There is no point having a great fwd line if you only get the ball in there 20 times a game......

If you're a mid and you see Hogan and another dominant marking tall making position you'll get the ball into the F50 far quicker than if they weren't there.

With Parish at P3 the midfield will be virtually set with an ounce of luck.

Reading things like this excites me. I have really high hopes for Salem. Do others agree he could potentially be one of our best?

It seems that most MFC supporters knew that we had a serious player on our hands from the moment he touched the MCG turf in his first match. His skills, hardness and composure really do make him the perfect package. Hopefully his injuries can be kept under control, as I think he was ready to take his game to another level in 2015.

The more I think about it, the more I feel we'll pull the trigger on Weideman at 3.

It just fits in with the mould of the type of players we've been attracting over the last 3 years - and the type of targets that Taylor et al have said they're chasing - that is, competitive beasts.

Hogan, Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca, Tyson - each of these guys has competitiveness in spades. The AFL is too unforgiving these days to be anything less than 110% committed and aggressive every time you take the field.

That's not to say Parish is not aggressive. He has a good mix of inside-outside play and a high contested possession average through the TAC Cup this year. He has some great attributes; excellent decision making, great disposal on both sides, impacts the game (rated no. 1 for metres gained). But no recruiter would say that raw competitiveness is his number one attribute. In fact, if you watch the 2 VFL games that the Academy boys played, he never really threw his body into contests and seemed slightly reticent to tackle, let alone hunt players down. This is backed up by his poor 2.8 average tackles per game despite playing as a full-time midfielder.

As an alternative, Weideman IS a competitive beast. He has virtually no bulk on his frame and yet throws himself into packs ala Hogan. He tackles hard, chases and generally just plays at a highly aggressive level.

Sure he has lots of other attributes too, but if the recruiting team were to continue the current trend of picking competitors, Weideman seems like the logical choice.

The one caveat is obviously whether he passes his upcoming fitness test with us.

I'm on the Parish and McKay wagon, assuming Weideman is gone by 7.

Curnow seems too similar to Petracca in size and style, and given Mckay is 17 and raw, he'd be an ideal candidate for second tall with ruck time potential in 2017.

iF theclub was going down the path of an each way bet...i.e one mid one biggun.. Then id be quite happy with Parish and McKay.. I still prefer...yada yada yada....but

Id prefer Mckay to either suss 1 or suss2

It wil be interesting for sure let alone the other two picks

Going to have an OK list at eh end of all of this I think

Any chance that one of the Clubs with academy players fails to match a bid at 2, 3, 4, or whichever pick they are bid at? Any of these clubs not have the points to match really high bids? Could we realistically end up with Kennedy or Mills?

If I am showing a lack of understanding of the system, please kick me in the rrrse and tell me to shut the f up.

It's unlikely that a Northern club will willingly not meet the 'points' and let the player go to the club.

BUT let's say that GWS has 5 players in the top 10 one year - they might run up a deficit past the allowable point - at which, they will be forced to let any further players in that draft leave to their nominated club. So they might get 3 of those players and the last two will go to the nominated clubs.

Which is what we've been doing in regards to talls/KPP's: King, Oscar Mac, Frost.

As everyone keeps saying, KPP's take time. Let's give them time.

Im with you here. Many in a tiz to get some talls so we can develop them to be useful in a few years time.. But we already have some in development !!

By all means get more but lets not get too carried away and forego what we can get for what might be..as it were..i.e if best avail is a mid.utility...get them.

BUT let's say that GWS has 5 players in the top 10 one year - they might run up a deficit past the allowable point - at which, they will be forced to let any further players in that draft leave to their nominated club. So they might get 3 of those players and the last two will go to the nominated clubs.

I am really keen to see a situation like this unwind, especially to see a club with an academy not match the bid in order to grab one of the other players. Obviously therefore meaning they rated player unbid on higher than they rated player bid on.

Well ive come to the realization that there is not one player in this draft I really like

Last year I was salivating over Petracca and Brayshaw before we even picked them

This year theres not one player I really want us to get. I hope we did the right thing by getting two top pics in this draft. The talent pool really does seem weak

You sure that's how it works?

It's my understanding based on what I've read of the rules, but I could be interpreting it incorrectly.

The way I see it, clubs that traded 2016 picks this year, will not be able to trade 2017 picks in the 2016 trade period.

Well that's not messy to try and explain. Where's Doc Brown when you need him?

Well ive come to the realization that there is not one player in this draft I really like

Last year I was salivating over Petracca and Brayshaw before we even picked them

This year theres not one player I really want us to get. I hope we did the right thing by getting two top pics in this draft. The talent pool really does seem weak

I look at it slightly differently - I see no standouts past those two talls - so I wonder which players taken in the teens will be stars...

Well ive come to the realization that there is not one player in this draft I really like

Last year I was salivating over Petracca and Brayshaw before we even picked them

But it was also common knowledge that we were most likely ending up with 2/3 players.

