The kid is maturing quite nicely. Those legs are massive!

I've watched the championships, following the boys, and am looking forward to seeing Billy in the red and the blue next year. My honest opinion which is gathered from watching, talking to coaches, and reading forums, it that Billy is a great talent and a top 30 talent in this draft. Unless he has a fantastic bottom half of the year, and I hope he does, he isn't going to go in the first round. That leaves us with Brisbane and St Kilda to bid before our second round. Brisbane will take Dawson as he is a first round talent and teams will bid on him (QLD zone selection). St Kilda - do they need a Billy? I'm not sure. I'd be backing another tall from them or Laverde, Ahern, Lamb or De Goey depending on who drops out of the first round.

My pick is that we take him with a third round pick which allows us to trade our second round for an established mid (ala Vince).

If I had to make a call if to take him with a second pick, I'd take him in a heartbeat. He has improved out of sight this year. Did not expect this level from him at all. With that level of improvement not being in an AFL club, I'm willing to take the punt.

Serious question for the draft watchers out there. I'm a little greedy when it comes to midfielders. I actually don't want an inside midfielder. I don't want an outside midfielder either. I want both! The premier midfielders in the comp do both. We don't have one on our list and we desperately need one. So if explosive inside/outside high possession midfielders such as Judd, Dangerfield, Kerr and Ablett were 17 year olds, what would their draft profile read like? Were they the complete article then or did one side of their game catch up to the other? In other words, I'm interested in knowing what their contested to uncontested possession rates might have been like when they were young. I've got a theory that in the case of the four mentioned above (and Kerr might be the exception) they all had speed, skills and athleticism but added or expanded upon their contested/ball winning skills as they grew over time. Any support for this theory?

So how does this relate to Stretch? I'm a subscriber to the very simple, 'We need to draft and develop two or three stars of the competition to win a flag' club. Are we going to find a champion midfielder by taking the safer one-paced ball winning mids that are more common or should we be taking more chances on Stretch-like projects that might develop the complete game? I'm going to lose most people here but I don't see Oliver Wines becoming a top 10 player in the comp. I think he'll be very very good but doesn't have the tools to be a champion of the competition. He'll never have the creativity or the kicking skills to do it.

I've come over to the Paul Roos approach. I'd keep trading away early first round draft picks on established quality players and roll the dice on downgraded first round picks and in the second, third and fourth rounds on players who have the potential to develop into the complete package. Ablett was obviously father and son but most don't think he was top 10 material and Daniel Kerr was picked at the beginning of the second round. Quality, all-round midfielders who I consider to be elite do exist outside of the top 5 or 6. Let's take the 2007 - 2009 period as an example. In 2007 Dangerfield went at 10 and Callan Ward could be picked up at 19. Beams and Sloane were 29 and 44 respectively in the 2008 draft. Fyfe was pick 20 a year later along with Duncan at 28 who I rate very highly. In contrast many of the top 10 midfielders who were elite juniors but relied on big engines to accumulate or big bodies to win the inside ball have become solid but not sensational midfielders at the top level. I'm talking about Masten (3) and Palmer (7) in 2007, Rich (7) and Ziebell (9) in 2008 and of course in 2009 we had Scully (1), Trengove (2) and Cunnington (6). Arguments could also be mounted to add Martin (3) and Morabito (4) to this list. Interestingly, during this three year sample the really elite mids to emerge from the top 5 or 6 are only really Cotchin, Hill and if I was to be extremely kind, the inconsistent Hartlett.

So what to make of all of this? I'd be very comfortable taking a punt on a player rated by many to be somewhere between 10 and 35 particularly when said player has an impressive combination of endurance, pace and skill and happens to love this club. Were Fyfe or Hill any bigger than Stretch at his age? I'm not saying Stretch will turn into a complete player but I'd rather than take a chance on him in the second or third round than taking a Dunstan or a Matt Crouch or a Lewis Taylor. All of those players will be good for their clubs but they won't become champions of the competition. We need a champion.

What nationality is Billys mother?

He could not look any more different than his old man

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/8446-matt-burgans-phantom-draft/

Our own Matt Burgan's phantom draft from 2007, with a brief write-up on Dangerfield.

Imagine how we'd be going if we made those selections instead...

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/8446-matt-burgans-phantom-draft/

Our own Matt Burgan's phantom draft from 2007, with a brief write-up on Dangerfield.

Imagine how we'd be going if we made those selections instead...

He had us taking Harry Taylor at Pick #21 as well...

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/8446-matt-burgans-phantom-draft/

Our own Matt Burgan's phantom draft from 2007, with a brief write-up on Dangerfield.

