Hear, hear! Fresh blood and new moves, could be an excitement machine!!......and we could also be playing funny buggers ;)

Some thoughts...

If Melbourne rate Jackson over Green then why would they bid on Green and potentially lose Jackson to the Giants, who it's believed won't match the bid ?   You may not agree with Taylor and co's player rankings, but if they want Jackson they can't bid on Green.  It's just common sense.

Others are worried by Jackson's height.  He's 18 years old and two months.  He plays virtually all of next year as an 18 year old (Sept. 21).  Is it unlikely he grows another 2-3cm before he's finished ?

Someone questioned his leaping ability.

And he's got a great leap. He can really get over the top of them (opponents)... Peter Sumich

From another - With a strong leap, competitive instincts, an ability to mark and also find the ball around the ground...  

Others are saying he's not worth pick 3.  Pick 8 maybe, but not pick 3.  My answer to that is that the Giants will take him at pick 4.  How can he not be worth pick 3 if shrewd recruiters like the Giants will take him at pick 4 and overlook their academy young gun Green with Jackson as their preference ?  If he's worth pick 4 in the view of the Giants why isn't he worth pick 3 ?  Once again, let's talk common sense.

I'm not fussed if you don't want Jackson and I'm not trying to ''convince'' anyone as to his merits, but some of the stuff being said doesn't make sense. 

7 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Others are worried by Jackson's height.  He's 18 years old and two months.  He plays virtually all of next year as an 18 year old (Sept. 21).  Is it unlikely he grows another 2-3cm before he's finished ?

This - and if he doesn't grow, a couple of cm won't be the difference in whether he makes the grade. Ryder, Martin, Mumford all go alright as sub-200cm rucks. He's tall enough if he's good enough.

1 hour ago, Dirts said:

 

Jackson makes sense.. With evenness of the draft we will still get a player of choice at pick 8 or 14 and 17 if we wheel and deal with Geelong.

Yes Jackson comes with risk but all players do. Look at Mc Cartin (no 1 pick) and done. If he develops we have a ruck/ forward player for yeas to come. If wants to go home WCE and Anchors pay up. 

 

of course all draftees come with a risk. The draft is like tattslotto

but just saying that with respect to jackson does not in itself justify picking him at #3

I won't be upset if we do nominate jackson at #3. but in my personal opinion he's not best-available at that point and more a speculative pick of needs. I agree he has what potentially looks like good upside (over time) but picking him still looks high risk.

I'd be going for green. best-available, lower risk, less development time

Hey it's just an opinion and if we do take jackson i won't be fussed and will assume the club knows better

Edited November 21, 20195 yr by daisycutter

pretty much a fait accompli if you believe the experts

things to factor in:

- no quality talls in this draft outside of jackson and fish mcasey

- no quality talls in 2020 draft outside of the player tied to the dogs

- quality of 2020 draft very poor, even before you factor in the father-son and nga picks which will likely dominate top 30 selections

i'll back us in to develop him

I would just add

if they think green is best available then nominate him

if they think jackson is best available then nominate him

if they think green and jackson are pretty equal on best available then nominate whichever fits their needs best

shafting GWS should have nothing to with it for pick3

41 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Others are saying he's not worth pick 3.  Pick 8 maybe, but not pick 3.  My answer to that is that the Giants will take him at pick 4.  How can he not be worth pick 3 if shrewd recruiters like the Giants will take him at pick 4 and overlook their academy young gun Green with Jackson as their preference ?  If he's worth pick 4 in the view of the Giants why isn't he worth pick 3 ?  Once again, let's talk common sense.

is this confirmed? I had thought more likely GWS want Green and traded high enough to get him. they have intel that we are going for Jackson so no need to trade higher up the order.

47 minutes ago, ProDee said:

If Melbourne rate Jackson over Green then why would they bid on Green and potentially lose Jackson to the Giants, who it's believed won't match the bid ?

This might not be as much of a lock as has been suggested. Don't be surprised if we do bid on Green in the hopes of actually getting him.

