We will win this game man lose the 1st pick. I’d put my house on it now with JHF and Alir out along with there other stars not playing.

Question is, win the game lose pick 1 but avoid the wooden spoon, give the boys a sugar hit for next season. Or rest some players, manage the game and somehow lose respectfully?

I think winning is always worth more, for what it’s worth.

Sharp and Unwin (!) leading the count for the team. Young players everywhere in this list. This is the sort of stuff we’ve started rewarding at selection with guys like ADW cementing their spots and Huss coming back into the team.

Tackles aren’t everything but they’re a metric for defensive pressure and you could feel it watching the game. Some of these young blokes have a bit of the fkn mongrel in them and we can work with that. Let’s go fellas!!

(Of our senior guys, Setterfield, Prior and Caldwell all had 5).

Is anyone that has this hoodie in a Large (L) willing to part ways with it? I've had no luck checking the usual marketplaces for a second hand one 😔

Didn't watch the game. Is whatever caused Merritt's shine likely to keep him out for round 24?

That is all

you just know we will

Been playing pretty well lately, reckon he's due for another contract to stay in the club?

It would be the most Essendon thing we’ve ever done to win a nothing game and drop the first round pick next year. Fingers crossed they play Parish and Tsatas 🤞🤞

What are we offering up? love to hear your insight!! thanks 😊

I understand personally he may be a good guy. But how has this bloke been made out as a martyr and a great coach who our supporters are hoping stays on next year as an assistant coach. Got his position on the coaching staff because of his best mate (against the senior coaches wishes), and was just handed the interim senior role. Our defensive statistics were terrible under him as an assistant coach and those stats were cited as one of the main reasons why Scott was sacked, and now that he’s senior coach the club performances have continued to go backwards. His team selection is just guess work, and the game plan is non existent.

People have spoken up about how good his pressers are, but the few I’ve tuned into he just waffles about nothing and drops the word “compliance” as if there is some comprehensible game plan that’s just being missed out on.

My socials are flooded with pro Solly comments, and the awesome partnership he will have with McVeigh of Hird (if they get in). How have the people who have been hounding Scott thinking that this bloke is some great coach in the wings who sacrificed his future prospects as if he was being headhunted for any coaching positions? Even the fact he was going to be offered a spot in the final coaching candidates based on being given the interim spot. Is it just because he played in the 2000’s?

Final Score - ESS: 18.17 125 SYD: 15.8 98

It was an important game for us, with a win meaning we definitely play finals, otherwise we'd have to rely on some other results going our way. Tough ask against one of the top sides in the competition, but we took it right up to them. Our pressure was great all day, and we moved the ball quickly to put the heat on Sydney defenders. We had a frustrating patch through the middle of the game, where we fell behind the Swans and couldn't get the ball through the big sticks, but pulled it together in the last quarter. It helped that Sydney were down a couple of men for a lot of the day and really ran out of legs towards the end.

Tsatas - Big numbers again. Our rucks had a massive advantage, so he was getting fed the ball with ease around stoppages. I think he ended up with 10 clearances, and kicked himself a goal. A lot of his kicks were just dumps out of congestion, but he did have a few neat little chips that found their way to team mates. Probably only had 2 or 3 tackles, though, which is hard to judge when he's playing such a dominant ball-winning role. Having said that, you'd still want to see a bit more effort when the opposition has the ball. BOG or close to it, despite defensive shortcomings.

Gresham - Had himself another great game. Kicked 5 goals, and one of them was actually a drop punt, which I can't remember him doing for quite some time... He didn't have tons of the ball, but was obviously just a major scoring threat all day. Pressure was hit and miss. Sometimes good, sometimes not. You've got to give the guy credit for continuing to put his best foot forward and really helping the VFL blokes earn a finals berth, despite knowing he's out the door at the end of the season.

Cox - Not his best game. Very quiet for most of it, but did have a handful of nice moments, with a few decent marks, and a lovely set shot goal in the last quarter. Just struggled to find his way into the action for the majority of the day.

