Jump to content

Featured Replies

 
7 minutes ago, Kolt 39 said:

We have lost 8 players from the 2024 list. Gus, ANB, Hunter, Schache, Smith, B.Brown, Tomlinson and Farris-White. Even if we pick up a couple Rookie/PSD's need around 4- 5 more from trade / draft. As an example I can see them possibly trading with GWS to split pick 9 across 15 and 21 and Derksen as a play. And then on trading 5 and one of 15 or 21 to secure 2 and 25. Then MFC have 2, 21, 25  for instance to go along with Sharp and Derksen. Just an example but something suggests Cal Twomey expecting MFC hasn't finished trying to move up draft board further.

Also we have Campbell so 7 spots left now

Wow. AFL list management. An Actuarial degree is required 

Confused Rooster Teeth GIF by Achievement Hunter

Edited by spirit of norm smith
L

 

I was excited about Sharp. I'm surprised we gave up 40, 46 and 54 as a couple of those might have helped get it done. Stoked with 5 and 9 but would have liked to keep some bargaining chips. 

19 minutes ago, OhMyDees said:

Saints get Pick 8 for Battle we get NOTHING for losing Brayshaw. AFL compensation is a joke!

Who’s Gus playing for next year?


If North get 13 and are a live chance of Houston…

 

2 and 13

for 5 and 9 please! 

35 minutes ago, Garbo said:

Outside only taking 2 players at the draft or upgrading rookies for the remaining spots can anyone explain why we had to trade absolutely everything for pick 9 surely keeping a few other picks would have been useful for some other trades or someone who falls through in the draft 

I suspect JT felt the draft top end extended to about pick 15 (including Ashcroft and Kako) and as a result we were heavily into getting pick 13 from the Suns, but they were considering a few options.

When Tim Lamb realised Essendon would be willing to part with pick 9 - thereby negating any Kako early bid worries, they were willing to offload provided a club could stump up enough points - which we did via getting Adelaide's third rounder in exchange for our future one. The Crows were very generous and helpful this draft period - probably felt guilty for the McAdam deal!

As to why we needed pick 9 - it gives us the chance to draft both the best mid/fwd still available (O'Sullivan, Lalor or Reid) and also the best tall options (Striking Viking or Harry Armstrong).

And that in turn with Windsor and Tholstrop should help secure our future beyond this current down cycle.

Yes it means both the Sharp and Derksen deals may not go ahead - although we still have pick 49 so at least one of them will get done.

53 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Found an article quickly that mentions it:

"AFL rules force clubs to use three picks at the national draft but these spots can also be filled by upgraded rookies or by clubs re-selecting delisted players if they choose."

How many picks your club is set to use at the 2022 NAB AFL Draft

I'm not sure what you mean about the years comment? I have been reading for quite a long time, it probably is in the years by now, but have only recently taken the leap into trying to contribute and discuss.

You can upgrade rookies and the draft never ends. So if you want you can trade picks in rounds 1-4 and use 5,6,7 to pick players.

But we’ll upgrade a rookie and use 2 early picks as it currently stands. It’s not a problem. 

 
7 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

My gut feel is we will look at delisted players/delisted free agents on short contracts to fill gaps.

Yes absolutely an option. Will be interesting to see if JT prefers 5 and 9 or if prefers to get higher up to secure a certain player he prefers over others and gain an additional later pick inside 25. 3 x top 25 instead of 2 x top 10. Either way I back in the decision they make and look forward to next season.


1 hour ago, Kolt 39 said:

We have lost 8 players from the 2024 list. Gus, ANB, Hunter, Schache, Smith, B.Brown, Tomlinson and Farris-White. Even if we pick up a couple Rookie/PSD's need around 4- 5 more from trade / draft. As an example I can see them possibly trading with GWS to split pick 9 across 15 and 21 and Derksen as a play. And then on trading 5 and one of 15 or 21 to secure 2 and 25. Then MFC have 2, 21, 25  for instance to go along with Sharp and Derksen. Just an example but something suggests Cal Twomey expecting MFC hasn't finished trying to move up draft board further.

Also we have Campbell so 7 spots left now

What did or are we getting for Tomlinson, also who is going too or have we just delisted him?

7 minutes ago, biggestred said:

gary rohan?

😵‍💫🤢🤮

21 minutes ago, ANB Fan Boy said:

What did or are we getting for Tomlinson, also who is going too or have we just delisted him?

