Axis of Bob

I like Allan because of his power. He's grown on me because I didn't like his ball use early and thought he was a pretty basic footballer. He's still a simple footballer but he's got great power, defends really well and uses his power to get forward out of stoppages. A bit like Reuben Ginbey but quicker and more direct. I don't think his kicking is as terrible as I initially thought and his hands are fine. I'd be comfortable taking him at 9, as we've clearly rated players with his sort of power with even lower output (like Tholstrup). It's difficult to get true power players onto your lists and they're so valuable when you do. It's as good a reason as any to grab him.

He's a lot smaller than Dangerfield and plays a very different way. I'm not as enamoured as most. I think what you see is close to the finished product with him (as a short, well built, agile inside midfielder with high level technique already) and I'm just not sure that's his level is as good as others in the top 5. I don't particularly like his work in tight, where his feet are really quick but his hands aren't great (for a player of his type) nor his decisions in close. I think his feet buy him a lot of the time he needs to make decisions, which often aren't great. If we're looking at Draper vs Smith, I like Smith a lot more because he has the types of skills needed to succeed as a small accumulator, which are his hands, his composure, and ability to manage heavy traffic in tight. They're the main question marks I have on Draper. That's not to say he won't be a good player, especially with his obvious professionalism.

What I like about Hynes is that he has great power (which we always value highly) and he plays the game an odd way. He does weird things on the field, sort of like a Nate Caddy or Jake Stringer does. When you’re looking for ways to create goals and be dangerous, it’s sometimes the players who do weird things that can make a difference. I think Hynes would be in part exhilarating and infuriating, but sometimes you need that element in your forward line. The power in his game is very enticing.

It doesn’t matter whether we reach at pick 9. We have one pick between 5 and 80, so we just have to pick the player we like the most out of whoever is left. It’ll make no difference how that player is rated by the rest of the clubs.

I’m just enjoying that nobody seems to know anything about anything. Makes this time a lot more fun with endless possibilities and opinions.

St Kilda would likely take him, as they need a classier, more mobile key forward to pair with King long term. If we want him it’ll likely be at 5 or not at all.

Assuming that we take Armstrong at 5, it does beg the question about who is available and who we’ll target at 9. With Tauru and Armstrong in the top 8, my guess is that it will depend on who St Kilda are looking at with 7 and 8. There’s a chance that they’ll want to split the player types (small and tall, or midfielder and flanker), or maybe just go with two of the established midfield group - particularly if they have to choose from multiple midfielders who aren’t great defenders like Smilie and Langford. My guess is that they’ll have a choice of whoever is left of the midfield group of Lalor, O’Sullivan, Draper, Smith, Smilie and Langford. If St Kilda opt not to select two players from that group then we’ll get whichever one is left over. Alternatively, there are interesting players who are not necessarily pure midfielders that may be available. Travaglia and Hotton are two of the more interesting. What would the reaction be here if we picked a key forward and a flanker?

He's done both, although my understanding is that we wanted to play him forward (I can't remember where I heard that from, though). Either way, I think having two of our current key forwards (Petty and Turner) being converted defenders probably indicates our desire for key forwards too. Plus picking Kentfield in the mid-season draft. Last season we were missing two of the league's top 5 midfielders, and we obviously struggled there as a result. We also were missing none of our best key forwards, and we still only had Van Rooyen and then a couple of converted defenders. Oliver and Petracca, of all the noise, are on long term deals. The key forward cupboard, even without injuries, has Van Rooyen, Jefferson (0 games), Fullarton (0 games) and Kentfield (0 games) in it. In the past few years we've lost Brown, McDonald and Jackson from that premiership forward line and replaced them with Van Rooyen and magic beans. More key forwards is still something we need to add to the list.

The more straightforward thing to read from our interest in Derksen is that we are still looking at adding key forwards to our list. That’s likely to mean that the Demonland consensus of ‘draft midfielders at any cost’ is not shared by the club.

You’re very sensitive about any perceived criticism about Langford. It’s odd. I’m almost tempted to start doing so just for the amusement of watching you leap in each time like an unrequited high school crush.

The question is for recruiters.

