Jump to content

Featured Replies

The more i think about it, the more i'm convinced we'll take Parish with our first Pick.

We've been linked to all of Curnow, Weideman and Francis who are all talls, who are all also a chance of at least one of them being available with our 2nd Pick.

Parish is the only genuine mid we've been strongly linked to and we know wont be available with our 2nd pick.

Fingers crossed for a Parish/Curnow combo from me!

 

Looks like a good Junior player.

If he can play like that at the next level he will be a star but we all know how these young blokes don't always play to there picking order.

I will wait till this time next year before I get excited about our draft picks.

Edited by ILLDieADemon

 

Whilst most seem to believe Parish is going to come to us via pick 3 there maybe an argument believe otherwise

Firstly the appearance of Brendan McCartney in the Geelong Falcons rooms during the season and our need for high quality mids that fuelled some of the Parish to Melbourne speculation. Given Brendan's history in the Geelong region, having both played and coached in the area, it may not be unusual for him to be in the area. Of course, as well as Parish, Curnow and Mathieson play for the Falcons too.

Also during the season we were looking at having access to pick 6 not pick 3 as we have now. If we had of finished the year off as the Club no doubt hoped, rather than losing 4 of the last 5 games, then pick 7 would have been our first go. If Parish was being considered then perhaps it was at 7.

These are the mids that Roos has bought into the club; Tyson 186cm, Michie 185cm, Bradshaw 187cm, Melkshum 185cm, Vince 186cm, Cross 187cm, Petracca 186cm and vdB 188cm. We all know that Roos loves his solid, big bodied mids and whilst he's probably not going to knock back one just because he's a skinny, and shortish at 181cm you would think he would have to be something special. Is Parish something special?

Honestly I'm just playing devils advocate here and have not seen any of these young kids play live. For the sake of the argument though I think a player like the 191cm/94kg Curnow who can play forward and then graduate back to the midfield in a couple of years time more likely to be playing in the red and blue from pick 3.

.

Just as many of those middle sized players don't come on as expected either.

Whoever we choose, it's a hope rather than an expectation that we will get a player who can go on to be a quality player - God knows we deserve to get a star or three from the last couple of drafts, don't we??


I donn't think Roos has got anything to do with it in any way. I be alarmed if he did.

Whilst most seem to believe Parish is going to come to us via pick 3 there maybe an argument believe otherwise

Firstly the appearance of Brendan McCartney in the Geelong Falcons rooms during the season and our need for high quality mids that fuelled some of the Parish to Melbourne speculation. Given Brendan's history in the Geelong region, having both played and coached in the area, it may not be unusual for him to be in the area. Of course, as well as Parish, Curnow and Mathieson play for the Falcons too.

Also during the season we were looking at having access to pick 6 not pick 3 as we have now. If we had of finished the year off as the Club no doubt hoped, rather than losing 4 of the last 5 games, then pick 7 would have been our first go. If Parish was being considered then perhaps it was at 7.

These are the mids that Roos has bought into the club; Tyson 186cm, Michie 185cm, Bradshaw 187cm, Melkshum 185cm, Vince 186cm, Cross 187cm, Petracca 186cm and vdB 188cm. We all know that Roos loves his solid, big bodied mids and whilst he's probably not going to knock back one just because he's a skinny, and shortish at 181cm you would think he would have to be something special. Is Parish something special?

Honestly I'm just playing devils advocate here and have not seen any of these young kids play live. For the sake of the argument though I think a player like the 191cm/94kg Curnow who can play forward and then graduate back to the midfield in a couple of years time more likely to be playing in the red and blue from pick 3.

.

Not a lot of logic or sense here. It's ridiculous to think that we'd pass on potentially the best mid in the draft because he's 4-5 cms shorter than Roos likes. And I'd say that Goodwin would have more input than Roos at the draft table.

We may pick Curnow at 3 for no other reason than to play as a long term forward, not as someone who'll graduate as a mid.

We planned on upgrading our draft picks before the trade period despite only having pick 6 back then, so I think your premise is incorrect there..... If your trying to narrow down or do guesswork on who we will pick based on that its pretty flawed.

 

Melbourne needed pick 3 because they thought the player they'd earmarked wouldn't be there at pick 6. One club had picks between 3 and 6 - Essendon.

