Question - is our second compo pick lokoing like 11,12, or 13? With Essendon missing finals it would mean that they use that pick on FS selection, so we get 'notionally' bumped up one spot - so what is the actual pick we get?

Question - is our second compo pick lokoing like 11,12, or 13? With Essendon missing finals it would mean that they use that pick on FS selection, so we get 'notionally' bumped up one spot - so what is the actual pick we get?

We'll get pick 12, but we'll have the chance to 11th 'live' pick, as Daniher will have been pre selected by Essendon. Yes, Essendon's free fall down the ladder works very well for us on so many levels!

We'll get pick 12, but we'll have the chance to 11th 'live' pick, as Daniher will have been pre selected by Essendon. Yes, Essendon's free fall down the ladder works very well for us on so many levels!

No, at this stage it's 13 - after all non-finals teams.

Bear in mind that the Free Agency picks may be given out, and if Cloke leaves Collingwood, you'd assume they'd get a decent pick out of the deal.

Also, GWS can still poach OOC players, all first-rounds to come at the end of the first round.

Our 2nd-round could yet be as high as 30, meaning if we manage to Viney with the 2nd, it'd be the steal of the draft, easily!

Sheedy won't let us have JV for free no way..... keep dreaming

so to get the mini draft pick we'd have to use pick 4

caint see Neeld and Co doing that after such a season this year, he'll have to start showing results and all that soon

he will draft a players with 3 (J.Viney) & 4 ???? not a mini draft pick

I'd prefer some experience over an even younger kid

No, at this stage it's 13 - after all non-finals teams.

Bear in mind that the Free Agency picks may be given out, and if Cloke leaves Collingwood, you'd assume they'd get a decent pick out of the deal.

Also, GWS can still poach OOC players, all first-rounds to come at the end of the first round.

Our 2nd-round could yet be as high as 30, meaning if we manage to Viney with the 2nd, it'd be the steal of the draft, easily!

Thanks Chaser and Dr. I am hoping like hell we can benefit from teh father son rule in some way. Just like nearly every other club has over time. Given such a shocking year - a little piece of good news would be nice.

I am not against the MD option so long as we get a bargain (they way someone looked at it was great - we get Viney with the pick he is likley to be around and snare a young elite kid with a second rounder if we can do a deal with GWS).

I don't think you understand.

We are going to take Jack Viney at whatever pick required - we need to give THAT pick to GWS - we need to offer them pick 3 and they won't nominate Jack Viney.

Hogan, pick 4, pick 13, Viney - it's a big win for us and a big win for GWS who will have 1, 2 and 3 in the ND. It effectively means we're getting Hogan for a 2nd round pick.

I understand that...but I don't think we need to. GWS won't have pick 2 until after the father sun bidding and they will not risk Whitfield to play silly buggers because if he's available GC will go thank you very much and keep pick 2 to use on him.

Sheedy won't let us have JV for free no way..... keep dreaming

so to get the mini draft pick we'd have to use pick 4

caint see Neeld and Co doing that after such a season this year, he'll have to start showing results and all that soon

he will draft a players with 3 (J.Viney) & 4 ???? not a mini draft pick

I'd prefer some experience over an even younger kid

I think the point is that if Sheedy forces us to use pick 3 on Jack Viney then it would be an unlikely option for us to use pick 4 on a 17 year old kid who won't play for a year and a half.

However, logic would dictate that if he doesn't nominate Viney for f/s and Melbourne is clear to use both 3 and 4 then one of those picks would be available for a mini draft selection.

Paul, how do I answer your question without being critical of Watts ?

Let me just say that as key forwards go they're polar opposites. I can go in depth if you want, but I'm not sure others will enjoy my comparison.

Exactly I've said it before that jack watts is all silk but gets criticized for not crashing packs and no contested marking when he played forward. Hogan has a phd in pack crashing and contested marks. Hogan won't be able to hit a target 50 out on his opposite foot like watts can but hogan could make any back men think twice about filling a hole in the back 50.

