Machsy

Agree. The love for Flanagan is absurd sometimes. Often good, sometimes awful, but rarely great.

I think it's because we needed more big-bodied mids, not a small runner with questionable attitude.

I really like the idea of Tom Lamb or Hugh Goddard. Could both play as tall mids as Roosy seems to like.

I think Gysberts may have...

It'll be news to Lloyd/Lyon/Barrett. On FC last night they were discussing how he'd done well, but as a top 20 pick.

I think, although he may not be recognised as one, Christensen is 100% a pure line-breaking midfielder. He doesn't spend a lot of time crumbing up forward, unless he follows the ball down there from the midfield.

Similar size-wise and athletically, but JKH seems to have much better hands, and more than anything I'm impressed with his footy IQ at such an early stage of his career. He plays the game intuitively, and makes very smart decisions. His hands are always set to take the first option, but he's quick to adapt to what is given to him.

Will be a great ruckman.

I wouldn't go as far as assuming he has a missus...

Thanks Bob.

I think this article from the 16/04/14 by Harry Taylor encapsulates what I think Watts has missing from his game. http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/geelong-cats/fit-for-footy-means-never-forgetting-the-power-of-the-mind-20140423-zqvjv.html It's this and this alone. Sure, Watts could do with a bit more muscle, been we've all seen others do more with less. I doubt anyone will disagree.

And Roos likes to have an army of HBF/wingman. At Sydney he had Kennelly, Mattner, Shaw, Malceski and others. We can already see by the VFL player summaries that half the MFC players at Casey have been rotated through there.

I see what you're saying, but I also think we need to consider type. Templeton - run all day vanilla mid. Honeychurch - bog standard hard contested ball winning mid. Hunt - rangy, speedy, athletic HBF/wingman with nice kick, not much exposure to high levels of the game/coaching. I suspect the coaching dept think he has more improvement in him than most, having not been exposed to the TAC cup system, once they put him into the AFL system. Also, I think they'll back themselves to turn him into a player, as Roos has a bloody good record with developing players from big ordinary into at least role players, especially foreign types like Kennelly and Pyke.

That's not what I call a project player. Michael Luxford, a basketballer who has never played footy, being taken as a rookie at Geelong, is a project player. Even a steeplechaser in Blicavs. It's not unreasonable to expect a kid requires 2-3 years of development before playing AFL, and that does not make them a project. Not in my eyes.

I think you might be thinking Fitxpatrick & Gawn. We selected Gawn out of the 2 at pick 34, thinking Fitzy would go soon after, but then Fitz was still available at 50.

My point is that even if half the teams thought Hunt was taken too early, that doesn't mean that the other half didn't. Let alone 1 recruiter. Especially when you're comparing to Templeton, who was in the same boat (some obviously rate him, some didnt). And Fyfe was rated, but I recall him having an unorthodox path to the draft, and was seen as a smoky by some teams. Even Freo were shocked at his ability to play midfield and rapid development. It's well documented the recruiter had to put his aggets on the line, against the wishes of the coaching staff.

I don't think that necessarily means attitude as in having a bad temper, or likes to bully the opposition, or is arrogant. Maybe he drops his bundle when things don't go his way? Maybe he doesn't follow coaches instructions when he disagrees? Maybe he has issues with his work ethic? It could mean anything. Having said that, I'm bloody glad we don't have Dustin Martin. We don't need to be babysitting anyone. He'll be an impediment to any progress Richmond might make. Darling had a lot of bad press, but not much more. A lot of clubs got spooked, and probably feel very stupid about it now.

NB. Fyfe was a smoky, in a similar vein.

Says who? Hunt may not have been on your list, but by the sounds of it a few clubs had monitored him. You're not to know where another team may have picked him, or that no other team was interested. Just because it wasn't all over the AFL website, doesn't mean he must a longshot project. And you're going very early on him. In regards to Templeton, I heard a number of clubs put a line through him due to attitude.

Bingo.

He might develop into exactly what we hope for with Watts.

Considering there are so many highly rated talls available, and look to go early in the draft, coupled with few comparable quality mids, what would you choose then? I'm leaning towards Goddard personally. Versatile, professional, same mentality as his cousin.

He did and continues to skirt packs and avoid contact though.

Wow. WOW. Having a few arguments with myself on this thread, if some are to be believed. There are some good early insights in there. And some bloody terrible misguided and offensive ones. I'd say you nailed it though, Jabber.

I think it just shows, that there is often little separating players in the draft, especially at the early stages. The deigned "number 1" pick may only be 2% better than pick 3, if you have some magical "talent worth counter". Sometimes you might have 5% difference between picks 1 & 10, or picks 5 & 20. In the end it's a raffle, and all the kids drafted early should have what it takes. But you never really know until you get them in the system and see how they flourish. But, as rpfc pointed out, you're talking about priority picks still. And I'd be all for a priority pick at the end of the 1st round. It's odds-on to provide as much value as a top 5 pick, and it's about getting that 2nd bite at the cherry. Roos understood that, and it's why he traded pick 2 for Tyson & Salem. I believe Luke Shuey was an end-of-1st-round priority pick. Just gotta use it well.