Trading out Stanley must send a signal. The Saints need talls so getting rid of Stanley makes no sense unless they were going for McCartin or Wright.

Hard to predict how we will go beyond Brayshaw who seems a certainty.

  On 18/10/2014 at 07:37, Roosy said:

The media and Stkilda are full of [censored] for one.

Secondly, the Saints wanting to downgrade to pick 4 and being linked to McCartin as the reason for wanting that trade - we snookered them by threatening to trade one our picks to the Doggies who would have taken him.

Thirdly, trading out Stanley.

Fourthly, the media are full of [censored].

Agree with first line.

Second, they didn't and in fact refused 2 picks inside 7 and we didn't threaten to trade to the Dogs.

Third, that is surprising except that they had a stated aim of getting 3 picks inside 25.

Four, agree as earlier but same as first line.

  On 18/10/2014 at 07:43, Redleg said:

Second, they didn't and in fact refused 2 picks inside 7

Once again this is how it was presented to us in the media, leading us to believe that Stkilda were considering offers down to the wire. I see it that Stkilda had made a decision from some way out to keep pick one and the way it was reported was all lies including the rejection of GWS's offer. There was a more reputable media guy (can't remember who) who subtly let slip early in the trade period that he didn't think the Saints would trade out pick 1 now, and that happened to coincided with the talk surrounding us talking turkey with the Bulldogs.

  On 18/10/2014 at 07:43, Redleg said:

and we didn't threaten to trade to the Dogs.

Do you know this for sure because I'm not privy to that - Can you elaborate?

  On 18/10/2014 at 07:41, chook fowler said:

Trading out Stanley must send a signal. The Saints need talls so getting rid of Stanley makes no sense unless they were going for McCartin or Wright.

Hard to predict how we will go beyond Brayshaw who seems a certainty.

Not necessarily, they got a good offer for an underachieving player. They have Riewoldt, Spencer White, Tom Lee, Membrey and they will probably play Longer and Hickey together. One of that group probably misses a game, most likely Lee who they gave decent picks away for.

  On 18/10/2014 at 07:25, Redleg said:

i am just salivating at the thought of Hogan and McCartin as our two key forwards for the next ten years. ATM we also have Dawes, Howe, Fitzy, Gawn, Pedersen, Watts etc.

Dawes will be better as a trio rather then the main man.

Howe isn't a KPP.

Fitz is not good enough

Gawn is a first ruck rather then forward.

Pedersen was a solid fill-in but still a fill-in.

Watts is a tall flanker.

We need quality players. Big or small.

I understand we need mids but not at the expense of a quality player/best talent available*.

  On 18/10/2014 at 09:20, jacey said:

Dawes will be better as a trio rather then the main man.

Howe isn't a KPP.

Fitz is not good enough

Gawn is a first ruck rather then forward.

Pedersen was a solid fill-in but still a fill-in.

Watts is a tall flanker.

We need quality players. Big or small.

I understand we need mids but not at the expense of a quality player/best talent available*.

Am surprised Fitzy wasnt traded out.. Pedersen is depth ( soon )

Agree Dawes would relish having Hogan and McCartin up that end.

Howe could be flank front or back... If Watts IS to stay....make him a wing. He can link I suppose if people will actually kick to him etc. In space he has time to deliver well. i'll give him that ..hes a bloody good kick. His delivery into the forward 50 just might make him really useful.

I'll trust this lot to pick a good one, and a relevant one to the build of the list

I would be happy with either Brayshaw and McCartin/Petracca/Wright/Lever.

But I do see the upside in McCartin. Most forwards take a few years to develop, but he should be good to go from round 1 2015. He has been compared to Brendan Fevola (Hope they are talking about his footy!)

I am concerned with his kicking accuracy, but I am sure he can get that fixed up if has help from Hogan (and not Dawes!).

  On 18/10/2014 at 03:33, Is Dom Is Good said:

People saying he's undersized is ridiculous. He is bigger than Jack Darling and he goes alright...

interesting comment Dom, as I was thinking of Jack Darling whilst watching the McCartin video. I felt he was similar in style? but that one video isn't a good sample, & was underwhelming Re intensity... looked like going thru the motions.

but he is highly talked of.