Nothing yet he is one of the players in limbo as remains unsigned UFA was reports back in August he would walk from MFC though.

1 hour ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

Who is the player you think Taylor would be keen to skip three places to take at two?

Langford/Lalor fit the mold for the mids we like a lot more than the other top rated guys


1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

If North get 13 and are a live chance of Houston…

 

2 and 13

for 5 and 9 please! 

Who are tigers taking at 1 do you think?

12 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Langford/Lalor fit the mold for the mids we like a lot more than the other top rated guys

I think those two are the most likely out of the predicted top 6 to fall to us

I can't see Lalor going in the first 5 picks with the injury issues/fitness/lack of motor and preseason

I can't see Langford going ahead of the faster more skilled Smith, FOS and Draper

So if those two you suggested are who we are targeting I don't think its worth the risk to trade up when one of them is likely to fall to us at 6

Agree. Keep 5 & 9.  Hold !!! We will have two guns available at these picks.  Sure they become 7 & 11 with Ashcroft & Lombard bidding and matching going early.  

2 hours ago, Kolt 39 said:

We have lost 8 players from the 2024 list. Gus, ANB, Hunter, Schache, Smith, B.Brown, Tomlinson and Farris-White. Even if we pick up a couple Rookie/PSD's need around 4- 5 more from trade / draft. As an example I can see them possibly trading with GWS to split pick 9 across 15 and 21 and Derksen as a play. And then on trading 5 and one of 15 or 21 to secure 2 and 25. Then MFC have 2, 21, 25  for instance to go along with Sharp and Derksen. Just an example but something suggests Cal Twomey expecting MFC hasn't finished trying to move up draft board further.

Also we have Campbell so 7 spots left now

Good post but we've actually currently only got 4 vacancies, not 7.

KFW doesn't count because he was a B Rookie, Mentha may fill that slot. That’s 6.

Kentfield arrived mid season as a Rookie for Gus and McVee has been promoted so that's another off your 7. That's 5.

Tomlinson hasn't gone yet. That's 4.

If Derksen doesn't come which looks likely, I think we'll need to keep one of Tomlinson or Hore.

Tomlinson gets a bit of a bad rap, he's almost never injured, never drops his head at Casey, comes in a plays a role when needed. It seems like he's good for "kulcha".

He'd only get a year and can probably get more elsewhere so we may end up renewing Hore.


I wonder if we will do a small slide for an extra pick? Last year we saw clubs throwing an extra second round pick to move up one spot on draft night. 

Could we perhaps convince Richmond to do 9 for picks 10 and 24? The incentive for Richmond would be the risk of another team coming for our pick with another offer.

2 minutes ago, Nascent said:

I wonder if we will do a small slide for an extra pick? Last year we saw clubs throwing an extra second round pick to move up one spot on draft night. 

Could we perhaps convince Richmond to do 9 for picks 10 and 24? The incentive for Richmond would be the risk of another team coming for our pick with another offer.

Hoping that's the case, while p5 and 9 is exciting, were sacrificing our depth by burning so many picks every year

Any chance we can trade Tomlinson to Collingwood for a future 4th rounder rather than letting him walk as a delisted FA.

I'd actually rather keep him as you can never have enough depth and he'll give you a solid 6/10 performance most weeks when he's recalled to the seniors?

 

 
44 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

I think those two are the most likely out of the predicted top 6 to fall to us

I can't see Lalor going in the first 5 picks with the injury issues/fitness/lack of motor and preseason

I can't see Langford going ahead of the faster more skilled Smith, FOS and Draper

So if those two you suggested are who we are targeting I don't think its worth the risk to trade up when one of them is likely to fall to us at 6

Lalor’s been linked stronger to Richmond than anyone else so far. It’s all very Cam Rayner but I reckon he goes top 3. His skill for a powerful beast type is rare. 

Smith is neither skilled nor fast. Draper’s skills didn’t stand up at SANFL level.

And the more I watch of FOS - who I like more than Smith and Draper - the more I worry about his inside ball winning and his kicking. His overhead marking is just special stuff, but he might end up a hybrid half forward more than a pure midfielder.

1 hour ago, picket fence said:

😵‍💫🤢🤮

Can’t stand him and never want to see him at our club 


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

  • 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.

    • 25 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.

    • 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.

    • 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? 

      • Like
    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thumb Down
    • 232 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    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
    • 47 replies