I admit to not seeing either boy play. I have just watched the highlights of each and purely and solely from that I would take Wines. He did what O'Rourke did but also got the hard balls and tackles like a mad man.

He also looked more ready to play early, being more physically developed. Being a good mate of JV is a plus.

If you read ANY of the bios on these young players, those are the 2 they are compared to.

By others, not me.

But none of us know how these 2 will really pan out.

Hence, faith in the football dept.

Not rocket science steve.

Hard for you though, I know.

I have read both bios from a couple of different sources and there are no such comparisons. You made the comparisons. You didn't say "I read that these boys are compared to Watson and Pendlebury', did you? No. You didn't.

It seems it's rocket science for you Jose', not me.

I hope we get pick 4 right. That is all.

I admit to not seeing either boy play. I have just watched the highlights of each and purely and solely from that I would take Wines. He did what O'Rourke did but also got the hard balls and tackles like a mad man.

He also looked more ready to play early, being more physically developed. Being a good mate of JV is a plus.

I tend to disagree if we are going by the highlights reel of each.

I'd say you can see quite clearly that O'rourke has a better kicking technique. It's a lower ball drop and he has a natural and fluent kicking style. Lots of the passes seem to be low trajectory accurate kicks that hit their targets. I also see a turn of speed that I don't see with Wines, (and that's not to say Wines looks slow).

It's harder to tell how effective or ineffective Wines' ball use is just by watching his highlights package. To me he seems to have a higher ball drop and the trajectory is therefore higher than that of O'rourke's kicks. Too hard to tell on those vids just how effective he is. Seems to be okay.

The thing that I want to know is whether O'rourke doesn't mind winning his own ball at the contest. I'm happy for him to be more of an outside mid, but if there is a contest to be won, I want to see that Trent Cotchin or Patrick Dangerfield-like desire to win the ball. If he has that, that could be the attribute that puts him ahead of Wines

for me. However, if he has a Cale Morton approach to a one on one contest, Wines might be the better option.

Happy for Todd and co. to call out whoever it may be in a couple of weeks. (as long as they get it right)..

Go Dees

I have read both bios from a couple of different sources and there are no such comparisons. You made the comparisons. You didn't say "I read that these boys are compared to Watson and Pendlebury', did you? No. You didn't.

Most other posters don't need me to state the obvious for them, unlike you steve.

The comparisons have been made by others, and you know it.

If it makes you feel better, we could use the O'Rourke/Cotchin comparison made by the HS?

The simple fact is that we don't know how any of the players will turn out, and whether they'll be as good as Watson or Pendlebury.

But when it's a choice of selecting either type of player, we can't really lose.

They'd both supply the list with something we sorely need: ball-winning ability and class in the midfield.

That's what matters.

Other than that, we have to put our faith in the footy dept that they will select the player who is best equipped to capitalise on his potential.

And I think that they will choose Wines, based on that.

Both look good but we can only have one so I would hope we take Wines. Interesting the comparison with Cotchin, if he was that good he'd be 1 or 2 not 3 to 8. I get a bit sick of reading EQ etc saying that the top 20 are all going to be stars it doesn't work like that, there may be 1 or 2 who are stars the rest maybe from good to ordinary.

If you could have both and Stringer it would be a vintage draft for the club but for me, with one pick Wines it is.

I'd say you can see quite clearly that O'rourke has a better kicking technique.

The thing that I want to know is whether O'rourke doesn't mind winning his own ball at the contest.

O'Rourke has better skills and decision making than Wines. He has no problem winning his own ball, as evidenced by roughly 40% of his possessions being contested this year. He is the type to get the ball amongst a pack and then break away to spear the pass. He's well rounded as a midfielder, and would suit our list better IMO.

Most other posters don't need me to state the obvious for them, unlike you steve.

The comparisons have been made by others, and you know it.

If it makes you feel better, we could use the O'Rourke/Cotchin comparison made by the HS?

The simple fact is that we don't know how any of the players will turn out, and whether they'll be as good as Watson or Pendlebury.

But when it's a choice of selecting either type of player, we can't really lose.

They'd both supply the list with something we sorely need: ball-winning ability and class in the midfield..

That's what matters.

Other than that, we have to put our faith in the footy dept that they will select the player who is best equipped to capitalise on his potential.

And I think that they will choose Wines, based on that.

Pretty straight forward and nothing unreasonable there I think

Watching the o'rourke highlights makes me question who to pick up now. O'rourke seems to have great kicking abilities over short and long distances and doesn't appear to have a problem hitting up a target at all even under pressure. He seems to have speed, break away from packs and great disposal efficiency.

