Axis of Bob

The media will also always use star players as a comparison because they're the players that people know. The comparison that Sheahan was previously making for Jefferson was Harry Jones. It's no surprise that they're now using Max King as the comparison, since most casual fans would say 'who the hell is Harry Jones?' It's why every year some slowish player with great composure is compared with Scott Pendlebury but not many compared with Harley Balic or Dom Tyson. It's more about giving the casual fan a general idea of the player's style, rather than their quality.

The other scenario is if you think the player/s you rate at 19 is vastly better than the one you think will be available at 37. If we have players that we rate as being worthy of pick 13 and think that one/some of them will be available at 19, then we will effectively be trading for another pick 13. And, of course, some players are far more valuable for some teams that they will be for others. What do you think the likelihood of Freo selecting a ruckman or Carlton selecting a key forward with a first round pick? Conversely, imagine that scenario with Freo picking the tall forward and Carlton picking the ruckman? There will be some players that complement our playing group better than others, so we will rate them higher than others. There's certainly an element of guesswork about what players will be available. Part of trading up is to remove a lot of that guesswork and you will pay a premium to remove that risk. We're lucky that we have a lot of good players and we can really focus our recruiting on getting a few quality players rather than needing to take as many picks as we can to get talent into the club. That means that the premium to target specific players is worth more to us than it will most other teams.

I think the difference is that when you are trading up the order you aren't trading for a draft pick, you're trading up for a specific player or a couple of players. A first round pick next year gives you a wide range of potential outcomes, including that the players available at your pick aren't the types of player that you're particularly interested in, whilst using it on a player now reduces that uncertainty and (theoretically) improves the likelihood of that player succeeding in your system. If we have a player that we are confident will be around at 19, and we are super keen on getting them because they fit with our team/system/whatever, then I'd have no hesitation in trading a future first round pick +37 for pick 19. Because at that stage we aren't trading a future first and pick 37 for pick 19, we're trading it for player XYZ who we want. It will depend on the quality of that specific player (and needs, team timelines, etc) as to whether the trade makes sense or not. If you're just looking at it mathematically (future pick 18 + 37 > pick 19) then it won't make sense .... except that the players themselves aren't draft picks, they're unique individuals. I'd happily trade one of our future first round picks for a player we really want. We will at least be guaranteed of selecting a player we really want, rather than just the possibility of doing so next year.

So your vibes are based on a player we drafted 12 years ago by a different recruiter and a recruiting department that probably has nobody remaining from that time? By my calculation, the only person in our football department from 2010, when the Cook selection was made, is Max Gawn who was drafted in 2009. It may be strong in your mind as a supporter but I don't think it is relevant at all.

I'll be happy for Isaac Keeler! 😁

I have only seen a few games of his (plus the highlights) so I have some knowledge but certainly not enough to be an expert at all - which is a caveat to the opinions I have on this year’s draft class. This is intended to not try to deceive anyone and also give context to any opinions I have …. those opinions might even be wrong! 😁 Based on those caveats, I gave my opinion from what I’ve seen. It’s not a matter of his body shape, it’s a matter of his competitiveness in the contest. Jefferson is a constant aerial threat and, in aerial contests, very competitive, brave and composed despite his current size. That’s what you want from a big man in our system. I’m not sure Keeler has that willingness to fight in the contest, which is why I wouldn’t draft him. I’d rather draft a player that I thought had some chance of playing a role in our team. There are a few differences though. Jackson is super competitive around the ball and fights to win the ball or defend. He isn’t currently able to affect aerial contests much but it’s a skill thing rather than a mentality. Also the small man skills are very different ….. Jackson has small man skills the equivalent of a small man, not just ones that are ‘good for a big man’ like Keeler. Jackson also competes in the ruck. But, of course, maybe I’m wrong.

I’ve only seen very little of this year’s draftees, but I don’t think I’d pick him with any selection and I would be shocked (given how Melbourne play footy) if he was on our list of potential draftees. As a big guy he has some good little guy skills …. but that isn’t the role we’d need him to play. We need big guys with good big guy skills, players who compete in the marking contest and compete in the ruck contest. He’s a small player stuck in a big player’s body. I’m sure someone could take a chance on him …. but it wouldn’t be me. Apparently not Adelaide either.

You're ruling him out as a player based on 2 minutes of loosely brought together junior highlights?