If we think Melbourne have recently been light on for mids take a look at Essendon. Watson and Stanton are geriatrics with their best footy well behind them. Zaharakis hasn't taken the next step. If anything he's regressed. Myers is a disappointment. Hocking is a good player, but little more than a no frills tagger. That leaves Heppell as their only class mid with years left. If you're Essendon you're taking Parish. No questions asked.

Any surmising 3-4 weeks before the draft is prone to error, however, it just makes sense that Melbourne want the class mid in this draft. Especially when he's exactly what we need.

Heard from a couple of people that Essendon were/are hoping to land Parish.

They're pretty annoyed that we managed to land pick 3.


I donn't think Roos has got anything to do with it in any way. I be alarmed if he did.

Really? Prepare to be alarmed then...

Whilst most seem to believe Parish is going to come to us via pick 3 there maybe an argument believe otherwise

Firstly the appearance of Brendan McCartney in the Geelong Falcons rooms during the season and our need for high quality mids that fuelled some of the Parish to Melbourne speculation. Given Brendan's history in the Geelong region, having both played and coached in the area, it may not be unusual for him to be in the area. Of course, as well as Parish, Curnow and Mathieson play for the Falcons too.

Also during the season we were looking at having access to pick 6 not pick 3 as we have now. If we had of finished the year off as the Club no doubt hoped, rather than losing 4 of the last 5 games, then pick 7 would have been our first go. If Parish was being considered then perhaps it was at 7.

These are the mids that Roos has bought into the club; Tyson 186cm, Michie 185cm, Bradshaw 187cm, Melkshum 185cm, Vince 186cm, Cross 187cm, Petracca 186cm and vdB 188cm. We all know that Roos loves his solid, big bodied mids and whilst he's probably not going to knock back one just because he's a skinny, and shortish at 181cm you would think he would have to be something special. Is Parish something special?

Honestly I'm just playing devils advocate here and have not seen any of these young kids play live. For the sake of the argument though I think a player like the 191cm/94kg Curnow who can play forward and then graduate back to the midfield in a couple of years time more likely to be playing in the red and blue from pick 3.

.

It was Goodwin seen in the rooms and we had the GC deal for Howe ready to go for ND3, we weren't expecting ND6 to get the player we wanted.

Whoever we pick - we picked him a long way out.

The other way of looking at it is that we were trying to trade next year's pick for a top 10 pick this year, and giving a little bit extra in moving 6 to 3 was mutually beneficial based on who Gold Cost were hoping to draft.

If you think about it this way, we may not have specifically earmarked a player for pick 3.

That's not what I think has happened, but it's possible.

Heard from a couple of people that Essendon were/are hoping to land Parish.

They're pretty annoyed that we managed to land pick 3.

The fact that they were probably so smug about getting pick 25 for Melksham only for us to then get pick 3 makes it even better.

Melbourne needed pick 3 because they thought the player they'd earmarked wouldn't be there at pick 6. One club had picks between 3 and 6 - Essendon.

If we think Melbourne have recently been light on for mids take a look at Essendon. Watson and Stanton are geriatrics with their best footy well behind them. Zaharakis hasn't taken the next step. If anything he's regressed. Myers is a disappointment. Hocking is a good player, but little more than a no frills tagger. That leaves Heppell as their only class mid with years left. If you're Essendon you're taking Parish. No questions asked.

Any surmising 3-4 weeks before the draft is prone to error, however, it just makes sense that Melbourne want the class mid in this draft. Especially when he's exactly what we need.

You could equally argue the same case for Curnow. Melbourne wanted Pick 3 as they didn't think Curnow would last until 7. Essendon's need for forwards (or potentially in Curnow's case forward/mid) is just as strong as ours, or stronger if you want to compare Hogan with Daniher. I would be surprised if Essendon didn't go for a forward as well as a mid.

I'm not saying that's what'll happen but the argument's valid.


You could equally argue the same case for Curnow. Melbourne wanted Pick 3 as they didn't think Curnow would last until 7. Essendon's need for forwards (or potentially in Curnow's case forward/mid) is just as strong as ours, or stronger if you want to compare Hogan with Daniher. I would be surprised if Essendon didn't go for a forward as well as a mid.

I'm not saying that's what'll happen but the argument's valid.