Another player i really wish will fall through is toumpas. His highlight real is something to be amazed with. Seems to be a combination of wines and o'rourke put together. Wins his own hard ball and contested possessions at the clearances, has the speed to break away from the congestion and seems to have great kicking efficiency. I really hope he will fall even though I can't see how.

Most other posters don't need me to state the obvious for them, unlike you steve.

The comparisons have been made by others, and you know it.

If it makes you feel better, we could use the O'Rourke/Cotchin comparison made by the HS?

The simple fact is that we don't know how any of the players will turn out, and whether they'll be as good as Watson or Pendlebury.

But when it's a choice of selecting either type of player, we can't really lose.

They'd both supply the list with something we sorely need: ball-winning ability and class in the midfield.

That's what matters.

Other than that, we have to put our faith in the footy dept that they will select the player who is best equipped to capitalise on his potential.

And I think that they will choose Wines, based on that.

Why would they? It's me you're having this argument with. It doesn't make me feel better that the H/S stated the comparison of O'rourke and Cotchin.

What would make me feel better is if you would go back and read your first comment which was as follows: "Wines or O'Rourke? Watson or Pendlebury? Can't lose really."

Can't lose really? So if one of them turn out to be a dud top 5 pick like so many others have in previous drafts (as history clearly shows), how is it that we can't really lose?

In your outlandish comment, you have basically suggested that they will both be players equally as good as each other by comparing them to Watson and Pendlebury, which is of course telling me you know something that nobody else does...

How valuable was Cale Morton to us? Do you think Scully will be the next superstar of the game because he went at number 1? How about Jack Watts? There are plenty of others.

The point is this Jose', your first comment in which I had a go at you for, was nonsensical. You started by saying we can't really lose, only to end it by saying, 'I'll put my faith in the footy dept.'

Robbie

I really like the way Jones goes about his work and he gives it his all, and in saying so I don;t think he has another level.

With Jonesy it is all or nothing.

How ever I can see him combining with the newbies in such a way that Sewell, Mitchell etc will become redundant.

I don't care who we pick at No 4 so long as he embraces Neeld's plan and is a team player and not some one who wants to make a name for himself.

Robbie

I really like the way Jones goes about his work and he gives it his all, and in saying so I don;t think he has another level.

With Jonesy it is all or nothing.

How ever I can see him combining with the newbies in such a way that Sewell, Mitchell etc will become redundant.

I don't care who we pick at No 4 so long as he embraces Neeld's plan and is a team player and not some one who wants to make a name for himself.

I actually think his career disproves this. Over the last 5 or 6 years Chunk has increased steadily from being a plodder, to not half bad to a very good player this year. I don't see why he can't continue to improve like this especially when you take into account his appetite for hard work.

I actually think his career disproves this. Over the last 5 or 6 years Chunk has increased steadily from being a plodder, to not half bad to a very good player this year. I don't see why he can't continue to improve like this especially when you take into account his appetite for hard work.

Spot on. Is there a player in the league who has improved as much as Jones. Another year of Misson and Neeld and if history is any guide he may well keep improving. Another season like the one just gone and he will be pushing for AA.

, only to end it by saying, 'I'll put my faith in the footy dept.'

That is the part I find really scary. What gives me hope is that it is a new FD.

I am sure Neeld and the other coaches as well as recruiters will all have input into our selections especially the first one. I just hope they get it right.

However, if he has a Cale Morton approach to a one on one contest, Wines might be the better option.

Might be? If any player had a Cale Morton approach to a contest, he's not even an option. Wines wins hands down.

Anyway, as for 'highlights', I'd prefer to know what they're like when the chips are down, when the going is tough, all the time, for 100% of the game.

Why would they? It's me you're having this argument with. It doesn't make me feel better that the H/S stated the comparison of O'rourke and Cotchin.

What would make me feel better is if you would go back and read your first comment which was as follows: "Wines or O'Rourke? Watson or Pendlebury? Can't lose really."

Can't lose really? So if one of them turn out to be a dud top 5 pick like so many others have in previous drafts (as history clearly shows), how is it that we can't really lose?

In your outlandish comment, you have basically suggested that they will both be players equally as good as each other by comparing them to Watson and Pendlebury, which is of course telling me you know something that nobody else does...

How valuable was Cale Morton to us? Do you think Scully will be the next superstar of the game because he went at number 1? How about Jack Watts? There are plenty of others.

