NATIONAL DRAFT PICKS 3 & 7

[Gator 16,893]

I guess the term 'natural' footballer may differ slightly depending on who you speak to.

I'm talking football specific skills like kicking, handballing, ball-handling, tackling, competing as well as possessing footballing smarts which also encompasses a number of other elements that are learnt from playing from a young age.

I don't want to hear the words 'he's still raw' or 'he has the potential to be'. To me they are words that are linked to players who are not 'natural' footballers but players who possess some freakish ability, a couple of elite traits, (in this case running capacity for his height and size and contested marking) but other than that a whole lot of 'potential'.

If you flick to 45:55 of this video, you'll see how awkward he looks hand-balling on his left hand, picking the ball up off the deck and doing the kicking test. It's not that I'm basing my opinion on him from these few seconds, but it does back up the knocks on him that I have read from draft profiles.

His weakness's are field kicking, ball-handling below his knees, speed off the mark and footy smarts.

For someone who is meant to be a versatile tall who could be 'anything', they're not the kind of attributes you want to be struggling in.

Compare that to Francis. Francis is a natural footballer. He executes every fundamental football specific skill to a very high standard and is a very competitive player. Athletically, he's not as gifted. But there are no question marks with his footballing ability. Just like there weren't with Brayshaw.

Now if Curnow was a key forward and had been playing that position and dominating over the last few years it'd be a very different story. But he's not. He's a midfielder turned forward because of a growth spurt and hasn't dominated either position.

The MFC can't slip up with another high draft pick. They can't afford to. We still need players who will help build the fabric of the club and in my opinion Curnow is not that player. We need footballers. Not potential footballers.

I'm the first person to post that he can't handball left-sided and that he's no midfielder, so it's fair to say you've said nothing I find revealing; although I completely disagree with you as to his ability as a footballer.

Despite your comments to the contrary, his footy smarts are excellent and his timing in contested marking is also excellent. He moves well for a tall player and I see a very good key forward in the making.

I posted the following on 4 November:

He won't cut it in the AFL as a pure midfielder, so forget drafting him as one. He's just not sharp and clean enough around congestion. At one point when he had to handball left-handed he clumsily fabricated an awkward dish-off with the right. He needs time in congestion that elite midfielders just don't get in the AFL. I appreciate he'll become better in the application of these aspects in an AFL environment, but I can't imagine he'll ever be strong enough to make it his full-time role.

One can fall into the trap of concentrating on what a player isn't good at and not what they are good at. Notwithstanding the above, he's got a really good footy brain. He doesn't get too rushed and often waited until the last moment to execute the best option. This was noticeable on numerous occasions.

He's a good lead up player, moves well with good pace and agility and looks a natural forward. When the ball is on the deck in the forward-line he'll still be dangerous, because he's had that midfield background and can be creative by hand. He's not as good a contested mark as Hogan, who is, but he's still strong overhead. He actually looks a hulking figure despite not being overly tall. But he's no Stringer. Having seen this extended footage there's no similarity. He actually looks like a more athletic and faster Paddy McCartin.

[Mad_Melbourne 872]

As the draft gets closer I am continually changing my mind, but I think Parish is a lock at 3 and then I would be happy with either of McKay/Oliver and less so Curnow/Mathieson.

Im basing my Oliver prediction on his 'pick me' video and his highlights, but he also chucked up really reasonable numbers in the TAC cup and the fact that he has looked to apply himself massively in the off part of the season and trimmed down.

McKay is a viable option as he adds the height up in our forward half, Hogan is a shorter Key Position and can play the role up and down the ground. McKay will provide that difference in our forward line through height. The other reason I am putting McKay in at 7 is that he is a younger member of this draft, only qualified by 8 days, the fact that we traded a future first round pick could point to us thinking that we can get on the boat early and bring in a player who would have been a top 3 draft pick from next years crop.

[What 18,810]

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

Have to agree with this, ill be annoyed if we took him at 3 and I am not even sure Id want him at 7 to be honest. Seems like a lot of better options

Having said that Ill support whatever Jason Taylor does

[Constant Mongrel 571]

good call on mckay mad_melbourne, that makes a lot of sense, with harry being a potential top 3/5 pick next year.. i'd be stoked with parish and him. i reckon hogan would be too!

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Despite your comments to the contrary, his footy smarts are excellent and his timing in contested marking is also excellent. He moves well for a tall player and I see a very good key forward in the making.