Imagine how we'd be going if we made those selections instead...

Oh wow, that's depressing..

It's a very interesting thought.

I suppose each of them had their own question marks over them. Ablett was a bit lazy, so he didn't produce as well as others did that year. Fyfe was a skinny, flaky, late developing medium forward. Dangerfield was a low production player who didn't really understand the game, Judd was a known star with dodgy shoulders and I can't really remember Kerr well as a junior.

I suppose what the later picked stars had in common was that they had super clean hands and a physical gift that would give them an advantage over AFL quality players (with the rest needing to be developed). Ablett's movement, Fyfe's leap and Dangerfield's power and speed are better than other AFL players, then the rest can be developed.

I suppose, in short, the stars have a talent which is better than other AFL players. This unique ability gives them a chance to be a star if they can develop the rest of their game to AFL standard.

As nice as it would have been, those players weren't actually available to us at those picks.

But alternatively, we could have taken Dangerfield at 4 and Taylor at 14...

But would you have turned down Morton?

The write ups on him were insane.

So much unrealised potential...

What about Mo64's comment:

"I concur with these sentiments. I'd much rather Veszpremi and Marric at 14 and 21, as they have an X factor, than Dangerfield and Taylor."

What about Mo64's comment:

"I concur with these sentiments. I'd much rather Veszpremi and Marric at 14 and 21, as they have an X factor, than Dangerfield and Taylor."

What about Mo64's comment:

"I concur with these sentiments. I'd much rather Veszpremi and Marric at 14 and 21, as they have an X factor, than Dangerfield and Taylor."

Possibly the worst post in the history of demonland mock recruiting and no doubt there would've been some shockers.

Burgan was usually pretty spot on with his mocks. Just maybe if Matty Rendell didn't make the gutsy move and Ebert went to Adelaide then Dangerfield might have been ours. And I've got no doubt we were right in to Harry Taylor. We were linked with him everywhere. Think we told him he was our man at 21 but he didn't get there damn Geelong. In fact damn Matty Egan getting injured otherwise they wouldn't have used a high pick on a mature age defender.

Ok answer...

Well you only have to look back to when a similar player was said to have the same attributes Viz

"he has pace, skill, smarts, passion for the mfc, breaks lines, makes good decisions, can win his own ball, does the team thing"

Hnmm shades of ah Jimmy Toumpas!!!

Well once bitten twice shy my friend!

I am all over "Outside Mids"

I'll say it once and for all we need inside midfield Grunt!!

FIRST GET THE F#*@!*# BALL

When that need is met.... with talent and class AKA Pendlebury et al

you can draft as many Jimmy Toumpas's and Billy Stretch's as you like!

We have one Sam Blease who I rate as a very good outside mid...... and he can't get a game?

And so when he probably walks at the end of the year and plays in another side and kills em well where does that leave us!

Nup nothing against Stretch or Toumpas for that matter, but they are not what we need at present!

If we must then third rounder, No more!

Firstly, that's some serious short term vision here.

You're writing off Toumpas based off 1 and a half seasons, and in my opinion, he is has shown enough to prove to me personally that he will become an AFL player.

Sam Blease is not very good. Blease is a one way player who cannot find enough to ball and defensive pressure to warrant senior AFL selection. Not to mention, Blease is only good when running, not really at anything else. Stretch is touted as a two way player with a very solid kick.

It's all good and well to say we need to draft players like Pendlebury. But that is an empty statement. We will draft players with that level of talent with pick 3 and 4 (assuming Chip leaves) and still manage to get Stretch later on in the draft. I would gladly take him with a second rounder, considering such an impressive Championships, he has earnt it.

I advise you to wait 2 more years before commenting on the success of Toumpas and another 4 with Stretch.

I rest my case.

Serious question for the draft watchers out there. I'm a little greedy when it comes to midfielders. I actually don't want an inside midfielder. I don't want an outside midfielder either. I want both! The premier midfielders in the comp do both. We don't have one on our list and we desperately need one. So if explosive inside/outside high possession midfielders such as Judd, Dangerfield, Kerr and Ablett were 17 year olds, what would their draft profile read like? Were they the complete article then or did one side of their game catch up to the other? In other words, I'm interested in knowing what their contested to uncontested possession rates might have been like when they were young. I've got a theory that in the case of the four mentioned above (and Kerr might be the exception) they all had speed, skills and athleticism but added or expanded upon their contested/ball winning skills as they grew over time. Any support for this theory?

