Jump to content

Featured Replies

2 hours ago, Palace Dees said:

We must be looking at a different player. In the u18 Championships, he took every mark one grab. It really stood out. 

His school coach, Matthew Lloyd, says he's the best one grab mark he's ever seen as a junior.  

Whatever knock you want to put on Armstrong, marking is not it.

He’s clean at times but there’s a lot of two grabbing or the ball going off his hands.

If he was an exceptional mark to go with his rare athleticism for a tall and straight set shot kicking he’d be a sure thing top 5 pick. 

Lloyd is pumping up his guy, not really an unbiased opinion.

 
3 hours ago, picket fence said:

Armstrong is a two grabber most times, a HUMUNGOUS NO! 

Luke Jackson says hi 

1 minute ago, joeboy said:

Luke Jackson says hi 

If Armstrong has Jackson's hands, he may never play a game!

 

For me: 

Pick 5: Langford, Smith, FOS, Tauru (in order)

Pick 9: Tauru, Travaglia, Reid, Hotton, Armstrong, Shanahan, Allan (in order)

Edited by Willy's Warriors


Our draft hand has a direct connection as to whether Petracca & Oliver stay or go, post 2025.  And there's a good chance that the club won't know for sure, either way

And then there is the form of both players and whether either or both get back to their best

A safety first attitude would be to draft 2 mids and then if everything works out well, we find a way to manage 5 or 6 dynamic mids

Nice problem to have and it should be remembered that Viney only has a few years left and Petracca can play various roles in the forward line (with stints in the midfield) And we'll be looking to cover for the loss of Brayshaw & ANB 

All things considered, I reckon we'll draft 2 mids and hope that a forward line line that contains 2 or 3 of JVR, Petty, Turner & Jefferson can somehow work to a high standard

Looked at in another way, we probably won't be wanting to risk having a B- midfield in the future

Our chance to rebuild a stellar midfield is right now

Edited by Macca

1 minute ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Hears anything from your end @goodwindees?

Draft night is like Christmas, once you open the presents all the mystery is gone.  I love the speculation and this year is special.  Don't ruin it @goodwindees, we can all wait and enjoy the suspense.  And if you do have quality mail, keep it to yourself, it can't do any good by releasing it but there is a very small chance it could do some harm. We'will know soon anyway!

Patience grasshopper.

 
3 minutes ago, Macca said:

Our draft hand has a direct connection as to whether Petracca & Oliver stay or go, post 2025.  And there's a good chance that the club won't know for sure, either way

And then there is the form of both players and whether either or both get back to their best

A safety first attitude would be to draft 2 mids and then if everything works out well, we find a way to manage 5 or 6 dynamic mids

Nice problem to have and it should be remembered that Viney only has a few years left and Petracca can play various roles in the forward line (with stints in the midfield) And we'll be looking to cover for the loss of Brayshaw & ANB 

All things considered, I reckon we'll draft 2 mids and hope that a forward line line that contains 2 or 3 of JVR, Petty, Turner & Jefferson can somehow work to a high standard

Looked at in another way, we probably won't be wanting to risk having a B- midfield in the future

Our chance to rebuild a stellar midfield is right now

Yeah absolutely agree.

In my eyes it's incredibly simple; we've lost Brayshaw, Harmes, Jordan, ANB- we have Viney in his twilight, question marks over Oliver's psyche and Petracca's commitment. These issues outweigh and are far more pressing then any concerns over our forward depth. 

We need midfield doggedness before prospective KPPs. 

Langford/Smith and Allen/Travaglia/Reid like combo is an absolute must. 

 

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

Our draft hand has a direct connection as to whether Petracca & Oliver stay or go, post 2025.  And there's a good chance that the club won't know for sure, either way

And then there is the form of both players and whether either or both get back to their best

A safety first attitude would be to draft 2 mids and then if everything works out well, we find a way to manage 5 or 6 dynamic mids

Nice problem to have and it should be remembered that Viney only has a few years left and Petracca can play various roles in the forward line (with stints in the midfield) And we'll be looking to cover for the loss of Brayshaw & ANB 

All things considered, I reckon we'll draft 2 mids and hope that a forward line line that contains 2 or 3 of JVR, Petty, Turner & Jefferson can somehow work to a high standard

Looked at in another way, we probably won't be wanting to risk having a B- midfield in the future

Our chance to rebuild a stellar midfield is right now

I think that is right for pick 5.  At 9, I am not so sure. 

The mids still there are likely to be Allan, Reid, Hotton, and Lindsay.   Allan (disposal and decision making), Reid (speed and contested ball) and Hotton (ACL) all have questions marks over them.  Lindsay seems to be less risk, but also doesn't have the same damaging traits as the others.  

Travaglia, for example, would be a safer pick. 