I posted the following on 4 November:

He won't cut it in the AFL as a pure midfielder, so forget drafting him as one. He's just not sharp and clean enough around congestion. At one point when he had to handball left-handed he clumsily fabricated an awkward dish-off with the right. He needs time in congestion that elite midfielders just don't get in the AFL. I appreciate he'll become better in the application of these aspects in an AFL environment, but I can't imagine he'll ever be strong enough to make it his full-time role.

One can fall into the trap of concentrating on what a player isn't good at and not what they are good at. Notwithstanding the above, he's got a really good footy brain. He doesn't get too rushed and often waited until the last moment to execute the best option. This was noticeable on numerous occasions.

He's a good lead up player, moves well with good pace and agility and looks a natural forward. When the ball is on the deck in the forward-line he'll still be dangerous, because he's had that midfield background and can be creative by hand. He's not as good a contested mark as Hogan, who is, but he's still strong overhead. He actually looks a hulking figure despite not being overly tall. But he's no Stringer. Having seen this extended footage there's no similarity. He actually looks like a more athletic and faster Paddy McCartin.

For a top 10 pick and where our club is at with it's list, I want a surer bet than Curnow.

I disagree on his football smarts and draft profiles I've read also seem to think it's a weakness. You've named contested marking as his strength. The ability to 'move well' as a tall forward in the AFL these days is almost a prerequisite. His pace isn't great either, I'm not sure why you say otherwise.

The sample size over his last two years is not big enough for us to justify taking him at 7 let alone 3 in my view.

Again, he is a bundle of 'potential' at under 18 level and whilst I understand recruiters are looking at these guys with an image of what they'll become a few years down the track once at an AFL club, I can't see the MFC in it's current state taking him.

We'll see what happens. Wouldn't be surprised if he went at 10 or later though.

Edited November 11, 2015 by stevethemanjordan

[Gator 16,893]

For a top 10 pick and where our club is at with it's list, I want a surer bet than Curnow.

I disagree on his football smarts and draft profiles I've read also seem to think it's a weakness. You've named contested marking as his strength. The ability to 'move well' as a tall forward in the AFL these days is almost a prerequisite. His pace isn't great either, I'm not sure why you say otherwise.

The sample size over his last two years is not big enough for us to justify taking him at 7 let alone 3 in my view.

Again, he is a bundle of 'potential' at under 18 level and whilst I understand recruiters are looking at these guys with an image of what they'll become a few years down the track once at an AFL club, I can't see the MFC in it's current state taking him.

We'll see what happens. Wouldn't be surprised if he went at 10 or later though.

I haven't read much about him, I prefer to use my eyes.

That said, I thought I better have another look based on you querying his pace, which I noted as being good from the 27 minutes of vision I saw.

Comments I found:

Athleticism – Curnow while strong bodied is very athletic and explosive. While I don’t have any testing results, he has excellent leaping ability and also very good foot speed for a bigger body which will serve him well at the next level.

he has got the height of a forward but athleticism and nous of a bloke much shorter

He is big bodied whom is also athletic, has natural talent, can take some massive contested marks, pretty explosive with the ball, great endurance and has a lovely kick towards goal.

For a teenager he is already a physically imposing size for a KPF, getting himself into front position and is a strong contested mark, overhead and 1 v 1. Matches that strength and power with explosive speed off the mark and athleticism.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

These comments are from 4 separate posters. All talk about either speed or athleticism or both.

Most say he has the capacity to play midfield, which is where I disagree, but I haven't seen one writeup that questions his footy smarts. Not one. In fact, if posters see him successfully transitioning to the midfield it's fair to say that they're tacitly endorsing his footy nous as noted by one of the comments above. You're welcome to share the comments you've read that question this nous.

You disagree ? Terrific. Parish at pick 3 for me, but I want a quality key forward at pick 7 and see Curnow as an excellent complement to Hogan. But I'll back Taylor with whomever he chooses.

[beelzebub 22,225]

I was asked by someone why im inclined to mids for this draft.

So here's why.

Quitesimply we need them. And need them more than another fwd 'right at this minute'.

I'll explain my logic. Our midfield is not there yet. Its on its way ( at last ( but still needs more of the talented lads to provide the engine pool needed to compete at this level.

We have arguably the Leagues best young talent as a fwd. We have a number of players who can fill the role of foil if that's what we need for the time being.

