Earl Hood

I've defended Watts since he was drafted, but this year that has ended.

I do not care what the club does with Jack Watts anymore.

I like to think I know my football, and I will admit - I do not even know what areas Watts needs to improve in.

He looks classy, skillful and poised, he has all the attributes I'd look for in a player.

Yet he has absolutely no effect on the game. Maybe Jack's flaws are above the shoulders.

I'd be interested to hear if the club has sought out a sports psychologist for Jack Watts.

It is not a case of maybe, it is obviously an above the shoulders issue. The kid has all the physical attributes to be a superstar, but mentally he just doesn't want to take on the physical contact, impact the contest that AFL demands. In my opinion he has good peripheral vision so he knows what is going on around him and who is doing what in a contest so I am at a loss to understand his total lack of ability to impose himself on a contest whether it be tackling, high marking, marking on the lead etc. All I see is a receiver with some delivery skills, when he has space.

Fingers crossed the Hulk gets through unscathed!!

A game where a successful tank will be all but nigh impossible. On this basis, [since we forego Petracca], then let's hope that we can follow it up with commanding wins over the Eagles in the West and North at Etihad, with Hogan kicking a bag in the last game of the season.

The above is adopting a "glass half-full" philosophy!

I will be closely watching this game for any evidence of tanking from us at least. Having watched the antics of 2009 and in recent weeks come to fully understand the devastating and lasting effects of that Richmond game which we lost in 2009 that according to Roosey has affected players who were never there, I for one will be livid if I detect tanking like coaching!

For instance if I see someone like Frawley playing forward and someone, say like Howe playing off half back I will know the "Petracca Tank" is on!

Pick 3

Frawley - Pick 4, then on trade that in a Dom Tyson style deal, say for pick 15 and a player

Toumpas - Pick 12-15 (Port or Adelaide)

Watts - 20-25

Trengove or Grimes in an upgrade for our second rounder (pick 20odd) for a team around pick 12

It would leave us with 3, 12, (Trengove+2nd rd),14 (Toumpas), 15 (Frawley), 23 (Watts) plus a decent player

Pretty much selling the currency of 4 players in order to get 4 picks plus replacing one of those players with a decent player in a Tyson like deal.

It would be a move to go full ball in to the draft in order to get a group of young players together the way the Saints are building now and the way the Hawks and other teams build together.

It disregards a few things:

1. I think development has way over taken the draft alone as a way to build

2. We already have some pretty high level talent youth wise coming through

3. We've had 2 failed rebuilds, the fans don't want another

4. It's just not Roosy

5. Hogan, Viney, Tyson, Salem, Kent. We have some upside talented kids who need to get games already

6. Tanking and Neeld destroyed our playing groups spirit, trading a bunch of them will do the same

7. All these high draft picks would be nice, but we'd still have to use a bunch of third and 4th rounders on our actual delistings/retirements

Interesting looking at last weeks side, of the starting 22, it included just 5 first round draft picks, the other 18 players come much later in the draft or have been drafted in after we got a look at their value, re Vince, Dawes etc. I think Roos will be doing a lot of horse trading at years end for players who have demonstrated some ability. Drafting these kids is always a risk. You could win big time or you could lose. Our record post 2007 is Shyte as in there was only one first round draft pick post 2006 playing last week. That is just appalling but shows us where Roosey is coming from. It is about playing the odds in a more conservative way. We may miss the chance of a Judd or a Selwood but we have more chance of avoiding the failures where we have picked kids who never played a game.

Not trying to be provocative but how many years should we wait? I agree that we shouldn't be knee jerk and 2 years is probably too early but where is the cut off point? Colin Sylvia and Travis Johnstone come to mind.

Hey Col Travis had his issues but don't tell me you wouldn't love to have him coming off half back or the wing with his silky skills and delivery by foot in amongst the dross we have put up with this year?

says it all really

60 + years of rubbish & lack of respect for people, has created a chasm of hatred.

Yes I am still waiting for the blossoming Iraq democracy we were promised by the US neocons! You know the democracy that would be a beacon of light to the rest of the Arabic world. Something seems to have gone wrong with the theory. In fact Iraq is no longer a country, it has broken up into various ethnic, religious states or enclaves. I read today the Iraq's Christian minority is no more, they have been murdered and dispersed. Great outcome George and Dick! At least under the hated Sadam H they had some protection.

Sad am was a tyrant but it seems that is what these country's need to stay intact.

I personally would love to press gang Bush, Cheney and other NeoCons into service in Baghdad, in amongst the violence and the chaos, to try to realise their theoretical fantasy.

Very gracious of you to join the discussion Earl!

Yes thanks BBO I have been very busy of late, still dealing with the after parties for the Commonwealth Games, there are so many royals and peers to meet and greet in my role as Cultural Attaché (gold coast) for the games.

if we beat GWS next week it will be 5 wins, our highest total since 2011

Expansion teams not withstanding!

