Mach5

Is his full name really Harrison?

Yeah, you need to do a bit of work on the insults too mate.

I'll assume you mean Stringer, and I'll also assume you say that only because you've read comparisons, and you fail to realise that is predicated solely on them both suffering a badly broken leg pre-draft.

Possibly the most ridiculous proposition I've read this trade period.

I'd suggest he's trying to go a little off-broadway so that he doesn't just regurgitate the same rough top 10 as everyone else. I honestly don't believe we'd be considering Collins at either of our first 2 picks.

I think this goes for most footballers these days. They all look like lean triathletes in person.

I wonder if CAC went on to post on a Richmond forum.

The Danger trade was relatively easy? Is everybody conveniently forgetting the way Geelong tried to get him as a FA to begin with and his manager publicly pleading for the crows to let it go? It was simply a case of the prospect being on the table from a long way out and discussions being held leading up to the trade period, so a lot of the work had already been done. Both clubs had an incentive to get it done quickly so they could move onto other deals. I'd say most of our deals would have been in a similar vein, had they not been held up by other critical preceding deals involving old mates Essendon, St Kilda & Collingwood. Once those deals fell into place we moved quickly.

I think Harry just understands the game better, so the highlights of his brother are just of him crashing into opponents. Harry is no less physical.

I am not overly enthused by this pick, but it would suit our needs perfectly. And a player suited to playing second fiddle would be better than one wanting to be the piggy in the middle himself, butting heads with Hogan. We need a forward line that will work together. Having said that, I'm not certain either of Curnow or Weideman are that type, but I can see Mackay being a perfect fit. Do you choose based on best available or best fit? This is the conundrum.

Hibberd is ok for a later pick, but I'm not blown away. I'd be disappointed if we chose him at 7.

I'd guess we take Parish at 3 simply because he's too good to pass up, especially for our needs. And then Oliver is a potential pick depending on who goes at 4, 5 & 6. I know there's talk of Milera to Gold Coast at 6, but I couldn't see us taking him as early as 7, and we need to make sure all our bases are covered if Curnow, Weideman, Francis, etc. are all gone. I'm not against taking Oliver either, as I love the look of his attack, but I'd choose Parish ahead of him every time.

I can't see why not. I think it's overstated how useless he is.

Not at all. But the impression I get is that BA is not on the money here. I never heard this, only that we were after pick 3 for Parish. I just can't see what Curnow has that would make us reach.

I had a reason to pay attention as I know someone close to him, and I think he's one that will fly under the radar with solid skills, doing the basics exceptionally well without starring. A bit like a taller poor man's Salem. My view is probably skewed because of a loose connection though. And he'll take about 3 years to mature, but a late pick in this draft makes me ok with that. Maybe good for a rookie spot.

Oh! Pluck a duck! http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/afl-bet-ban-gws-giants-recruiter-paul-brodie-suspended-for-13-months/story-fndv8lf1-1227587218930 After Brodie's timely sanctions, GWS is now left with Fat Phil Scully as their most senior recruiter heading into the draft! Hilarious. and completely separate to that, I'm told St Kilda & Westcoast are eyeing Tommy Glen off at around the pick 35 mark, depending on how picks slide. I'm hoping we are into him.

Mind you, I'd be pretty [censored] off if Port had convinced me to burn all my bridges at my current club, only to leave you stranded when they found out Ryder was actually attainable.

I do remember you heavily pushing his barrow, and deservedly so.

This kid could be anything. He could be another Tom Rockliff. He could be another Josh Toy. Whilst the payoff might be huge, I'd be inclined not to roll the dice with this pick. Parish at 3 and a forward at 7 (whether it be Weideman, Curnow, or failing those Burton).

BA usually doesn't have the early scoop, and he has an incentive to keep us guessing over the picks (as this is his bread & butter). I'd be backing the early mail coming through (as it turned out to be correct) that MFC was chasing pick 3 from Gold Coast because they wanted Parish. I just can't see our recruiters having a late change of heart due to a few highlights, like us plebs do.

Hard to pick one, if there's not one there to be picked. AND Picking a tall at that stage of the draft won't make him into the forward you want him to be. Pick the player there that deserves it. Obviously. And I think Parish deserves it, personally.

I'm not sure if you remember, but Brayshaw's "highlights" package was lacklustre leading up to the draft, and the impressive vision was saved for the MFC-generated post-draft package.

I want it on record: Reads the play well. Very sloppy skills, scrappy player but will work his backside off. Doesn't fit any "no DHs" policy.

Christ! And you think Leaping Larry isn't?! Wonders never cease...

If, for instance, we get to pick 3 and no player has been bid upon, but we decide to bid on both Hopper and Mills... does it matter which order we do so? i.e. if we bid on Mills first, he costs the points available for pick 3, but then Hopper costs the points available for pick 4 - is this correct? Could be a bit of strategy involved re: bidding sequence, as it's obvious that both teams will not let their respective players slip through.