Mids can be involved in the play from one end to the other. Their scope is wider and deeper than a kpp fwd. Yes Jesse likes to roam a bit but the 'foil' is likely to stay pretty much within the arc.

So who's of greater value NOW ? Id say a mid.

Come this time next year with we'll assume greater success in season 16 well be able to start shopping more to fill holes and rely far less on the draft.

This i think will be last deep dip into the well. Id prefer mids.

Theyll come on quicker and impact sooner than is likely a Wiedeman or Curnow etc.* and im not overly taken by either anyway .

Get Parish at 3...surely a lock...and another at 7..theres a selection ...i have mine.

The club seems a lot more canny about all of this these days.

im sure the suggestions of others being in the mix is simply a ploy by the club.

We outfoxes quite a few to get our selections and i can't see us making a mess of it now.

Go Dees

[Dwight Schrute 16,801]

really interested to see who gold coast take, they may want another key forward to replace dixon

[Gator 16,893]

I was asked by someone why im inclined to mids for this draft.

So here's why.

Quitesimply we need them. And need them more than another fwd 'right at this minute'.

I'll explain my logic. Our midfield is not there yet. Its on its way ( at last ( but still needs more of the talented lads to provide the engine pool needed to compete at this level.

We have arguably the Leagues best young talent as a fwd. We have a number of players who can fill the role of foil if that's what we need for the time being.

Mids can be involved in the play from one end to the other. Their scope is wider and deeper than a kpp fwd. Yes Jesse likes to roam a bit but the 'foil' is likely to stay pretty much within the arc.

So who's of greater value NOW ? Id say a mid.

Come this time next year with we'll assume greater success in season 16 well be able to start shopping more to fill holes and rely far less on the draft.

This i think will be last deep dip into the well. Id prefer mids.

Theyll come on quicker and impact sooner than is likely a Wiedeman or Curnow etc.* and im not overly taken by either anyway .

Get Parish at 3...surely a lock...and another at 7..theres a selection ...i have mine.

The club seems a lot more canny about all of this these days.

im sure the suggestions of others being in the mix is simply a ploy by the club.

We outfoxes quite a few to get our selections and i can't see us making a mess of it now.

Go Dees

We have one quality forward over 6' tall.

Assuming we draft Parish we'll have 7 x 'top 10' mids* - Tyson (3), Viney (pick 7 was bid on him), Brayshaw (3), Petracca (2), Parish (4), Trengove (2), and Salem (9). Unlike others I have no question mark over Petracca other than the obvious one. Injury free he will be a superstar. And even if Trengove doesn't make it back and I see no reason why he won't if the foot heals, other clubs would kill for such a group of young mids coming through. It's the envy of the competition (established clubs).

Add Vince, Jones, vandenBerg, Stretch and Neal-Bullen and I believe we've well and truly got the foundations for an elite midfield in 3 years time.

I agree with the adage "you can never have enough mids", but we need to balance the list and quality key forwards almost always come early in the draft or are F/S. Jason Taylor recognised this in the recent AFL podcast when he said we needed someone to partner Hogan.

*there will always be supporters that say Petracca's knee might not hold up, Parish might be Toumpas mark 2, Trengove probably won't play again, Salem hasn't proven he can be a mid, etc. etc. etc. These supporters would never run a successful club, because they'd second guess anything they ever did. I'll back the players on our list and assume they'll match the talent levels the recruiters envisage, I'll assume players overcome injury, like most do, and I'll back the talent that these young players have already shown.

The positive scenarios are far more likely than the negative ones from any balanced perspective.

Edited November 12, 2015 by ProDee

[ChaserJ 3,964]

Im basing my Oliver prediction on his 'pick me' video and his highlights, but he also chucked up really reasonable numbers in the TAC cup and the fact that he has looked to apply himself massively in the off part of the season and trimmed down.

If we're going to compare numbers, Jade Gresham's numbers not only stack up against Parish's he is arguably more influential (scores more goals, greater tackling numbers, greater contested possession, similar spread of time in defence midfield and attack).

He must have grown a little as he measures in at 178 vs Parish's 180.

We wont go with Gresham, but the assertion that Parish is miles ahead of anyone else available has been overblown.

And I'm not basing my opinions purely on highlight reels.

Edited November 12, 2015 by ChaserJ

[Members' Wing 1,106]

We have one quality forward over 6' tall.

