It really doesnt look a great draft in my opinion but the key position players at the top end add trade value to the picks

  On 07/07/2014 at 00:41, Georgiou R.R. Martin said:

Are we that young though? On the weekend we had Tyson, Viney, Kent, Salem, Barry as guys in their first 3 years. If Cross and Trengove are fit 2 of those guys probably don't play.

The backline hasn't featured a young player all year. Tyson and Viney are the only young guys who have seen midfield minutes and up forward it's been Kent, Salem, JKH that's about it. Hogan will come in to that mix. And Gawn is a young ruck or even a young key forward given the development time they take.

I'm certainly hoping Tyson and Viney (who are already doing well) aren't too many preseasons away from having the bodies of mature midfielders. And Kent and Salem both had significant interruptions in preseason, neither did serious training on the track before Christmas.

We need mature depth and we need top end talent. I wouldn't put one as more important than the other. If the option is there for a Tyson trade then I'm all for it. If the option is there for Vince and Cross types to come to the club then that's what we need as well.

If we have picks 3, 4 and 21 then if you can trade 21 for a Vince compared to pick 4 for someone not significantly better and unlikely to be elite then it might be the right move. Imagine trading pick 4 for Andrew Gaff and him being a pretty boring average wingman and seeing Petracca become a star.

I think this is a pretty good summation 'George' and how I would see it.

Reece McKenzie may be another one to keep an eye on in the run home to the draft.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/north/reece-mckenzie-boots-10-goals-as-northern-knights-trump-eastern-ranges-in-tac-cup/story-fngnvocb-1226979423120

  On 06/07/2014 at 05:48, Vanilla Gorilla said:

Yes the net effect over the last few years may be thereabout even, but that doesn't disprove the fact that Sydney have access to players that others clubs don't.

Both Melbourne and Sydney can use the father-son rule, only one club can list players under their academy.

Even if Sydney invest time and resources into these kids, why should't Melbourne be allowed the opportunity to do the same?

It's a bit of a strange one and shows how badly the AFL have invested in the northern markets.

Basically the AFL want to address the fact that there are a fraction of players on AFL lists from the biggest state in the country and from Qld. I believe last year there were no players recruited from NSW. I guess it also addresses the go home factor. So for some bizarre reason the AFL has put it on the Northern Clubs to spend their own money to develop junior players throughout Qld and NSW. In return for this significant investment and risk they get access to the players they develop through a father/son bidding system. The problem with the system as I see it is that the AFL should be running the Academies not the teams. But as long as the teams are then they should be entitled to first bid at the players.

Sydney have spent millions over about 5 or 6 years investing in their Academy. About 6 years ago they started inviting every Junior footy player in NSW to come in for screenings and have around 500 junior players coming up through the Academy each year. After all that investment and all those players they are about to get the first player, Heeney, and the Eddie McGuires of this world then go beserk about the unfair advantage.

In previous years the Swans have had the same academy, but been able to select a player with a rookie pick, similar to Lloyd Perris last year.

If anything I think the balance has been redressed somewhat, with Sydney being forced to use a first-rounder this year.

If last year's hype was to be believed, although Perris is still developing, he was just as good.

Time will tell but there is some sentiment that it is not a brilliant draft for those sides anchored at the bottom. Bugger.

  On 07/07/2014 at 00:41, Georgiou R.R. Martin said:

If we have picks 3, 4 and 21 then if you can trade 21 for a Vince compared to pick 4 for someone not significantly better and unlikely to be elite then it might be the right move. Imagine trading pick 4 for Andrew Gaff and him being a pretty boring average wingman and seeing Petracca become a star.

The problem with that is that we will probably need to keep 21 or whatever aside for Billy Stretch under the f/s rule. Hence, why I maintain that we should apply for draft assistance for which any other club would be entitled based on our record over the past eight seasons*. If we ask for it and beg nicely we might be given a pick at the end of the first round of the draft which brings a Tyson-like trade back into play. Otherwise we would have to trade out another good player which is unlikely because we simply don't have that sort of trade material. In a way it's a pity we haven't given the likes of Blease, Strauss and Tapscott the opportunity to prove themselves on the big stage.

* if we win more than three games out of the remaining seven we might have to have a rethink.

  On 07/07/2014 at 10:43, Whispering_Jack said:

The problem with that is that we will probably need to keep 21 or whatever aside for Billy Stretch under the f/s rule. Hence, why I maintain that we should apply for draft assistance for which any other club would be entitled based on our record over the past eight seasons*. If we ask for it and beg nicely we might be given a pick at the end of the first round of the draft which brings a Tyson-like trade back into play. Otherwise we would have to trade out another good player which is unlikely because we simply don't have that sort of trade material. In a way it's a pity we haven't given the likes of Blease, Strauss and Tapscott the opportunity to prove themselves on the big stage.

* if we win more than three games out of the remaining seven we might have to have a rethink.

