Jump to content

Featured Replies

4 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Yep. I remember many going off their trees when we didn’t pick Parish because he was the “safest bet.” Surely, this club in particular, with Watts, Scully, Trengove, Morton etc etc who everybody rated as sure things has learned some things. Trust the recruiters and Pick the players you think will make it. We have as much chance of an error with a so called “ safe” bet as we do just backing our talent judges. 

Yep.

A junior might be a super consistent at that level but you need to ask if the skill set they possess is transferable to senior AFL football?

 

I'll preface this by saying i'm no draft watcher/expert.

Perhaps Pickett will prove to be an inspired pick, but I just can't get excited about using a top 10 pick on a small forward who averaged 7 touches/games and a goal every two games at senior SANFL level, and only 2 goals in three games at the national champs. Richmond, sans Rioli, found most of their small pressure forwards either late in the draft or in the rookie draft, and there are plenty of options in this draft for small forwards that will be their for pick 28. If Pickett slides then sure, happy to take a punt. But rolling our future first, 26 and 50 to = Pickett and whoever is left over at 28 (30-32) just doesn't feel right. 

It's also interesting that aside from GC with picks 1 and 2, we seem to be the only other club that is being reported as "locked in" with our picks several days out from the draft. Something doesn't smell right. Are we playing games? Are other clubs feeding false information trying to make us "reach" for a player early? Perhaps reporters are just putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with 5...

Taking Pickett will most likely mean saying no to one of Serong, Kemp, Stephens, Young. I'll wait to see how the draft unfolds but I hope we know what we're doing as it feels we are prioritising needs over best available.

I have no problem at all with us taking Pickett at 10 if our guys rate him that highly and all our must-haves are gone.

But I think from what we heard from Tubby Taylor, he's a fan of Hayden Young and if by some miracle Young is available at No.10, then we better bloody well take him as we already have six small forwards on our list (ANB, Spargo, Lockhart, Chandler, Bedford, Hunt) and that's without including Hannan, Petracca, Melky and Fritter who could all be placed in that category as well.

By contrast if Salem goes down, let's think what back-ups do we have to assume his precise kicking role - you could argue Hibberd, Jetta and Jones, but all three of those are nearing the end of their careers.

So let's hope Taylor shows some sanity if Young is available.

 
18 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Yep. I remember many going off their trees when we didn’t pick Parish because he was the “safest bet.”

They were in the minority from memory - most saw that Oliver, whilst raw, had serious potential. He dominated the 2nd half of the year and won the TAC Cup B&F, all while a long way off AFL fitness standards. Perhaps he was a 'riskier' pick than Parish, but he at least had the kind of exposed form you look for in a top draft pick.

Those advocating against Pickett, myself included, aren't against high risk/ high reward drafting on principle. He just seems like too much of a long shot to be worth the price of pick 10 (especially considering what we gave up to get it). Drafting so blatantly on a needs basis rarely ends well.

The obvious alternatives (Kemp, Stephens, Serong, potentially Young) aren't exactly safe options either, but seem lower risk with just as much upside.

 


35 minutes ago, Nascent said:

But rolling our future first, 26 and 50 to = Pickett and whoever is left over at 28 (30-32) just doesn't feel right. 

 

To be fair pick 10 is our 2020 1st rounder only. We got 28 which is close enough to the same as 26. And 50 is not going to be used.

4 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

To be fair pick 10 is our 2020 1st rounder only. We got 28 which is close enough to the same as 26. And 50 is not going to be used.

Yes that's fair. 

 

45 minutes ago, Deespicable said:

I have no problem at all with us taking Pickett at 10 if our guys rate him that highly and all our must-haves are gone.

But I think from what we heard from Tubby Taylor, he's a fan of Hayden Young and if by some miracle Young is available at No.10, then we better bloody well take him as we already have six small forwards on our list (ANB, Spargo, Lockhart, Chandler, Bedford, Hunt) and that's without including Hannan, Petracca, Melky and Fritter who could all be placed in that category as well.

By contrast if Salem goes down, let's think what back-ups do we have to assume his precise kicking role - you could argue Hibberd, Jetta and Jones, but all three of those are nearing the end of their careers.

So let's hope Taylor shows some sanity if Young is available.

Spargo  Chandler And Bedford are really only comparable. This small forward Ie Pickett is smaller faster cleverer and X factorer better.

We need to take the risk.

My question why not Young Stephens or Green at pick 3.

(Of course Jackson has X factor himself and that explains the risk/reward factor I guess)

 
16 minutes ago, 58er said:

Spargo  Chandler And Bedford are really only comparable. This small forward Ie Pickett is smaller faster cleverer and X factorer better.

We need to take the risk.

My question why not Young Stephens or Green at pick 3.

(Of course Jackson has X factor himself and that explains the risk/reward factor I guess)

No, we don't. we know our list is a lot better than 17th. 

though i agree if we take a risk it should only be one pick. if we want Jackson we should go for one of Stephens, Kemp, Ash, etc. 

3 hours ago, Collar-Jazz-Knee said:

If small forwards are what we want then surely we tr get two picks in the teens?

If we can get 12 & 18 off Port then that could be Weightman and Pickett.


I have heard Jackson is a lock at 3 but pick 10 is well and truly open.

Edited by Demons11

3 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

I have heard Jackson is a lock at 3 but pick 10 is well and truly open.

About time we got Peter Jackson back I say, happy with pick 3.

3 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

I have heard Jackson is a lock at 3 but pick 10 is well and truly open.

Nothing against Pickett, but I like this, purely as I'd like to go in thinking it could be anyone (even if it is Pickett), much more enjoyable.