I reckon Roos looked at our myriad of on field problems and decided that first things first, we needed to get the ball and start sharing it amongst ourselves.

So ... we've then often used the ball by going backwards and sideways with it which can often have the effect of frustrating the opposition into making errors. As a first step, that way of playing has had an overall effect of limiting the damage and our 4 wins have all come on the back of that style.

Offensively, we've been poor but on a few occasions, we've looked quite good. Where we're falling down offensively is with our awful disposal skills. Roos can't kick it for them and only a number of list changes is going to improve things.

We've got too many players on our list who can't dispose of the ball well under pressure. The springboard of attack can often come from the half back line and as we're only too well aware, we don't have great distributors on that line.

But our disposal skill is in the top 5 teams apparently in the stats but yes I don't know if that was the accuracy for the dozens of teams looking for problems.

Oh yeah, getting and having the ball a lot more is a vast improvement on at least the previous 2 seasons. I'm in full agreement with you there.

Our backline has used the ball quite well with Jetta, Howe, Dunn and perhaps Pedersen being the standouts (with regards to their actual disposal) Where we're falling down horribly is from just behind the centreline going forward.

Of course, we all probably know that so there's no news there but ... if we had far less players in the side who have questionable disposal skills, we'd be so much better off.

It's not just the execution of the kicks and handballs, it's the lack of vision, awareness and decision making that goes with it.

Matthew Lloyd wrote an article in the Age on Saturday the looked at MFC's improvement under Roos. One stat that stood out was disposal efficiency this year was 5th best in the AFL! That surprised me but then I thought about it. Yes we are much improved in efficiency not so much because we have improved our kicking skills but more because of our changed game plan which is much about giaining possession, pass off with a kick, a mark and then hold the ball and reset before kicking forward. by then the opposition has flooded the backline and we have to work though congestion for a score.

The mark and hold it is killing our offensive game but it does help our defensive game. We have it more often, so contested possesion is up and we now control it more but in the end we can't score. So yes Paul Roos we are a side waiting to get beaten but some of that is your problem I would think.

This is an interesting discussion. The industry spends ever more time and resources searching for certainty in the draft; crunching ever more test data, game day observations, physical tests and phychoanalysis of players in the hope that it can identify who can play and who can't. Yet as we see so far it is still largely a lottery! About all we can say is that the recruits rated as first round picks are on average more likely to be better players than those rated as second round but an elite player could pop up anywhere in the first 20 picks and maybe later. Then there are the other variables about big blokes taking longer to mature vs your stock standard mid who may be peaking at 18 and so on.

Has drafting science improved? I am not sure, James Hird went at 76 many years ago, that wouldnt happen again would it? But then Tom Rotcliff was a rookey and is now tearing up the park. It is interesting that the draft order is a major plank in equalisation and is pointed to time and again as a reason other equalisation measures are not required yet there is no certainty that player 1 is going to be x% better than player 2 and so on, only that the odds are the top 10 should produce more good players than the next 10 etc. The major equalisation tool is still a lottery.

About the only way I see to increase draft certainty would be to increase the draft age to 20 so all these 18 year old elites get to play 2 years with men in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL. It would boost the standard of those leagues to narrow the jump to AFL and we would maybe learn a lot more about each players potential.

it seems a silly topic to bring up right before we apply for a priority pick, get the tanking stuff fresh in everyones mind and then ask for another pick.

I agree what is Roos doing? Does he want to draw the attention of the Gaming Commission onto us again for heavens sake. Forget 2009 that is a red herring, the scarring has occurred since 2011, 186 and the disastrous Neeld experiment.

Its bull dust- the players have never been told to lose a game.

Any player that is scarred by what happened in 2009 needs to be sacked for being a mental pygmy and a p-ussy.

I believe many of the players are scarred but not from "not tanking" 2009, remember we were on track in 2010 with 8 and a half wins and some close losses to the top sides. The rot started in 2011 with 186 and the real scarring has occurred in 2012 and 2013 floggings when we were the laughing stock of the AFL and we probably still are. There are a multitude of reasons for why we are here but "not tanking" in 2009 is not one of them in my opinion.

I have watched the video numerous times. He came across Pedersen wth both arms stretched out in an attempt to get at the ball and it is his elbow that connects...there was no intent to strike him in the head... that was just a consequence of how they were both travellng.

Hardtrack I say it again. All season the protection of the head has been about consequences, not about intensions. A player who goes the bump and goes high is gone depending on the medical report. I don't care what Merrets intentions were, he got Pedo high, it was reckless, high contact and I say high impact. That means points and possible suspension, not a clearance. A hip, forearm, a bump vs a forearm jolt what is the difference?

