Machsy

Haha funny you say that... Maybe too many shite tattoos?

You know what? I've heard some horrible stuff about him, but I also worry that subconsciously I just hate him because of those God awful tattoos. I don't mind a good tough sticker, but he looks horrible. But, I try to be objective and I think I just really don't like the type of person he is. Just me, I guess.

I struggle to see how we could satisfy Collingwood when they are unwilling to take what I think is overs from Brisbane, being picks 5 and 25. When it is reported the pies wanted pick 5, 21 & 25 I laughed. No way in the world is Beams worth that. And worst of all, if find it really hard supporting my team if we had that human stain on our list. I feel sick about the prospect. It'd make me want to stop following the club for the time he is there, and I wouldn't be able to bring myself to renew my membership. Some people might not be the same, but I just couldn't do it on principle. I try to be a realist, and fortunately I remain blissfully ignorant about other players I have loved in the past. But he brings about too much distaste for mine.

I think GWS are brutally aware of the need to spread the age of their list.

I think the key is that in AFL, like in many things, you become a product of your environment. What's the point in taking a supremely talented youngster and bringing him into an environment conducive to fear, doubt, submission and underachievement? I think we've seen it year after year, drafting impressive talented young men, then scratching our heads 3 years later when they look a shell of themselves. Obviously this isn't absolute, as you will still get a Nathan Jones coming from a cesspool. But we need an environment where we instill or reinforce work ethic and strong positive work habits. All kids who get drafted have talent. But we need an environment that will take a Luke Parker at pick 40 and forge him into a superstar, not another talented also-ran. We're not there yet. Cross helps, Jones helps, Vince helps, Dawes helps. But we're still short a handful of quality people to lead the way. I do think we recruited Tyson as much for his strength of character as for his talent. We need an environment that will guarantee more hits than misses. Then worry about making sure we recruit the kid at pick 2 who has 3.2% more talent than the kid at pick 10.

I think it's a likelihood, but also that it's easy to be seduced by his positives, but he's hardly a sure thing superstar. Sure thing to be a handy player for a long time though. It's enough for me to want to draft him, but not enough for me to be too worried about missing out on him. I still favour trying to work out a deal with Gold Coast to get picks 8 & 13 or whatever they hold in exchange for pick 2 or 3. I think they'd go for it, and it would help our case enormously.

Roos also said that if we'd kept pick 2, we wouldn't have used it on Kelly anyway.

I find that highly doubtful.

Do you really think the Saints would be so forthcoming..?

Haven't heard that before...

That's great.But the way I read the term "physical beast" is in regards to competitive attitude and physicality. As a result, I wouldn't term him a "physical beast." That might be different for some people. That's ok. Maybe a "physical specimen" due to size? I know we're talking semantics, but that's how I see it. I think Wright is a Matthew Leuenberger waiting to happen. The "next Cox", a player with super attributes for a ruckman, but ultimately, like a lot of ruckmen, a risky prospect because they don't always spend a lot of time on the park. I don't know what it is about big men, but they have a propensity to break down. If he doesn't- great. But a big risk to take. (Even look at Brody Grundy - almost as highly rated, great first year, but without many injuries he is still struggling now. No sure things at that size.)

Wright is diet-Joe Daniher. Nothing to sneeze at, but not a "physical beast" or whatever.

I was driving, but didn't have to say much to your idiotic post anyway. Still don't really. You just don't understand much about the game. Good luck.

He got smashed a couple of times yesterday, then bounced back up and was back at the coalface in seconds. If you can't see it, good luck to you.

^^ Is this what passes for comedy now? God help the human race...

The doggies would though - he is exactly what they need. Their midfield is sorted. Likewise we need mids more than anything, which skews our appraisal of Petracca & Brayshaw.

Twist the change however you like kid, but it's not significant enough to be discussed as 2 for 2.

Just like the Dom Tyson trade, that's essentially 2 for 1 (plus change).

Are you serious? Ruckmen are the most speculative type of all. I'd be very wary of Wright more than anyone else projected top 10.

Boyd is better than McCartin.

Would be a direct replacement for Mitch Clark in terms of type. Obviously would take a long time to develop to the same level. My tendency is to go for mids.

I'd be happy with Gore as a 2nd or 3rd rounder. In my eyes he's basically Aidan Riley with pace.

I think you'll find I said he was overrated when others said he should be top 5 or even taken at pick 2, and that he played like the second coming of Brock McLean. It's pretty close to the mark. Yes, he's ready to go right now, and he always was. So? You don't draft a kid for the impact they will have in their first year. I could just froth over every kid that gets named, like some others. How about putting your balls on the line and saying who you're not keen on for once, rather than taking the safe and easy option..?

I want to select him and for him to be a superstar too, but you're seeing things that aren't there yet and may never be.

I'd say Brayshaw is an ever so slightly better kick and decision-maker, but still he makes Petracca look better than he is.