Out if interest, are you confident in this source?

 

Cal Twomey suggesting in his phantom draft that if Serong is there at pick 10 we will take him ahead of picket 

and that Kemp and Robertson are well and truely still in discussions. 

36 minutes ago, whelan45 said:

Nothing against Pickett, but I like this, purely as I'd like to go in thinking it could be anyone (even if it is Pickett), much more enjoyable.

Out if interest, are you confident in this source?

 

Yep


49 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

I have heard Jackson is a lock at 3 but pick 10 is well and truly open.

I’m imagining it’s well and truly open for trade as well..

He kind of reminds me of a young Jeff "the Wizard" Farmer with his raw talent he does this Kysaiah "Kozzy" Pickett. Football is in the blood with Uncle Byron Pickett too!

 

This highlights package of 6 goals was impressive. Even if it was only a SANFL reserves game.

 

 

Edited by Supreme_Demon

I am more comfortable with Pickett being selected by as at pick 10 than I am with taking Luke Jackson at pick 3.

 

If you agree with that statement,  hit the Like button.

If you disagree,  hit the Angry button.

17 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

It's a thing of beauty DD.  If we picked him up and he can bring the X factor (with consistency of effort) there's certainly alot to look forward to.

Not going to hurt membership either. 

(OK, not talking about moving mountains here, but a bit of X-factor always helps).


If we want to take speculative picks such as Pickett then surely we are splitting pick 10 on draft day. Could then maybe get weightman and Pickett 

2 hours ago, DubDee said:

If we want to take speculative picks such as Pickett then surely we are splitting pick 10 on draft day. Could then maybe get weightman and Pickett 

If that is the case then just take Weightman with 10 and aim for one of Bianco, Taylor or Schoenburg if they get through to 28 DD.

If we picked up Schoenburg with 28 i would be ecstatic.  Rate him roughly the equal 2nd best 'balanced' mid in the draft alongside the likes of Robertson and McGuiness and just ahead of Rantall.  Rantall might turn out to be the pick of the crop with a few extra years in the system though.  Very raw but has some explosive getaway speed combined with the ability to steady, lower the vision & hit up short targets on a lead.  Schoenburg is doing that also but a little more consistent at this point vs Rantall, probably doesn't quite have the pure burst speed but seems strong through the core and beautifuly balanced with ball in hand.

Edited by Rusty Nails

On 11/23/2019 at 5:34 PM, don't make me angry said:

You didn't seriously think parish was going to be a better player a skinny inside mid player never works

Pretty certain i didn't say that, in fact im 100% sure i never said Parish would be a better player than Oliver.  Al i was getting at was that i wasn't sure like lots of people about taking Oliver at 4.. and i have a similar feeling about Jackson at 3, but i was proved wrong then and hope i am again.

 

I can understand the concern at taking someone like Pickett at pick 10 but perhaps we are just a bit ahead of the curve.

Charlie Cameron and Eddie Betts are two of the most influential small X factor forwards of recent times and neither were taken in the National Draft. Small forwards, in a lot of cases, have been taken late because of the reasons mentioned here.  But good ones are match winners.  If the Betts and Cameron drafts were done retrospectively they'd both be in the top 10, perhaps top 5.

If we take Pickett it's because we believe he can have the same impact as other elite small forwards.  If we are right we've got a bargain, if not we'll be one of many clubs that have a miss with a pick in that vacinity.

Personally I hope we take him unless someone we really rate slides.  I believe we have a good list, as Mahoney said our list is pretty much set.  We don't want for a lot as long as our (the FD) evaluation of players is correct (Weid and Petty succeeding for example).  The other thing is that many here overrate pick 10.  It can throw up some guns but it can also throw up some duds.  All pick 10's are guns when drafted but there are a lot of duds amoungst them.  

We have been crying out for X factor for years. Many here have lamented we don't have it and now as we look like getting it many have gone all gun shy.

39 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

I can understand the concern at taking someone like Pickett at pick 10 but perhaps we are just a bit ahead of the curve.

Charlie Cameron and Eddie Betts are two of the most influential small X factor forwards of recent times and neither were taken in the National Draft. Small forwards, in a lot of cases, have been taken late because of the reasons mentioned here.  But good ones are match winners.  If the Betts and Cameron drafts were done retrospectively they'd both be in the top 10, perhaps top 5.

If we take Pickett it's because we believe he can have the same impact as other elite small forwards.  If we are right we've got a bargain, if not we'll be one of many clubs that have a miss with a pick in that vacinity.

Personally I hope we take him unless someone we really rate slides.  I believe we have a good list, as Mahoney said our list is pretty much set.  We don't want for a lot as long as our (the FD) evaluation of players is correct (Weid and Petty succeeding for example).  The other thing is that many here overrate pick 10.  It can throw up some guns but it can also throw up some duds.  All pick 10's are guns when drafted but there are a lot of duds amoungst them.  

We have been crying out for X factor for years. Many here have lamented we don't have it and now as we look like getting it many have gone all gun shy.

Absolutely

Like the Aussie voters we are now gunshy as we enter the room to cast our vote in the ballot box.

JT and his team won't do that unless all we have been hearing is smoke and mirrors!

I like our continued boldness from left field re Bennell and also this years draft.

Those 3 players  have the potential to change our attack and X factor our team  to another level even  past 2018 ultimately.

we need this excitement and game changers to change our very much predictable  style.

Bring on 2020 for a fitter faster and exciting new team style with plenty of run snd carry and with the tools to finish off our good work from up the field.


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: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 108 replies
  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies