mo64

He wrote an autobiography, or was that after his 3rd year?

Heard an interview with his manager, who didn't dismiss the claim. Just stated that Watts was a contracted player and wanted to stay at Melbourne. Clubs aren't stupid enough to openly say that they're shopping a player around. Their response is along the lines of "we'll be looking to improve our list, yadda, yadda, yadda." 18th in the B&F despite playing 20 games suggests that the coaching panel didn't rate his performance this season.

I've questioned our trading and drafting, but by your summation, it's an absolute bust. The fact that no other club had any interest in Watts may have been a factor as to why we didn't trade him.

I like the look of Weideman also, but the type of player he is with a serious injury history, means that he'll physically take quite a while to develop into an AFL player. The only way we would have missed out on Parish or Oliver was if GC took one of them at 3. Clearly they didn't see either as a "must have" and traded the pick. I saw Brayshaw as the total package. The knock I have on Oliver is that his body of work at a high level is very brief. Taylor said that he didn't have him in the top 30 at the start of the year. He's been drafted at 4 due to his "upside", and I'm always cynical about those type of players. You have to question why he allowed himself to get into the physical shape he was, if being an AFL player was his goal.

I was really optimistic after the last 2 trade and draft periods, and totally understood the rationale. By and large, they've proven to be successful. This year, the players we traded for are unlikely to be game changers, and left me underwhelmed. The trading/upgrading of picks hasn't made a lot of sense. We've given up quite a bit, which most people choose to ignore. The only credible source of info we've had on the site was from the poster who told us about the Wagner pick before the event. He also said that we hadn't decided on Oliver or Parish until very late. That made the upgrading of picks seem superfluous. Trading next years pick in a supposedly strong draft or for a potential target in Prestia seems strange. Oliver and Weideman may well be great players, but both have knocks on them. The rest of the draftees are speculative at best.

It's a highlights package. Do you think that they'll show his turnovers? There's nothing in his highlights package that suggests he has any X factor. They show him as a neat player. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, and hope he has a long and distinguished career for us, but the hype for every player we draft in is ridiculous.

Ok, we've got another Luke Hodge on our hands. What a steal!!!

So why do clubs have players run a 3km time trial at the start of preseason training? Just for the fun of it I guess. Nothing like a nice stroll in the park. BTW, 10.45 is NOT a very quick time for a sportsman that requires elite endurance.

The scrapping of the sub rule and fewer interchanges will help Michie. He's an accumulator of possessions who needs time on the ground. He's well down the pecking order as an inside mid, but is one player that I'd class as legitimate depth. Love to see him dominate at Casey, and when given a chance in the seniors, play some good football. I prefer him to a few other depth players on our list.

All the kicks were neat dinky 15-30 metre short passes. Didn't see any running of the lines and long penetrating kicks, nor did I see any strong contested marks for a player of his size. He looks like a neat player, without any obvious standout qualities, hence the reason he's been selected as a rookie. Comparisons to Hodge were laughable.

Reminds me of Shannon Byrnes.

That's a massive gap, and probably ranked him in the bottom quarter. You don't develop AFL level endurance overnight or in one preseason.

And if Colin Sylvia has a good preseason under his belt, he'll also be part of our resurgence.

Without an engine, Weideman would definitely start at FF, and Hogan CHF. I doubt that he plays more than 5 games next year, given his injury history. Saints eased McCartin in this year, and I think we'll do the same.

I'd be happy if he kicked 25 goals, and 20 of them were from joe the goose handballs. Newton kicked 11 goals in 11 games from limited opportunities. Might be a better option in the forward line than Watts.

I was hoping to pick up Hardwick who went 2 picks earlier.

No, and I have no interest in comparing them. I'm not knocking Oliver, because in time I think he'll be a decent player. I did see one of the VFL games he played for Richmond, and thought he was impressive without doing a lot. Red hair aside, he reminded me of Gary Rohan. People have made a big deal of Oliver being a mid/forward based on his 20 goals in 14 games. He kicked 6 in the last game in an 80 point win, and all were shown in his highlights reel. In all seriousness, a C Grade amateur player could have kicked 6 against that opposition. Oliver has all the traits to be a good AFL player, but I think he needs time.

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.