Machsy

Palmer and Sheppard have given weak returns too.

Heeney catches the eye immediately, looks a great prospect, but at least the F/S bidding system applies with this kid and they won't just get him as a rookie.

I forgot about that. Should give us some great insight.

Brayshaw is an interesting case. He doesn't seem to me to be a clear cut top choice. Although his name is often put forward as the best midfielder in this crop, I'm not sure how he'd compare with last year's mids, for instance. I also wonder about how much influence comes from the privileges he has being a Brayshaw. Obviously in the AIS/AFL squad they all spend time at an AFL club, but few would have his dad's mate (premiership coach Clarkson) writing up a program for him before preseason to prepare him for AFL footy. I'd say he has some distinct advantages over other kids his age. How might their form benefit from having the same such opportunities? Will it limit his scope for improvement when immersed in the AFL environment compared to others? Or is it an early indication that he will respond positively to being in the AFL environment (when others might not) and has the right attitude to see him succeed? I've got no bloody idea. Just some things to ponder.

Agreed. It doesn't really concern me at all, especially if we manage to snag another kid like Salem. I was just being flippant.

Mind you, I can't wait for the kid to get a game and perform big on the big stage. I can see the headline now... IN HARMES' WAY

If we keep this up, we may not even have a top 5 draft pick...

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.