Prior to trade week Roos/Goody will tell the List management/recruiters what they need and it was obvious as we picked up mid types. The recruiters take this into account going into the draft and will follow this guide only if there is not much between the sought after type and the best available. Talls are usually taken first if there is not much difference in ranking - they also tend to better hold their trade in value later if needed. Reaching to far into the draft for a particular type is very risky and likely to come back and bite on the bottom.

FF Kennedy Weideman Garlett

HF Petracca Hogan Kent

I might be completely off here, but part of the reason I think we'd take Weideman if available is because at some point I believe Hogan will make a move to CHF. Currently Dawes and Pederson clearly don't cut it as quality CHF let alone FF which is why Hoges played much of the year out of the goal square. But given his talents and attributes, I reckon he could offer a whole lot more if played at CHF.

The amount of times I saw Melbourne players ignore a leading Dawes was actually quite embarrassing for the guy. Unfortunately he just doesn't have the hands, foot skills nor the smarts to play that position well enough and Pedo is really just on our list for depth.

Hogan at CHF would be near impossible to stop. His tank is enormous. His field kicking is as good as anyone's his size. (Better than most of our midfielders). His marking I don't need to comment on.

He would be a knightmare for teams in that position and it would give our mids a whole lot more confidence when on the counter from defence.

Weideman is the FF who is aggressive in the air and a goal kicker. No fuss. His attributes best suit the position. Just your stay at home FF. It's clear he'll fill out and be a very big boy too which is important.

That's the vision I see. Could be wrong. But I feel like Hogan could be let off his leash if we find that true stay at home FF.

Of course Hogan is a CHF, Steve.

Not a mock-draft: The top 30 kids in this year's AFL Draft

The Doyen of drafts, Emma Q draft order (to me it is a defacto 'Best Available' list as she ignores who has what pick):

1 - 6: Academy/Carlton/Brisbane picks

7 - Francis, Utility

8 - Weidman, Foreward

9 - Milera, Foreward

10 - Oliver, Midfielder

11 - Parish, Midfielder

12 - Curnow, Foreward

13 - Mc Kay (Harry), Foreward

14 - Ah Chee, Foreward

15 - Burton, Foreward

She has Mathieson at 20.

Last year Emma had 9 of the top 10 picks right, almost in exact draft order.

So her rankings, really turns the table (for me) on who we take @ #3: 'Best Available' vs 'Need'.

In an interview last week Taylor said at the top end we would take 'Best Available'.

I also had the impression we would take a Mid and a Utility...Francis @ #3 or do we hope he goes thru to #7?

Oh, to be a fly on the wall to know how we rank 'Best Available' order!!

Of course Hogan is a CHF, Steve.

I think there are many who think he's best used out of the goal square.

Especially those who insist we draft mids with these two picks.

Not a mock-draft: The top 30 kids in this year's AFL DraftThe Doyen of drafts, Emma Q draft order (to me it is a defacto 'Best Available' list as she ignores who has what pick):1 - 6: Academy/Carlton/Brisbane picks 7 - Francis, Utility8 - Weidman, Foreward9 - Milera, Foreward10 - Oliver, Midfielder11 - Parish, Midfielder12 - Curnow, Foreward13 - Mc Kay (Harry), Foreward

14 - Ah Chee, Foreward

15 - Burton, Foreward

She has Mathieson at 20. Last year Emma had 9 of the top 10 picks right, almost in exact draft order.So her rankings, really turns the table (for me) on who we take @ #3: 'Best Available' vs 'Need'.In an interview last week Taylor said at the top end we would take 'Best Available'.I also had the impression we would take a Mid and a Utility...Francis @ #3 or do we hope he goes thru to #7? Oh, to be a fly on the wall to know how we rank 'Best Available' order!!

Emma's opinion on the draft is one I have nothing but respect for but personally think Parish is too low there.

I think there are many who think he's best used out of the goal square.

Especially those who insist we draft mids with these two picks.

Of course he has been. But we all know what he is and that's a CHF.

Not a mock-draft: The top 30 kids in this year's AFL DraftThe Doyen of drafts, Emma Q draft order (to me it is a defacto 'Best Available' list as she ignores who has what pick):1 - 6: Academy/Carlton/Brisbane picks 7 - Francis, Utility8 - Weidman, Foreward9 - Milera, Foreward10 - Oliver, Midfielder11 - Parish, Midfielder12 - Curnow, Foreward13 - Mc Kay (Harry), Foreward

14 - Ah Chee, Foreward

15 - Burton, Foreward

She has Mathieson at 20. Last year Emma had 9 of the top 10 picks right, almost in exact draft order.So her rankings, really turns the table (for me) on who we take @ #3: 'Best Available' vs 'Need'.In an interview last week Taylor said at the top end we would take 'Best Available'.I also had the impression we would take a Mid and a Utility...Francis @ #3 or do we hope he goes thru to #7? Oh, to be a fly on the wall to know how we rank 'Best Available' order!!

7 of the top 15 are forwards (7 out of 11 if you exclude academy)

Purely going on "best available" you could easily end up picking 2 forwards which we wouldn't do so sometimes "best available" may not be suitable.