Assuming we draft Parish we'll have 7 x 'top 10' mids* - Tyson (3), Viney (pick 7 was bid on him), Brayshaw (3), Petracca (2), Parish (4), Trengove (2), and Salem (9). Unlike others I have no question mark over Petracca other than the obvious one. Injury free he will be a superstar. And even if Trengove doesn't make it back and I see no reason why he won't if the foot heals, other clubs would kill for such a group of young mids coming through. It's the envy of the competition (established clubs).

Add Vince, Jones, vandenBerg, Stretch and Neal-Bullen and I believe we've well and truly got the foundations for an elite midfield in 3 years time.

I agree with the adage "you can never have enough mids", but we need to balance the list and quality key forwards almost always come early in the draft or are F/S. Jason Taylor recognised this in the recent AFL podcast when he said we needed someone to partner Hogan.

*there will always be supporters that say Petracca's knee might not hold up, Parish might be Toumpas mark 2, Trengove probably won't play again, Salem hasn't proven he can be a mid, etc. etc. etc. These supporters would never run a successful club, because they'd second guess anything they ever did. I'll back the players on our list and assume they'll match the talent levels the recruiters envisage, I'll assume players overcome injury, like most do, and I'll back the talent that these young players have already shown.

The positive scenarios are far more likely than the negative ones from any balanced perspective.

Agree with that.

And for people saying we've got serviceable marking foils for Hogan - we don't.

If we delisted Dawes and Pedersen, ask yourselves how many clubs would pick them up. They'd possibly be taken on as rookies. That's about it.

Imagine if the doomsday scenario happens and Hogan gets injured for any decent amount of time. Our forward line would be absolutely cooked.

[Mad_Melbourne 872]

If we're going to compare numbers, Jade Gresham's numbers not only stack up against Parish's he is arguably more influential (scores more goals, greater tackling numbers, greater contested possession, similar spread of time in defence midfield and attack).

He must have grown a little as he measures in at 178 vs Parish's 180.

We wont go with Gresham, but the assertion that Parish is miles ahead of anyone else available has been overblown.

And I'm not basing my opinions purely on highlight reels.

Im basing the pick 7 for Clayton Oliver purely on this as i havent seen enough on him, the fact that he has clearly shed weight, improved his enduracne which was questionable in the 1 game i was able to see at the start of the year and his size is good for a new age midfielder.

In terms of Parish, I saw a little bit of him last year, in the vic metro tournament and again this year and for the most part he looked like the premier mid out of the group from my thoughts. Clean and just seems to win the football both on the inside and outside, Gresham is also a good but I personally think that Parish is the premier mid in the draft and I think its the same around most football circles.

The top 10 midfielders in this draft are all pretty hotly contested, especially from the 3-10 mark, personally I think Hibberd has the potential to be the best midfielder from the draft, but i think his body is a big questionmark.

[ChaserJ 3,964]

Agree with that.

And for people saying we've got serviceable marking foils for Hogan - we don't.

If we delisted Dawes and Pedersen, ask yourselves how many clubs would pick them up. They'd possibly be taken on as rookies. That's about it.

Imagine if the doomsday scenario happens and Hogan gets injured for any decent amount of time. Our forward line would be absolutely cooked.

Agree. Also consider that Hogan will be considering the support he'll be having when we're contending in 3 years time.

We have 19-22 players on the list who can play midfield. They aren't all pox, and they can't all play at once.

Have a look at our list and tell me which forwards, currently on our list, will definitively be the ones to support him in 2017. King? Smith? Frost (I hear the footy dept think he can play there, I have him pegged as a defender).

So are we going to the market to bring in an elite tall forward? We can't pay a Boyd type salary as well as Hogan's.

I'd argue retaining Jesse is crucial. By ignoring the only chance we've had (and likely will have) at drafting a tall ranked inside the top 10 since acquiring Hogan, would be to make a serious judgemental error, not only from a list perspective, but also a Hogan retention perspective.

Edited November 12, 2015 by ChaserJ

[ChaserJ 3,964]

Im basing the pick 7 for Clayton Oliver purely on this as i havent seen enough on him, the fact that he has clearly shed weight, improved his enduracne which was questionable in the 1 game i was able to see at the start of the year and his size is good for a new age midfielder.

In terms of Parish, I saw a little bit of him last year, in the vic metro tournament and again this year and for the most part he looked like the premier mid out of the group from my thoughts. Clean and just seems to win the football both on the inside and outside, Gresham is also a good but I personally think that Parish is the premier mid in the draft and I think its the same around most football circles.

