Axis of Bob

Well, if you look at the theories for why that would happen then it is the most logical explanation. His form was 10x better than Rohan Bail's at the time and both were eligible to play seniors at that stage. Bail got the nod and Hughes (despite Hughes' good form) missed out at the time. And then we see that Hughes has been retained on the rookie list and, at the time, he wouldn't have been allowed to if he'd played a game. It just makes sense. I like Hughes as a player because he's very clean and has great pace as a medium forward. And being picked to play AFL football isn't Hughes' decision, it's the football department's.

So Gawn at 206cm is the messiah, but Spencer at 203 is a spud? Spencer will play 2010 as a 20 year old. He's unfashionable, but I think that clouds people's opinions of him. If he had a smooth kicking action then I doubt that you'd be able to shut people up about his potential.

Under the previous rookie rules, prior to the AFL changing them after this season, mature age rookies could not be on the list unless they had not played an AFL game. Hughes becomes a mature age rookie this year and so, under the rules at the time, if he played a game last year then we would have to delist or promote him at the end of the year. His form for Casey at the the end of the year was more than good enough to warrant a game or two in the AFL. It seems that the football department were keen to retain him on the list and the only way they could do that, aside from promoting him to the senior list (where spots are very tight - as shown by the delisting and re-rookieing of Meesen and Newton), was to not play him at the end of the year. He definitely would have played last year if not for that reason. If the football department didn't rate him then they wouldn't have given him an extra year on the rookie list as a mature age player. Instead they would have delisted him, like they did to Valenti, and opened up the spot to pick up a new player on the rookie list. But they didn't, which I think says a fair bit about how the club rates him. He certainly needs a good season to show that his body can hold up to an AFL workload and can translate his VFL form into AFL form, but the argument that he was playing VFL because didn't deserve an AFL game is an incorrect one. It was due to the AFL's rookie list rules at the time.

jnrmac, Gysberts is a different style of player to Dunn. It's like one of Freak's arguments about key position players not being 192cm because that's too small (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary).

If you want to look at the future of Cale Morton, just watch a replay of the Sydney game and watch him in the one on ones with strong, more experienced Adam Goodes. He's an awesome talent.

He's had chronic fatigue for a lot longer than just 2009. He's supposed to be managing it very well for the last 2 years.

It's very interesting to see our forward line change from the past few years to what it will be next year and in the future. We had two key marking forwards in Neitz and Robertson who were excellent marking players. However they were both poor defensively and, combined with players like Yze, the ball was often run out of defence very easily with little pressure. That's why we had three ruckmen in the forward line at the same time against Carlton this year (although Jamar kicked 5 so it superficially looked like a positive move). In the future our forward line could contain Watts, Jurrah, Morton, Bate, Tapscott and Maric/Aussie. All of these players are athletic and capable of providing excellent defensive pressure. The game has changed and the defensive ability of our forward line could make the opposition kick to more contests, where our midfielders excel. It was interesting in the Hun this morning where Schwab had written down a potential team and in the middle of it he had circled the word "Run". I'm happy to sacrifice a deep power forward for more run. Especially given that all of those players are capable overhead.

Jordan Gysberts may not end up as Gary Ablett, but Joel Corey is a damn good player. That's what I want Gysberts to become. He'll win the footy, give it to someone and then lay a block. I'm reminded of a saying about doing the common things uncommonly well. If Scully and Trengove become the players we expect, then Gysberts would be a wonderful foil for them both. Joel Corey never gets a tag, but in the last 3 years he's averaged 28 ppg, 5.3 tackles per game and been awarded with 34 Brownlow votes, all while blocking and freeing up Ablett, Selwood and Bartel. And, importantly, he just never stuffs up. He'll complement our two jewels in the crown very well. Everyone looks at St Kilda and Hawthorn with their two imposing forwards and automatically thinks that we need to do everything we can to get another star tall forward. Well Geelong have won two of the last 3 flags and they're revolving around a very ordinary Cameron Mooney up forward. We're already miles ahead of their key forwards by drafting Watts. Everyone cries out that they have an awesome midfield and we'll never get to that level. Well the way they got Ablett, Bartel, Corey and Selwood was by drafting midfielders in the first round (except Ablett). The latter 3 were all mid-first round picks - like Gysberts. And what do the all have in common? They win their own ball, they use it well and they never stuff up - like Gysberts. They don't have X-factor, they're just really, really good footballers. Although I've only seen a few games of Gysberts, I'm very happy with the thought process behind taking him. It's how good teams win pressure games of footy.