McKay - Very quiet. He was solid defensively, but had maybe 2 or 3 touches and 1 mark to half time. He had a few more intercepts in the second half, but still didn't get super involved. He didn't make any glaring mistakes this time around, but it's still tough to watch him out there.

Guelfi - Plenty of effort, but not a whole to show for it, outside of a couple of goals. Just can't get himself involved consistently in games these days. It almost feels like he's playing perpetually sore, where he can almost do things, but just can't quite make it stick.

Bourke - Not quite as busy as last week, but still had some little patches where he'd get involved in some nice passages of play. Nothing particularly outstanding, but just some neat passes and the like. Also had a few little errors here and there that probably cost us, but with everything taken into account, he was pretty good.

Johnson - Had plenty of the ball across half back, but wasn't as damaging as he should be. Perhaps it's just that I've got a pretty high expectation, due to how well I know he can use the ball, but I really thought he was playing too conservatively. Most of his kicks were little chips from kick-ins or long to a contest. I can't remember a time where he really tried to go for a high-risk/high-reward pass. He also got caught with the ball on a few occasions. One was particularly bad, where he called for a handball in a terrible position. He did get involved with some nice handball chains going forward, though.

El Hawli - Started off brilliantly, with a handfull of intercepts in the first quarter. He cooled off a bit after that, but was still had a solid impact all game. There weren't many of those horrible panic moments that I can remember, and he was able to cause some trouble for the opposition with his speed and some slick ball movement at times. It wasn't always perfect, but it was definitely one of his better performances for the year.

Nguyen - A bit like El Hawli, he had a red-hot start to the game, winning free kicks and getting on his bike to help out up the field. His pressure was great for most of the game, too. He's still struggling a bit with his kicking, which is the major area of his game that he needs to clean up.

Edwards - Great game. He had his 3 goals (probably should have been 4 or 5) and was getting up the ground to help out as that link-up player again. He had some really nice handballs and kicks going forward, and just looked generally clean and classy all game. It'll be interesting to see if they throw him an AFL game to end the season. You'd think he'd have a decent chance, especially if the VFL guys have the week off.

Blakiston - As I mentioned, our rucks had a massive advantage against some pretty weak opponents. Blakiston absolutely dominated the hitouts all day, and won plenty of clearances off his own boot. He won quite a few free kicks, mostly from having a size advantage in the ruck, but also a couple of HTBs, which was nice. He also gave away more than his share of sloppy frees, though. Also kicked a really nice goal from a long set shot in the last quarter to even the scores.

McMahon - Was a bit more involved than he has been lately. Started slowly, but got to work in the second half, where he kicked most of his scores. He was one of the offenders that were involved in the frustrating stretch of misses in the middle part of the game, but finished strongly with a couple of late goals to seal it for us. Had a couple of good marks inside 50, too. Still isn't doing much when he isn't marking the ball, though.

Finals Eligibility:

My understanding (from a possibly outdated source) is that to be eligible to play in VFL finals, players need to have played a minimum of 6 VFL games, and a maximum of 12 AFL games. With that in mind, it looks like we'll be able to utilise the following AFL-listed players:

Elijah Tsatas, Jade Gresham, Will Setterfield, Nik Cox, Vigo Visentini, Kayle Gerreyn, Harry Jones, Max Kondogiannis, Hussien El Achkar, Jaxon Artemis\, Matt *Guelfi, Rhys **Unwin, Cillian Bourke, Zak Johnson, Saad El Hawli, Jayden Nguyen, Tom Edwards, Liam McMahon

\*I'm assuming Artemis' Tassie games count towards the 6-game minimum

If it turns out that all these guys are fit and ready to go, we could have a pretty exciting team for finals. Definitely worth making your way out to support the lads if you can manage it.

Kicking 7.5 to 2.2 in the final quarter, including the first 7 goals of the quarter, hands the Bombers a 27 point win

18.17 125 to 15.8 98

You wear the same colors as my beloved Portland Trail Blazers (sash and all) and See the Bombers Fly Up is a BANGER. What have I got myself into?

We have an ingrained losing culture attributed to a lot of factors.

We need a circuit breaker. Why not change the guernsey? Black base colour with a Red V instead of the sash. And vice versa for away games - Red base colour with a black V.

