Mach5

Apologies, I was thinking the pick had somehow made its way to Port, not still with Freo. Obviously this was a mistake. Carry on.

I think we can, as it has changed hands to Port. I know the AFL makes up rules on the run, but the wording as it stands allows us to make the trade. The intention was also to prevent a Sydney-like points evasion trade, not what we'd be proposing. Worth arguing the point at the very least.

Agree. I don't think we can lose either way, and both will be very good players at the very least. Only mistake we could make is by using pick 3 on a flanker.

I don't think goal kicking has anything to do with it. It's about presenting as the number 1 target who continually makes a contest, competes to prevent opposition intercept marks and brings your crumbers into the game. It's not always about pure marks and goals.

If the tigers hadn't have won 2 flags since they'd be kicking themselves.

Yeah! He's just like Cripps or David Myers! Can't miss!

I don't see him as direct competition for Weideman (who is a 2nd forward) but I think Jackson would actually play as the number 1 key forward if deployed in the forward line. He has the size and presence to be the main target, create-a-contest type like a Tom Lynch, Tex, Walker, Travis Cloke, etc. I think this is part of the problem with T-Mac too, as he's more of a very good 3rd forward roaming far and wide, using his mobility to advantage. If we're expecting him to be number 1 KPF we're in trouble.

Ultimately, not a lot has changed for us. We don't get to trade with GWS, but I don't think we wanted to anyway. We still get a top 3 player at our first pick. The likelihood now is that we get our choice between Green and Jackson, unless GWS decide to match, which will hurt them.

Wow.

You're all over it; GWS win either way. Best result for them is if we don't bid, but I think they're comfortable with letting us have Green as it would cost them so much having pick 4. I think we're set on Jackson personally, but would be comfortable with Green.

I've added the differentials to pick 8 above. With such competition for a pick in the top 10, I think we can take advantage of the situation. Assuming all are genuinely keen... Dismiss GCS out of hand, and any thought of Port's 16 & 18 based on the pick values above. To move up into the top 10 before a very weak year will cost you, and it'll cost you an early 2nd round pick. Bluff using Freo. Geelong? 30 is not enough when Freo are offering 28. Port offering 28? There's a player we think will be there at 10 but not 12, so we're going with Freo. Port offering 25? Now you're talking.

No doubt, I was just being a smart [censored].

The point with Jackson is that he isn’t overpowering smaller kids with his superior strength; he’s spinning through and around them with superior agility and footwork. He’s Naitanui-like outside of a ruck contest. And I completely believe that competent ruckwork can be and often is wholly taught once in the AFL system. Anyone remember Maxy as a junior? Average ruckwork and got by on far superior height. We took a punt on him because of his size and he developed the character/work ethic. Jackson through his elite junior basketball journey has demonstrated he already possesses those qualities. The superior athleticism sets him apart. I just can’t see anyone else at 3 who makes as much sense.

On second thought, there’s a possibility I was being too generous...

I beg your pardon? I take the phrase to mean “allow those who are skilled in a particular trade, to competently execute that trade”. Do what you do best, so to speak, and let others do what they do best. Be true to one’s nature, to a deeper extent. Slight variations of context would infer slightly different meanings, but I think it’s a stretch to find offence, especially in this instance. I read it as “i’ll trust the experts” and nothing more. Maybe I missed something?

One good kick is not going to be a difference maker, and you’re placing too much emphasis on how valuable this could be to our side’s performance.

It's worth remembering that "elite" in this instance means elite for a junior in this draft class. Not elite at AFL level (at least just yet).

Would be quite happy for us to have a punt on Jay Rantall also. Could be special.

I’d say more likely, if Geelong really do want pick 8, they give us 14 & 17, then we take Weightman & Pickett. If those players are gone, I think we’ll end up with a “slider” who no one thought would be available at that stage, similar to Stocker last year.

Because pick 8 gives us the upper hand in any negotiations. We can happily keep it. However we can also wait to see how the draft plays out up to pick 8, then if it’s likely some players we like will be there at the later picks we’ll trade for, we then have that option (but have a level of certainty either way & can force a good deal for ourselves). Conversely, if we were to hold with pick 26, 50 & next years 1st rounder in hand, and then try to trade them for a pick in the teens when a kid we really want is going to be available, that could become a very costly exercise for us - just as we’re hoping it will be for someone else.

Surely it’s based on data averages, not aggregate. Not sure why Kemp gets so much love. Good size, but I think a few too many have been sucked in by the Dangerfield comparisons. He’s not the first utility to come along at 192cm.

Very happy with the idea of LJ over Young.

I do too, on checking the picks they have. However they add up to the value of pick 19, and will be wasted if not used on Green. Could GWS package those picks and next year's 1st rounder for 10 maybe? It is Bell we're talking about. Much more likely 22.

And then GWS will also still have picks 40, 59, 60, 80 and then add 53. Dont know the points value, but wouldn’t be surprised to see them parlay this bunch of picks into one earlier pick. (to be honest, thought they had more in the 2nd round, but obviously not)

I think so. They have a good haul there already in case Green makes it past pick 6. If they trade 6 for more picks, they’ll have an excess.