Not the kid we pick up at 3 or 7, that's for sure.

Agreed it's unlikely for next year but we should be preparing the list for the future as well. If we pick up mids again this year we'll be in the same predicament in 12 months time potentially with later picks.

I would hardly call drafting a tall random panic.

It seems as though the mids available in this draft are also relatively speculative with no clear standouts other than a couple that we don't have access to.

It's known that talls take longer to develop, so now may be the time to draft a highly rated one so that by the time we're competitive he's ready to step in and play a role for us. We all know how expensive it is to try and lure a good tall via free agency or trade, and I think we'll have to develop our own if we're going to afford to keep all the young guns that we currently have.

We really don't have too many tall forward prospects. King is very speculative. Same goes for OMac, and it seems he'll continue as a defender. Not sure what the vision is for Frost, but I think he's a defender as well.

As has already been illustrated on here, the best KPPs go early in the draft. We've already given up our first rounder for next season, and hopefully by the time we're drafting in 2017 our pick won't be high.

I see now as our chance to get a partner for Hogan to form a dominant tandem for the next decade.

I still think people are underselling the gap here honestly,

Parish is a much better inside player than people think, he averaged 29 touches per game in the TAC cup, but about 45% of those were contested, he averages about as many contested possessions per game as Oliver and is far and away more dangerous on the outside, and had backed it up over a two year body of work inc dual all Australian, where Oliver for example has really only come good this season after some serious question marks about if he'd even be drafted.

I would hardly call drafting a tall random panic.

It seems as though the mids available in this draft are also relatively speculative with no clear standouts other than a couple that we don't have access to.

It's known that talls take longer to develop, so now may be the time to draft a highly rated one so that by the time we're competitive he's ready to step in and play a role for us. We all know how expensive it is to try and lure a good tall via free agency or trade, and I think we'll have to develop our own if we're going to afford to keep all the young guns that we currently have.

We really don't have too many tall forward prospects. King is very speculative. Same goes for OMac, and it seems he'll continue as a defender. Not sure what the vision is for Frost, but I think he's a defender as well.

As has already been illustrated on here, the best KPPs go early in the draft. We've already given up our first rounder for next season, and hopefully by the time we're drafting in 2017 our pick won't be high.

I see now as our chance to get a partner for Hogan to form a dominant tandem for the next decade.

We're on the same page I think GTG.

I still think people are underselling the gap here honestly,

Parish is a much better inside player than people think, he averaged 29 touches per game in the TAC cup, but about 45% of those were contested, he averages about as many contested possessions per game as Oliver and is far and away more dangerous on the outside, and had backed it up over a two year body of work inc dual all Australian, where Oliver for example has really only come good this season after some serious question marks about if he'd even be drafted.

Like many on here, my opinion is formed by reading profiles, phantoms drafts/guides, and watching YouTube clips. It seems that in recent weeks Parish has slipped from being the best available mid (Hopper/Mills don't count) to being on par with a group of other mids, which includes players like Oliver, Balic and Milera.

That being said, it's not the point that I was trying to make. I was trying to illustrate the importance of drafting a tall with one of our early picks. Happy to select a mid with the other.

Dom hit the nail on the head. With Tyson, Salem, Petracca, Brayshaw, ANB, Stretch, Viney, Melksham, Vandenberg we're well placed for a dominant midfield in the near future.

Add Jones, Vince, one of P3 or P7 and hopefully Trengove and it makes sense to use one of these selections on a tall to complement Hogan.

It just makes sense.

Dom hit the nail on the head. With Tyson, Salem, Petracca, Brayshaw, ANB, Stretch, Viney, Melksham, Vandenberg we're well placed for a dominant midfield in the near future.

Add Jones, Vince, one of P3 or P7 and hopefully Trengove and it makes sense to use one of these selections on a tall to complement Hogan.

It just makes sense.

Exactly this. I keep harping on about it. We don't just need midfielders.. People keep crying out that we have a weak midfield. We don't just have a weak midfield. We lack experienced and veteran midfielders. We don't NEED to draft another young midfield brigade. Look at the list that was quoted above ^. Which is exactly why we need a tall at 3 or 7.

Edited November 16, 20159 yr by juzzk1d

You want an instant fix. The club is building a list that will compete for a flag in 2020.

Having a quality key forward to partner Hogan is part of that puzzle.

I'll back the recruiters if they use P3 or P7 on one. Quality key forwards are nearly always drafted at the pointy end.

Do I ? What have you been reading ?

My whole point is the opposite. Getting some quality mids in the draft bolsters the growing of the midfield.. That not INSTANT...thats planning.