He's definitely a player that needs a lot of work, but he has a whole lot of attributes that you just can't teach. When you get late in the draft you need to take more of a punt because every club has already cast judgement over the obvious players by then. Either that, or a specific role player when you're getting closer to a flag. He's quick, he's agile, he can take a mark and he's 200cm tall. He's exactly the sort of punt you should be taking late in the draft. But he'll need plenty of time so we'll have to be patient with him.

Noah is a great nickname.

Yep, we tanked our arses off. And our reward is 10+ years worth of Jack Trengove. Oh how life is ever so sweet. Also the irony of you complaining about our tanking when Andy D says we are quite within our rights to "experiment". Lucky the top end talent is good in this draft so we won't waste our tanking pick on Dale Thomas. Have a nice day - I know I'll enjoy November 26 2009,

Where's Temel, jayceebee?

The difference that we have with Ball is the timing of his games. Ball's 60 games may be in a period where it will only help to lift us from 13th to 9th on the ladder. Pick 18 may be playing good footy in a period where his performance will lift us from 3rd to 2nd, or 2nd to 1st. It's no good having 60 games of service if he's of no use when we need him in 5 years time.

rpfc's argument about picks 1 and 2 is very relevant and you should attempt to argue against that. If you want the 2nd/3rd/4th best tall forward in the draft at pick 11 because you don't know where else we'd find them, then why don't we use pick 1 or 2 on the best tall in the draft, and pass on Trengove? Let's say that you want a big power forward combination the likes of Buddy/Roughy or Riewoldt/Kosi. Each of these were top 5 draft picks. Should be not then use one of picks 1 or 2 on them? Also, will anyone available at pick 11 be better able to play a role in the forward line than Morton, Jurrah, Bate or Martin? Or even Garland? And what sort of role would you expect the new tall forward to play at AFL level? A pack buster? Because if that's the case then you're probably only really looking at Butcher or Griffiths, with the former only being available to us with pick 1 or 2 and the the latter requiring his own full time sports doctor and probably being available at 18. Geelong have been able to win two flags in the last 3 years (should have had 3) with Cameron Mooney as their number 1 forward and very limited impact from any other key forward. You will argue that this is because they have a wonderful midfield that creates opportunities for their numerous other forwards that shares the load and doesn't rely on a big marking forward, and that due to our lesser standard midfield we won't be able to do that. How do you think Geelong got a star midfield? They did it by drafting midfielders with first round picks, because their talent is more obvious and you don't waste as many picks on rubbish. Bartel, Corey, Selwood, Kelly, Varcoe and Mackie are all first round picks, with only Taylor and Ottens (who was traded for, albeit after being drafted with pick 2 in 1997) being talls first round, although both were brought to the club as mature age players so there was less risk. Geelong just kept building up the talent until it had so much that it just overwhelmed teams. If we get speculative with a good first round pick like pick 11 then we are lessening our chance to put more talent on our list. We already have a more potent key forward than Geelong, after drafting Watts. If they can win 2 flags with Mooney as their main forward then I think we'll be just fine without having to ignore obvious talent in order to speculate on talls.

Black wasn't eligible to play Nationals. Nothing to do with ability.

Black didn't play Nationals, making it tough for him to dominate them.

Did Hannabal really go back and delete all of his comments from that thread about how he thought Garland was crap? He actually made several comments, but now all that's left are the quotes from others' posts. Wow, that's pretty vain! It's putting your nuts on the line and then finding a time machine after you've been castrated!!

In your defence, it's not really a debate as such. It's more like Don pounding your lifeless corpse into further submission purely for the amusement of others. I'm amused, so carry on.

....then picking Daw at 18 is STILL a stupid idea. It's not just going outside the box, it's going outside sane thought. Pick 18? Jeebus! If they wrote a newspaper article on me then there would be people on here trying to draft me with pick 18!!

