NATIONAL DRAFT PICKS 3 & 7

[dazzledavey36 49,792]

That bound for glory phantom draft, the guy who wrote that is pretty adament that we are set for Curnow. Said on bigfooty that is sources are pretty good on this and reckon we are 60% on Curnow and 40% on Parish.

Still struggle to see why we would upgrade our pick to number 3 for Curnow when we could have nabbed him at 6.

[Gator 16,921]

Grain of salt. Dees aren't leaking.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Surely we will pick Parish with no 3.

[DeeSpencer 23,672]

That bound for glory phantom draft, the guy who wrote that is pretty adament that we are set for Curnow. Said on bigfooty that is sources are pretty good on this and reckon we are 60% on Curnow and 40% on Parish.

Still struggle to see why we would upgrade our pick to number 3 for Curnow when we could have nabbed him at 6.

I didn't see the main priority of the Gold Coast deal as upgrading 6 to 3. I saw it as getting 3 and 10 so we had the 2 picks in now. The GWS deal then got us 7 back. So it was all but staying with the original pick and then adding in pick 3 as well so we can get the young talent in a year earlier.

That said, of course I hope we have someone picked out at 3 who we really like, but if there was a clear stand out I don't think Gold Coast would've done the deal to begin with!

We might have got Curnow anyway but the benefit will be in getting Curnow (if he is pick 3) and the kid at pick 7. Especially if we get a midfielder at 7 there might be flow on benefits of getting some games in to the midfield whilst Curnow might need time to develop at Casey. Not a good enough reason to make the move entirely but a nice sweetener.

[ChaserJ 4,087]

That bound for glory phantom draft, the guy who wrote that is pretty adament that we are set for Curnow. Said on bigfooty that is sources are pretty good on this and reckon we are 60% on Curnow and 40% on Parish.

Still struggle to see why we would upgrade our pick to number 3 for Curnow when we could have nabbed him at 6.

That sounds about right to me TBH.

Pretty confident that Curnow wouldn't have gotten to 6. His effort in the qualifying final put him into the top 5.

BOG in a losing team, 14 kicks, 8 marks (5 contested), kicked 4.5 and finished 4 tackles.

[Bonkers 918]

IMHO I find it hard to believe we would upgrade to pick 3 to grab Curnow instead of Parish. The rumours are that Essendon are pretty keen on Parish. They are desperate to rebuild their midfield so you would assume the reason we wanted to get 3 was to get ahead of them to take who they wanted. Essendon will most likely take at least one mid from their two picks. Gold Coast won't take who we want at 6 otherwise we wouldn't have done the deal with them. That then leaves us with Curnow, Weideman or one of the other fancied talls which addresses two of our most pressing needs of height & outside class in one trade period. I'm probably just repeating what others have said already, but that's my two cents worth.

On Curnow I recall Terry Wallace talking him up during trade radio saying that he may be worth pick 3. I'm not sure if the hype is justified around him or not. I would like to think that at pick 3 the club would be selecting someone who is not as speculative a selection. From what I have read on DL his game seems to have a few holes in it & needs a bit of work. It will be interesting to see what the club has planned.

[KingDingAling 3,683]

With Parish, Francis and Oliver the clear standouts IMO (not including Schache/Weitering), it will be interesting to see who we take first.

[mo64 5,280]

I didn't see the main priority of the Gold Coast deal as upgrading 6 to 3. I saw it as getting 3 and 10 so we had the 2 picks in now. The GWS deal then got us 7 back. So it was all but staying with the original pick and then adding in pick 3 as well so we can get the young talent in a year earlier.

That said, of course I hope we have someone picked out at 3 who we really like, but if there was a clear stand out I don't think Gold Coast would've done the deal to begin with!

We might have got Curnow anyway but the benefit will be in getting Curnow (if he is pick 3) and the kid at pick 7. Especially if we get a midfielder at 7 there might be flow on benefits of getting some games in to the midfield whilst Curnow might need time to develop at Casey. Not a good enough reason to make the move entirely but a nice sweetener.