In this draft we could end up with any 2/10 almost and it makes it harder to get excited as it is less likely to be able to pick who we get, thats how I feel about it.

I am underwhelmed by the key position talent after the first two who look like they will be stars, but there are still up to 20 players in this draft who interest me and the possibility of getting some more top end talent is exciting. Jason Taylor is yet to do poorly, so im backing him in to bring us high quality picks that are ready to be developed.

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but I'm pretty sure the northern academy scheme was implemented not just to help promote the game in NSW and Qld but also to compensate the Suns and GWS for not having any chance of father-son selections for another 20 years.

Well ive come to the realization that there is not one player in this draft I really like

Last year I was salivating over Petracca and Brayshaw before we even picked them

This year theres not one player I really want us to get. I hope we did the right thing by getting two top pics in this draft. The talent pool really does seem weak

Agreed. This time last year was hoping Saints would take McCartin so we'd be left with Brayshaw and Petracca.

Year before was really hoping for Salem over Freeman.

Year before Toump over Wines.

This year I've changed my mind about ten times.

The more I think about it, the more I feel we'll pull the trigger on Weideman at 3.

It just fits in with the mould of the type of players we've been attracting over the last 3 years - and the type of targets that Taylor et al have said they're chasing - that is, competitive beasts.

Hogan, Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca, Tyson - each of these guys has competitiveness in spades. The AFL is too unforgiving these days to be anything less than 110% committed and aggressive every time you take the field.

That's not to say Parish is not aggressive. He has a good mix of inside-outside play and a high contested possession average through the TAC Cup this year. He has some great attributes; excellent decision making, great disposal on both sides, impacts the game (rated no. 1 for metres gained). But no recruiter would say that raw competitiveness is his number one attribute. In fact, if you watch the 2 VFL games that the Academy boys played, he never really threw his body into contests and seemed slightly reticent to tackle, let alone hunt players down. This is backed up by his poor 2.8 average tackles per game despite playing as a full-time midfielder.

As an alternative, Weideman IS a competitive beast. He has virtually no bulk on his frame and yet throws himself into packs ala Hogan. He tackles hard, chases and generally just plays at a highly aggressive level.

Sure he has lots of other attributes too, but if the recruiting team were to continue the current trend of picking competitors, Weideman seems like the logical choice.

The one caveat is obviously whether he passes his upcoming fitness test with us.

As I posted somewhere, if we think we can get a bloke like perhaps Oliver, who is not too far behind Parish, at pick 7, we could very well pull the trigger on a big forward at 3 and Sam is probably the best available at 3.

I can guarantee that whoever we pick, the media will go hard to mock us for not picking another player just like they did with the Salem and Tyson deal.

Agreed. This time last year was hoping Saints would take McCartin so we'd be left with Brayshaw and Petracca.

Year before was really hoping for Salem over Freeman.

Year before Toump over Wines.

This year I've changed my mind about ten times.

Aside from Parish, who I think is a lock to become a good AFL player, there are a lot of question marks over the players who've been mooted to get picked up between 3-10.

The other player who I'm keen on who hasn't been mentioned in dispatches is Gresham. The only knock on him is his height. He's a natural footballer, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's a bolter.

Is it me or does he remind you a bit of Luke Hodge once he fully develops.

I said this to someone a few weeks ago at work and they just laughed.

We shall see.

Parish with 3. Surely.

What I like about this situation is that we have traded for pick 3 and obviously know who we want at that pick. The only way that we don't get who we specifically want is to be gifted Weitering or Schache.

Having said that, I hope that it is Parish that we have earmarked.

I'm not sure if they can use future picks to match bids, but if not then Sydney can't match pick 1. I haven't looked into the other clubs with academy and FS picks.

i thought they could carry over points , if they don't have enough

I honestly think it could go--

1 Carlton -Weitering- don't even need to say anything

2 Bris - Schache- same goes

3 Syd- Mills - they'll match any bid

4 Melb -Parish - Best available. Must be him

5 GWS - Hopper - Same as Mills

6 GWS - Kennedy - ^^^

7 Ess - Weideman - they need a sidekick for Daniher

8 Ess - Oliver - They are also desperate for mids

9 - GCS - Francis - best available they have been into him for a while

10 Melb - Curnow - Yess

I think The Dons will take Curnow instead of Weideman, as he has the potential to address two of their concern areas at once (mid and forward), they are really short on quality young mids) and with limited viewings Weideman seems too similar to Daniher...

Dees almost settled on pick 3:

Dees almost settled on pick No.3

Dees almost settled on pick 3:

Dees almost settled on pick No.3

Only now? I would of thought they had someone in mind before they traded for pick 3.

Emma Quayle suggesting on the Realfooty Q&A that Oliver is in contention at 3.

Suggestion elsewhere is that Parish is no longer in contention, and is far from being a lock at the Dons if he gets through.