mo64

I don't think he does, which is where we disagree. Only time will tell.

I'll have a wager that he doesn't play 20 games, and being rested is not a caveat. That's part of being a 1st year player. If Oliver is considered a forward/mid, he'll be competing with Garlett, Petracca, Newton and Harmes. If they want to ease him in off half back, he's competing with Melksham, Salem, Bugg and Lumumba. If they want to play him as a flanker, he's competing with VDB, Kent, Stretch, ANB, JKH and Kennedy. And Oliver won't get thrown into the starting midfield rotation of Jones, Viney, Tyson, Vince and Brayshaw. Oliver will get some games throughout the year, but he's hardly a walk up start like Brayshaw this year.

We've all got our favourites and scapegoats, but I think that this is the team that the coaches would see as best 22. Players like Lumumba, Dawes, Watts and Garland cop their fair share from supporters, but I'm sure the coaches have them pencilled in the best 22. Watts getting dropped in the final round may have changed how the coaches see him though.

I don't. We haven't attracted a big fish, and our draftees will take time. The only thing that will attract interest is on-field success.

Hulett and King strike me as your typical rookie list player because they need a few years of development. That seems to suggest that the club didn't rate the mids on offer at those picks. I'd say we may go for someone outside the TAC Cup.

I didn't feel the same way about ANB. Hulett reminds me of Leigh Williams.

It's one thing to say we have young players who you can plug into spots. It's another thing to say if they're actually any good. Hulett and Mitchell King both look like picks that are 30/70 against making it at AFL level.

I disagree that the players listed are 3rd rate options, and are superior to Spencer who's still on our list. You would have said the same thing about Jonathon Ceglar 2 years ago.

If he develops into a real ruckman (1st ruck in the team) in 5-6 years time, and Gawn is still our no.1 ruckman, he'll look elsewhere for a 1st ruck gig. Smith, Currie or Gorringe were the perfect solution for our list.

100% agree. We gave up next years 1st rounder in supposedly a strong draft, plus this year's 2nd round pick to upgrade our early picks. Unlike the Tyson/Salem trade which made perfect sense, the end result this year has left me unenthused. Oliver looks like he'll be a good AFL player, but doesn't have the skillset of Brayshaw and Petracca based on his junior career, so doesn't look like he has "elite" potential. I hope I'm wrong. Lot of question marks over Weideman, with his injury history and poor beep test results. The players that we traded for aren't game changers. I hope to be proven wrong with Oliver and Weideman, and they become A graders, but I have my reservations.

Would've have been nice if his highlights package contained some contested marks. Reminds of Pedersen. Looks like a neat footballer, but question marks as to where he'll play at AFL level. If he's got a massive tank, he could be a lead-up 3rd tall forward.

Damn, Blake Hardwick just got picked up. Sam Menagola is my tip.

Oddly enough, Mitchell King's highlight package is 50% longer than Weideman's. He kicks the ball like Spencer, but looks comfortable with ball in hand.

If we want one with sloppy disposal, Mathieson's our man.

Spot on. That's the point I was making about DD's comments as well. Let's just concern ourselves with who we draft before sticking the boots into other draftees.

Not surprised that Gresham and Lovell went ahead of predictions. Both are naturally talented footballers, and some people have an issue with height and weight.

I'm just about to vomit after reading some of these comments. Parish can clearly play, and the only thing I'm concerned about is whether Oliver and Weideman make it as AFL footballers.

I'm sticking with my original thoughts after trade week, and say we'll take Parish and Curnow. I still believe that we were after pick 3 knowing that Parish was the Bombers preferred mid. And I think that Curnow would be a better fit for our forward line than Weideman.

That's the worst analysis/conclusion reaching I've ever read. Brayshaw and Petracca were unanimous top 3 picks. I doubt that Roos' philosophy swayed Taylor one iota.

I shudder when I read comments like this. Football talent is the only consideration when it comes to drafting midfielders.

So am I. For mine, he's a combination of Stretch and ANB. He knows how to find the ball like ANB, but has more tricks to his game. Would definitely take him with a late pick, but somehow doubt that the club will, due to our quota of midgets.

You don't try to look for diamonds in the rough with top 10 picks. You're looking for locks who will make an impact at AFL level for 10 years.

Gotta love the term "word is". Just tell us who you heard it from, and we can read the BS meter.

That doesn't make sense. Of course we traded up to take player X (I don't believe it will be Oliver) at 3. It's ridiculous to suggest that we wanted pick 3, and then we'll decide who's the best talent. IMO, we gave up a lot to get pick 3, so it's madness to suggest that we didn't have a player in mind who we knew was under Essendon's radar, whether that be Oliver, Parish, Curnow or Weideman.

Other than athleticism, I'd like to know what skills you see in Frost to suggest he can be a handy forward? As for EQ's draft analysis, she's basically covered every likely scenario for picks 3 and 7. Hardly informative, but also suggests that the club hasn't given her any inclination as to who we're likely to pick.