I was there on Sunday. You didn't have to queue very long to get a beer - that was good. Moonshadow was downing them at a furious pace - that was good. However, despite what some posters above saw, I could not take a positive out of the game. We were weak and lacking in basic skills - It was like being transported back in time.

There were no positives in that game.

It was a membership killer.

If I'm missing any thing please advise me. However, if it is positive, I will consider it bull sh ite.

In retrospect all I can cling to is that if in the second and third quarters we had kicked 8 4 which was to be expected rather than 2 10 which was ridiculous , we probably win and then there is not so much heartburn. But yes the real problems would remain.

Agreed Earl and I and wish you luck in achieving the high office of Marquess in the next Honours List.

Thanks BBO the whisper is that I have the inside running for a move up the hierarchy sooner rather than later just have to wait for Australia Day I think for the announcement.

Don't tell anyone else but it seems the more actions I take to line my own pockets, the more kudos I get in the peerage stakes. Funny that but keep it to yourself please. I don't want to dilute people's respect for their betters!

He has already taken the mark before dog merret leaves the ground. It was after the mark.

Not even a 50m penalty.....

I am sure we got a 50 for that as the umpire reported Merrett at the time.

I am sure I heard a discussion on SEN last week where they said the MRP has overturned nearly 100% of umpires reports this year to the point they asked why would umpires bother anymore. The tradition continues, the MRP spits in the umpires face, who would have seen this act for what it was, a late reckless hit. You can always pull out of those situations to minimise impact if you so choose.

High contact, high impact - I don't get it?

Yes isn't it reckless, high contact and medium to high impact, not sure how they judge broken noses and buckets of blood versus mild concussion. The former is not a good look for the game. The real issue is that bumps have been judged all year on the consequences. Once the contact was high, you were in trouble and at the mercy of the medical report. Accidental or not didn't count, the head was sacrosanct at all times. If you choose to bump and go high you are in trouble but not if you clobber someone with your forearm? Hip, arm, forearm what is the difference?

Don't get me wrong, Watts was terrible, but he wasn't the reason for yesterday. If its skill areas we're trying to address then dropping him is not going to help. Having said that, kid gloves come off with him and I hope Roos and co rip in.

His positioning on the field was odd as well. It looked like he was trying to play a lot more on the inside which I didn't understand, wondering if it was a directive.

I also noticed Watts making leads off half forward that were ignored mostly. On two occasions he moved to spaces that required a precision kick over the opposition, both passes were intercepted. He doesn't lead into the right spaces for our guys to deliver to.

It's probably time to see what Mitchie can do, but the Hawks will be a big assignment. It will be good to get Cross back and maybe Strauss deserves a run.

Sammy is gone along with Tap I would think, they just can't impact a game at all.

ryay next week is not an assignment it is a suicide mission! Agree Blease just doesn't have it upstairs, all the speed and agility in the world but no vision or poise. Tappy was vomiting in the second quarter yesterday before he twisted his knee so maybe there is a reason for his performance but will probably be out injured anyway. I would limit the changes as next week will be ugly, best to keep some the young ones out of it.

To Axis of Bob: Listen to Nate Jones interview.

To quote " you have to question our effort because we rolled over in the last quarter. You get what you put in"

Nuff said.

Agree at the end of the day in the last, our midfield went missing, we stopped running hard enough and in numbers and that is exactly what the Lions were doing. I went to the game and have finally calmed down. The positives were Jetta, Tyson and Jones. Frawley good first half, Howe off the backline and some cameos from Kent, maybe Dawes and Watts but just not enough really.

We won the contested possessions, total possessions and some other stats but our stop and hold style is killing us in the end in most matches. Take a mark but hold the ball looking for options is killing us, by the the time we pass it to a contest there are no options and we cough it up. Maybe now we have enough inside grunt but gee we need some outside runners with silky skills. Can we have 2 or 3 priority picks next year?

My opinions in life are mostly based on empirical data so thanks for all that data C&B. I feel ill contemplating the incompetence of it all since 2007 while paying out bloated salaries to all and sundry to those involved from assistant coaches, selectors, recruiters, managers of football and CEO's. $Millions forked out for Shyte output. The incompetence since 2007 is truly awesome to behold!

Back to your topic of course climate change needs to be a discussion and decision topic for the G20 this year. Maybe Tony could advocate a world "Green Army" of under paid, under aged people to fix global warming! Millions of kids planting trees and picking up papers could turn it all around!

Did anyone else watching tonight's ABC News notice how our PM's coiffure is styled to copy a film star from The Lord of the Rings ?

I am not a LOR officianado but I have noticed Tony's comb over is becoming obvious; If that is what you mean?

I actually think being short has an advantage if the player is a strong ball winner, always a good chance of drawing high contact, makes them especially dangerous in our side where we try and force stoppages.

Yes A low centre of gravity certainly helps, short, strong legs and strong core, but you still need heaps of skill, agility and controlled agression.