Gator

Oh, I know what I'm doing, pal.

With Max King developing and also likely to play the 200cm forward/ruck role I don't see us taking this guy. That said, he looks a talent.

I admit I have a bias towards Trenners. I love the bloke and remember how good his first couple of years were when he didn't look like he was running in concrete. I hope he makes a full physical recovery. IF he does, he's unquestionably best 22 based on talent levels. Like tiptoes, it's his last hurrah.

If it's so laughable we'll have a wager. Petracca will have had 15 moths to prepare for round 1. He will well and truly be ready for selection. I agree that it will be 2017 before he finds a range of consistency, but I have no doubt he'll be raring to go come the start of the season. Watts is finished.

I'll have a wager with you that Petracca plays round 1. Mentioning Watts in the same breath as Petracca is hilarious.

People seem to be offended by opinions that differ from their own, so I'm pleased to oblige. Watts was dropped twice in 2015, so he's certainly no lay down misere to be a staple in the best 22. Roos said in his B&F speech that we'd have a team of 22 competitors in 2016. So Watts is certainly no lay down misere to be a staple in the best 22. Jack Viney is the epitome of a player with urgency on the football field. Jack Watts is the antithesis of a player with urgency on the football field. The club would have traded Watts this exchange period if there'd been a suitor. No-one was interested. Hardly surprising. Watts is definitely not in my best 22 and I'll be surprised if he plays 10 senior games next year. My best 22 is fluid, but as it currently stands: Jetta Dunn Garland Melksham McDonald Salem Vince Jones Brayshaw Petracca Hogan vandenBerg Garlett Pedersen Kent Gawn Tyson Viney Frost Trengove Stretch Bugg E: Harmes ANB Lumumba Depth: Grimes Kennedy Mitchie McDonald White Dawes JKH Jones King Spencer Watts

I doubt this, so please post his comments or link.

I did.

It's funny. I haven't read one poster who articulated any degree of insight into the negotiations from this draft period, yet apparently, after the event, it's passe. I accept it's not all ground breaking, but I found the interaction of the characters interesting and found it a good read. Clearly, I'm not as clever as some.

His top 10 doesn't include Melbourne's 2nd selection, which is a pretty poor oversight.

AFL Draft 2015: Melbourne set to pick midfielder Darcy Parish ahead of Essendon http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-draft-2015-melbourne-to-pick-midfielder-darcy-parish-at-no-3-before-essendon/news-story/596e6c2b20b18ca5b7a2d1e654ae6578

So it's not a lottery.

Thanks. Yes, it was interesting and one can't help but align with this comment as a Melbourne supporter: Noble says that his Harvard lessons encouraged him to take "a more holistic" approach to trades, focusing less on one trade than on the aggregate outcome in the exchange period; the Crows might not have gained Troy Menzel from the Blues for pick 28, for instance, had they not finished the Dangerfield deal early. We perhaps didn't know it, but one can't help feeling we were in very good hands during this trade period. They had an overall strategic plan that netted telling results.

As I said, it's impossible to be categoric with any argument, but common sense tells me it's a far less valid argument. Parish was no chance of being overlooked by Essendon, such is their dire need for quality in their midfield, whereas Curnow is a genuine chance to be available at pick 7. If Essendon only had one pick it's feasible they'd overlook Parish, but not when they have two. Twelve months ago Weideman was being bracketed with Schache and Weitering as the quality tall of the draft. There's also Francis who can play at both ends and the middle, albeit he's better in defence. So if we assume Parish takes up one of those picks Essendon still have a choice between Francis, Curnow, Weideman or even Collins as a potential tall forward. It wouldn't surprise me if Essendon take another mid in Mathieson or Oliver their midfield is that putrid. In summary, there's no way Essendon overlook Parish considering they have picks 4 and 5, but it's entirely feasible they overlook Curnow.