I'd say we'd have to not win another game to have a realistic chance of getting any assistance, we had a powerful argument last year, If they could knock back they will never say yes to anyone.

The PP is dead

No rising star nomination yet. 16th on the ladder and no new young gun standing out. We are due for a PP

  On 07/07/2014 at 11:24, olisik said:

No rising star nomination yet. 16th on the ladder and no new young gun standing out. We are due for a PP

Dom Tyson and Jack Viney are going along okay.

  On 07/07/2014 at 10:45, Mike Nolan said:

I'd say we'd have to not win another game to have a realistic chance of getting any assistance, we had a powerful argument last year, If they could knock back they will never say yes to anyone.

When the club was knocked back last year the indication was that if we had another poor year, we might qualify. If we win only six games this year we borderline qualify on the basis of our cumulative poor record. This is especially so in the case where all we would be getting is an end of round 1 draft pick as WJ suggests.

  On 07/07/2014 at 11:43, rumpole said:

When the club was knocked back last year the indication was that if we had another poor year, we might qualify. If we win only six games this year we borderline qualify on the basis of our cumulative poor record. This is especially so in the case where all we would be getting is an end of round 1 draft pick as WJ suggests.

I think the other thing Paul Roos and PJ would do is commit to making the best possible effort to trade the extra pick back into the mix, he has shown an obvious preference to bring in proven talent at every opportunity

I dont think its us

I just think the PP is politically unpalatable

  On 07/07/2014 at 11:39, Mike Nolan said:

Dom Tyson and Jack Viney are going along okay.

2 players wont get us far. Need more

  On 07/07/2014 at 10:46, beelzebub said:

The PP is dead

It was dead, but Gil is a St Kilda supporter, so expect to see a PP revival in the next couple of years.

  On 07/07/2014 at 09:17, Return to Glory said:

Time will tell but there is some sentiment that it is not a brilliant draft for those sides anchored at the bottom. Bugger.

I don't think that's necessarily true.

I think it's just harder to pick which ones will develop as hoped and which ones will do a Colin Sylvia.

Possibly makes our pick(s) as good as pick 1, provided we select well.

  On 07/07/2014 at 11:54, beelzebub said:

I dont think its us

I just think the PP is politically unpalatable

I really don't care what's politically unpalatable. I'm more concerned with my club's self-interest which involves securing draft assistance based on an existing rule under which it's arguable that we qualify. I'm suggesting we go for an end first round draft pick, say #20 which is where Nathan Fyfe was drafted in 2009 (we had 4 picks before it and only two of those players are still with us, one of who hasn't played this year, the other, two games). We need star players desperately and Fyfe is a star so self-interest tells me we should go for it and not worry about whether something's politically unpalatable. Bartlett and Jackson owe us a duty of care to try to assemble the best list and if it potentially means we improve out chances of getting a star, then I say "go for it".

Has any other club in the history of the game knocked back an opportunity for this sort of assistance?

  On 07/07/2014 at 00:05, stevethemanjordan said:

So, can someone tell me how good this Petracca bloke is?

(Regardless that the info is from demonland)

Have we got some posters that have seen this guy play live?

Are we talking the 'Oli Wines' of 2015? Looks like they've both got similar physical attributes.

Similar height and both heavy boys.

What's his kicking/vision/decision making like?

Anything would be great.

STMJ I saw him play against WA and did a write up about the game in the U 18 National Championship thread, I'd heard of his a speculative 2nd rounder prior to this and he really caught my eye that day when I actually went with the intention of seeing Brayshaw

  On 07/07/2014 at 11:55, olisik said:

2 players wont get us far. Need more

So one rising star nominee will change everything, you are fookin unbelievable

  On 07/07/2014 at 11:24, olisik said:

No rising star nomination yet. 16th on the ladder and no new young gun standing out. We are due for a PP

completely irrelevant award

JKH should have got it vs Adelaide anyway

Edited July 7, 201410 yr by hogans_heroes

I would love to get Petracca and Laverde. They fill two desperate needs for us.

  On 07/07/2014 at 11:24, olisik said:

No rising star nomination yet. 16th on the ladder and no new young gun standing out. We are due for a PP

Rising Star nominations and even the overall winner means stuff all, imo.

I asked my bombers-supporting buddy whether, given our record over the last eight years, we deserved a pp.

Even she, who thinks Hird has done nothing wrong and the bombers are doing the right thing by the competition fighting those scurrilous charges of taking peds, agrees that we probably DO!

However, we both agreed that the next club to actually get a pp would be one of Brisbane, gc17, gws or the swans.

Northern markets, after all, require protection!

  On 07/07/2014 at 11:56, KingDingAling said:

It was dead, but Gil is a St Kilda supporter, so expect to see a PP revival in the next couple of years.

They'll have to be as bad as they are or worse for the next 7 or so years to even be considered for one, if there's any consistency.