 

13 minutes ago, DubDee said:

is this confirmed? I had thought more likely GWS want Green and traded high enough to get him. they have intel that we are going for Jackson so no need to trade higher up the order.

Nothing will be ''confirmed'' until the draft, but media outlets are speculating that the Giants will pounce on Jackson and not match Melbourne's bid.  I can't vouch for the veracity of the intel.

 

10 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

This might not be as much of a lock as has been suggested. Don't be surprised if we do bid on Green in the hopes of actually getting him.

I'm more than happy with whomever they choose.  I've given up second guessing drafting decisions.

The Dogs reached for Bontempelli a few years ago.  It was very astute.

Jackson is raw, athletic, basketball background.  From WA. Footy skills are at a low base. Comparison to Grundy.  Imo Grundy was more developed than Jackson.  Can Jackson play forward?  He didn’t at the championships. Pick 3??? I’m not convinced. 
 

Green is a proven midfield bull with comparison to Cripps. Demonstrated ability to win the footy and run and run.  Giants should be forced to pay top dollar in picks points for him.  If they don’t match, they’d be foolish. 
 

Dees need elite skilled footballers.  Young meets our need and has great footy smarts and leadership.  Worthy of pick 3. 

20 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Giants should be forced to pay top dollar in picks points for him.  If they don’t match, they’d be foolish.

It has nothing to do with being ''foolish'' if they don't bid on Green, but everything to do with their internal player rankings.

Now, one can question those rankings, but that's a very different issue.

Surely this makes sense to you.

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

Some thoughts...

If Melbourne rate Jackson over Green then why would they bid on Green and potentially lose Jackson to the Giants, who it's believed won't match the bid ?   You may not agree with Taylor and co's player rankings, but if they want Jackson they can't bid on Green.  It's just common sense.

Others are worried by Jackson's height.  He's 18 years old and two months.  He plays virtually all of next year as an 18 year old (Sept. 21).  Is it unlikely he grows another 2-3cm before he's finished ?

Someone questioned his leaping ability.

And he's got a great leap. He can really get over the top of them (opponents)... Peter Sumich

From another - With a strong leap, competitive instincts, an ability to mark and also find the ball around the ground...  

Others are saying he's not worth pick 3.  Pick 8 maybe, but not pick 3.  My answer to that is that the Giants will take him at pick 4.  How can he not be worth pick 3 if shrewd recruiters like the Giants will take him at pick 4 and overlook their academy young gun Green with Jackson as their preference ?  If he's worth pick 4 in the view of the Giants why isn't he worth pick 3 ?  Once again, let's talk common sense.

I'm not fussed if you don't want Jackson and I'm not trying to ''convince'' anyone as to his merits, but some of the stuff being said doesn't make sense. 

Agree with most of that. Height doesn't bother me. Reach would be a fairer measurement anyway. Give me a guy who's 3 cm shorter but has 4cm longer arms.

On his leap: Draft profiles are nice but hard facts are better. According to one of the draft watchers his jumping numbers are: Standing 57cm / Running 78cm

That standing leap is pretty ordinary. So at around the ground contest he'll have to use strength control the taps. But hit outs from ball ups with 20 guys around the ball aren't easy to do much with anyway. The running number is much better, not quite elite but easily well above average for a tall. Still along way from Nic Nat who did 78 standing and 102 jumping, so I don't think Jackson will be jumping over AFL rucks and winning clean hit outs. But no one bar Nic Nat ever does! Grundy didn't make the top 10 in either standing or running leaps so the comparison might be similar there.

Cal Twomey said yesterday he's spoken to a number of clubs about what he thinks Melbourne should do with pick 3 and there were a variety of options but several had said take Jackson. Unless they are bluffing GWS appears to be 1 of those. Anyone who thinks this is Jason Taylor out on an island is ignoring some strong reporting. 

2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

On his leap: Draft profiles are nice but hard facts are better. According to one of the draft watchers his jumping numbers are: Standing 57cm / Running 78cm

That standing leap is pretty ordinary. So at around the ground contest he'll have to use strength control the taps. But hit outs from ball ups with 20 guys around the ball aren't easy to do much with anyway. The running number is much better, not quite elite but easily well above average for a tall. Still along way from Nic Nat who did 78 standing and 102 jumping, so I don't think Jackson will be jumping over AFL rucks and winning clean hit outs. But no one bar Nic Nat ever does! Grundy didn't make the top 10 in either standing or running leaps so the comparison might be similar there.