The point is this Jose', your first comment in which I had a go at you for, was nonsensical. You started by saying we can't really lose, only to end it by saying, 'I'll put my faith in the footy dept.'

Blah blah blah.

So the gist is that you're a simpleton that needs everything stated in black & white, unable to read between the lines and make simple assumptions for yourself.

I guess if I don't say "I think that..." at the beginning of every sentence, you'll think I'm just stating facts.

Well, obviously my posts aren't for you to read & you should just ignore them.

That's my opinion, in case you're confused.

All things being equal, in recruiting a top 5 prospect that is magically guaranteed to reach their potential, with one a Watson clone and another a Pendlebury clone, we can't lose no matter which one we choose.

If one were a Watson clone & the other a Justin Sherman clone, we could lose. Terribly.

Since there is no magical guarantee, we must instead put our faith in the footy dept to select the player most likely to fill their potential.

What little I know of the 2, I would choose Wines.

But it's safe to say I know more than you, if you think O'Rourke is potentially an outside-only player.

His greatest attribute is winning contested footy in heavy traffic.

Now please, if you're going to be a bitter little pill, go & bother someone else.

Blah blah blah.

Your continuous ducking and weaving of all I have pointed out is testiment to your inability to admit you made an

outlandish, misleading and nonsensical comment about o'rourke and wines.

I will not bother replying to your next post as I have a feeling it will be another attempt to make me look like I am the

one who doesn't 'get it'.

I like you Jose'. I enjoy reading your posts mostly. That one however, I can't say I liked.

Kiss. X

I would like a top ten pick that we can say in a year or two..."we got him at pick 4 but gee hasnt he performed better than that !" dont care who it is....

My only knock on Wines is pace.. he is not quick. Jobe Watson is someone that he plays a bit like, he is not quick either i suppose....

Spot on. Is there a player in the league who has improved as much as Jones. Another year of Misson and Neeld and if history is any guide he may well keep improving. Another season like the one just gone and he will be pushing for AA.

Dane Swan maybe?

Your continuous ducking and weaving of all I have pointed out is testiment to your inability to admit you made an

outlandish, misleading and nonsensical comment about o'rourke and wines.

I will not bother replying to your next post as I have a feeling it will be another attempt to make me look like I am the

one who doesn't 'get it'.

I like you Jose'. I enjoy reading your posts mostly. That one however, I can't say I liked.

Kiss. X

FCS.

You don't understand because you don't want to understand.

You'd rather be right, that I was wrong.

Not sure what I'm guilty of though.

Making outlandish statements?

Like I really believe and take it for granted that these 2 will be sure-fire guaranteed bona fide stars of the competition, no questions asked?

Or that I said it in a way that to you sounded like that's what I thought?

Yep.

You caught me out.

Well done.

Are we done now?

My only knock on Wines is pace.. he is not quick. Jobe Watson is someone that he plays a bit like, he is not quick either i suppose....

Hasn't hurt Joel Selwood either.

Nor Brett Kirk.

Brad Sewell & ROK aren't the quickest blokes.

I could go on...

Wines would fit into our side beautifully - we are crying out for some size in the contests to batter the opposition and protect some of the smaller frames and at 188cm and 90kg he is already very solid for a midfielder.

O'Rourke currently weighs 78 kgs. Get your facts straight. After his first pre-season he will weigh 80+ kgs. Hardly a skinny kid. He also has some of the best disposal, decision making, and pace in this draft. He plays both inside and outside and has elite endurance. He plays outside more successfully than his teammates due to his superior skills and pace. He also plays inside well, with nearly 40% of his disposals in the recent championships being contested. He's a well rounded midfielder in the Scott Pendlebury mould, and would be a great fit for our list.

The fact he is being made out to be a skinny outside player on here is f*cking mind-boggling. He is a well composed kid, is already performing at a good level and has far more scope for improvement than most others. Whoever gets him is getting a winner.

I reckon O'rourke and his pace would be something we require. We already have Jones and now viney to play the hard inside type player.

Assuming we finish outside the top 8 in 2013 ... and assuming we beat the tanking rap ... it should be remembered that we will have a top 10 pick to play with next year as well.

I would prefer us to go for the engine room accumulator first before adding the outside cream next year. Wines in '012, the "O'Rourke type" in '013.

Our problem is getting hold of the damn pill in close. Sort out that issue first.

GWS have just delisted Dean Brogan today. Grundy would be a cert to be picked in first 3. A major piece to the Wines puzzle and pick 4.