That's the minefield of recruiting isn't it? We know what players are capable of producing now, against their peers, but surely a recruiters job is predicting who will be the best when your team is contending against the elite. HIstory shows that the best rated player on draft day doesn't often end up the best player (or best performed player) in their draft class.

Recruiting has come a long way since the draft was introduced, but it's still such a speculative industry. Whitfield being way in front of everyone else is certainly the popular opinion, but so was Scully ahead of Trengove ahead of Martin. Virtually no contest. People love getting into Cale Morton, and the recruiters for picking him ahead of Dangerfield & Rioli. Popular opinion had Cale top 3, some even rated him above Kreuzer and Cotchin. If Cale was off the board, we probably would have gone with either Jarrad Grant or Grimes at 4. FWIW, when I saw Cale play for WA against Vic Metro, I thought he would be a star, and was ecstatic when we got him. He lasered passes and took contested marks and looked every bit the genuine article. Cotchin got tagged out of that game completely & Grimes tried everything to inspire his losing team (at least something stayed constant).

So whilst Lachie Whitfield is currently consensus number 1, I don't believe he is as far ahead of the rest of the pack as he's made out to be, and there may be players who end up being more effective in the AFL I guarantee that each club rates each player differently. Some rate young Jack as top 5, others have stated they rate him as a late first rounder. I guarantee that no other club will have a better idea of what Jack's value is than Melbourne. If we pick him at 3, it may well be because that is where our club ranks him. That really should be all that counts.

I remember reading about that draft, as I was really excited about us cleaning out & rebuilding the list..

I remember reading about the draftees on Big footy from Knightmare and others, 6 - 8 other phantom draftors & other postors who had watched the kids, including Cale..

MANY had real concerns about his 'softness'.

We mucked up with the timing of the daniher sacking, ( a week too early) Carlton smiled, & we mucked up in the last game of the Year, carlton laughed all the way to the Draft, & then again, after, when they employed our Ex coach.

Then we mucked up in the draft, ontop of all else.

Many clubs laughed in concert with one another.

I understand that...but I don't think we need to. GWS won't have pick 2 until after the father sun bidding and they will not risk Whitfield to play silly buggers because if he's available GC will go thank you very much and keep pick 2 to use on him.

No you don't - Sheedy is not risking Whitfield by nominating Viney - we'll take him at 3 if necessary.

I remember reading about that draft, as I was really excited about us cleaning out & rebuilding the list..

I remember reading about the draftees on Big footy from Knightmare and others, 6 - 8 other phantom draftors & other postors who had watched the kids, including Cale..

MANY had real concerns about his 'softness'.

Not sure about the BF reports, but ‘The Draft’ covers that draft class in particular.

From what Emma Quayle covered, I think even if we had passed on Cale, I don’t think we would have selected players we (as supporters) would have been overly happy with looking back.

We can be thankful that we got Grimes (courtesy of the Lions taking TJ), but the rest of our selections that year (and the year in general) are looking pretty sad in hindsight.

If noone bids then gws dont get to keep the kids and they just have to wait a year to go into the draft with everyone else?

Would love it if 17 clubs had the stones to say 'you've had enough top draft picks we'll wait a year and see how things pan out'

Absolutely!!!

Especially with the possibility of coming drafts may have a lottery system applied to the order.

Not sure about the BF reports, but ‘The Draft’ covers that draft class in particular.

From what Emma Quayle covered, I think even if we had passed on Cale, I don’t think we would have selected players we (as supporters) would have been overly happy with looking back.

We can be thankful that we got Grimes (courtesy of the Lions taking TJ), but the rest of our selections that year (and the year in general) are looking pretty sad in hindsight.

I'd still be happier now with the Kid I wanted back then (Lachie Henderson) over cale, & hindsight has shown others better than both...

I didn't like Cale from the first game I saw him play, receiving kicks in the back pocket & refusing to go near the opposition to even threaten to tackle.

He learnt the wrong way from the start, from his peers & from the footy dept' coaches.