I'm far more interested in anecdotal evidence than testing results.

I've seen players who've run very good 20 metre sprint times look slow at AFL level.

If his coaches go out of their way to laud his ''in-game'' leap that's of more interest to me than testing.

After-all, they didn't have to bring it up of it wasn't a strength.  They'd just not mention it and focus on other traits they liked.

You do have a habit of overthinking things.  Paralysis by analysis.

8 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Jackson is raw, athletic, basketball background.  From WA. Footy skills are at a low base. Comparison to Grundy.  Imo Grundy was more developed than Jackson.  Can Jackson play forward?  He didn’t at the championships. Pick 3??? I’m not convinced. 
 

Green is a proven midfield bull with comparison to Cripps. Demonstrated ability to win the footy and run and run.  Giants should be forced to pay top dollar in picks points for him.  If they don’t match, they’d be foolish. 
 

Dees need elite skilled footballers.  Young meets our need and has great footy smarts and leadership.  Worthy of pick 3. 

0 goals from four games at the Nats although to be fair he did play as a genuine follower throughout.

Have to trust that Taylor & Co. have genuinly done their homework in terms of him being capable of holding down a No.2 key forward role at some point if picking so high.

Personally i think we bid on Green with 3 forcing GWS to match.  They had their chance to swap and chose not to.

If we land Green we can still potentially nab Ash for the HB posi at 8 or maybe a Serong or Kemp.

Green & Ash (8)  would be very nice imv or Young & Jackson (8).

2 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I'm far more interested in anecdotal evidence than testing results.

I've seen players who've run very good 20 metre sprint times look slow at AFL level.

If his coaches go out of their way to laud his ''in-game'' leap that's of more interest to me than testing.

After-all, they didn't have to bring it up of it wasn't a strength.  They'd just not mention it and focus on other traits they liked.

You do have a habit of overthinking things.  Paralysis by analysis.

Fair point on speed, the testing numbers largely don't reflect game play. But he averaged nearly 40 hit outs out muscling or out jumping fellow 18 year old beanstalks, the coaches are going to talk up his leap whether he's the next Nic Nat or a 35 year old chained to the ground Jamar. The numbers aren't biased (unlike Sumich desperately chasing an AFL job) and support that he's got a good but not great leap, particularly when allowed a run at it.

All I'm saying is the numbers and watching him play point to a player far more like Grundy - decent but not dominant at hit outs, extra midfielder around the ground - rather than a Nic Nat like athlete.

34 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

All I'm saying is the numbers and watching him play point to a player far more like Grundy - decent but not dominant at hit outs, extra midfielder around the ground - rather than a Nic Nat like athlete.

Sounds good to me.

5 hours ago, picket fence said:

Agree IMO If we draft this kid at 3 It might go down as the greatest draft blunder of the Century. For a start this bloke can't kick!! Yeah thats what we need another poorly skilled player!

DONT DO IT MFC!

Picket, we need to consider why so many “experts “ are saying this kid is so special and could in fact now be rated at number 2. 

We need to consider why it is being suggested that if we nominate Green, GWS won’t match and will take Jackson. Are GWS recruiters idiots too?

We need to consider why it has been stated that if Crows kept 4 and Jackson got to 4 they would take him. Are Crows recruiters idiots too?

We need to consider that our recruiters would have looked at all the negatives, like DL’s have and despite them, feel that his positives outweigh those negatives easily. Also that they see him as a special talent, possibly rarely a chance to be  attainable by us and good enough to bypass other more “safe” selections, like Green and Young. Further that they have conducted this process using experienced people over many months, maybe even years.

We need to consider that maybe they see him solving our much needed extra key forward role and later developing as Max’s understudy, filling our most needed holes, other than small forward which is easier to fill with later picks or trades in the future.

Lastly we need to consider that maybe Taylor and co know more about the potential draftees than we at DL do, highly unlikely of course but just maybe.

 

Edited November 21, 20195 yr by Redleg

5 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Picket, we need to consider why so many “experts “ are saying this kid is so special and could in fact now be rated at number 2. 

We need to consider why it is being suggested that if we nominate Green, GWS won’t match and will take Jackson. Are GWS recruiters idiots too?

We need to consider why it has been stated that if Crows kept 4 and Jackson got to 4 they would take him. Are Crows recruiters idiots too?

We need to consider that our recruiters would have looked at all the negatives, like DL’s have and despite them, feel that his positives outweigh those negatives easily. Also that they see him as a special talent, possibly rarely a chance to be  attainable by us and good enough to bypass other more “safe” selections, like Green and Young. Further that they have conducted this process using experienced people over many months, maybe even years.

We need to consider that maybe they see him solving our much needed extra key forward role and later developing as Max’s understudy. 

Lastly we need to consider that maybe Taylor and co know more about the potential draftees than we at DL do, highly unlikely of course but just maybe.

recruiters can be wrong for sure. all recruiters were convinced Toumpas and Butcher were top 3 guns and neither hardly played a good game.

Regardless of what the media think the recruiters might do, the fact remains that recruiting rucks in the top 10 let alone top 3 is risky and is generally not done.  they are more prone to injury. he is yet to develop his football skill set, he is  a fair chance to go back to WA in 4-6 years.

obviously our recruitment team know more than us but we are discussing it on a forum so opinions fly around even if ill informed

6 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Picket, we need to consider why so many “experts “ are saying this kid is so special and could in fact now be rated at number 2. 

We need to consider why it is being suggested that if we nominate Green, GWS won’t match and will take Jackson. Are GWS recruiters idiots too?

We need to consider why it has been stated that if Crows kept 4 and Jackson got to 4 they would take him. Are Crows recruiters idiots too?

 

 

I feel its almost as simple as they have enough depth in that department....

And with Jacobs and Mummy in there 30s it makes total sense for them to take the gamble...

Another beast in the engine room please!

 

But yeah lets all calm down, JT and the gang do this for living they know their [censored]. (serious)

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

Some thoughts...

If Melbourne rate Jackson over Green then why would they bid on Green and potentially lose Jackson to the Giants, who it's believed won't match the bid ?   You may not agree with Taylor and co's player rankings, but if they want Jackson they can't bid on Green.  It's just common sense.

Others are worried by Jackson's height.  He's 18 years old and two months.  He plays virtually all of next year as an 18 year old (Sept. 21).  Is it unlikely he grows another 2-3cm before he's finished ?

Someone questioned his leaping ability.

And he's got a great leap. He can really get over the top of them (opponents)... Peter Sumich

From another - With a strong leap, competitive instincts, an ability to mark and also find the ball around the ground...  

Others are saying he's not worth pick 3.  Pick 8 maybe, but not pick 3.  My answer to that is that the Giants will take him at pick 4.  How can he not be worth pick 3 if shrewd recruiters like the Giants will take him at pick 4 and overlook their academy young gun Green with Jackson as their preference ?  If he's worth pick 4 in the view of the Giants why isn't he worth pick 3 ?  Once again, let's talk common sense.

I'm not fussed if you don't want Jackson and I'm not trying to ''convince'' anyone as to his merits, but some of the stuff being said doesn't make sense. 

Look at the Giants list as it stands now, they don’t want for much. If they get Jackson they would have to arguably have the best all round list bar Richmond. For them Jackson would be a pick for needs not necessarily best available. They just picked up Jacobs as a stop gap, their list is so talented they can afford to carry Jackson while he develops, we don’t have that luxury. I live in Sydney and watch a lot of GWS games on free to air, they can move the ball from one end to the other at will (obviously the GF being the exception) by foot and then put it out in front of one of their forwards. We can’t, we continually kill ourselves through turnovers from poor disposal and poor decision making.

Just my thoughts and I know many won’t agree. As I mentioned in another thread I’d take Young and Ash at 8 if he’s there.

From watching vision and seeing how he moves I can see a lot of Stef Martin in Jackson. They are both from basketball backgrounds, similar in height and both have great athleticism. What I think we'll get with Jackson is a slightly better version of Martin who can do a bit more up forward. 

• Martin was a relatively late-bloomer in AFL terms, with basketball occupying most of his sporting life in his late teens. However, a brief taste of Australian Rules had him immediately hooked, and his talent was quickly noticed by AFL scouts. 

https://www.lions.com.au/player-profile/stefan-martin

21 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Look at the Giants list as it stands now, they don’t want for much. If they get Jackson they would have to arguably have the best all round list bar Richmond. For them Jackson would be a pick for needs not necessarily best available. They just picked up Jacobs as a stop gap, their list is so talented they can afford to carry Jackson while he develops, we don’t have that luxury. I live in Sydney and watch a lot of GWS games on free to air, they can move the ball fromfromh  0 o9in o end to the other a96vsoutht was  pjp9klnjjill (obviously the GF bebeinging the exception) by foot and 0j9thefor 0put it out in front of one of their forwards. We can’t, 8 97u0 u vwe continually kill ourselves through turnovers from poor disposal and poor decision making.

Just my thoughts and I know many won’t agree. As I mentioned in another thread I’d take Young and Ash at 8 if he’s there.

Good work and makes much sense BA.  Unfortunately we won't be getting Ash with 10 i don't think.  Possibly targeting  Kemp or Weightman?

If we don't land either of Young and Ash and they end up being the guns they appear like being and assuming we are targeting Jackson, he would want to end up being a very solid forward or one of the forthcoming member forums will make the last one look like a teddy bear's picnic.

16 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Good work and makes much sense BA.  Unfortunately we won't be getting Ash with 10 i don't think.  Possibly targeting  Kemp or Weightman?

If we don't land either of Young and Ash and they end up being the guns they appear like being and assuming we are targeting Jackson, he would want to end up being a very solid forward or one of the forthcoming member forums will make the last one look like a teddy bear's picnic.

I don’t think it’s the done deal that many think it is. We made a preliminary two years ago, we brought in May to handle the big forwards, we still haven’t addressed our other need. Jackson might become a good player but he’s not going fix our disposal problem.

Edited November 21, 20195 yr by Bombay Airconditioning

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

Some thoughts...

If Melbourne rate Jackson over Green then why would they bid on Green and potentially lose Jackson to the Giants, who it's believed won't match the bid ?   You may not agree with Taylor and co's player rankings, but if they want Jackson they can't bid on Green.  It's just common sense.

Others are worried by Jackson's height.  He's 18 years old and two months.  He plays virtually all of next year as an 18 year old (Sept. 21).  Is it unlikely he grows another 2-3cm before he's finished ?

Someone questioned his leaping ability.

And he's got a great leap. He can really get over the top of them (opponents)... Peter Sumich

From another - With a strong leap, competitive instincts, an ability to mark and also find the ball around the ground...  

Others are saying he's not worth pick 3.  Pick 8 maybe, but not pick 3.  My answer to that is that the Giants will take him at pick 4.  How can he not be worth pick 3 if shrewd recruiters like the Giants will take him at pick 4 and overlook their academy young gun Green with Jackson as their preference ?  If he's worth pick 4 in the view of the Giants why isn't he worth pick 3 ?  Once again, let's talk common sense.

I'm not fussed if you don't want Jackson and I'm not trying to ''convince'' anyone as to his merits, but some of the stuff being said doesn't make sense. 

Would be available at 10 being a ruck/forward

Let me throw a cat amongst the pigeons, hypothetically speaking.

What if our real target is Green, with Jackson as our next choice.

We let it be known that we want Jackson. GWS trade up to be able to get Green and another top 5 player, believing we will take Jackson. If GWS also rate Jackson above Green and we nominate Green they get one or the other but not the second player, if they match a Green bid. 

This could have given us the chance to get Green if he is our target.

Could this be the case, or am I just looking for intrigue?

Edited November 21, 20195 yr by Redleg