The top 10 midfielders in this draft are all pretty hotly contested, especially from the 3-10 mark, personally I think Hibberd has the potential to be the best midfielder from the draft, but i think his body is a big questionmark.

I'm not talking down Parish and Oliver as prospects, I think they'll be fine players, but believe (strongly) the need to go for a mid at 3 isn't as large as the media has made out. Brayshaw's midfield minutes will increase, our three new recruits will run through there, Salem will play more there and at some point Petracca will go through as well. Maybe even Trengove.

Does that mean Melbourne don't pick Parish? I honestly don't know, it's still between he, Curnow and Weideman. But the fact that two of those three are key talls indicates they know what we need to get. I imagine there's pressure not to stuff the pick up, which is where I think Melbourne could just go safe and take Parish.

Edited November 12, 2015 by ChaserJ

[Mad_Melbourne 872]

I'm not talking down Parish and Oliver as prospects, I think they'll be fine players, but believe (strongly) the need to go for a mid at 3 isn't as large as the media has made out. Brayshaw's midfield minutes will increase, our three new recruits will run through there, Salem will play more there and at some point Petracca will go through as well. Maybe even Trengove.

Does that mean Melbourne don't pick Parish? I honestly don't know, it's still between he, Curnow and Weideman. But the fact that two of those three are key talls indicates they know what we need to get. I imagine there's pressure not to stuff the pick up, which is where I think Melbourne could just go safe and take Parish.

We still need depth through the midfield and not even depth, but quality. having 10-12 quality players that can rotate through there plus necessary depth is the best way to go.

I still think one of either Wiedeman, Curnow and definitely McKay will be available at pick 7. I think the later is the best option, but will back the club in on whichever they take.

[Fat Tony 4,425]

I hope we get two of Parish, Oliver or Francis. They may not have the upside of Weideman or Curnow, but they all look reasonably safe selections and the draft is too much of a gamble. My rationale:

• Rating how key position players will transition from junior football to the AFL is particularly difficult.

• Inside midfielders are now much more important than key forwards in AFL footy given the congestion.

• Midfielders have a more immediate impact, which is now more important given the introduction of free agency.

• We can build a forward line around Hogan and recruit a key forward (if we need it) down the track when we are in contention.

• I would play Tom McDonald forward next year to exploit his running capacity.

[beelzebub 22,225]

I hope we get two of Parish, Oliver or Francis. They may not have the upside of Weideman or Curnow, but they all look reasonably safe selections and the draft is too much of a gamble. My rationale:

• Rating how key position players will transition from junior football to the AFL is particularly difficult.

• Inside midfielders are now much more important than key forwards in AFL footy given the congestion.

• Midfielders have a more immediate impact, which is now more important given the introduction of free agency.

• We can build a forward line around Hogan and recruit a key forward (if we need it) down the track when we are in contention.

• I would play Tom McDonald forward next year to exploit his running capacity.

agreee with much of this.... Am inclined to leave TMac in defence...just me

[Dwight Schrute 16,801]

If we're going to compare numbers, Jade Gresham's numbers not only stack up against Parish's he is arguably more influential (scores more goals, greater tackling numbers, greater contested possession, similar spread of time in defence midfield and attack).

He must have grown a little as he measures in at 178 vs Parish's 180.

We wont go with Gresham, but the assertion that Parish is miles ahead of anyone else available has been overblown.

And I'm not basing my opinions purely on highlight reels.

I think the class factor is the difference for mine, watching Parish a couple of times this year he did things that just highlighted what sets him apart, even Matherson is a very good player,

any of the three would be a good choice, although i'm least sold on Curnow.

[ChaserJ 3,964]

I hope we get two of Parish, Oliver or Francis. They may not have the upside of Weideman or Curnow, but they all look reasonably safe selections and the draft is too much of a gamble. My rationale:

• Rating how key position players will transition from junior football to the AFL is particularly difficult.

• Inside midfielders are now much more important than key forwards in AFL footy given the congestion.

• Midfielders have a more immediate impact, which is now more important given the introduction of free agency.

• We can build a forward line around Hogan and recruit a key forward (if we need it) down the track when we are in contention.

• I would play Tom McDonald forward next year to exploit his running capacity.

Fair enough.