  On 18/10/2014 at 09:40, beelzebub said:

Am surprised Fitzy wasnt traded out.. Pedersen is depth ( soon )

Agree Dawes would relish having Hogan and McCartin up that end.

Howe could be flank front or back... If Watts IS to stay....make him a wing. He can link I suppose if people will actually kick to him etc. In space he has time to deliver well. i'll give him that ..hes a bloody good kick. His delivery into the forward 50 just might make him really useful.

I'll trust this lot to pick a good one, and a relevant one to the build of the list

nay different players, different roles.

peders is a genuine swingman & pinch in the ruck "jack of all trades" his bonus is his athleticism & will rough it up a bit.

Fitzy has X factor, speed, athleticism, can mark, can lead, can ruck... but has to find belief in himself, to get these skills going. has he the desire? we have to give him a bit more time to see.

  On 18/10/2014 at 07:43, Redleg said:

Agree with first line.

Second, they didn't and in fact refused 2 picks inside 7 and we didn't threaten to trade to the Dogs.

Third, that is surprising except that they had a stated aim of getting 3 picks inside 25.

I

Four, agree as earlier but same as first line.

Saints narrowed down players worthy of pick one down to one (from 4) and didn't feel it was worth giving up access to those two for an extra pick.

Should make us feel better about holding picks 2 & 3. Petracca still some chance:

Saints knocked back two for one

  On 18/10/2014 at 06:43, Moneider96 said:

Petracca will turn out to be a Colin Sylvia...He's too arrogant..

You're joking right? Because after watching this interview, I'd say you are the arrogant one.

Draft for talent, trade for need. If Petracca is there at 2, I think we will take him. Not likely, as Saints will call his name at 1 IMO.

http://youtu.be/VIfvQf7XXDg

Please, no more fool's gold.....we've had enough.

  On 18/10/2014 at 10:53, jumbo returns said:

Please, no more fool's gold.....we've had enough.

yep lets buy right not pyrite

  On 19/10/2014 at 00:44, beelzebub said:

yep lets buy right, not pyrite

do you mean, not pienight, or pie'right

lets stop dealing in their handmedowns from now.

lets breed our own version of junkyard dogs.

  On 18/10/2014 at 09:20, jacey said:

Dawes will be better as a trio rather then the main man.

Howe isn't a KPP.

Fitz is not good enough

Gawn is a first ruck rather then forward.

Pedersen was a solid fill-in but still a fill-in.

Watts is a tall flanker.

We need quality players. Big or small.

I understand we need mids but not at the expense of a quality player/best talent available*.

Don't disagree with most of that. Gawn hasn't proved himself as a ruckman to me so far. Fitzy could still make it. I think he needs games and confidence in his position in the team.

  On 19/10/2014 at 01:04, Redleg said:

Don't disagree with most of that. Gawn hasn't proved himself as a ruckman to me so far. Fitzy could still make it. I think he needs games and confidence in his position in the team.

and I think he needs to learn that he & his body are up to the heavy knocks, & enjoy it. let him blood himself.

I did some researching and came across the Roosy pie night in August this year.

Stole this quote from pitmaster who attended the night and practically got this from Roosy himself.

We won't draft Wright even if available.

Roosy did not exactly say this but he gave a very strong indication when the words 'won't take Wright' came out as part of an unfinished sentence. He was going on to say something else but stopped himself, but it was his comments about talls and the TAC that were most informative.

He told us about the special rules for the TAC about no double teaming on talls, no players dropping back to flood and the fact that talls at that level often are mismatched for opponents.

Mids on the other hand are matched evenly and it was clear he reckons a good mid at TAC level has a much higher chance of being a good mid at AFL level than a tall has of making the same progression.

In other words TAC is so unlike AFL that it's not a good guide for talls. He explicitly said - "you can't judge talls in the TAC Cup".

Plus he talked about the need for many mids - high half forwards who play as mids, half backs ditto, wings...you get the picture.

Key message for me was we will draft mids and trade for talls. In fact I wanted to ask would he have drafted Hogan but did not get the chance, but given the Hulk's exceptional body the answer was probably yes.