I am happy to trust JT at pick 9 - if he thinks the best player is Reid, or Hotton, or Armstrong, I wouldn't have any issue with that.  


Just now, Mouseymoo said:

Yeah absolutely agree.

In my eyes it's incredibly simple; we've lost Brayshaw, Harmes, Jordan, ANB- we have Viney in his twilight, question marks over Oliver's psyche and Petracca's commitment. These issues outweigh and are far more pressing then any concerns over our forward depth. 

We need midfield doggedness before prospective KPPs. 

Langford/Smith and Allen/Travaglia/Reid like combo is an absolute must. 

 

But for every argument about our declining midfield depth and future doubts on current guys I think you can make the exact same argument for our talls. BBB gone, May, Max, McDonald not much left. Even Lever not a consistent force any more.

The top line midfielders available at 5 are seen as very high level prospects. Personally I think the reason no one can decide who goes 2 and who goes 6 is because they’re all good without being great.

The second tier mids are obviously considered by consensus another level lower.

At some stage if they aren’t rated all that highly and one of the talls are then we should go the better rated tall. Even more so if we can get a sneaky trade back too.

I believe the club are super high on Rivers. Add in Windsor and pick 5 that’s the basis of the next wave of mids. Plus Kolt. Depth is iffy right now but rebuilding midfield depth isn’t as difficult as finding stars. 

9 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Draft night is like Christmas, once you open the presents all the mystery is gone.  I love the speculation and this year is special.  Don't ruin it @goodwindees, we can all wait and enjoy the suspense.  And if you do have quality mail, keep it to yourself, it can't do any good by releasing it but there is a very small chance it could do some harm. We'will know soon anyway!

Patience grasshopper.

But it's okay for guys like Cal Twomey and 50 other journalists to do so? Have you emailed them and advised them to keep their mail and information to themselves as well? Probably best not to read Cals phantom draft tomorrow. 

It's all a bit of fun. That's why the draft has become a popular spectacle. Now we're seeing heaps of YouTube channels trying to get one up with phantom drafts and information. 

1 minute ago, dazzledavey36 said:

But it's okay for guys like Cal Twomey and 50 other journalists to do so? Have you emailed them and advised them to keep their mail and information to themselves as well? Probably best not to read Cals phantom draft tomorrow. 

It's all a bit of fun. That's why the draft has become a popular spectacle. Now we're seeing heaps of YouTube channels trying to get one up with phantom drafts and information. 

The afl probably shouldn’t pay for Cal to fully ruin the draft. Honestly he should get a few in the top 10 and more in the top 30 wrong just to make it more interesting!

That said, I’ll read every bit of it and I’m happy for any classic demonland mail!

11 minutes ago, Willy's Warriors said:

I think that is right for pick 5.  At 9, I am not so sure. 

The mids still there are likely to be Allan, Reid, Hotton, and Lindsay.   Allan (disposal and decision making), Reid (speed and contested ball) and Hotton (ACL) all have questions marks over them.  Lindsay seems to be less risk, but also doesn't have the same damaging traits as the others.  

Travaglia, for example, would be a safer pick. 

I am happy to trust JT at pick 9 - if he thinks the best player is Reid, or Hotton, or Armstrong, I wouldn't have any issue with that.  

Yes, it's one thing having our own opinions but the MC & JT may well be happy with a mid and a position player with the 2 picks

In the 12 years with us, Taylor's track record is fantastic with draftees, so if there is a left-field pick, I'm quite happy to back JT in

But if it is 2 mids, we will need Turner and/or Jefferson to come on.  Injury-free, Petty is an excellent target and JVR should keep getting better 

16 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yes, it's one thing having our own opinions but the MC & JT may well be happy with a mid and a position player with the 2 picks

In the 12 years with us, Taylor's track record is fantastic with draftees, so if there is a left-field pick, I'm quite happy to back JT in

But if it is 2 mids, we will need Turner and/or Jefferson to come on.  Injury-free, Petty is an excellent target and JVR should keep getting better 

We certainly need something in our forward line, that is for sure.  

One thing I have noticed is that in the last few years we have been really keen to trade up to secure a forward who would make immediate impact.  We went pretty hard at Bailey Humphrey in his draft year in 2022, then Harley Reid and Nick Watson in 2023, before trading up to take Kolt.  All mid/forwards. 

There are quite a few in this draft: Lalor, Langford, Reid, FOS, and Hotton.  

I wouldn't be surprised if we take, say, Langford and Reid, in the hope that one of them develops in the mid/fwd we have been searching for.  But if the last few years is any indicaiton, I don't think we will draft for need if there isn't a player at our pick that we consider good enough to warrant it. 

Edited by Willy's Warriors


22 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

But for every argument about our declining midfield depth and future doubts on current guys I think you can make the exact same argument for our talls. BBB gone, May, Max, McDonald not much left. Even Lever not a consistent force any more.

