deanox

im not sure what neitz being captain has to do with which defender newton gets?

i would assume that they would have team sessions set out ie at certain times, and things like weight sessions could probably be done according to your program, at any time. ie maybe before or after a group session, or on a day off, but the times on those wouldnt be as strict would they?

he's not a star. david neitz could be considered a star but i would count him as a great. dont think we've had a star for over a decade. schwartz could of been. lyon was almost (if the injuries dint cut down his career. but davey? not a chance.

thats a job i wouldnt be putting on my CV...

he has been more than just a leadership option. even when injured he is our best forward. he is big and strong and can kick 50 metres. you cant put zac dawson on him, even if neitz is only on 1 leg. now that we have newton blooded we might see neitz rested when he gets injured instead of played. tho it is probably a year too late...

i would do my best to get my hands on tapes of games. or have a chat to people who will have seen him regularly, coaches officials etc. perhaps even get down to watch him train, you may pick up some reasons from there

well none of them are training with anyone are they? perhaps they'll go psd but i cant see why? maybe they just really did bleed red and blue...

worth noting sampi has nominated for this draft. he obviously isn't interested in waiting around until the preseason draft to get a gig...

for the record i reckon we should draft dangerfield. awesome name. and if we make him captain we could have 'captain dangerfield' on our side. how can we lose with a superhero in the team?

you have an uncle pervy????

oracle, may i ask why your joining date is this year? are you or are you not the same oracle that has been bringing us predictions since the dawn of time (or at least demonland)?

for anyone who doesnt believe the differences in draw is enough to cater for the extra money, they should consider significant advantages other clubs have such as captive membership (interstate clubs and geelong), selling reserved seats (interstate clubs, and geelong, and collingwood), as well as the draw, and TV issues discussed above.

whos robinson? where did we get him from?

afl promotion didnt help zac dawson though did it?

i would have taken welsh if we could have gotten a first rounder out of robbo... but otherwise id rather the spot on the list goes to a younger player...

very interesting clause. if you havnt played for 3 years you can be drafted by anyone...prob has never been used, and prob wont be again...

the problem with full backs is that they dont grow on trees. you dont pick the best available full back, you might have a choice of picking a KPD, ie a frawley. many of the best full backs were drafted as forwards...

i think its because of the role he played in juniors. he was a a giant who played on the wing. that wont work at afl level. they tried to turn him into a KPP, but he hasnt been good enough thus far. i think any future lies as a third tall, ie a very tall flanker. sort of like a permanent resting ruckman...or a third tall defender...

i think this is a key point in the argument. we have really only had these 5 picks in th category we are discussing. in the same time frame we have had a plethora of picks in the late draft, we have pick up a dozen midfielders and we have had 15 different rookies. btw i think you have to count dunn as a success if you are going to count frawley. he may not turn out to be a genuine kpp but that is not CAC's fault. he was drafted and he is either a success or not. if you dont want to count him as a KPP then call it 1 in 4 not 1 in 5. or count both bate and dunn and we can call it 3 in 6, because even though they don't play traditional KP roles they are both in excess of 190cm which categorises them as 'talls'. its not CAC's fault that they have developed differently. i will continue with the 5 selections (not 4 or 6) because thats what you started, but i will count dunn as a success not a failure. toss a coin 5 times. you know you should get 2 or 3 heads and 2 or 3 tails. but when you do it 5 times, there is a good chance you will get 4 or 5 of the same. small population size means it is easy for the probabilities to be incorrect. also if you are assuming that first round KPP have a success rate of 70% (i thought i read that somewhere in this thread, correct me if im wrong) then the probability of getting 2 (or less successes) out of the 5 picks is about 16%. the chances of having 3 successes jumps to around 31%. again, jarka it is how you look at it (regarding the inclusion of dunn and bate or not). give him 5 more selctions. if he nails four of those 5 his average will be 6/10 which suddenly looks pretty good. small population sizes skews the data.

well that settles it then

very good point. thhe afl is the 'elite' competition in australia, but in actual fact we have a large number of players just learning the ropes and growing into themselves at this level. if the draft age was lifted to 20 players would have a chance to develop into strong footballers whereby the afl would truly be the best versus the best. however, who is going to pay to develop them for 3 extra years? also what about players who are ready to star, do they miss out because of the draft age? its a hard question, but i think atm there is not enough money around for us to do anything else. SA and WA often have their juniors developing against men, but in vic there are enough juniors for them to have their own comps.... interesting conundrum and perhaps one that deserves a thread of its own...

i don't want to bite you, i might catch something. we farewelled TJ for pick 14 in the national draft. that pick will get us one of the best youngsters in the land, hopefully a KPP. ashley sampi is young (i think someone mentioned he is 23?), and has skills and potential. maybe he is not as classy as TJ, but he is about 5 years younger and plays a role which is much needed in our side. we havnt guaranteed we are going to pick him up yet, and wont get him unless he shows something. also we wont be wasting the pick we got for TJ on him, we will either be getting him in the PSD, where we have picks or we could get him late round in the national draft if we think he is worth it. whatever thought processes you went through to draw a line between the TJ trade and drafting sampi, i'm not sure. the only connection i can see is that we said we had an under 23 policy and this fits that policy perfectly. you're reasoning is unbelievable and completely illogical.

i was more interested in the player number 124...

so out of interest jarka, your suggesting we may have taken frawley too early but that obviously backs up that we thought frawley would go much higher... do you think we were wrong or right at this stage? and after 1 year, do you think there was anyone else we should have taken instead? perhaps petterd because he showed more this year, however would frawley have been around at 30? most likely not... i have no doubt molan and smith were stuff ups, but apart from those two examples (and lamb) we havnt really had a plethora of high selection KPP's have we?

haha good point. but i think there is a difference between yes we rate this kid, and wow we thought he would go earlier...i thought we had said the later about frawley, regardless of what the rest of the scouting world said. maybe i am wrong. maybe mfc had a different opinion on him than other clubs, but who after frawley could we have taken...reiwoldt or sellar perhaps? all three are KPP. frawley is the lightest of them all but i think he will fill out...other than that tho i dont know much about that draft... i actually heard at the time that we were targeting petterd with pick 14 last season, but took frawley when he was available still, and then were stoked when petterd was still there...again, not sure if its true but could turn out to be a good draft for us...