The two available KPP that we get a look at are at best Id say Suss 1 and Suss 2. Be wasting picks . We can get this player later

Parish and Weiderman/Mckay/Curnow

sorted i reckon haha

Do I ? What have you been reading ?

My whole point is the opposite. Getting some quality mids in the draft bolsters the growing of the midfield.. That not INSTANT...thats planning.

The two available KPP that we get a look at are at best Id say Suss 1 and Suss 2. Be wasting picks . We can get this player later

How?

Freo can't get one, the Dogs have paid overs for one who could be a bust, the Swans paid overs for 2 and both could be a bust.

Now's the time 'BB'.

Do I ? What have you been reading ?

My whole point is the opposite. Getting some quality mids in the draft bolsters the growing of the midfield.. That not INSTANT...thats planning.

The two available KPP that we get a look at are at best Id say Suss 1 and Suss 2. Be wasting picks . We can get this player later

"KPP notoriously take years longer to come on than utility/mids.

How I see it is. Unless you are absolutely desperate for a fwd /back of any kind then you dont waste pointy end picks on a so-so player."

Your comments above indicate to me you don't want to take the time to develop a quality young tall.

I'd add that if we do draft a tall we obviously consider said player a "quality" prospect and not some "so-so player".

We're on the same page I think GTG.

Dom hit the nail on the head. With Tyson, Salem, Petracca, Brayshaw, ANB, Stretch, Viney, Melksham, Vandenberg we're well placed for a dominant

midfield in the near future.

Add Jones, Vince, one of P3 or P7 and hopefully Trengove and it makes sense to use one of these selections on a tall to complement Hogan.

It just makes sense.

That's why we'll take Curnow at 3 to play the Jack Darling lead up role.

Pick 7 could be used on best available mid.

It would be much easier if our club was still leaking. All this angst would be over (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

I am really sad and follow this quite a lot. I spend a bit of time engaging with the 'experts' on twitter and read and watch a fair bit so here is my state of play:

The expert (Andersen, Lambsberger, Twoomey, Edwards, Quayle, Knighmare, Snoop, TAC cup coaches I know, some inside other clubs info) consensus says there are 8 players for our picks 3 and 7:

• Parish
• Curnow
• Weiderman
• Oliver
• McKay
• Collins
• Mileria
• Francis

No one has indicated that we are remotely interested in the SA boys (Mileria and Francis) so that leaves us with 6 players. For pick 3 it is between Parish, Curnow and Weiderman. With Wiederman's testing on Friday(?) we will know more here. All three had injuries this year with Parish coming back first. All 3 have shown they can match it against men, all 3 have been game winners, and all 3 have looked terrible at times. All 3 can play round 1 next year as Parish is an in and under (not just outside player) who like tackling and ripping the ball away. Curnow and Weiderman are great contested marks and can kick goals. Curnow's midfield time needs a bit of work (which I find odd as he was a mid first, then forward) but both of them can develop in the MFC 1's as we they would only get the 3rd-4th best defender. I'd see Curnow rotating with Petracca through the midfield and Weiderman would be more stay at home FF for the first few years. He is great on a lead though. All 3 will be good for us and will fill holes that we have. I expect that we will only get one of them although there is a case to be made that all could fall to 7 under different scenarios. Parish will have the biggest impact in 2016, Weiderman by 2018 and then after that Curnow looks like he will be the best of the lot. However, they should all play 200 odd games so we cant loose.

Pick 7, now assuming that one of these 3 doesn't get to us, it leaves us with Oliver, McKay and Collins. All 'experts' have had us taking a different one here. I think Collins is great, but with T-Mac, O-Mac, and Frost, I dont think we need another young developing back (and that is what he is). Andersen is the only one speaking about us taking Collins and he hasnt talked to the MFC about it. I've watched Oliver move up the draft board and saw him the other day and he is much trimmer and stronger than what he was during the year. He has removed the puppy fat that was on him and looks like he will be a beast. He is a powerful inside mid, loves a goal and is rough at it, but he is my second choice here. He will be a good player but he is not going to be Oliver Wines (sorry). I think we will pull the trigger on McKay. McKay is young, to give you an idea, he would be 75 days younger than what Hogan was when he joined as a 17 year old. We all love Hogan, but McKay did more this year than Hogan did when we drafted him (obviously he doesn't have the aggressive traits of Hogan which is why we took Hogan). McKay isnt the contested marking beast of Curnow and Weiderman because he creates separation really easily because of his aerobic capacity. I'd love to see some footage of him taking a contested mark, but they tend to be on the lead. At 200cm and the possibility of still growing, he is 94kg which is great coming into the system as he is lean and the weight in muscle and height. If he was 7 days younger he would be the consensus number 1 pick next year. Right now, at 17 years of age, he is probably the 12th best player in this draft right now. In a year's time he might well be the best. I think he will need half a season at Casey but should be able to play the back end of the year at CHF. Andersen would be angry if I didnt mention Gresham. He's as good as Parish but shorter and doesnt play as hard. We're not taking him though.

