Ima just leave this here, highlights destroy that of the overated Curnow.

Ollie Wines 2.0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v5eGZepg0EM

Looks much closer to Jesse Stringer than Ollie Wines

Where is he expected to get picked? I like what I see

Looks much closer to Jesse Stringer than Ollie Wines

Where is he expected to get picked? I like what I see

Carlton at 11 is expectation. I say we pull the plug early.

Ima just leave this here, highlights destroy that of the overated Curnow.

Ollie Wines 2.0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v5eGZepg0EM

We have to pick this kid up.

We have to pick this kid up.

Curnow at 3 and Oliver at 7

Lock it in

Curnow at 3 and Oliver at 7

Lock it in

Right. Not a bad effort. Two guesses. Both of which will prove incorrect. A draft sevant

If we were planning on picking Oliver, what would be the point of trading up from pick 10 to 7 though? From my very limited knowledge I hope it happens, but I doubt it will.

Edited October 26, 201510 yr by Moneider96

If we were planning on picking Oliver, what would be the point of trading up front pick 10 to 7 though?

To take him before Carlton can who are heavily into him

So, assuming that Parish, Francis, Curnow and Weideman are gone by seven, who are the contenders for pick seven? Not having read the whole thread because it seemed like a lot of work, I see some support for Oliver. I assume Balic would be in the running as well. Would it be worth taking an early punt on Rioli given that he'd be gone by the time our next pick arrived?

Agreed only an idiot would've traded a future pick for this draft it's the worst draft I can recall, we made a big mistake after the first 5 it's turns to [censored] and there's no real superstars in the first 5 brain dead decision.

The draft is called shallow because only the top few are worth it according to the 'experts.'

So Pick 3 this year is better than Pick 9 next year. Because we don't want to finish in the bottom 4 again, yeah?

But [censored] on everything for no reason if you want to.

Right. Not a bad effort. Two guesses. Both of which will prove incorrect. A draft sevant

Cheers man , appreciate it

I think that if we get any combination of two players drawn from Parish, Curnow, Weideman, Francis and Oliver then we have to be looking good in 2016, both in the midfield and down the spine.

I think that if we get any combination of two players drawn from Parish, Curnow, Weideman, Francis and Oliver then we have to be looking good in 2016, both in the midfield and down the spine.

I don't understand the sudden interest in Weideman. He was injured for most of the season and even now isn't highly rated in the latest phantom drafts. He was pick #14 in the TAC Cup Future Stars top 20 and #16 in the Bound for Glory Phantom Draft released this week (comparison: Levi Casboult). Really?

We have the opportunity to nail the best two genuine mids in the draft in Parish and Mathieson to add to the young mids we already have and this could possibly give us the best young midfield in the competition in two year's time. We need to stay the course and go mids ... mids.

I don't understand the sudden interest in Weideman. He was injured for most of the season and even now isn't highly rated in the latest phantom drafts. He was pick #14 in the TAC Cup Future Stars top 20 and #16 in the Bound for Glory Phantom Draft released this week (comparison: Levi Casboult). Really?

We have the opportunity to nail the best two genuine mids in the draft in Parish and Mathieson to add to the young mids we already have and this could possibly give us the best young midfield in the competition in two year's time. We need to stay the course and go mids ... mids.

We have got Petracca, Vanders and Trengrove coming back into the midfield (plus we have picked up three players who will rotate through it) so I think we should be open enough to consider a KPF to augment Hogan if that proves to be the best player available at seven. It is no good developing the best midfield in the AFL if Hogan goes down!

I've only seen the highlights and there's definite raw bone potential, but Oliver looks like he lacks that smooth top 10 class.

But, it's just based on highlights.

Just watched Watts in TAC level for the first time and I can see why he went at #1, looked a cut above the rest which makes me think it doesn't matter how good you look as a junior if you don't tech these young guys properly from day one at the club it wont matter what number you take them at.

Edited October 27, 201510 yr by ILLDieADemon

Just watched Watts in TAC level for the first time and I can see why he went at #1, looked a cut above the rest which makes me think it doesn't matter how good you look as a junior if you don't tech these young guys properly from day one at the club it didn't matter what number we take them at.

Reminds me of a Malthouse comment. He said it doesn't matter where in the draft they go, because every kid in the draft can play. What matters is how you develop them once they're at the club.

Just had a look at them myself. The kid could really play. Clean hands, good evasive skills, good vision and disposal.

I've only seen the highlights and there's definite raw bone potential, but Oliver looks like he lacks that smooth top 10 class.

But, it's just based on highlights.

I feel like I'm watching Jordie McKenzie's draft highlights.

I feel like I'm watching Jordie McKenzie's draft highlights.

Might be the hair but at the start of the video I thought similar...may be a cross between Jordie and Col.

I feel like I'm watching Jordie McKenzie's draft highlights.

Without a word of a lie, his name crossed my mind.

I feel like I'm watching Jordie McKenzie's draft highlights.

Also looks like he ate Lance Whitnall.

Cheers man , appreciate it

My apologies. On reflection my comment was much harsher than I intended. And given I know SFA about juniors more than a little hypocritical.

I think parish is a stone cold certainty at 3, not because I know anything about him but because of the signals coming from the club.

As for pick 7 from JMs comments you'd think a forward might be on the cards but I still think they are desperate for mids. Sure to be someone who is super competitive, which makes me wonder about curow. He (and others) describes himself as cruisy. Doesn't mean he isn't fierce but makes me think more garlo stoner than viney tiger

My apologies. On reflection my comment was much harsher than I intended. And given I know SFA about juniors more than a little hypocritical.

I think parish is a stone cold certainty at 3, not because I know anything about him but because of the signals coming from the club.

As for pick 7 from JMs comments you'd think a forward might be on the cards but I still think they are desperate for mids. Sure to be someone who is super competitive, which makes me wonder about curow. He (and others) describes himself as cruisy. Doesn't mean he isn't fierce but makes me think more garlo stoner than viney tiger

The thing that I like about Curnow is the work ethic. If you look at his interviews he talks about how hard it was for his brother to find a spot in a team and how it really drove home for him the amount of work needed to make it at the top level. This is what makes me believe that he will be able to make himself into the oversized mid that Roos wants us to develop. He understands that his running isn't there yet and he'll need to work really hard to get up there, but he seems to be up for the challenge.

Hawthorn would be going for their sixth straight flag if they didn't stuff up the Thorp and Dowler selections.

and if they had not stuffed up in 2001 by taking Hodge over Judd, (which many thought for the first two seasons was a mistake). Hodge showed plenty of potential in his first couple of years but had injury worries and it was touted as a mistake. Judd would have had an immediate impact in what was a Preliminary finalist and they possibly would not have slid as quickly as they did, Hence they may not have been able to take Roughy and Buddy in 04

My apologies. On reflection my comment was much harsher than I intended. And given I know SFA about juniors more than a little hypocritical.

No its fine, my post was tongue in cheek as I know stuff all about the juniors too. We are in the same boat as everyone else here (well maybe besides a few posters that have watched a lot of TAC cup)

The draft is called shallow because only the top few are worth it according to the 'experts.'

So Pick 3 this year is better than Pick 9 next year. Because we don't want to finish in the bottom 4 again, yeah?

But [censored] on everything for no reason if you want to.

There's no Petreccas or Brayshaws in this draft there's spuds surely an AFL expert like yourself can see that.