So ….. no?

Could anyone please post where they found this speculation? AFAIK, there isn’t anything in it beyond the circular rumours of the internet.

Ok boomer.

We are very much not in the same position as Geelong.

I asked if we were fast last year. You said that we were not a fast side, even if we looked fast at times. It's your criteria I'm asking for, as I asked if we were a fast team last year. Rather than waiting for your answer, I'll preempt it to save myself time. Speed is not just how many running bounces you take, or how you operate in open space. Just because we don't play the expansive game of Collingwood, it doesn't mean that we don't play fast football. We would be one of, if not the top, team for defensive speed. This means that we use our speed to make games less open and less free flowing. Why would we do this? Because we have Gawn, Oliver, Petracca, Viney, Brayshaw and a bunch of gun tall defenders. When we can force the team into contests we will probably win, so we use our fast players to use that speed defensively to shut down space and rebound before the opposition gets a chance to escape our defensive squeeze. Being a fast team isn't just about being Peter Matera down the wing, it can also be Kozzie, Spargo and ANB immediately running out to the far pocket after a turnover to prevent a switch kick.

At 21 years old (which Jackson only just turned), these are the averages of those players. Note that Grundy played mostly solo ruck, whilst Witts and English played only 7 games each that season (with English being pushed out by Tom Boyd and Jordan Roughead as the WB rucks). If we compare them with their age 20 years (which Jackson played 2022 as): English played 2 games and Grundy played 15.

Were we fast last year?

Because they only have to have a better deal than Freo.

Why would you care what Kane Cornes says about this? Port have said it was stupid, then Lamb said it was stupid. There's obviously nothing there. The SEN audience is less than 3% in Melbourne and doesn't exist elsewhere. The idea that we have to sign him up before Xmas to shut up Kane Cornes is laughable. Maybe some people just enjoy their beds being wet.

What if playing a tagger means that the opposition is able to chip the ball easily through a weakened zone, rather than be forced to kick the ball down the line to Max, May, Lever and Harry.

And we will have lost our tallest player if Max is in the departure lounge.

100% If the Dees make you a pitch and you think it would be a great place to play your footy, we have a reputation among players and managers that we will make that deal happen quickly and painlessly. It makes it easy to decide to switch and easy to buy in to a club that demonstrates that it will act in your best interests.

I think there is difference between what we are thinking a panel could look like. I'm not suggesting it is made up entirely, or even a significant number, of those experts. Just that there be a member be present. I think it's important that there be a (minor) presence to give those affected faith in it. I think the example of a judge that you used might be a good one when considering potential misgivings the indigenous community might have.

How is the panel supposed to understand the issues and the perspectives if there are no indigenous people or football people on the panel? And how would either side accept the outcome if there's nobody on the panel that can understand their perspective? Independent doesn't have to be synonymous with ignorant (ie, the panel, not you).

It's the problem with the AFL's short term management of the various issues that have popped up. It's all very well and good to make an issue go away by managing the issue in the short term (Goodes, Adelaide camp, Lumumba, etc) or by providing platitudes that don't require follow though (indigenous round, Dreamtime, etc), but when you need something from those whose issues you have been managing away, that lack of trust means that there's no genuine relationship. The families have every right, now, to say to the AFL that "We've told our stories but we don't trust you to act in our best interests, so #$%^ off". This is not their issue anymore, it's the AFL's. It's up to the AFL to repair the relationship with the indigenous community through genuine actions in the best interests of the indigenous community, which would only make an impact (slowly) over the longer term. There will, however, still be many whose bridges the AFL cannot unburn.

I do find it really interesting the idea of overvaluing what you can see and undervaluing what you can't see. As soon as posters saw "pick 7 for a salary cap dump and Bowes", they nearly fell over themselves to sign up. The questions of 'how much salary, how much do we have available, how does this fit into our salary strategy/structure' never really pops up because nobody know any of those numbers. It's effectively 'get pick 7 and Bowes for nothing because salary just goes into a magic box and those boffins will sort it out'. Every bit of salary we take on is salary that we can't use to bring in a player that we may really need. And that is either this year or in future years, as we can bring salaries forward to create space in future years. In our situation, is spending nearly 7% of our salary cap for 2 years in the middle of our premiership window really worth pick 7 (minus change) and Jack Bowes?