In summary he does not value draft picks the way some of us do: 'at Sydney we traded many draft picks because it's a lottery, the draft".

Here is the link http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37144-roosys-pie-night-after-the-event/

  On 19/10/2014 at 01:04, Redleg said:

Don't disagree with most of that. Gawn hasn't proved himself as a ruckman to me so far. Fitzy could still make it. I think he needs games and confidence in his position in the team.

Could he develop into anything better than we already have in the forward line though? If we draft McCartin and put Howe where he belongs in the forward line where would he fit in? We might have missed a chance to trade him, hope he comes good though

  On 19/10/2014 at 03:38, sweet dee said:

Could he develop into anything better than we already have in the forward line though? If we draft McCartin and put Howe where he belongs in the forward line where would he fit in? We might have missed a chance to trade him, hope he comes good though

Howe should be one of the high HF's, having a run through the middle.

He cannot play deep forward, it takes away all his major advantages as a player. He gets blocked from the contest and is not allowed space.

Let him push up the ground and we will have a very exciting player who now knows the value of defence and running both ways.

  On 19/10/2014 at 03:37, dazzledavey36 said:

I did some researching and came across the Roosy pie night in August this year.

Stole this quote from pitmaster who attended the night and practically got this from Roosy himself.

We won't draft Wright even if available.

Roosy did not exactly say this but he gave a very strong indication when the words 'won't take Wright' came out as part of an unfinished sentence. He was going on to say something else but stopped himself, but it was his comments about talls and the TAC that were most informative.

He told us about the special rules for the TAC about no double teaming on talls, no players dropping back to flood and the fact that talls at that level often are mismatched for opponents.

Mids on the other hand are matched evenly and it was clear he reckons a good mid at TAC level has a much higher chance of being a good mid at AFL level than a tall has of making the same progression.

In other words TAC is so unlike AFL that it's not a good guide for talls. He explicitly said - "you can't judge talls in the TAC Cup".

Plus he talked about the need for many mids - high half forwards who play as mids, half backs ditto, wings...you get the picture.

Key message for me was we will draft mids and trade for talls. In fact I wanted to ask would he have drafted Hogan but did not get the chance, but given the Hulk's exceptional body the answer was probably yes.

In summary he does not value draft picks the way some of us do: 'at Sydney we traded many draft picks because it's a lottery, the draft".

Here is the link http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37144-roosys-pie-night-after-the-event/

I Agree with Roosy. Wright looks great but is inconsistent. McCartin may be Ok but I'd rather have a super midfield and build from there. Geelong had so many great mids that they were able to play them as half-backs and half-forwards. You have to get the ball first and then be able to do something with it. The successful premiers of the past few years have always had the best midfields. Geelong showed that you could have a patchy forward line and still win the big one, three times!

Build us a Rolls Royce midfield Roosy and the rest will follow.

  On 19/10/2014 at 03:37, dazzledavey36 said:

I did some researching and came across the Roosy pie night in August this year.

Stole this quote from pitmaster who attended the night and practically got this from Roosy himself.

We won't draft Wright even if available.

Roosy did not exactly say this but he gave a very strong indication when the words 'won't take Wright' came out as part of an unfinished sentence. He was going on to say something else but stopped himself, but it was his comments about talls and the TAC that were most informative.

He told us about the special rules for the TAC about no double teaming on talls, no players dropping back to flood and the fact that talls at that level often are mismatched for opponents.

Mids on the other hand are matched evenly and it was clear he reckons a good mid at TAC level has a much higher chance of being a good mid at AFL level than a tall has of making the same progression.

In other words TAC is so unlike AFL that it's not a good guide for talls. He explicitly said - "you can't judge talls in the TAC Cup".

Plus he talked about the need for many mids - high half forwards who play as mids, half backs ditto, wings...you get the picture.

Key message for me was we will draft mids and trade for talls. In fact I wanted to ask would he have drafted Hogan but did not get the chance, but given the Hulk's exceptional body the answer was probably yes.

In summary he does not value draft picks the way some of us do: 'at Sydney we traded many draft picks because it's a lottery, the draft".

Here is the link http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37144-roosys-pie-night-after-the-event/

Good to hear and I couldn't agree more.