Melbourne needed pick 3 because they thought the player they'd earmarked wouldn't be there at pick 6. One club had picks between 3 and 6 - Essendon. If we think Melbourne have recently been light on for mids take a look at Essendon. Watson and Stanton are geriatrics with their best footy well behind them. Zaharakis hasn't taken the next step. If anything he's regressed. Myers is a disappointment. Hocking is a good player, but little more than a no frills tagger. That leaves Heppell as their only class mid with years left. If you're Essendon you're taking Parish. No questions asked. Any surmising 3-4 weeks before the draft is prone to error, however, it just makes sense that Melbourne want the class mid in this draft. Especially when he's exactly what we need.

I was fortunate enough to chat with Roos for a few minutes a while back and he left me under no illusion how important development is and how the lack thereof has let down the MFC. For example, he said Dan Hannebery would be "nowhere near the player he was if he'd been drafted to Melbourne". That said, our drafting has been pox.

Harper was very promising in his early games for North. I can only assume that he can't win contested footy - Toumpas style.

Just part of due diligence. He'd be one of a few in the mix at 7.

Having seen extended vision of Parish last night I now get the hype. We'll take him at 3.

They're about as sure as you're going to get. They're just as sure as picks 3 and 7, more so, except Petracca, I suppose. We have one quality tall over 6'. How does that work for you ? I'll repeat, our midfield stocks are in a far better position than your assessment. That said, the latest 3 minute video of Parish is sublime. He plays like a taller Shane Crawford with a far better mark. I know it's a video, but he looks perfect for the club at pick 3. Unlike others I quite like the look of Mathieson, but Curnow at pick 7 to partner Hogan would be brilliant. If, of course, he's as good as made out.

Class is class. Really good off both feet and a very good mark. Parish and Curnow would be a dream outcome.

Hawthorn just won a flag with 6 genuine mids; namely, Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Shiel, Hill and Smith. I'm happy to throw in Roughead to make it 7, although he spends more time in the forward-line than a typical mid. Burgoyne def/mid, Rioli for/mid, and Duryea def/mid help make up the numbers/rotations. Forming our core rotations over the next 2-3 years will be Jones, Vince, Tyson, Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca, Salem, vandenBerg, Stretch, ANB, Melksham, Kennedy, Bugg and perhaps Harmes and Trengove with some luck. I accept that not all are proven, but that is 15 names of varying degrees who will rotate through the midfield and I have no doubt some A-graders will emerge. We need to find a core 6 or 7 from that lot with other role players from defence and the forward-line. Kent and Garlett are also capable of taking turns. I don't believe the picture is as bleak as you paint it and while I'm happy to pick a mid plus forward with 3/7 I wouldn't be displeased with 2 talls. In my opinion, your view is far too bleak. If those I've bolded become genuine A-graders we're well on the way to developing a formidable midfield unit. And I'm not capping some I haven't bolded.

I skimmed over your response, so decided to have a closer look.I doubt I've ever seen anyone say pick 4 should be better than pick 6 and 6 better than 9, etc. Clearly there are plenty of variables. A top 10 draft pick gives you a chance to get a terrific player. It allows you to cherry pick from what you consider to be the top end of the draft pool. The best recruiters have plenty of fails, but they also have solid records. Despite plenty of failures, if you said to Stephen Wells, who's been doing this for 20 years, that the draft is a "complete lottery" I can't imagine he'd agree. While a chimp with a dartboard could have emulated Prenderghast's success, or lack thereof, I don't consider that the norm. There's a reason that plenty within the industry consider the head recruiter one of the most important people in the club. Despite our clubs failings, there are a string of champions drafted within the top 5- Riewoldt, Pavlich, Hodge, Judd, Franklin, Roughead, Pendlebury. Most supporters know it's not a certainty to land one with a top 5 pick, but we dream of that chance, because that's how premierships can be won. I also don't like your premise as it's way to soft on an underperforming recruiter. Afterall, how can anyone hope to succeed when it's a complete lottery ? I accept you've gone some way to retract your original comments and you're right to say the order of the top 10 will never pan out as selected, but given a good draft I expect a bloody good player in the top 10 and won't accept lame excuses for failures. If it's a crap draft, like 2003 then naturally one is more forgiving. I'll end it here as we've had this discussion before and I recognise how pointless it is.

There will always be a bit of that, but overall the numbers don't lie. If you have a better way of comparing I'm all ears.