So how does this relate to Stretch? I'm a subscriber to the very simple, 'We need to draft and develop two or three stars of the competition to win a flag' club. Are we going to find a champion midfielder by taking the safer one-paced ball winning mids that are more common or should we be taking more chances on Stretch-like projects that might develop the complete game? I'm going to lose most people here but I don't see Oliver Wines becoming a top 10 player in the comp. I think he'll be very very good but doesn't have the tools to be a champion of the competition. He'll never have the creativity or the kicking skills to do it.

I've come over to the Paul Roos approach. I'd keep trading away early first round draft picks on established quality players and roll the dice on downgraded first round picks and in the second, third and fourth rounds on players who have the potential to develop into the complete package. Ablett was obviously father and son but most don't think he was top 10 material and Daniel Kerr was picked at the beginning of the second round. Quality, all-round midfielders who I consider to be elite do exist outside of the top 5 or 6. Let's take the 2007 - 2009 period as an example. In 2007 Dangerfield went at 10 and Callan Ward could be picked up at 19. Beams and Sloane were 29 and 44 respectively in the 2008 draft. Fyfe was pick 20 a year later along with Duncan at 28 who I rate very highly. In contrast many of the top 10 midfielders who were elite juniors but relied on big engines to accumulate or big bodies to win the inside ball have become solid but not sensational midfielders at the top level. I'm talking about Masten (3) and Palmer (7) in 2007, Rich (7) and Ziebell (9) in 2008 and of course in 2009 we had Scully (1), Trengove (2) and Cunnington (6). Arguments could also be mounted to add Martin (3) and Morabito (4) to this list. Interestingly, during this three year sample the really elite mids to emerge from the top 5 or 6 are only really Cotchin, Hill and if I was to be extremely kind, the inconsistent Hartlett.

So what to make of all of this? I'd be very comfortable taking a punt on a player rated by many to be somewhere between 10 and 35 particularly when said player has an impressive combination of endurance, pace and skill and happens to love this club. Were Fyfe or Hill any bigger than Stretch at his age? I'm not saying Stretch will turn into a complete player but I'd rather than take a chance on him in the second or third round than taking a Dunstan or a Matt Crouch or a Lewis Taylor. All of those players will be good for their clubs but they won't become champions of the competition. We need a champion.

I really like this post!!!

But i do think Wines will become a top 10 player of the comp. He is actually very explosive and does have a good kick. Otherwise, terrific post in my opinion.

Don't bother trying to argue anything to do with Toumpas with Picket, you will not convince him, Toumpas being the best player in the comp wouldn't convince him

Looking like his footballing shape is coming together.

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2014/07/11/1226986/029881-8ff56cb8-08d0-11e4-ac31-28cbd3f83dd9.jpg

Great little bio of Stretch in this link posted by ChaserJ on another thread:

http://m.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/west-adelaide-young-gun-sam-durdin-set-to-be-first-south-australian-picked-in-draft/story-fnb7al7m-1226986030328

BILLY STRETCH (Glenelg)

Midfielder/half-back

17, 181cm, 70kg

Likely father-son pick by Melbourne.

AFL academies development manager Michael Ablett: He is your ultimate professional.

His workrate is enormous and comparable to an AFL player at this stage of his career. Hes just a super athlete and is a smart user of the ball. He has brilliantly clean hands and really brings his teammates into the game.

I see a poor man's Steele Sidebottom (without wanting to overhype the kid).

Frontbum is more a half-forward who can move through the midfield though, whereas all the write-ups on Stretch is that he's more of a half-back who can run along the wings.

The thighs in this photo look enormous.

Hoping for a stronger Andrew Gaff.

Stretch look like he has that frame that will be able to put on bulk alot quicker and easier.

Cant wait to see him in the red and blue!

What about Mo64's comment:

"I concur with these sentiments. I'd much rather Veszpremi and Marric at 14 and 21, as they have an X factor, than Dangerfield and Taylor."

I didn't know Prendergast posted on here before he was head of recruiting.

Frontbum is more a half-forward who can move through the midfield though, whereas all the write-ups on Stretch is that he's more of a half-back who can run along the wings.

The thighs in this photo look enormous.

Hoping for a stronger Andrew Gaff.

Not particularly worried about position at this stage, simply attributes.

Huge work ethic, runs lines well, clean hands, good clean disposal, smart decision maker.

The photo makes his thighs look bigger than they are.

Of course, don't worry about his 'enormous workrate, professionalism, super athletic ability, smart ball use, clean hands and bringing teammates into the game'.

Let's worry more about the size of his thighs.

We are crying out for this type of player, here is one who bleeds red and blue

Hopefully a third rounder, but the quality of a first rounder in the long run!