ignition.

The rumour Treloar wants out appears to be popping up elsewhere also. http://www.saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=85434 I'm not entirely sure when his contract expires, that forum suggest the end of next year. Although if he wants out and the right deal comes along beforehand GWS may agree a year earlier. I also find it amusing that they suggest his desired clubs as "St. Kilda, Collingwood, and Essendon". At this point if he does ask to relocate back to Victoria I don't think it would matter as long as the club is showing signs (for him) and the best deal can be struck (for GWS).

I have been saying it for years, Treloar is GWS's best young midfielder. I rate him just as highly as O'Meara and would happily see the club go after him. He wouldn't come easy or cheap but he would be worth it (lining up next to Tyson and Viney around the bounce). Quite interestingly many rated he and Cameron as the best two U18 talents (some slipped in Patton) just prior to the 2011 Draft, as we know GWS had already claimed them. EDIT: Thanks for the info Jack. I didn't realize he was unhappy up there. Certainly sheds more line on Tyson's joke about living in Western Sydney at the start of year introduction (AGM I think).

Quite frankly I'm sick of hearing that Tyson/ Kelly comparison and I'm also sick of hearing the skewed argument of the actual trade. As Carlos Danger said above with reference to the facts of the "actual trade", it was Tyson (2011 NAB pick 3), pick 9 (we selected Salem) and pick 57 (we selected Hunt) for pick 2 (GWS selected Kelly), pick 20 diluting* to 22 (GWS selected Gardiner) and pick 76 (GWS opted to pass). Diluting* was due to three FA compensation picks along with the loss of Essendon's first round pick. As for this endless comparison between Tyson and Kelly, Roos has stated (refer to his round 8 post-game press conference) that if the club held pick two they would not have selected Kelly with it but instead use it on someone else (presumably Billings, Aish, or even Scharenberg). As it was reported many times prior to the draft clubs were having trouble differentiating and ranking the players past pick one - many clubs would have had a different order. This idiotic comparison has been driven by moronic media jocks like DB and Sam Edmund who have probably never touched a footy in their lives. Unfortunately it's caught on to the point where Tyson's name can't be mentioned without reference to Kelly, for example it was very frustrating watching the Rich vs. Melb replay with Luke Darcy stating how good he thought Tyson was and naming him within a short list of future stars of the game (Tom Liberatore was another), then Matthew Richardson buts in including Kelly, Darcy's response was something along the lines "too early to call". Overall I'm over the moon with the trade, so far it's well and truly looking like we ended on top. As I stated above Tyson is showing all the signs of a future star, and Salem is showing all the signs he is no draft bust and may have a long career ahead. It certainly was a good year at the trade and draft table for us.

I'm looking forward to watching Tyson's game develop more and more. We have picked up an excellent recruit (not to mention Salem) who at the age of nearly 21 is showing all the signs of a future star.

It's certainly interesting watching these two interact on AFL360. I can't see bomber taking a step back behind Hird upon his return and it appears he has the fire in the belly to coach again. Thompson would be my ideal replacement after Roos. I also presume neither would feel threatened to work in the same environment if Roos decided he wanted to remain at the MFC as the Director of Football (Rodey Eade like position at Collingwood). If anything they would and should work really well together. As for the other potential candidates stated I'm not a fan of any. Ratten, Voss, and Harvey are at best good position coaches (e.g. Midfield coach), and I certainly wouldn't want to see our list in any of their hands. As for Ling, he could be a great coach one day but he is currently unproven and completely untried. He needs to start in a development role - not senior coach.

I'm really impressed with Dom's sheer workrate. He was also one of the few blocking for the tagged Jones that also made his game all the better. One particular block (MCC members wing in the second quarter I think) allowed N.Jones to receive the tap down and clearance from Jamar which was delivered inside 50.

Before reading the first few comments I was thinking to put Byrnes as sub and give Salem a full match. As others have mentioned maybe Byrnes should be dropped, and instead give Riley or another one of our Casey players a run in the green vest. I look forward to seeing the Casey report and am keen to see Michie regain some form.

I'll happily chip in. But as others have said, I wouldn't mind seeing it become compulsory for a membership after say a one or two month trial period for new members. If you had every member on here paying $10 say for an annual membership the site shouldn't have any issues. I also like the idea that someone put forward previously to put MFC sponsors on here and gain some small amount of revenue from the club.

Jack Viney has already been to Mars; that's why there are no signs of life there.

I watched both games and I was thinking it was going to go to either Langdon or JKH (I was hoping the later obviously). Even though Langdon belongs to the filth, during his post-match interview he spoke like a fine and very articulate young man with a good head on his shoulders, and so far for his season he deserves it. I just hope JKH and even Salem's come in due course. As for Langdon, I don't hate him.... yet!

I'll take your points and we can agree to disagree on the description of a project player As for pulling the trigger too early on Hunt with regards to my original post, I would have preferred the club stacking the odds with that pick (and future late picks) by selecting players that are more likely to succeed based on good or excellent performances at a higher levels that slide in the draft (TAC Cup and U18 Champs), as apposed to a player in others inferior competitions (School Football). Compare Honeychurch to Hunt, Honeychurch was in the premiership winning team of the TAC cup, represented Vic metro and was further named as an All-Australian in the U18 team. Hunt had a few good performances for Brighton Grammar. As for Templeton, I agree not all clubs rated him as high as some but his performances particularly during the U18 champs rated him higher than Hunt. If the club again this year chooses a school boy who did not play TAC cup or represent his state over one that did who also performed well enough for to obtain or fall just shy of All-Australian selection I'll be livid.