Not a mock-draft: The top 30 kids in this year's AFL DraftThe Doyen of drafts, Emma Q draft order (to me it is a defacto 'Best Available' list as she ignores who has what pick):1 - 6: Academy/Carlton/Brisbane picks 7 - Francis, Utility8 - Weidman, Foreward9 - Milera, Foreward10 - Oliver, Midfielder11 - Parish, Midfielder12 - Curnow, Foreward13 - Mc Kay (Harry), Foreward

14 - Ah Chee, Foreward

15 - Burton, Foreward

She has Mathieson at 20. Last year Emma had 9 of the top 10 picks right, almost in exact draft order.So her rankings, really turns the table (for me) on who we take @ #3: 'Best Available' vs 'Need'.In an interview last week Taylor said at the top end we would take 'Best Available'.I also had the impression we would take a Mid and a Utility...Francis @ #3 or do we hope he goes thru to #7? Oh, to be a fly on the wall to know how we rank 'Best Available' order!!

You're getting confused. Her phantom draft is well researched and she speaks to a tonne of people. It's not overly surprising she got 9 from 10 last year, BUT that is separate and different to her player rankings, which I don't have much time for.

Of course Hogan is a CHF, Steve.

I think there are many who think he's best used out of the goal square.

Especially those who insist we draft mids with these two picks.

I just don't want him on a wing.

The notion of a FF and a CHF went the way of Pagan's Paddock.

I do not like the idea of trying to find a player to play between Hogan and the goals.

We should be trying to find a player that keeps Hogan in the 50.

He is a transcendent talent and unless we can find another one - he should be kicking goals - not chasing kicks on centre wing.

You're getting confused. Her phantom draft is well researched and she speaks to a tonne of people. It's not overly surprising she got 9 from 10 last year, BUT that is separate and different to her player rankings, which I don't have much time for.

No one else came even close to getting 9 of 10 right!

I get that player rankings are different to phantom drafts.

Why rankings are relevant is it gives insight into 'Best Available', which every club has to decide for themselves.

I would be surprised if there isn't a close correlation between her player rankings and her phantom draft order; just my opinion.

No one else came even close to getting 9 of 10 right!

I get that player rankings are different to phantom drafts.

Why rankings are relevant is it gives insight into 'Best Available', which every club has to decide for themselves.

I would be surprised if there isn't a close correlation between her player rankings and her phantom draft order; just my opinion.

luci, what i would like to see with a best available list would be an accompanying rating (say out of 100)

the reason is sometimes there is a big gap between consecutive players and sometimes you could throw a blanket over a group of four for example

I just don't want him on a wing.

The notion of a FF and a CHF went the way of Pagan's Paddock.

I do not like the idea of trying to find a player to play between Hogan and the goals.

We should be trying to find a player that keeps Hogan in the 50.

He is a transcendent talent and unless we can find another one - he should be kicking goals - not chasing kicks on centre wing.

Completely disagree. Hogan needs to use his aerobic strength and work up the ground, be a presence beyond 50 AND work back hard into the 50. Then there will be periods where he'll be left to work the 50, while releasing other teammates into dangerous space.

Completely disagree. Hogan needs to use his aerobic strength and work up the ground, be a presence beyond 50 AND work back hard into the 50. Then there will be periods where he'll be left to work the 50, while releasing other teammates into dangerous space.

I absolutely love the fact that this man mountain can run for 20kms a game - love it.

But I would not create a gameplan that has him lead with the flight of the ball into the 50 with a established tall sitting 25m out.

I am all for getting a tall in this draft if he is the best available but Hogan is most dangerous to the opposition when he is working his bloke over with multiple leads and having space around him 30m out.

And you don't 'completely disagree,' if you think he should still work back into the 50.

I would prefer they use his aerobic capacity by getting him to work over his bloke within distance of goal - get someone else to take chest marks on hard leads 80m out.

I absolutely love the fact that this man mountain can run for 20kms a game - love it.

But I would not create a gameplan that has him lead with the flight of the ball into the 50 with a established tall sitting 25m out.

I am all for getting a tall in this draft if he is the best available but Hogan is most dangerous to the opposition when he is working his bloke over with multiple leads and having space around him 30m out.

And you don't 'completely disagree,' if you think he should still work back into the 50.

I would prefer they use his aerobic capacity by getting him to work over his bloke within distance of goal - get someone else to take chest marks on hard leads 80m out.

Tend to agree and that's why I think both Melbourne and Essendon will most likely be pursuing Curnow ahead of Weideman because of the former's capacity to get around the ground and play in different positions.

However, I still have no problem with securing two midfielders at the high end of the draft if it works out that way.

I absolutely love the fact that this man mountain can run for 20kms a game - love it.

But I would not create a gameplan that has him lead with the flight of the ball into the 50 with a established tall sitting 25m out.

I am all for getting a tall in this draft if he is the best available but Hogan is most dangerous to the opposition when he is working his bloke over with multiple leads and having space around him 30m out.

And you don't 'completely disagree,' if you think he should still work back into the 50.