The top line midfielders available at 5 are seen as very high level prospects. Personally I think the reason no one can decide who goes 2 and who goes 6 is because they’re all good without being great.

The second tier mids are obviously considered by consensus another level lower.

At some stage if they aren’t rated all that highly and one of the talls are then we should go the better rated tall. Even more so if we can get a sneaky trade back too.

I believe the club are super high on Rivers. Add in Windsor and pick 5 that’s the basis of the next wave of mids. Plus Kolt. Depth is iffy right now but rebuilding midfield depth isn’t as difficult as finding stars. 

Yep I also agree with you. I guess we can flip a coin as to what the more pressing needs are. 

If we took Tauru/Armstrong at 9 or split that for a Hynes/Armstrong combo I'd I have to back the man JT. Passing up on the mid that slides to 5 would be a travesty. 

26 minutes ago, Mouseymoo said:

Yep I also agree with you. I guess we can flip a coin as to what the more pressing needs are. 

If we took Tauru/Armstrong at 9 or split that for a Hynes/Armstrong combo I'd I have to back the man JT. Passing up on the mid that slides to 5 would be a travesty. 

I can only justify passing on a mid at 5 if they think Tauru is a cut above the mids AND they think the selection of top bracket mids stretches to 9 - which is possible if you think Smillie, Travaglia, Allan, Reid etc are on the same level as the top guys.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

But it's okay for guys like Cal Twomey and 50 other journalists to do so? Have you emailed them and advised them to keep their mail and information to themselves as well? Probably best not to read Cals phantom draft tomorrow. 

It's all a bit of fun. That's why the draft has become a popular spectacle. Now we're seeing heaps of YouTube channels trying to get one up with phantom drafts and information. 

You missed Slarti’s point.

If Goodwindees has inside mail it can only harm us to release it. Surely you understand that.

The media are guessing from bits of info that could be correct or not, even planted by other clubs as well, or just using their assessment of clubs needs.

The media speculates and that is fine.

We don’t need to harm our chances by spilling the beans to the whole AFL world.

3 hours ago, adonski said:

Wishful thinking or something more, D11?

Just a whisper I’ve heard.  I’ve heard we want a combination of either Langford, Allan or the Viking

Edited by Demons11

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

You missed Slarti’s point.

If Goodwindees has inside mail it can only harm us to release it. Surely you understand that.

The media are guessing from bits of info that could be correct or not, even planted by other clubs as well, or just using their assessment of clubs needs.

The media speculates and that is fine.

We don’t need to harm our chances by spilling the beans to the whole AFL world.

Yeah I'm sure recruiters are falling over themselves to get inside information off demonland..

Look, you've got a well respected journo who is well connected to the draft and has the best draft intel going around in Cal Twomey who's literally about to release a phantom draft tomorrow to the whole of Australia outlining the inside mail coming out of the dees camp on who they may take at pick 5 and 9.

Marc McGowan from the AGE literally did the exact same thing last week. This is literally no different. 

You also do realise that even if the club has a particular player in mind for both our picks, it doesn't mean it set in stone now. There are always last minute decision changes or that particular player gets taken early or slips through.

As I said, it's all a bit of fun.. 


21 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

Just a whisper I’ve heard.  I’ve heard we want a combination of either Langford, Allan or the Viking

Langford at 5 and one of Allan/Tauru at 9 would be ideal

No Tauru at 5 though pls 

Edited by demoncat

Just now, demoncat said:

Langford at 5 and one of Allan/Tauru at 9 would be ideal

I reckon the top 5 looks like this (excluding Ashcroft)

1. Lalor 

2. FOS

3. Jagga

4. Draper (I think there is a chance Crows take Langford)

5. Langford or Allan (depending on the above) 

3 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

I reckon the top 5 looks like this (excluding Ashcroft)

1. Lalor 

2. FOS

3. Jagga

4. Draper (I think there is a chance Crows take Langford)

5. Langford or Allan (depending on the above) 

Surely we wouldn’t pass on Draper at 5 if Crows take Langford? 😱

Edited by demoncat

 
1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Yeah I'm sure recruiters are falling over themselves to get inside information off demonland..

Look, you've got a well respected journo who is well connected to the draft and has the best draft intel going around in Cal Twomey who's literally about to release a phantom draft tomorrow to the whole of Australia outlining the inside mail coming out of the dees camp on who they may take at pick 5 and 9.

Marc McGowan from the AGE literally did the exact same thing last week. This is literally no different. 

You also do realise that even if the club has a particular player in mind for both our picks, it doesn't mean it set in stone now. There are always last minute decision changes or that particular player gets taken early or slips through.

As I said, it's all a bit of fun.. 

Who are you hoping for?


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
    • 719 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