My AFL scouting/ recruiting friend. A few days after draft night I asked him and he confirmed he was taken too early. I presume by the way you wrote that he must have been on "your list" come draft night... was he? He was and is a project player (aka smokey), he didn't play TAC Cup in 2013 let alone represent VIC metro. He played school boy footy for Brighton Grammar. The trigger was pulled far too early on him, and if another club selected him as their project player it would not have been a huge loss like you elude it to be. As I said I have nothing against him, I hope he succeeds and makes something of himself, I'm just saying we could of selected him in the rookies and we could have selected a greater and more probable prospect at pick 57. For example Honeychurch who went at #60 and was on my list (I was PO with this on the night), and interestingly Langdon at #65 (although I was unaware of how good he would be), and then of course Templeton at #3 RD. I just don't want to see these later picks in the national draft used for prospect players or smokeys when there are talented players that rack up stats available. Ummm... no.

I'm at the point now where I just don't care about the draft anymore in reference to the number of our first round pick. Look through any draft and you can see the best player being obtained from any number in the top 10, sometimes in the 20's or even 30's. It also takes years for a player to break out and show their full "potential", sometimes they never get there. So really I don't care if we have pick 1, 2 or 3, I will happily see it traded again for another Tyson and Salem. Taking that punt on a pick 1 might get us another Watts, Gibbs or Kruezer all of which have underperformed, or alternatively yes a Murphy or Deledio but it's still a flip of a coin and no certainty for success - just over exaggerated media hype that takes years to determine if the pick comes to fruition. All I ask is that the recruiting department makes well calculated and smart decisions by stacking the odds in their favour (e.g. 2 quality players with high "potential" like Tyson and Salem for 1 with high "potential" player being Kelly). I also ask they rank the players based on talent and output not entirely athletic "potential" (NOTEI love draftees that win a lot of the contested possession as they are more likely to succeed). For years clubs have let players slide because they may consider them a bit too much of a "plodder" like Luke Dunstan, or lack that physical frame like Nathan Fyfe, or will never have a big enough tank to play AFL football like Tom Rockliff - all of which killed their final U18 year. I hope they STOP drafting "smoky's" at relatively important picks like they did last year on Jayden Hunt. Nothing against him but he could have been obtained with our second Rookie pick, using his pick on say an Eli Templeton who was rated quite highly by a range of clubs. Not only do I want the club to get their first pick "right" (there is a greater probability of doing this), I think it is equally if not more important to get those later picks "right" and those that are usually correct are selections of those players that slide due to physical traits like JKH's height or a presumed lack of fitness like T. Rockliff and S. Mitchell that produced highly (excellent stats) during their U18 years.

As Machsy said, I too am undecided. Although I can certainly say Andrew Demetriou drove me mental and a fresh face in the position is pleasing. I just hope he can reconnect the game back to the fans a steer away of the ridiculous commercialization resulting in increased ticket, food, and drink prices. Gone of the days (over the Demetriou era) of fence banging and enjoying a relatively priced pie and full strength beer whilst sitting in the stands.

Gotta say those player reviews on the MFC website look very unimpressive for AFL listed players bar a small few.

I must say Roos' response to the question during the press conference was fantastic. YES Watts had a very bad game, I certainly wasn't impressed with it but I loved the support Roos showed by quickly disregarding the question and keeping the media hype at bay.

Completely agree with you mate, my boss is a Dogs supporter and he was shattered they moved him on. Fortunately for us their loss is our gain

I'm hoping for the long shot. I'm hoping he can get 4 or so more years out of himself (good years too), play 100+ games for the club and we draft his son Tyler under the F/S rule in years to come. For all his loyalty and fine attitude the dogs spat in his face, here's hoping he retires a true demon after many more games.

The HUN states Jay Clark as a footy "expert"... that's all I have to say.

Sorry nutbean but where can we access these reports?

Should have went to Luke Dunstan, Kelly's game was excellent but Dunstan's last weekend was out if this world.

I don't feel sorry for him, this was his second chance a lifeline if you will and I guess I have never been a big fan of quiters. I feel sorry for the young men that missed out on the draft who would have given it their all. Although I guess Hawthorn's selection of Garlett could of possibly been beneficial to us, for all we know the next best small forward/ midfielder available (indigenous too) was our very own JKH, I'm sure Hawthorn would of considered him and decided to risk that selection on the highly talented Garlett.

You are drawing a very long bow comparing Watts' one game in 2014 to Nic Nat's injury riddled 2013 and Riewoldt's entire 2005 season. Sorry to tell but your statistics wouldn't pass any statistician. Re-make this mid-way though the year (and end of year) against Nic Nat's 2014 season and we'll see what we get. Then we must also consider you comparing a midfielder to a ruckman and CPP. A better comparison by then may be Brendon Goddard at the same age as that is the role Roos is trying to mould Watts into.

Yes we lack a superstar, but I would rather see a team orientated game plan executed to perfection first and witness stars evolve from that. Hawthorn and WCE are two fine examples at the moment. They have an array of quality players but their team orientated brand of footy is their highlight. With regards to Hawthorn yes we can list off Hodge and Mitchell but they are certainly not in their prime, Roughead is also a beut but they clearly state they don't want to focus on one target to try and make their team less predictable and harder to shut down.

For me "Other" and that's Viv Michie. Tyson will also be an excellent find.