mo64

That's ridiculous. You don't waste a list spot for that. It's not the 70's VFA comp.

Statistically he's a key forward / ruckman who doesn't kick many goals, low possessions and seems too short to be a genuine ruckman. At 24, it's hard to get enthused by the pick. I'd rather we picked Henderson.

Bingo!!! The best mids currently in the AFL come in all shapes and sizes. Butters and Daicos are different to Bont and Cripps. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Bont probably gets caught with the ball more than any mid, but is arguably the best player in the comp. If Langford turns out to be a 20-30 goal a season mid due to his aerial ability, I couldn't care less how fast he can run a 20m sprint.

The resident armchair draft experts on here wanted to use picks 5 or 9 on Harry Armstrong. As it's turned out, we could have kept our future 1st, and almost got him him with our original pick 28.

I'm just relieved that we picked up 2 mids. Based on his physique, I wasn't expecting Windsor to play from the get go. Hopefully LIndsay can do the same.

Your scenario is the exact reason why I'm questioning the idea of splitting pick 9. I'll concede that moving up from pick 28 would have been difficult. But essentially we are trading our future 1st and a raft of 3rd round picks for pick 13 or 14. That's a terrible trade. I've seen these sort of deals done on NBA Draft Night, and more often than not, they end up badly for the team that gets too cute.

You haven't answered my question. What high end picks do you seriously think a club will give up for pick 9? We acquired pick 9 assuming there'd be elite talent in the top 10. If we liked players that are projected to go late in the 1st round, we had pick 28 which we could have upgraded with the bunch of 3rd rounders that we gave away.

No club is going to do that deal.

Why in the world would we split pick 9? At best it will get us a pick in the early teens and another in the early 20's. We gave up our future 1st (potentially a top 5 pick next year) plus a raft of 2nd and 3rd picks. Those bundled picks could have netted us a result that is not dissimilar to splitting pick 9. Over the past two trade periods, we've been a benevolent club to the Suns and the Bombers.

I picked up on that as well. but I've heard plenty of players declare their love for a club, only to leave. Pretty sure LJ declared his love for the club. Trac's contracted long term and we'll do what's best for the club.

It depends on whether Richardson's mentor is a paid by the MFC. The club doesn't have unlimited wealth, and it gets to the point where paid officials need to do their job, or the club needs to find someone who can.

I'll hazard a guess and say that the off-field cultural issues with the players frustrated Goody, and he felt that he needed to be harder on the players. Rather than Goody being the bad cop, the review concluded that Richardson failed in his responsibility in handling the off-field issues. If Richardson needs a mentor, then he needs to be replaced.

Are you Brad Green's ghostwriter? 😁

I just hope that Nathan Jones has the balls to challenge Goodwin's way of thinking. It would be nice to see something different to the "bomb long down the line" strategy.

I'm curious to know how many of these players have you seen live in action? I take opinions on here with a grain of salt. Cal Twomey, who I have utmost respect for, was asked on Gettable who he thought was his certainties for a Top 10 selection. He listed the top 5 mids + Tauru. He then listed 5-6 players who are likely to be in the mix for a top 10 selection, and Harry Armstrong wasn't one of them. I get the impression that he doesn't rate him as highly as some Demonlanders, although he expects a club like St. Kilda to take him based on needs rather than best available.