Sheedy won't let us have JV for free no way..... keep dreaming

so to get the mini draft pick we'd have to use pick 4

caint see Neeld and Co doing that after such a season this year, he'll have to start showing results and all that soon

he will draft a players with 3 (J.Viney) & 4 ???? not a mini draft pick

I'd prefer some experience over an even younger kid

So you think (Pick 3) Viney, & (Pick 4 + 13) Boak + 7,,, do you?

So you think (Pick 3) Viney, & (Pick 4 + 13) Boak + 7,,, do you?

nah more like#3 JV #4 toumpas then mabee #13 and like a.... pettard or bate or morton to suns for caddy and toy sumthing like that

I'd still be happier now with the Kid I wanted back then (Lachie Henderson) over cale, & hindsight has shown others better than both...

I didn't like Cale from the first game I saw him play, receiving kicks in the back pocket & refusing to go near the opposition to even threaten to tackle.

He learnt the wrong way from the start, from his peers & from the footy dept' coaches.

Yeah, I wouldn't have minded Henderson either. I believe if we didn't draft Cale at 4, it would have been Jarrad Grant or Rhys Palmer at that pick. Grimes was the other real possibility at 4. Jacks the best of the four, so at least we ended up getting him in the end.

In review, 2007 was a tough draft to call. There weren't many out and out blue chippers, and lots of NQR's.

Also, worth noting that Kyle Cheney (pick 53) eventually was traded for the pick that netted us Tom McDonald (pick 53, 2010 draft).

I think the point is that if Sheedy forces us to use pick 3 on Jack Viney then it would be an unlikely option for us to use pick 4 on a 17 year old kid who won't play for a year and a half.

However, logic would dictate that if he doesn't nominate Viney for f/s and Melbourne is clear to use both 3 and 4 then one of those picks would be available for a mini draft selection.

Exactly WJ. If gc uses 2 for martin though surely we offer 4 for hogan and an agreement not to touch viney. No-one can beat pick 4 for martin and hopefully we can use 3 for toumpas.

From Bigfooty

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/young-talent-time-a-2012-mock-draft.956131/page-12

HarbourMaster, Saturday at 2:02 PM

"Jesse Hogan is a genuine freak.

Outstanding again today.

Hogan played in the ruck, at CHF, onball and as a full forward.

He was exceptional in each position, just has a physical presence wherever he goes.

In the ruck he was winning the knocks, did a lot of the ox work to create a path for his midget brigade and for a bloke carrying so much weight already, he just always keeps his feet.

He absolutely draws the balls his way, he leads with purpose, tackles with purpose and flattens blokes who cross his line. He'd be ready to play next year if it were possible.

Kicked an absolute belter running onto the loose ball inside fifty, weighed up his options, soccered off the ground and split the middle from the angle.

He's also a very selfless players, despite his immense talent he is still very team orientated.

Only area he'd need to work on is probably his set shot, lacks rhythm on approach.

A little Judd like even."

If you read the Claremont reports they are consistent with using the terms "dominant force", "tower of strength" and "commanding".

I don't want to get in over my head with this kid just because he is the flavour of the month. It's hard not to get swept up in hyperbole given our repeated history of drafting soft rakes as forwards.

But he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I want some footage now. I'm intrigued at the very least.

Jesse Hogan for pick #4. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent to him in this years draft.

Sheedy/SIlvagni wouldn't bid on VIney if they were being responsible in looking after the long term interests of their list. They already have Callan Ward, Toby Greene, Dom Tyson, Dylan Shiel, Taylor Adams in addition to Whitfield, Coniglio, and Sulky. They are stocked with gun young mids that can play through the guts.

They have no ruckmen. Brodie Grundy is rated one of the best ruck prospects in the last 5 years, he plays forward and will be ready to go round 1. Why on earth would you add another inside mid when you desperately need ruckmen and KPP.

If GWS have pick 1 & 2 and bid on Viney in favour of Grundy, it's probably not a genuine bid as far as im concerned.

Yeah, I wouldn't have minded Henderson either. I believe if we didn't draft Cale at 4, it would have been Jarrad Grant or Rhys Palmer at that pick. Grimes was the other real possibility at 4. Jacks the best of the four, so at least we ended up getting him in the end.