Our improvement as a club will come with drafting and developing a functional, deep and dynamic midfield and half forwardline. Not from McCartin or any other tall at this draft.

The power and North Melbourne's rise this year and last was a result of a fit, functioning and deep running midfield. Not from their forward line.

In fact, I'd argue that we've a more dangerous forwardline than both of those clubs.

We need to draft two mids who we will finally be able to develop into genuinely good AFL midfielders. It's of utmost importance.

KPP are the cherry on top and are much easier to trade in.

Forget McCartin, it's our midfield that needs to be addressed first and foremost.

  On 19/10/2014 at 03:56, stevethemanjordan said:

Good to hear and I couldn't agree more.

Our improvement as a club will come with drafting and developing a functional, deep and dynamic midfield and half forwardline. Not from McCartin or any other tall at this draft.

The power and North Melbourne's rise this year and last was a result of a fit, functioning and deep running midfield. Not from their forward line.

In fact, I'd argue that we've a more dangerous forwardline than both of those clubs.

We need to draft two mids who we will finally be able to develop into genuinely good AFL midfielders. It's of utmost importance.

KPP are the cherry on top and are much easier to trade in.

Forget McCartin, it's our midfield that needs to be addressed first and foremost.

I don't think so 'Steve', well you could argue it but I would say you are wrong. These 2 clubs have a very strong versatile forward line, ours as of 2014 was centred around Dawes who can't catch a cold and Frawley who can't play forward and is now replaced by a first gamer who can.

Schulz, Westhoff, Grey, Wingard at Port for a start are way ahead of anything we have. At North they have Petrie, Harvey, Black, Thomas and a bunch of others that run through there.

I would say us and the Doggies are the weakest forward lines in the AFL.

...and good ones are not easy to trade in. The last 2, Buddy and Boyd have gone for club killing deals.

  On 19/10/2014 at 04:11, rjay said:

I don't think so 'Steve', well you could argue it but I would say you are wrong. These 2 clubs have a very strong versatile forward line, ours as of 2014 was centred around Dawes who can't catch a cold and Frawley who can't play forward and is now replaced by a first gamer who can.

Schulz, Westhoff, Grey, Wingard at Port for a start are way ahead of anything we have. At North they have Petrie, Harvey, Black, Thomas and a bunch of others that run through there.

I would say us and the Doggies are the weakest forward lines in the AFL.

...and good ones are not easy to trade in. The last 2, Buddy and Boyd have gone for club killing deals.

A forward line that reads:

Garlett, Hogan, Howe

Watts, Dawes, Kent

looks a great deal more potent. Especially if it is being fed by a well-functioning midfield and back line.

  On 19/10/2014 at 04:11, rjay said:

I don't think so 'Steve', well you could argue it but I would say you are wrong. These 2 clubs have a very strong versatile forward line, ours as of 2014 was centred around Dawes who can't catch a cold and Frawley who can't play forward and is now replaced by a first gamer who can.

Schulz, Westhoff, Grey, Wingard at Port for a start are way ahead of anything we have. At North they have Petrie, Harvey, Black, Thomas and a bunch of others that run through there.

I would say us and the Doggies are the weakest forward lines in the AFL.

...and good ones are not easy to trade in. The last 2, Buddy and Boyd have gone for club killing deals.

Turn it up. Petrie had about 3 decent games, 2 towards the end of the year. His own supporters were calling for him to be dropped. Harvey was inconsistent - good highs but rubbish lows - and missed a fair chunk with suspensions. Black had a shocking year and Thomas wasn't as effective as his previous 2 years. Young Brown bobbed up in the second half of the year and made some solid contributions

The difference was their midfield. Adding some class on the outside & having their front-runners working both ways for a change. Greenwood made a huge difference too and they will miss him more than they realise

  On 19/10/2014 at 04:50, btdemon said:

A forward line that reads:

Garlett, Hogan, Howe

Watts, Dawes, Kent

looks a great deal more potent. Especially if it is being fed by a well-functioning midfield and back line.

Garlett is the only one of that lot with any runs on the board as a forward.

We have the worst forward line in the comp at the moment and its an area that needs to be addressed. Bringing in Hogan, Garlett and Howe should help.