IMHO, that's ridiculously short-sighted, and I can't believe that that would be the motivation. We clearly have a target at 3, and GC have a target who they believe will fall to 6.

[Axis of Bob 10,497]

Having not seen enough of these players (and also not being a professional scout), I am especially interested to see what we do with our picks based on how they help improve our list. On that part, I can see a benefit to either Curnow or Parish.

Parish is a clean midfielder who uses the ball well and is just a good footballer's footballer. He would complement our other midfielders well as a link between the grunt and the runners. He's clearly a good player and would be a safe pick.

Curnow would help our forward line enormously (and I imagine we'd be picking him as a forward, not midfielder) because he would complement Hogan and a possible ruck/forward really well. He playes as a proper key forward, but his movement around the ground and endurance is very good. In terms of a forward line, we need a mobile marking player who can compete for a long ball when needed or work on the ground as a second banana to Hogan. High endurance key forwards are very, very valuable, especially with the modern tactics.

I don't have a preference either way, because I don't know how good each player is and I know we've moved up to pick 3 because there's probably a player there that the club really wants. I suppose I secretly hope it's Curnow, because he's a rarer type of player and moving up to pick 3 means that we really wanted/needed that player as part of our structure. But if it's Parish then I'll be happy because they just think he's really good.

[Mach5 4,499]

That bound for glory phantom draft, the guy who wrote that is pretty adament that we are set for Curnow. Said on bigfooty that is sources are pretty good on this and reckon we are 60% on Curnow and 40% on Parish.

Still struggle to see why we would upgrade our pick to number 3 for Curnow when we could have nabbed him at 6.

Well if he really says that, it only confirms that he has no idea and is full of shiz.

[olisik 4,060]

Curnow is ridiculously over rated in this thread. The talk of us taking him at pick 3 is ludicrous.

[CityDee 738]

Curnow at 7 could be a good option the atheletic and powerfull Hogan Petracca and Curnow show up forward with petracca and curnow able to rotate through the midfield is exciting.

[Matt Demon 1,389]

Curnow won't get to 7

[olisik 4,060]

Curnow won't get to 7

Lazy footballer who is bad at ground level and lacks any burst?

Pretty sure he will unless we [censored] up and take him at 3

[hells bells 2,023]

This weeks podcast features Jason Taylor. It's well worth the listen.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-11-10/pick-no3-dees-to-go-best-available-player-but-not-yet-sure-who-that-is

There's an interesting bi-play between Jason and Cal (who I assume is an Essendon supporter) towards the end where its intimated that Cal is pushing an agenda to get Melbourne to pass on Parish so he can get to the Bombers.

[DemonLad5 1,642]

They said Weideman is still in the mix for pick 3, which I doubt. He is a decent chance to be available at 7

[H_T 2,941]

This weeks podcast features Jason Taylor. It's well worth the listen.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-11-10/pick-no3-dees-to-go-best-available-player-but-not-yet-sure-who-that-is

There's an interesting bi-play between Jason and Cal (who I assume is an Essendon supporter) towards the end where its intimated that Cal is pushing an agenda to get Melbourne to pass on Parish so he can get to the Bombers.

Thanks for that. In depth interview, awesome. Great insight.

[binman 39,542]

Grain of salt. Dees aren't leaking.

Its brilliant isn't it and no doubt is evidence of a vastly improved governance and administration. Professional.

I do wonder though if we're not above some strategic leaking as a form of miscommunication in order to disrupt essendons plans at the draft.

[beelzebub 22,719]

Taylor's no mug...Nor Mahoney. They'll be keeping their REAL cards close to the chest and allowing just enough "info' out to keep all others on their toes

Id be very surprised if pick 3 hasnt been a lock for some weeks.

