for feeling that way. Not a chance. Regards Anderson, I think it's pretty clear Demetriou has given him only one option. Resign, and get out of the building right now.

I'd like to know what you thought about Nathan Jones in 2009.

He's the best ruckman at the club! The short stints he spent in the middle in 2012 (early in the season when our midfield was terrible) were easily the most productive periods for the midfield at the time. I think, especially with the new ruck rules, Mitch is easily superior to the Russian as a ruck.

Is it just me, or is anyone else disappointed we won't have any Wines behind the Sellar Dawes? That said, I'm absolutely rapt with Thumper instead...

if you're the torrenting type... send me a pm.

For a huge man they are some impressive figures...

A player or coach describing their opposition - "we really respect the way they go about it". BT "kick around the corner"... He's in the middle of an oval, Bristle, where's this 'corner' you speak of? BT again, describing any player under the age of 23, "out of the -insert development side of choice- footy factory"... The only footy factory I know of, BT, was recently discovered to be utilising child labour. Those places where kids play football are called 'clubs', you goose.

Can't agree there. The guy is studying a law degree while playing afl footy. That says to me he's smart, committed, hard working and has foresight. Doesn't sound like poor culture to me.

This line alone demonstrates that you simply sit in the stands and watch the team play (as pretty much everyone here does). You think leadership is being a good kick? I've followed some incredible leaders in my life who I've never seen kick a ball at all, does that mean they shouldn't have got the gig? There's 165 hours a week where you don't get to see the players and how they operate, so what makes you think you know who the best leader is with three hours of evidence a week? Being able to play and being able to lead are two different things. Being able to do both at the same time is a rare skill. If there's a premiership captain at our club right now (and I hope there is), I think his name is Jack Grimes.

Dunn is one of my favourites. He's got some mongrel in him, which we need more of.

No they're not. They're good players. Being a good player might help to build credibility, but it doesn't create a leader in and of itself. I'm probably the worst player on my volleyball team, but when the other team gets a run on, and I bring the group together and talk up the effort we're going to put in on the next point in order to stop the rot, I get a positive reaction. I'm a good leader (in my little, D grade shitty volleyball team. I'm not talking myself up here!). It seems to me that the crowd (that's us), by and large gets sucked into following the "leaders" of a club, but we only get to interact with them in one way... watching them play. Obviously the guys that play the best will stand out to us in the outer. But the game is three hours in a week. There's a hell of a lot more interaction off the field than on it. Leadership is built on a whole lot more than playing talent, that's for sure. (That said, it would be nice if Trenners could slot a regulation 30m-out-directly-in-front goal now and then. Some playing credibility is required!)

Our team is drastically short on experience. Green would be a veteran, surely, so half of whatever we pay him (which probably wouldn't be much anyway) doesn't count against the cap. He consistently racks up good numbers when at Casey, which suggests to me that if the midfield delivery were to improve, he could still contribute two to three goals a game at AFL level... especially if Mitch and another piece of tall timber (Cloke, or otherwise) are taking the top two defenders. I think he'll play another year (playing maybe 15 games), and I think it will work for both him and the club.

Sure, but up until his injury he was well and truly earning the biccies, from my perspective. Put in 100%, played with pride in the jumper, and kicked a sh!tload of goals. Excellent recruiting on our part, just bad luck with the injury.