Axis of Bob

Do you think Barry Prendagast gives out as much information as Craig Cameron did? It sounds like Burgan has far less info on our picks this year than last year. I, personally, would be surprised if Roughead came to us at 19. It wouldn't surpise me to see us look closely at Dayne Beams, though.

Nobody is saying that we should be going for small defenders with our early picks. You won't be able to pick up a speedy, skillful midfielder with pick 51, nor will you be able to pick a dominant power forward at 51. These are the sorts of picks you can use to get a small defender. I would like us to, like old55, pick 1 KPF and at least 2 midfielders in our first 4 picks. The other pick I'd use on either a 2nd KPF or 3rd midfielder. After that I'd be more inclined to look at a raw ruckman and a small defender. That's how I'd do it. I'd actually probably look at someone like Klemke at either 35 or 51. If you look at Hawthorn they actually set up their entire win through the quality of their small defenders. I don't rate, at this stage, either of the bottom age small defenders we drafted last year. Cheney is tough, a good kick, honest and accountable - but really is not quick, which is a real problem if he's going to play as a 'lock down small'. McNamara has pace, is also a very good kick and a nice small defender's size. Unfortunately he plays like a tall defender with his suspect agility, but is too small to do that. Whelan is clearly our best small defender and I struggle to see us replacing him with players from our current list.

I can see where old's going with this with regards to small defenders. Our current defenders are not high quality enough, especially with their disposal. The way Bailey is trying to have the side play it requires clean and precise ball movement from defence. Our current defenders were drafted to play a different game plan than what Bailey wants them to play. Wrecker is our best small defender with good disposal and it is no surprise that he was very good in that role for Bailey. On the other hand players like Bell and Bartram who were good for Daniher were exposed for their poor disposal (Bartram) or awareness (Bell). Wheatley played as a running defender and had one of his best seasons to date because he can run and kick the ball. To say that Geelong had no small defenders is a lie, with players like Milburn, Wojcinski, Hunt and, for large part of the year, Scarlett. Hawthorn have a plethora of small defenders, such as Brown, Birchall, Ladson, Guerra, Hodge (late in the year) and these players were the driving force behind their GF victory. However, I think the role of a small defender is changing somewhat. With teams zoning as much as they do, disposal is more important for a small defender than the ability to lock someone down. Defenders are not as often found one out as they used to. That said, having some quality small/medium defenders is certainly something that, I agree, we should look to. Perhaps not necessarily early in the draft, but I certainly wouldn't ignore it. Especially with our desire to move the ball precisely from defence.

Why would Bentley 'slot nicely into our 22? Have you seen him play before?

I really like Jack Watts as a footballer. He's fast, clever, good size, great hands, good kick, great mover and brilliant decision maker. But he is definitely not a physical player. And it is definitely a concern, especially as a key forward that is expected to do the hard things such as crash packs and throw their body around. If he was of average toughness then he'd be number 1 pick in a flash, IMO. Will he improve as he gets bigger, or will he wilt when the opposition bodies get bigger? It's a tough question. It's dangerous to base all of your judgement of these players on a few minute long youtube clips, although they do give people a taste of their style of football. Now which of the 3 candidates can the Wizard of Oz fix: The Lion, looking for courage, The Scarecrow, looking for a brain, or The Tinman, who is looking for a heart?

Hawthorn didn't have the skills or capacity to carry out the game plan either about 4 years ago. "Kick the bloody thing long" is just a throwback to an era that has long since been cut apart by the fast running, possession based counter attacking teams that we see today.

Freak, that's a very old fashioned point of view. Why do you think Hawthorn won this year? Why were Geelong the most dominant team this year? Geelong were first for disposals, with 34 more possessions per game than any other team, yet were only 6th for long kicks. They were the most dominant team all year and the secret was clearly maintaining possession of the ball and not giving the opposition a chance to get it back. Hawthorn have had a drafting policy where they only draft kids that can kick. And any unskilled player can boot the ball long. The kicking skills are entirely related to maintaining possession of the ball. By kicking the ball long you give the opposition a chance to get the ball from you. That's the way the game is heading.

In the end, if we are not willing to pay up the big bucks to lure players over to our club then we will not lure them. If we really wanted Prismall, or really wanted Warnock then there was a way for us to get them. It would have involved paying way over the odds for them, but we weren't willing to do that so they did not come to us. I don't have a problem with that because the price you pay for these players is usually in excess of what value you will get for them (both in a trade and in terms of salary cap space). If you don't want to lose players then you just pay them more or give them longer contracts. Look at what we did with the likes of Woewodin, Yze and Bizzell with 3 year contracts. We can keep these players if we want to. However there is an associated price involved with splurging money to keep players. It means that you will lose players later on when the salary cap room dries up. We are currently at the base of our cycle. It is not prudent to be setting an example that we will give big contracts for the future, especially for periods when we are having success. That's what Hawthorn have done and now they have a premiership and are not paying 100% of the cap. Geelong have done so too and have been dominant yet have not lost players. I have no problem with this. Especially if giving that message results in the loss of only CJ. We nearly lost Green with this policy too, but Green is probably a unique character in this day and age - a refreshingly honourable one.

Really? Well if that's the case then the integrity of the process is already compromised. IMO it shouldn't be up to the AFL to report the results of testing because they have too great an interest in the results of those tests. If they find a player who has a 3rd strike who is a poster boy for the league, then what incentive could the AFL possibly have to announce the result? They certainly don't want another Cousins saga on their hands after the damage to the brand that it caused. Hmmmm, very strange.