Only points I'd make to that is how we see the game evolving over the next 3 years. Will congestion continue to be the same issue, or will the AFL introduce rule changes to reduce congestion (they're already trying) and change the nature of game styles? I wouldn't be surprised to see two ruckman come back into vogue in a couple of years.

Also, don't think we can sell Tommy Mc as a long term partner in our extension negotiations. Elite key forwards don't end up hitting the market that often, and they will come at a price. You don't get them from elsewhere for unders, but if you draft them, maybe you can convince them to stay for unders to be part of something special.

Edited November 12, 2015 by ChaserJ

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Oliver reminds me a lot of Patrick Cripps.

[DeeSpencer 23,179]

The problem is just taking a key forward early is not guarantee they will work out - look at Molan, Watts, Cook. The best key forwards are taken early but only because they were the best players available not because they were key forwards

Of course. There's no guarantees and a high risk/reward proposition. It's very hard to find a solid role playing key forward. They either kick 30+ goals and look the goods or end up not making it.

I'm not saying we have to take a key forward, but if we don't I can't see us getting one for a couple of years. It's just incredibly difficult to find one via a late round pick, trade, free agency or convert a key defender.

[Fat Tony 4,425]

Fair enough.

Only points I'd make to that is how we see the game evolving over the next 3 years. Will congestion continue to be the same issue, or will the AFL introduce rule changes to reduce congestion (they're already trying) and change the nature of game styles? I wouldn't be surprised to see two ruckman come back into vogue in a couple of years.

Also, don't think we can sell Tommy Mc as a long term partner in our extension negotiations. Elite key forwards don't end up hitting the market that often, and they will come at a price. You don't get them from elsewhere for unders, but if you draft them, maybe you can convince them to stay for unders to be part of something special.

I'd qualify my post by saying that I would take the key forward if I felt they were a class above the best mid.

While I agree with your point on evolution to some degree, it is very hard to plan for. And I don't think the current AFL administration has it in them to make radical changes.

On Tommy McDonald, he is a very good mark and runs like Nick Riewoldt or Matty Richardson. I feel we aren't using his athleticism to its full extent in defence.

And on recruiting key forwards, clubs like North Melbourne (Jarod Waite), Geelong (Mitch Clark) and Sydney (Tippett and Franklin) have been able to get key forwards for little in terms of draft picks (or salary in Waite and Clark's case).

[ManDee 7,089]

Agree with that.

And for people saying we've got serviceable marking foils for Hogan - we don't.

If we delisted Dawes and Pedersen, ask yourselves how many clubs would pick them up. They'd possibly be taken on as rookies. That's about it.

Imagine if the doomsday scenario happens and Hogan gets injured for any decent amount of time. Our forward line would be absolutely cooked.

I disagree.

We delisted Fitzy and he was probably 5th in line as a forward and Hawthorn picked him up. Dawes & Pedersen are clearly rated above Fitzy and both perform forward/ruck roles.

[Gator 16,893]

I hope we get two of Parish, Oliver or Francis. They may not have the upside of Weideman or Curnow, but they all look reasonably safe selections and the draft is too much of a gamble. My rationale:

• Rating how key position players will transition from junior football to the AFL is particularly difficult.

• Inside midfielders are now much more important than key forwards in AFL footy given the congestion.

• Midfielders have a more immediate impact, which is now more important given the introduction of free agency.

• We can build a forward line around Hogan and recruit a key forward (if we need it) down the track when we are in contention.

• I would play Tom McDonald forward next year to exploit his running capacity.

There's plenty wrong with this post...

Inside mids are not much more important than key forwards. Assuming we're talking top quality the reverse is true.

Midfielders do have a more immediate impact, which is why you have to draft a quality tall when you have the opportunity, as it doesn't always present itself.

Yes, it is difficult to rate young talls, which is why the best ones are always drafted early or are F/S. Look how desperate Freo were for Cam McCarthy (pick 13). He's no Hogan, but goal-kicking talls aren't easy to find. Don't expect to find one at picks 46 or 50. And we need one into the club now.

Tom McDonald is no forward. Forget one game where he was switched and caught the opposition off guard. The next game he started as a forward and couldn't get near it. McDonald is a far better defender and should stay there.

I'll back Taylor's judgement. But I have little doubt he'll pick a tall at 7 IF he thinks the talent is there.

[Dwight Schrute 16,801]

Time for a poll?

i'm going Parish and Mckay