Welcome aboard.

You, of all people?

Jeez...

A third of the kids normally eligible are not eligible.

That equals a thin draft.

RR has come aboard the train to reason, time for the rest of you to...

Read. My. Signature.

No No No.... you like a lot are overlooking the rational.. yes there is a smaller catchment.. 8 months v 12.. BUT... the argument that the draft is particualrly shallow doesnt hold. heres why. The thrird missing are all kiddywinkies...they invariably go much later in teh draft or a re rookied. The argument that the draft isnt good through to 50-60 as it might normally be ( subject to available talent of course ) would only be unequivacable if there was an EVEN distribution of all ages through all the earlier picks...and quite plainly that doesnt happen.. Invariable the older more experienced ones get picked earlier... So it stands to reason that if the draft would normally hold something through to 70-80 ( not brilliant I concede ) that its at the back end of the list that the compromised age groupings will most affect.

The only truth is there are fewer candidates.. but that does not equal shallowness as a given.

There will always be the odd youngen that went early and its only these very few that would be eliminated from the top 50

No No No.... you like a lot are overlooking the rational.. yes there is a smaller catchment.. 8 months v 12.. BUT... the argument that the draft is particualrly shallow doesnt hold. heres why. The thrird missing are all kiddywinkies...they invariably go much later in teh draft or a re rookied. The argument that the draft isnt good through to 50-60 as it might normally be ( subject to available talent of course ) would only be unequivacable if there was an EVEN distribution of all ages through all the earlier picks...and quite plainly that doesnt happen.. Invariable the older more experienced ones get picked earlier... So it stands to reason that if the draft would normally hold something through to 70-80 ( not brilliant I concede ) that its at the back end of the list that the compromised age groupings will most affect.

The only truth is there are fewer candidates.. but that does not equal shallowness as a given.

There will always be the odd youngen that went early and its only these very few that would be eliminated from the top 50

If this was last year we would not be able to take Watts or Blease.

Game. Set. Match.

Wooohoooo. Chugga-chugga-chugga-chugga-chugga-chugga. "Is this a robbery?" ------ "It's a science experiment."

Read. My. Signature.

While true - it's annoyingly large on my Blackberry.

To add to that rpfc, if these rules had been in place in 2004 our draft would've looked totally different -- we took Bate, Dunn and Newton all at bottom age; none of these guys would have been eligible either if I understand correctly.

SEN and Adelaide Radio have confirmed a Three Way Trade

Simply broken down

Hawthorn - Receive - Shaun Burgoyne

Port Adelaide - Receive - Pick 9,16 and Jay Nash (Essendon)

Essendon - Receive - Mark Williams (Hawthorn), Pick 24

Picks to be distributed tomorrow TBC - Pick 24, 40 and 61

From what I can see Port are the massive winners here..Burgoyne has yielded 2 great Draft Picks...And a young speedy youngster who is an SA boy..

Hawks have got a near 27 year old who has been sub par in the past 2 seasons..and now have no first round draft picks..And clearly would have hurt a loyal servant in Campbell Brown..

Essendon have effectively traded Lovett for Mark Williams...

oh and Jeff Kennett has made a fool of himself saying that Hawks would not trade any premiership players..

JEFF is a complete tool, knows nothing about footy or how its run, he is not the real president,he has no real say at the hawks, he is only there for his profile, nothing more,just a day after saying that they trade a premiership player,he will be real angry that the club made him look like a fool. But once again fools rush in and Jeff is a complete tool=fool,he shots off his mouth with out asking anyone whats going on at the trade table,they don't value what he has to say about footy, dunstall is the real president.

I still amazed that people are suggesting the draft will peter out so quickly. Thats crap. The compromise is that the bottom end 17 yo olds are not there.. Now how many of them normally are the cream of the crop and get taken before 50-60 ? very very few..

This draft like most is still good to 50..just depends as always on what you want..what you need and the level of homework your scouts and recruiters have done

I'd like a dollar everytime you hear it's a shallow draft, Yet always produces guns.

I'd like a dollar everytime you hear it's a shallow draft, Yet always produces guns.

So few dollars.

Actually its the opposite.

You always here that each year is a great draft and often does not produce that many guns. I remember 2003 being touted as a very good draft. Its been proven to be one of the worst.

Aside from Scully and the top 2 or 3 from there, its rated comparatively thin and the Clubs are more ready to chase NQRs than youth.

Burgoyne press conference right now (he's on crutches atm):

Relief to get to Hawthorn. Says he wanted them so badly because he has contacts and relationships at the club, thinks a premiership is close.

Always wanted Port to be compensated.