I saw a lot of backtracking, but if you choose to call that context....... Anyway, why would you take Daw at 18 when you could pick him up at 50? We could have taken him later on, but that's our last pick. To quote Ms Hoover, "Ralph, the other kids are right to laugh at you".

The player doesn't have a choice on whether or not they are delisted - contracted or not. You don't NEED to get the player's approval to do it, it's just more good will if you do. Remember, they'd still be players on the MFC list, around the club all the time with the other players and you are also hoping that they become good AFL players (even if you don't believe that they will be). But you don't need a player's permission to delist them. We're still honouring their contract, they're just be on the rookie list instead of the senior list.

Given that it was Goudis' first senior contract he would have received the standard 2 year contract. As I understand it, Newton would still have his contract with Melbourne however he would be paid that contract whilst being on the rookie list.

You're right, torpedo, however the stats are not intended to be specific, but more to outline the general improvement that is left in a young ruckman's development. I also think that the ability to win the ball around the ground (unless you're Dean Cox) doesn't seem to improve as much as the ability to influence a ruck contest. This, you would assume, is due to the massive influence that body size has on your ability to compete in the ruck and how much physical development most ruckmen have left in them at 19 years of age. I never expect Spencer to win more that 15 touches a game but I think that, in time, he could be a dominant aggressive tap ruckman in a similar style to Jolly. I see Mumford as being closer to Ben Hudson (or even Jamar), in that his value is in the follow up work around stoppages with tackling and blocking rather than giving his midfield first use. That lack of competitiveness is a real weakness in Blake's game and why Mumford was preferred during periods of last year. This is really important and it's something I hope Spencer becomes more involved in, as he increases in size. I'm confident he'll improve because of his competitiveness. But the Geelong scenario is a very interesting comparison of worth of two different styles of ruckman. What are your thoughts on the value of the different types of ruckman (assume each are mature)? a- The aggressive tap ruckman (Jolly, Blake, Spencer) b- The big bodied scrimmager (Mumford, Hudson, R Campbell) c- The 'extra midfielder' (Cox, Fraser, P Johnson) Obviously you would like these players to all be good at winning hitouts (some more than others), but they are a different style of ruckman. Which of these categories do you think is most valued, and which one the least valued?

An interesting little comparison between Mumford and Spencer. Spencer has just turned 20 (played the season as a 19 year old), while Mumford is 23. Spencer played 6 games this year and averaged 11.3 hitouts and 7.5 disposals per game. Mumford played 18 games and averaged 15.7 hitouts and 8.7 disposals per game. Also interesting, Aaron Sandilands hadn't even been drafted when he was 19!! He debuted as a 20 year old off the rookie list and was recruited out of the WAFL. Then, he averaged 7.2 disposals a game and 18.6 hitouts. But was also a year older than Spencer. Dean Cox debuted as a 19 year old and averaged 7.7 disposals and 10.8 hit outs per game. Also recruited as a rookie. Darren Jolly (who is the player i feel Spencer is most comparable to as an aggressive tap ruckman) debuted as a 19 year old and played 4 games. He averaged 2.5 disposals and 3.5 hit outs per game that season!! His next year (comparable to Spencer's 2010 in terms of age) he averaged 4.7 disposals and 5.6 hit outs. The year after that (comparable to Spencer's 2011) Jolly averaged 7.2 disposals and 13.7 hit outs per game. Eventually now (as a 27 year old) he averages 11.8 disposals and 31 hit outs per game. Now before you tell me that Spencer isn't as good as Cox etc etc, these just point out that there is so much development left in young ruckmen that I think saying that he's a dud/'make or break' is foolish. Time is what's needed to invest in young ruckmen a they fill out and develop their co-ordination (the West Coast players used to laugh at Cox's lack of co-ordination when he was young) as well as develop AFL running ability. Spencer has the raw requirements of a good ruckman, with his competitiveness, size and aggression, he just needs to develop the parts of his game that all beanpoles naturally improve as they gain more muscle - namely strength and co-ordination.

I think some of Trengove's most impressive play, especially in stoppages, is shown in the James Craig footage on the Draft Machine.