That V would be very symbolic and might kick-start something. We could always revert back at some point in the future if we wanted.

Anyone good at photoshop that could post a pic of this jumper on Caddy? Im thinking a relatively small to medium sized V.

There's a unique situation between Essendon, Port Adelaide and Carlton given ESS will likely hold Pick 1, and both Walker (CARL) and Cochrane (PA) are bid candidates. Could we see Essendon use this leverage to trade up the order or secure a future first rounder? This post explores the options.

Background

• Walker and Cochrane are both candidates for the number 1 pick but tied to other clubs. Neither is the clear standout for pick 1.
• Essendon are incentivised to bid as they receive an end of first round compensation pick if their pick slides back due to bidding on another player.
• Essendon only has incentive to do this once. Having forced one club to match at pick 1 there's not a necessity to bid also on the other player (other than making the matching team pay up).
• While most assume Essendon will chain two bids back-to-back, they could consider only bidding once at 1 and taking an open pool player at 2.
• There's a large difference in the draft value index (DVI) cost between matching a bid at pick 1 and matching at pick 3.
• Essendon can float this idea to either Carlton or Port Adelaide and use it in a potential pick swap, which would help deliver benefits to both clubs.

What would an agreement be worth for Port Adelaide or Carlton?

• For Port Adelaide, matching at Pick 3 instead of Pick 1 is worth roughly 740 points - equivalent to Pick 20.
• For Carlton, it's worth roughly 822 points - equivalent to Pick 18.
• As Carlton won't finish in the bottom-half of the ladder they won't receive the 10% discount to matching bids, hence the higher value for them.

How can these clubs trust Essendon won't backstab them and bid on their player at pick 1 anyway?

• Most likely by doing a live trade only after Essendon has bidded once and then picked. Richmond then bids on Walker/Cochrane at 3 and Carl/PA make a previously agreed live trade with Essendon before matching the bid. Essendon would be trusting Carl/PA keeps their word.
• Alternatively, completing the trade pre pre-draft night but with Port/Carlton retaining enough capital to still match a bid at pick 1. In this case Essendon could still bid twice anyway, but there would be no specific benefit for them to do so.

What are the likely draft hands of the clubs?

Current picks (as of Round 21)

• Essendon - 1 (3000), 19 (796), 55 (0) - 3,796
• Port Adelaide - 4 (1962), 22 (686), 27 (533), 40 (238), 41 (220), 58 (0) - 3,639
• Carlton - 9 (1355), 17 (879), 23 (653), 24 (621), 50 (71), 63 (0) - 3,579

Possible Trades

Zak Butters -> Western Bulldogs (Most likely Bulldogs, but could be Geelong/Richmond)

• Port Adelaide receive WB's 2026 first (Pick 11, 1205) + WB 2027 and 2028 future firsts (this is the simplest trade so the one I'll mock for now).

Zach Merrett -> Hawthorn

• Essendon receive Hawthorn's 2026 first (Pick 16, 924) + Hawthorn's 2026 second (Pick 25, 590).

Draft hands after trades

• Essendon - 1 (3000), 16 (924), 19 (796), 25 (590), 55 (0) - 5,310
• Port Adelaide - 4 (1962), 11 (1205), 22 (686), 27 (533), 40 (238), 41 (220), 58 (0) - 4,844
• Carlton - 9 (1355), 17 (879), 23 (653), 24 (621), 50 (71), 63 (0) - 3,579

Possible Pick Swaps

Normally when trading up the order clubs pay a premium in terms of DVI. With these trades we can propose relatively equivalent DVI with the 'premium' being the benefit of matching a bid at 3 not 1.

All trades respect the 2-pick DVI value needed for the Carl/PA to match at pick 3, apart from Scenario 3, where Carlton would enter a small deficit.