In review, 2007 was a tough draft to call. There weren't many out and out blue chippers, and lots of NQR's.

Also, worth noting that Kyle Cheney (pick 53) eventually was traded for the pick that netted us Tom McDonald (pick 53, 2010 draft).

Yep.. But Henderson & Ebert are solid or will be solid AFL players. Henderson could yet improve a lot. He could still be a Roughhead.

I'm staggered that people think gws won't bid on viney we commited to this kid 2 years ago it's a done deal and will take him with whatever draft pick we are forced to use (which appears to be pick 3) of course it would great for the MFC if we didn't have to select him until the second round but come on do you really believe that GWS would be taking a massive risk in bidding on a player they know and we all know will be wearing red and blue next year really??

I'm staggered that people think gws won't bid on viney we commited to this kid 2 years ago it's a done deal and will take him with whatever draft pick we are forced to use (which appears to be pick 3) of course it would great for the MFC if we didn't have to select him until the second round but come on do you really believe that GWS would be taking a massive risk in bidding on a player they know and we all know will be wearing red and blue next year really??

He hasn't signed anything other than an...what do they call it?? An 'agreement of understanding' or something?? There's no contract. So we have no real obligation to pick Viney regardless of the bidding process. I assume GC will use pick #2 on Jack Martin which will go to GWS, that seems to be a strong lead.

Considering virtually no-one i've heard currently regards Jack Viney as a top 2 selection, i'd regard a GWS bid on Viney as utterly bogus. They are stocked up on mids, and particularly inside mids. Brodie Grundy is the kid they need....and if they were going for a mid, kids like Toumpas & O'Rourke seem rated higher than Jack. The consensus seems to be somewhere between pick 6-10... A GWS bid doesn't rate him at pick #3, it rates him at pick #2.

I say, if GWS want to screw up their long term list management to spite us in taking a player higher than what he is generally rated, then so be it. We'll take the higher rated player they pass over.

This is the stupidity of the FS rule as it currently is. We'd be the first club to actually pay over the odds for a FS if we give up pick #3.

So why bother having the rule??

He hasn't signed anything other than an...what do they call it?? An 'agreement of understanding' or something?? There's no contract. So we have no real obligation to pick Viney regardless of the bidding process. I assume GC will use pick #2 on Jack Martin which will go to GWS, that seems to be a strong lead.

Considering virtually no-one i've heard currently regards Jack Viney as a top 2 selection, i'd regard a GWS bid on Viney as utterly bogus. They are stocked up on mids, and particularly inside mids. Brodie Grundy is the kid they need....and if they were going for a mid, kids like Toumpas & O'Rourke seem rated higher than Jack. The consensus seems to be somewhere between pick 6-10... A GWS bid doesn't rate him at pick #3, it rates him at pick #2.

I say, if GWS want to screw up their long term list management to spite us in taking a player higher than what he is generally rated, then so be it. We'll take the higher rated player they pass over.

This is the stupidity of the FS rule as it currently is. We'd be the first club to actually pay over the odds for a FS if we give up pick #3.

So why bother having the rule??

I really like the father son concept, but I'd like to see it changed so that No Father-Son pick could be taken with a pick lower than the Mid 1st Rnd point, or later, determined by the other clubs Bids.

Edited August 24, 201212 yr by dee-luded

I really like the father son concept, but I'd like to see it changed so that No Father-Son pick could be taken with a pick lower than the Mid 1st Rnd point, or later, determined by the other clubs Bids.

That's a good idea. As it is, i mean Essendon would be happy to take Daniher at pick 10...but Viney is real.... grey area. He's a vaguely pick 5,6, or 7 type player. Although there are apparently some recruiters who don't rate him top 10. The fact he's in the vicinity of our first pick makes GWS and GC feel compelled to nominate him despite the fact they probably don't rate him that high.

The bidding process was introduced to allow other clubs an opportunity to select another club's FS, but obviously this situation appears to be producing an abuse of that rule, simply to thwart an opponent rather than in pursuing the club's own list management objectives (assuming there is a bid by either GC or GWS).