Everyone was quick to jump on this being a weak draft. It is as there are only about 50 players in here, but there will be only around 50 live picks. The picks from 35-50 will be guys that were highly rated at the start of the year but have fallen away through injury. The Top 10 can all be 200 gamers easily, now they wont be Petracca and Brayshaw but honestly that combo is something that GWS never got in their pointy end draft years. 11-25 are personal preference and could be anything or could be role players. I'd expect that in 6 years time we look back on this draft and quite a few are really good foot soldiers who have all played 100 games but aren't out and out superstars. And that is alright.

Right now, gut feel I'd say that we take Curnow at 3 and McKay at 7 (10). My actual preference is the Parish Weiderman combo but I think they will end up at the Dons.

Hope that helps.

Edited November 16, 20159 yr by Dee-licious

There are a number of mids we can pick and I don't think there is a massive gap between them. We need a true key position forward, not under size lead up forwards. For me pick 3 Wiederman and pick 7 Mckay, bring in two keys one that can play that Ruck/Forward role. Then two picks late in the draft to get some mid size players.

If (and it's a big if) the club has had some indication that Prestia is headed our way next year, does that change the drafting strategy this year? Could we go two talls with the knowledge that our midfield will be all but completed come 2017?

If (and it's a big if) the club has had some indication that Prestia is headed our way next year, does that change the drafting strategy this year? Could we go two talls with the knowledge that our midfield will be all but completed come 2017?

Was just thinking that.

That's why we'll take Curnow at 3 to play the Jack Darling lead up role.

Pick 7 could be used on best available mid.

Yep, things may turn out that way.

Although I'm not sure there's another mid available that complements our midfield like Parish. If there was then taking Curnow at 3 would be a no-brainer (assuming we rate him as suggested).

My major concern is our lack of key position forwards.

.....

.....

.....

Tall forwards and probably rucks are where we are light. It's hard to get quality tall forwards late in the draft. I think we are going to have to go at least 1 tall at 3 or 7 potentially both could be talls.

If Hogan gets injured and misses a chunk of next year who is going to step into the role?

HB

Yes, based on what you've explained in your post, one of pick 3 and 7 should be used on a KPF.

The only other option which you haven't mentioned if Hogan goes down is Watts to fill that role. Or one of pick 3/7.

We can't rely on Dawes or Pederson to spearhead the attack if Hogan is out for whatever reasons, we clearly need at least one tall in those two picks.

Reckon it'd be safer to pick two mids with picks 3 & 7 than (slightly) speculative talls.

Parish and any of Oliver/Mathieson/Curnow for me.

If as we all hope we do and rise up the ladder next year and the following, this draft may be our last chance to claim a tall fwd in the top 10 for a few years. 3 or 7 must be a tall fwd. they don't or very rarely exist outside the top 10.

If as we all hope we do and rise up the ladder next year and the following, this draft may be our last chance to claim a tall fwd in the top 10 for a few years. 3 or 7 must be a tall fwd. they don't or very rarely exist outside the top 10.

Lynden Dunn says hi

If as we all hope we do and rise up the ladder next year and the following, this draft may be our last chance to claim a tall fwd in the top 10 for a few years. 3 or 7 must be a tall fwd. they don't or very rarely exist outside the top 10.

Lynden Dunn says hi

Not sure of your point, Olisik. Lynden Dunn is not a tall forward.

If you're trying to say that he can play as our second tall forward, he'll be 29 in May and surely won't have too many years left after that. He's not a long-term solution to our problem.

We need to draft a forward with one of these picks. This draft could make or break whether we become a legitimate contender or another also-ran.

Lynden Dunn says hi

If you think Dawes has trouble catching the footy then you'll be even more disappointed in Dunn. Not sure if I've ever seen him take an overhead mark. Not what you want as a chf.

We need one mid to tall forward with pick 3 or 7. All those available to us are flawed. I hope Francis slips through.

If you think Dawes has trouble catching the footy then you'll be even more disappointed in Dunn. Not sure if I've ever seen him take an overhead mark. Not what you want as a chf.

We need one mid to tall forward with pick 3 or 7. All those available to us are flawed. I hope Francis slips through.

Could Petracca be the one to start off here. He did start the draft year as a KPF. Then worked his way into the midfield.

Similar size to Jack Darling.

Edited November 17, 20159 yr by Devil is in the Detail

Parish is an in and under (not just outside player) who like tackling and ripping the ball away.

Parish's lack of tackling is one of the major knocks on him.