As I said, it's impossible to be categoric with any argument, but common sense tells me it's a far less valid argument.

Parish was no chance of being overlooked by Essendon, such is their dire need for quality in their midfield, whereas Curnow is a genuine chance to be available at pick 7. If Essendon only had one pick it's feasible they'd overlook Parish, but not when they have two.

Twelve months ago Weideman was being bracketed with Schache and Weitering as the quality tall of the draft. There's also Francis who can play at both ends and the middle, albeit he's better in defence. So if we assume Parish takes up one of those picks Essendon still have a choice between Francis, Curnow, Weideman or even Collins as a potential tall forward. It wouldn't surprise me if Essendon take another mid in Mathieson or Oliver their midfield is that putrid.

In summary, there's no way Essendon overlook Parish considering they have picks 4 and 5, but it's entirely feasible they overlook Curnow.

Really? Prepare to be alarmed then...

Coach should not be involved in recruiting except in the broadest terms.

Coach that is being phased out shouldnt be involved at all.

Coach should not be involved in recruiting except in the broadest terms.

Coach that is being phased out shouldnt be involved at all.

Of course the coach is involved. The coach is the head of responsibility for the way the footy team performs on field, including managing the players. He would have a big say, most likely the final say in who we pick after being given the recommendations of the recruiting and list managing team. Remember Neeld overruling Viney in taking Toumpas?

But sure, if you don't want our premiership winning coach, who has a reputation of having an eye for picking players, involved in the process of deciding who will be in his team next year maybe you should write to PJ and see what response you get...

Firstly the appearance of Brendan McCartney in the Geelong Falcons rooms during the season and our need for high quality mids that fuelled some of the Parish to Melbourne speculation. Given Brendan's history in the Geelong region, having both played and coached in the area, it may not be unusual for him to be in the area. Of course, as well as Parish, Curnow and Mathieson play for the Falcons too.

.

Brendan's son also played for the Falcons this year, so another reason from B Mac to be present at Falcons games. Would imagine we have some decent intel on the Falcons lads in contention for our picks.

Edited by ChaserJ

Remember Neeld overruling Viney in taking Toumpas?

Using an example that a) is still not established fact and b) resulted in a disastrous outcome doesn't do much to strengthen your argument.

The last time we know for certain that the coach pulled rank on a recruiter was Daniher insisting Craig Cameron take Luke Molan. Another disaster.

The coach would have input at best, but just as one voice in the FD. Even then, that voice should be of Goodwin and not Roos - it is the former's team now. Other than that, the chief recruiter should be trusted to be capable of identifying which players present the most value to the club. He's a senior member of the FD, and is paid accordingly, and that is his chief responsibility.


Melbourne needed pick 3 because they thought the player they'd earmarked wouldn't be there at pick 6. One club had picks between 3 and 6 - Essendon.

If we think Melbourne have recently been light on for mids take a look at Essendon. Watson and Stanton are geriatrics with their best footy well behind them. Zaharakis hasn't taken the next step. If anything he's regressed. Myers is a disappointment. Hocking is a good player, but little more than a no frills tagger. That leaves Heppell as their only class mid with years left. If you're Essendon you're taking Parish. No questions asked.

Any surmising 3-4 weeks before the draft is prone to error, however, it just makes sense that Melbourne want the class mid in this draft. Especially when he's exactly what we need.

I agree, they wouldn't have traded there future 2016 pick unless they were after someone special that they knew this type of player won't be around there pick next year.

The deal to get pick 3 and 7 was not thought of last minute.

They know who they want and were they need to be in this draft to get them.

Edited by ILLDieADemon

Using an example that a) is still not established fact and b) resulted in a disastrous outcome doesn't do much to strengthen your argument.

The last time we know for certain that the coach pulled rank on a recruiter was Daniher insisting Craig Cameron take Luke Molan. Another disaster.

The coach would have input at best, but just as one voice in the FD. Even then, that voice should be of Goodwin and not Roos - it is the former's team now. Other than that, the chief recruiter should be trusted to be capable of identifying which players present the most value to the club. He's a senior member of the FD and that is his chief responsibility.

I'm not saying the head coach would say "I want this bloke, full stop", but clearly they would all work together in identifying the best player that fits what we are looking for in terms of attitude.