I would prefer they use his aerobic capacity by getting him to work over his bloke within distance of goal - get someone else to take chest marks on hard leads 80m out.

No modern game-plan dictates that a tall forward never leaves the forward 50. With presses, zones and guarding opponents it's an impossibility.

No-one wants Hogan spending the bulk of his time away from the forward 50 where he can't impact the scoreboard, but I also want him using his speed, contested marking ability and fantastic footy nous setting up play and contributing to goal-scoring ball movement.

Any great key forward uses multiple leads, angles, as well as strength/timing in marking contests, but Hogan is also a brilliant thinker. Having him permanently anchored in the forward 50 diminishes his ability to contribute to ball movement patterns. Hogan's an on-field architect. He needs to spend plenty of time in the forward 50, but also needs to involve himself up the ground where he can impact play. It also releases space behind him.

We'll agree to differ.

I think there are many who think he's best used out of the goal square.

Especially those who insist we draft mids with these two picks.

The games he kicked lots of goals deep against the Saints and GWS (at Etihad, no surprise there, there is no CHF on that ground, you connect through the wings or corridor to inside 50) were great but my favourite games were the ones where he did the work up the ground and back.

Round 1 v Gold Coast on the underrated Steve May was a ripper, as was his Richmond game as was his game against the Dogs the first time. Not to mention the North game where he and Dawes swapped nicely and both were dangerous.

Certainly he is at his best when involved in the play and up the ground, with the reality of modern football meaning versatility is key.

Neither Curnow nor Weideman seem limited to CHF or FF from what I've read. With Curnow's tank he can certainly get up the ground, but he also takes enough contested marks and kicks enough goals to play deep. Weideman might start closer to goal but he has the skills and ability in general play to link up.

Not a mock-draft: The top 30 kids in this year's AFL DraftThe Doyen of drafts, Emma Q draft order (to me it is a defacto 'Best Available' list as she ignores who has what pick):1 - 6: Academy/Carlton/Brisbane picks 7 - Francis, Utility8 - Weidman, Foreward9 - Milera, Foreward10 - Oliver, Midfielder11 - Parish, Midfielder12 - Curnow, Foreward13 - Mc Kay (Harry), Foreward

14 - Ah Chee, Foreward

15 - Burton, Foreward

She has Mathieson at 20. Last year Emma had 9 of the top 10 picks right, almost in exact draft order.So her rankings, really turns the table (for me) on who we take @ #3: 'Best Available' vs 'Need'.In an interview last week Taylor said at the top end we would take 'Best Available'.I also had the impression we would take a Mid and a Utility...Francis @ #3 or do we hope he goes thru to #7? Oh, to be a fly on the wall to know how we rank 'Best Available' order!!

Oliver ahead of Parish. We need to pull the trigger and take him at 3

I don't mind taking parish but I do like the look of Francis And Oliver

I would personally love Milera at the Dees. He is the type of play I like.

Oliver ahead of Parish. We need to pull the trigger and take him at 3

Do you rate Oliver?

luci, what i would like to see with a best available list would be an accompanying rating (say out of 100)

the reason is sometimes there is a big gap between consecutive players and sometimes you could throw a blanket over a group of four for example

Well said DC. Best availabe doesn't factor in how many years of development is required for a player. For example, Mckay might take 5 years before he makes a significant impact in the AFL, as opposed to Parrish who may take 1 year. Does a lowly club like ourselves have the patience to wait that long?

Excluding academy picks, 1 and 2 are unanimous, and opinions are divided on the next 6-10 picks. Contrary to some of the rhetoric in the media, I think we have a clear target at 3, and have a fair idea about who will still be there at 7.

Francis looks like the "sure fire" gun to me. I say we take him with 3- develop Frost as the second ruck/forward, then take the best available mid at 7. But I do like Parish as well, with that Cousins like breakaway movement from stoppages.

There are too many "experts" intimating that Curnow is on the lazy side. Being we want natural competitors it makes me question whether he fits the bill. On my limited viewing Parish with one of Weideman/Francis/Oliver for me.

But we all know what he is and that's a CHF.

Clearly not everyone sees that. If they did, they wouldn't be arguing the importance of having the 50 to himself.

oliver has been likened to dustin martin

i see him as more a potential dane swan type

and like him he might take a few years to settle in

i don't think he's a top 10 pick (excl academy players)

I am all for getting a tall in this draft if he is the best available but Hogan is most dangerous to the opposition when he is working his bloke over with multiple leads and having space around him 30m out.

This is what it comes down to and is the reason I'm saying he might make a move up to CHF. If Weideman happens to be that elite stay-at-home FF and we happen to pick him up then we'll most surely see a switch?

Hogan's attributes best suit CHF. The reason he played out of the goal square this year is because of our lack of talent in the forward line and because we have nobody else who could play either position as well as him. And we needed to score this year.

The scenario relies on us drafting an elite talent who can be a really dangerous stay at home FF. And I'm hoping it's Weideman. If so, it only makes sense to play Hogan in his naturally best suited position. CHF.

If we don't find that talent, then I agree we'll have to play him exclusively close to goal.