mo64

If he's such a talent as a mid or forward, why would he spend so much time as a 3rd tall defender? If you demonstrate AFL standard qualities to play as a mid or forward, that's where you should spend all your gametime. Francis was hyped up after his 1st game of the under 18 championships. Statistically, he did very little for the rest of the carnival. I watched the game against Vic Metro, and paid particular attention to Francis, to see if the hype was justified. It wasn't. He had a shocker.

Stringer is doing at AFL level what he was doing in the TAC Cup. Was regarded as a no.1 pick before breaking his leg. I don't see that explosiveness in Francis, and I question how he will impact games at AFL level. Totally different player to Stringer.

A comparable player to Parish is Heppell. He was recruited as a lightly framed ball magnet, and has become an adept clearance player, because as you say, he's on the move at stoppages.

And yet the same didn't apply in Hodge's case. His incident had no impact on his onfield performance. Maybe clubs should look into players past relationship history. Because if they're making poor choices of partners, then they are clearly poor decision makers on the football field.

You can't ignore type. Francis may be a well rounded footballer, but other than dominating as a 3rd key defender (easiest position to play), it's hard to gauge how he'll impact a game. I'd be staggered if we took at pick 3 a "swingman" who's hasn't proven at junior level that he can dominate in key roles (midfield/key forward). If he's still there at pick 7, we may well take him.

Great read, but from our perspective, I hope he's wrong with his assessment that this draft is shallow with top end talent. I seem to be the only one who questions our decision to trade next year's 1st pick.

There's a difference between "driving drunk" and driving after having a drink (1 or 2). He's a P Plater, so he's needs to blow .00. Probably thought by removing the P's that he could get away it. Refusing to blow is hard to justify.

Silly boy, but if the club was set on drafting him, they should. Luke Hodge failed a breathalizer leading up to the finals, and you'd think he'd know better.

What elite skills are you talking about? He reads the play well down back, that's about it. His disposal is ok/average. I think he'll be a good AFL player, but not the player I'd be looking at at pick 3. Jared Rivers is a good comparison. Versatlility is the most overrated quality in a footballer if they can't master one position.

?

We've gone off him based on what? Have Taylor and Viney been reading Olisik's rave on Oliver? If we traded for pick 3 to get Parish, nothing has changed. And quite frankly I don't give a rats about body weight for a midfielder if he ticks all the boxes when it comes to football talent.

If we go for 2 mids, I'd love Gresham at 7 after Parish at 3. Unfortunately, most recruiters are "heightest", so Gresham will slide. Oliver is a scrub compared to Gresham.

Not your best work BB. The highlighted players either pre-dated the draft, were zone players, father/sons, or were part of trade deals.

IMO, that's part of contested football. Players like Mitchell and Simon Black had that innate ability to dispose of the ball in contested situations. That takes talent. Based on limited highlights, Oliver seems to try to take on the tackler, whereas Parish looks to dispose of the ball instinctively. Give me Parish any day.

Hogan had elite endurance before he was drafted. He missed 12 months with a back injury, which would severely impact his fitness levels, and yet he maintained his elite endurance. Clubs clearly have an issue with Weideman's endurance levels long term.

Yep. The beep test is just as important for a key forward as it is for a mid. Without repetitive efforts and defensive accountability, he'll struggle at AFL level.

Aside from Parish, who I think is a lock to become a good AFL player, there are a lot of question marks over the players who've been mooted to get picked up between 3-10. The other player who I'm keen on who hasn't been mentioned in dispatches is Gresham. The only knock on him is his height. He's a natural footballer, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's a bolter.

Well said DC. Best availabe doesn't factor in how many years of development is required for a player. For example, Mckay might take 5 years before he makes a significant impact in the AFL, as opposed to Parrish who may take 1 year. Does a lowly club like ourselves have the patience to wait that long? Excluding academy picks, 1 and 2 are unanimous, and opinions are divided on the next 6-10 picks. Contrary to some of the rhetoric in the media, I think we have a clear target at 3, and have a fair idea about who will still be there at 7.

I thought it was just me who thought his highlights package was underwhelming. He reminds me of Liam Picken. Can win the hard ball but does nothing with it.

I understand that we can still trade our 2017 1st round pick next year for Prestia, so a deal can theoretically still get done, but the machinations of the GC trades are in theory to hasten our improvement, which lessens the value of the future pick to GC. IF GC were certain Prestia is leaving and we are his preferred destination, they're potentially getting a lesser return.

No, I just don't think you understand how the clubs tackle draft day. The recruiters may have a list in order on who they rate, but the football department don't just take their word for it. They have long discussions evaluating the merits of each player, including what impact the player can have on their own team. And as I said, a player's impact may vary from team to team. It's less of a risk if you take a midfielder despite having a glut of them at your club, than it is key position players. The term "best available" is as broad as the term "rated".

Trading out next year's 1st round pick to GC is a dead giveaway.

And that's why I don't believe that Essendon will take 2 KPFs with picks 4 and 5.

There's a reason why all clubs don't "rate" draftees the same. The term "rate" has to be defined. Are you rating them on their potential to make an impact in the AFL, or are you rating them on their potential to make at impact at your club? They may not be the same. GWS are a prime example of a club that has stockpiled talent, but if that talent isn't given an opportunity, they'll look elsewhere.

If Joe Daniher was in the draft, he'd be selected ahead of Curnow and Weideman. They could even select Francis or Collins as a KPB to support Hurley, and play Hooker up forward. People are over-hyping Curnow and Weideman because we're in line to pick one of them up.