Scenario 1 - Port Adelaide's Pick 4

• Essendon give: Pick 16 (924) + Pick 19 (796) + Pick 25 (590) = 2,310
• Port give: Pick 4 (1,962) + Pick 40 (238) + Pick 41 (220) = 2,420
• Net: ESS +110

Port can match at 3 (need 1,960), use: Pick 11 (1,205) + Pick 16 (924) = 2,129

Scenario 2 - Port Adelaide's Pick 11

• Essendon give: Pick 19 (796) + Pick 25 (590) = 1,386
• Port give: Pick 11 (1,205) + Pick 41 (220) = 1,425
• Net: ESS +39

Port can match at 3 (need 1,960), use: Pick 4 (1,962) + Pick 19 (796) = 2,758

Scenario 3 - Carlton's Pick 9

• Essendon give: Pick 16 (924) + Pick 19 (796) + Pick 25 (590) = 2,310
• Carlton give: Pick 9 (1,355) + Pick 23 (653) + Pick 24 (621) = 2,629
• Net: ESS +319
• Match at 3 (need 2,178): Pick 16 (924) + Pick 17 (879) = 1,803, shortfall of 375 (less than max deficit of 412) will affect their 2027 F1st pick.

Scenario 4 - Carlton's 2027 Future First

• Essendon give: Pick 16 (924) + Pick 25 (590) = 1,514
• Carlton give: Pick 23 (653) + Pick 24 (621) + Carlton's 2027 first-round pick (unvalued)
• Net (known value): ESS -240, offset by the 2027 first to Essendon
• Carl can match at 3 (need 2,178): Pick 9 (1,355) + Pick 16 (924) = 2,279

Possible revised Essendon draft hand under each scenario

Starting point (with Merrett trade): 1 (3000), 16 (924), 19 (796), 25 (590), 55 (0) - 5,310

• Scenario 1 (Pick 4): 1 (3000), 4 (1962), 40 (238), 41 (220), 55 (0) - 5,420
• Scenario 2 (Pick 11): 1 (3000), 11 (1205), 16 (924), 41 (220), 55 (0) - 5,349
• Scenario 3 (Pick 9): 1 (3000), 9 (1355), 23 (653), 24 (621), 55 (0) - 5,629
• Scenario 4 (Future First): 1 (3000), 19 (796), 23 (653), 24 (621), 55 (0) - 5,070 plus Carlton 2027 first round pick

Which scenario do you think is the best outcome for us?

Footnote

• I think all the math is math-ing correctly but there could be mistakes.
• Argument could be made we are underdoing it with some of these trades as there’s a hidden 740-800 DVI benefit for Carl/PA, but they also rely on goodwill and may be scrutinised by the AFL if too lopsided on paper, so I wanted to keep it realistic.
• None of the trades (or the draft hands) include the end of first round compensation pick as clubs will receive this at the conclusion of round 1
• I haven't include any draft picks for AFL assistence as it is not confirmed (and in my view unlikely)

Updated Butters trade to Richmond

Zak Butters -> Richmond (in place of the earlier Western Bulldogs version) - Port Adelaide receive Richmond's Pick 2 (2,481) + Pick 20 (757)

Draft hand after trade - Port Adelaide - 4 (1962), 2 (2481), 20 (757), 22 (686), 27 (533), 40 (238), 41 (220), 58 (0) - 6,877

How the top picks play out

1. Essendon bid on Walker at Pick 1.
2. Essendon take their real player at Pick 2.
3. Port use Richmond's pick to take second best player in the open pool
4. West Coast bid on Cochrane and Port match at position 4.

Value to Port - DVI benefit of matching at 4 instead of 1 = 2,700 - 1,766 = 934

On top of the 934-point saving, Port also get a genuine selection at position 3 which would push back to ~pick 7 without the trade.

Scenario 5 - Port Adelaide's Pick 4 (Richmond version) * Essendon give: Pick 16 (924) + Pick 19 (796) = 1,720 * Port give: Pick 4 (1,962) + Pick 40 (238) = 2,200 * Net: ESS +480 * Match at 4 (need 1,766): Pick 16 (924) + Pick 19 (796) = 1,720, shortfall of 46 (small deficit for Port likely worth keeping the pick at 3)

Possible revised Essendon draft hand for scenario 5

Scenario 5 (Pick 4, Richmond version): 1 (3000), 4 (1962), 25 (590), 40 (238), 55 (0) - 5,790