To think the recruiter just goes out and picks whoever he wants without the coach knowing about it is just plain silly.

Let's not forget the original comment I was responding to: "Coach that is being phased out shouldnt be involved at all."

The example I used wasn't to show the merits or otherwise of how it could happen, but merely to show it's an accepted fact that the head coach gets the final say.

Of course the coach is involved. The coach is the head of responsibility for the way the footy team performs on field, including managing the players. He would have a big say, most likely the final say in who we pick after being given the recommendations of the recruiting and list managing team. Remember Neeld overruling Viney in taking Toumpas?

But sure, if you don't want our premiership winning coach, who has a reputation of having an eye for picking players, involved in the process of deciding who will be in his team next year maybe you should write to PJ and see what response you get...

That sounds like "Head of Accounting" or Head of Marketing". Your meaning may have been more clear had you said something like, "has full responsibility".

As usual, just trying to help you out Snitch.

 

As I said, it's impossible to be categoric with any argument, but common sense tells me it's a far less valid argument.

Parish was no chance of being overlooked by Essendon, such is their dire need for quality in their midfield, whereas Curnow is a genuine chance to be available at pick 7. If Essendon only had one pick it's feasible they'd overlook Parish, but not when they have two.

Twelve months ago Weideman was being bracketed with Schache and Weitering as the quality tall of the draft. There's also Francis who can play at both ends and the middle, albeit he's better in defence. So if we assume Parish takes up one of those picks Essendon still have a choice between Francis, Curnow, Weideman or even Collins as a potential tall forward. It wouldn't surprise me if Essendon take another mid in Mathieson or Oliver their midfield is that putrid.

In summary, there's no way Essendon overlook Parish considering they have picks 4 and 5, but it's entirely feasible they overlook Curnow.

Weideman reminds me of Cruser, a tall thin forward/ruck who will take years to develop.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Port Adelaide

    It’s Game Day, and the Demons are on the road for the next month and will be desperate to claim a crucial win to keep their finals hopes alive against Port Adelaide.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 48 replies
  • PREVIEW: Port Adelaide

    With both sides precariously positioned ahead of the run home to the finals, only one team involved in Sunday’s clash at the Adelaide Oval between the Power and the Demons will remain a contender when it’s over.  On current form, that one team has to be Melbourne which narrowly missed out on defeating the competition’s power house Collingwood on King's Birthday and also recently overpowered both 2024 Grand Finalists. Conversely, Port Adelaide snapped out of a four-game losing streak with a win against the Giants in Canberra. Although they will be rejuvenated following that victory, their performances during that run of losses were sub par and resulted in some embarrassing blow out defeats.

      • Love
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • NON-MFC: Round 14

    Round 14 is upon us and there's plenty at stake across the rest of the competition. As Melbourne heads to Adelaide, it's time to turn our attention to the other matches of the Round. Which teams are you tipping this week? And which results would be most favourable for the Demons’ finals tilt? Follow all the non-Melbourne games here and join the conversation as the ladder continues to take shape.

      • Thanks
    • 192 replies
  • REPORT: Collingwood

    The media focus on the fiery interaction between Max Gawn and Steven May at the end of the game was unfortunate because it took away the gloss from Melbourne’s performance in winning almost everywhere but on the scoreboard in its Kings Birthday clash with Collingwood at the MCG. It was a real battle reminiscent of the good old days when the rivalry between the two clubs was at its height and a fitting contest to celebrate the 2025 Australian of the Year, Neale Daniher and his superb work to bring the campaign to raise funds for motor neurone disease awareness to the forefront. Notwithstanding the fact that the Magpies snatched a one point victory from his old club, Daniher would be proud of the fact that his Demons fought tooth and nail to win the keenly contested game in front of 77,761 fans.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • PREGAME: Port Adelaide

    The Demons are set to embark on a four-week road trip that takes them across the country, with two games in Adelaide and a clash on the Gold Coast, broken up by a mid-season bye. Next up is a meeting with the inconsistent Port Adelaide at Adelaide Oval. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 181 replies
  • PODCAST: Collingwood

    I have something on tomorrow night so Podcast will be Wednesday night. The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Wednesday, 11th June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Dees heartbreaking 1 point loss to the Magpies on King's Birthday Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 37 replies