I think there were certainly be a perception amongst the clubs, if the testing was being run by the AFL itself, that the AFL would have the ability to supress results for players if they deemed a positive result to be bad for the game. And it would not be good for the game if there was a perception that the AFL wasn't completely even handed with the detection and announcement of players who have had a third strike. If the AFL has the ability to supress certain test results because of the consequences then the 'integrity' of the process, perceived or otherwise, requires that it be run by an independent authority.

The first list lodgement date with the AFL is Friday 31 October at 2pm. We will lodge our initial list of 35 (max) after the trade period and before the 31st of October. As such Yze, White, Bode and Weetra will not have yet been removed from the official list until we formally lodge our preliminary pre-draft playing list by 31/10. Until then they are technically still players on our list, but ones that have been told will not be on our list next year.

If you take your information from David Schwarz, then I am feeling pretty confident.

The players are still contracted to us, therefor we are still able to trade them (given the trading rules of the AFL, such as requiring the consent of the player in question). We would have simply told the players that their contracts were not going to be renewed.

Player contracts run out after trade week, so we are able to trade them.

I don't think any of us are in a position to judge who the best available player is, since all it is is an individual opinion. I hear on the radio last night that West Coast will take Naitanui if they had pick 2, and they need to build up their midfield again too. If true, perhaps West Coast don't rate him as the best available talent. Stephen Wells, Geelong's recruiting manager, stated that if he had pick 1 he'd take Watts. To come on here and just tell everyone that he is the best player, when there is no proof of that (just your opinion) is arrogant and misleading. I could make an argument that if we're picking solely on type that we should take Rich first before Naitanui, Watts and Vickery. As for who is the best of that lot, I would personally find it very hard to make a distinction. I suspect that most recruiting managers would also find it difficult to separate them purely based on talent, as each of the players is so different. Rich is a classy and damaging midfielder, Naitanui the freak athletic ruckman, Vickery is the man mountain pure footballer and Watts is a highly athletic goal kicker with freakish ball skills. I could easily make an argument that each is the best available. Rich is the best available because of his ability to use the ball cleanly in contests. Plus he is a very good player who is highly damaging and is well developed already. Watts is the best available because he has a rare combination of athleticism, ball skills and decision making skills that are seldom found in a player with his height. He was the best performed player in the carnival despite having to balance his football with elite basketball and has enormous scope to improve. Naitanui is the best available because his athleticism and height, combined with his contested ball winning, tackling and competitiveness in the contests, give him the tools to take the game to levels that were never though possible. He may be a risk but the upside makes him the best available. Vickery is the best available because he is the prototype of the modern ruckman but with far better skills, footy smarts and athleticism. He is big, has a frame that will make him a man mountain and aggression for the contests. Plus he can play forward if required and is still far from his peak after recovering from knee surgery. I could just as easily make arguments why they shouldn't be number one.

I quite like Vandelay, but he's probably one of a number of players that could go in the 20-35 range. I personally don't see him pushing up any higher than mid second round, but there's a chance that West Coast (or maybe even us) would look at him with a priority pick. He's got a lot of upside and the reward could be massive, but I do worry about his intensity at times. I think a lot of what happens on draft day will come down to the interview.

Prismall is a good, honest player. Nothing fantastic, but performs his role reasonably well in a very, very good side. I wouldn't mind him playing a role in our side too. But I'm with goodoil. If we even look near our first 3 picks in suggesting a trade for Prismall, then we're stuffed. He's just not that good, and those picks in this draft are worth a lot.

Yarran won't go at 17, but it sure as hell won't be because we pass on him!!!

It appears that we will know whether or not we will be picking Watts with pick 1 well before the draft itself. Because if Watts nominates it will be because we have told him that we will select him with pick 1. If he doesn't nominate it is because we have said we would be choosing someone else instead. He has no need to nominate this year unless he is guaranteed to stay in Melbourne. Only one team can give him that guarantee and that is us.

Young is no matchup problem, since he never plays on anyone! Hawthorn play the game a bit differently than a lot of teams because of the way the set up their midfield defensively. Players like Dew, Guerra and Ellis are able to function well enough in their team as designated ball users because their midfield zones and is not accountable one on one. Their defenders obviously need to be more flexible, but their midfield certainly shows no leaning towards the taller types since they load their numbers into a zone. I don't see this as an argument either for or against picking Watts, though. Since they play different positions and have very different strengths and weaknesses, their height is on relevant in assessing their ability to play their position. Saying we should pick up Watts because he's 6'4 and Rich is only 6'1 is flawed.

Thorp re-signed, Dowler is still in contract.

The Hawthorn midfield v Bulldogs midfield from last night: Sewell - 180 Bateman - 174 Young - 189 Hodge - 184 Lewis - 186 Mitchell - 179 Crawford - 174 Cooney - 186 Cross - 187 Ray - 187 Boyd - 184 Eagleton - 180 Griffen - 188 Higgins - 184 In summary, the average height of Hawthorn's midfield is 180.9cm, while the Bulldogs' is 185.1cm

I said no such thing. I merely asked why a 6'4 player is better than a 6 footer. McVeigh isn't half the player Goodes is, which is the main reason why Goodes is more valuable. They're also completely different types of player. The point is that you cannot make the statement because the players are not going to be exactly equal, especially since Watts and Rich are very different players and play different positions.

You just repeated the previous comment in a different way. How are they of more value?

Why?