Its a mind game...a chance to upset some other clubs by forcing them to wrongfoot themselves.

Fun and games, ,,,smoke and mirrors

[Lucifers Hero 37,524]

Interesting that Taylor was lukewarm on next years draft pool.

Explains why we gave up next years 1st rnd pick for another early 1st rnd this year.

My take is that we will go for a mid @ pick 3 and a Utility at pick 7.

Parish would be my guess for #3 but not sure who the 'utilitiy' prospects are for #7.

It was good to hear him say he tries not to worry too much about the club's ladder position from year to year and he is focused on doing his job of 'getting the foundations right'. That sounds pretty good to me!

[FarNorthernD 5,848]

This weeks podcast features Jason Taylor. It's well worth the listen.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-11-10/pick-no3-dees-to-go-best-available-player-but-not-yet-sure-who-that-is

s.

Thanks very much for that Hells Bells. It is a wonderful insight into the intricacies of drafting.

Taylor certainly comes across as a smart and thorough operator but also one who respects all potential draftees.

Brilliant listening for all footy fanatics which I assume we are all on here.

[ChaserJ 4,087]

Thanks very much for that Hells Bells. It is a wonderful insight into the intricacies of drafting.

Taylor certainly comes across as a smart and thorough operator but also one who respects all potential draftees.

Brilliant listening for all footy fanatics which I assume we are all on here.

Can recommend listening to the podcast with Buckenara as well, some interesting insights into a couple of the guys we're looking at.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Cannot understand the Jake Stringer/Charlie Curnow comparison.

The more vision I watch of him, the more I dislike him.

Sure he's got some athletic gifts, really strong running ability etc.

But he isn't a natural footballer. That's for sure.

Of course I am no expert, and we may well take him with pick 7, (can't see it being pick 3) but to me, he just looks like one of those guys that

will always struggle to make a consistent impact at AFL level.

This whole 'body of work/evidence' over a two year period is pretty important. And Curnow's isn't great. Obviously injury didn't help him.

But for where we are and for the reason we traded to get two picks within the top 10 says to me that Curnow will be an unlikely choice for us.

Too risky.

Edited November 11, 2015 by stevethemanjordan

[Neita3000 37]

Cannot understand the Jake Stringer/Charlie Curnow comparison.

The more vision I watch of him, the more I dislike him.

Sure he's got some athletic gifts, really strong running ability etc.

But he isn't a natural footballer. That's for sure.

Of course I am no expert, and we may well take him with pick 7, (can't see it being pick 3) but to me, he just looks like one of those guys that

will always struggle to make a consistent impact at AFL level.

This whole 'body of work/evidence' over a two year period is pretty important. And Curnow's isn't great. Obviously injury didn't help him.

But for where we are and for the reason we traded to get two picks within the top 10 says to me that Curnow will be an unlikely choice for us.

Too risky.

Why isn't he a natural footballer?

Looks like one to me.

[beelzebub 22,719]

Well despite my not having spent too much time trawling through all the possibilities Im going to go with my gut...so to speak.

Not too distant in our past we had the opportunity to pick two players who knew each other inside out...were best mates and they as it happened were of the type for two spots on the list.

History now shows we pretty well stuffed up that twosome ...still ., we did get one !!

This draft theres another opportunity to pick up two mates who , again , would fill two spots very nicely. That being two mids...We need good mids...the more the merrier. We can fill in for the time any other role. There are players for those roles even if not the very best choice, for the moment but again we need good mids.. We also need to loom a fabric which will bind these players together as we build a good team. Nothing usurps mateship.

There are two players coming up for picking who are like two peas in a pod. Theyd add to our mid talent and might likely both make some step onto the big arena in 16 though it s not a requirement. 17's fine

I speak of Parish and Mathieson

I like what they would both bring. There's a bonus to getting both as they play ALREADY with a synergy

So...if i had to pick its Darcy and Rhys.

Worth learning from mistakes eh MFC