Mickey

Post academy bids, it'll probably end up being pick 12. The fact it won't be a top 10 pick makes me feel better about it.

7. They were tricky with their 'top half of the ladder instead if top 8 question

I'm kind of hoping Carlton pick Serong, based on their want for another small ala Papley. That would potentially leave us with our choice of Stephens/Kemp.

If anything, it's Robertson that's drawn the Selwood comparisons. And he won't make it to Geelong now Freo have 7 and 8.

Fair enough. Im happy with one of Green/Jackson/Young, not set for or against any in particular. There seem to be a few interesting prospects in the 15-25 range like de Konig and Gould, so wouldn't mind an earlyish 2nd rounder if we can get one back.

I'd be surprises if the Cats did 14 and 17 for 10 and 28, and I'm not sold on us trading 10 for 14 and 24. Means something like Weightman and Pickett instead of Kemp/Stephens/Serong. It will be interesting if any mooted trade happens today or Wednesday. If Wednesday you'd think we have more bargaining power, given teams will know for sure who is left.

It'd be an interesting move, but would also mean we likely miss out on Green and Jackson, if it's true GWS won't match.

Pretty sure I read somewhere that the Hawks took Roughy first because Richmond were keen on him, but not buddy. Your point still stands; but I don't think the Hawks ever had question marks on Bud.

Freo must be very worried about us or Carltank bidding on Henry at 8 or 9

Uh oh...

I don't think Binman was talking about you...

Pretty easy. Jackson is an 18 year old kid who won't be impacting in the ruck for a number of years. Gawn has 4-5 years tops, by which stage Jackson will be 22-23. Preuss is an ok first ruck but hardly a star. The recruiters seem to think Jackson can play forward too. That means he can contribute early in an area we lack (KPF), while he develops his ruck craft under Max.

4. ask when we would stop hearing words and start seeing actions and when they answer, just scream "MORE WORDS!!"

We have a history of bidding, but I believe only coz we would have taken those players if we had the chance. Not because we are keeping clubs honest or playing the game. If we rate green, we will bid on him, and may land him. If we pick Jackson, it will be because Taylor rates him as the best talent, not for needs (Taylor has already said you dont pick for needs that early, nor do you outsmart yourself). At 3, I believe Taylor will take best available, according to the work they've done

If he did, no doubt we'd be found guilty of not tampering with the SSP and fined $100 million.

Funnily enough, yes. But it's a panel of about 44

Sure, but he kicked 21 in a team that played finals (albeit briefly). How many would he have kicked with the way our mids delivered the ball? I'm not against picking him up to increase depth. But at nearly 30, how long are we realistically going to have him on the list? One year, max.

Freo might trade up to get Jackson before GWS (if they trade up) but not Robertson. One of Jackson or Robertson will be available to them at 7 and it's more likely Robertson than Jackson.

Your example was a case of Watts not following his program... I have no issue with players not coming back early, provided they come back in excellent shape. It shows just as much maturity and leadership by sticking to your program and doing extras, regardless if whether that is at the club or away. Some blokes like to come back early, and that's to be commended. But guys that dont, but are still doing the work, shouldn't be looked down on for taking their time off

Yep, like I said I hadn't calculated the points. It was more the example. I can see a situation unfolding where a club will trade more than the points value of pick 6 to GWS just to get pick 6, either because the really rate a player or werent going to use those picks. Again, just an example but you can see why GWS would rather trade up then use this "loophole".

I'd suggest we can. What you can't do is trade and then regain the same pick on the night. So, GWS can't trade pick 6 for, say, 14 and 17, use 14 on green then trade pick 6 back in for 17 and a future first. I don't really like the idea of clubs being able to trade after a bid has been made but it does mean someone like GWS, if they don't trade for a higher pick before hand, won't get an extra top 10 pick. As an example (I'm not sure what the points work out at), if Sydney bid at 5, GWS can trade 6 for 14 and 17 and use 14 on Green. They then get Green and a kid at 17. If they trade up to 4 or 5 and get in front of the bid they get a pick 4 or 5 and then Green with their other picks. I know which I prefer.

It would be great for us, but I just don't see Freo doing it. They will be keen on Jackson and Robertson. At least one of them will still be there at 7, maybe both. No one will bid on Henry before 7. At worst, they pick at 7 and pay 10 for Henry. At best, they get players at 7 and 10, and pay for Henry with later picks. If they trade 3, at best the get a player at 3 (who might be there at 7), and pay for Henry with later picks. It just doesn't make any sense for them to do they trade unless they really, really rate someone.

https://m.afl.com.au/news/2019-11-07/blues-fined-10k-three-others-sanctioned-for-breach-of-drug-code Dees one of four clubs fined for not keeping ASADA updated on player whereabouts. Apparently it is the players' fault, not the club. But the club gets the fine. Players are given an app to updated their location for drug testers.

You do realise the video was posted on the 1st, not today, right?

Wait a second... you've just pasted Harley's head onto Gaff's body!