The question will be about how good he’ll be in attack to compensate for his lack of speed when defending. If you’re Bont or Cripps then that’s ok because you would trade their defence for their offence. If you’re Matt Crouch then you may not. You also can’t have many players like that in a team or you get destroyed trying to defend, so you need to consider the mix of players in your midfield, like the Dogs found with Macrae.

Most comparisons to Butters are pretty funny, TBH. The reason he's as good as he is relates less to his ability to win the ball and much more to his ability to use it. His weapon is his very creative vision and his ability to routinely take on and hit kicks at strange angles that other players just can't do. There aren't any players in the top part of this pool that can do that at this stage. Just because a player is small and a decent ball user doesn't make him Butters. Even O'Sullivan, who is a very good ball user, kicks in straight lines to more obvious targets (more like a Cotchin would).

Collingwood did that this year because they ran out of forward options, with injuries to Mihocek and McStay. When they won the flag last year they had Mihocek, Cameron/Cox, and McStay. When McStay went down with injury they played Frampton as a forward in the GF. Last year Collingwood (with 3 tall forwards) were the 4th highest scoring team, this year (with only 2) they were 9th. Hawthorn played 3 tall forwards all year this year. Just because those teams also have good mediums and smalls, who played well, doesn't mean that they don't play a three tall forward line. The talls drag defences around and leave the holes for smalls to do damage. The small forwards don't operate in a vacuum, and a team without tall forwards just allows defences to sit back behind the ball. The important thing is that they aren't just one dimensional markers, but are able to work up and down the ground to take part in play either high or deep. That's what happened with Sydney (and, to an extent, Port) where they had too many forward that were just big, chest out, presenters rather than players that could work either at the ball or with the ball. It's where Petty and Turner fall down a bit, which can make our forward setup clunky (although much better than when we tried playing small).

The last one that probably qualifies is Brody Grundy, who had a lot of hype as a top 10 but went at 18. That was 12 years ago. The last one that was 'possible pick 1' but slipped down and made people look silly was possibly Daniel Rich in 2008 but more likely it was Joel Selwood in 2006. It probably shows you that there aren't really 'sliders', rather it's just people outside overrating players compared with how the clubs themselves rate them.

As I've sat with it more I've become more and more comfortable to draft him (even at 5). Brisbane won the flag with three tall forward (Daniher, Hipwood and Morris) against Sydney who played McDonald, McLean and Amartey. Geelong had Cameron, Neale and Henry (with Hawkins injured), and Port had Dixon, Geogiades and Marshall. The game seems to be swinging back a bit towards the key forwards now that there is more speed on the ball in attack, rather than the slower game allowing teams to defend talls with extra numbers. We started looking a lot more potent once we got Roo, Petty and Turner all playing in the forward line together. I think it's the speed of the game in transition that gives more one on one and opportunities in space, which is the strength of a key forward. We took Kentfield in the MSD, so we clearly don't think our key forward puzzle is completely solved. Armstrong is a very good worker in space, as well as a player that can crash packs. He moves really, really well and plays the key forward role in a really modern way. A forward line of him, Roo and Jeffo gives us a very mobile group of talls that can work both coming at the ball and going with the ball, like the modern game requires. Since they aren't just big lugs, they're all players that can work in a range of setups and styles. Petty and Turner are natural defenders and would be the pillars of a really formidable defensive group. Little Goffy made an excellent point on another thread about Darcy Fogarty getting a long term contract at Adelaide, showing how scarce KPFs are. And that's only Fogarty! If we think Armstrong is a really good one then why not grab him when we have a chance. On a more personal note, I really want to draft him at 5 ..... just to see all the Demonlanders try to burn this place to the ground! 😁

Just need two of him.

I think that's one of the less important reasons to not pick him at 9.

I think there's a lot in this because it's often the case that players originally get rated on what they can do but then the get marked down on what they can't do. The longer a player has been rated highly the more time everyone has to see what they can't do. Sometime that leads to a correction and sometimes it's an over-correction. I think Smilie sits within this and nobody really knows. When you see what they can do well originally I think you make assumptions on the rest of their game based on what they 'should' be able do. With time those assumptions get tested and you can react negatively if they come up consistently short on that. Smilie has some great traits that complement the player you initially assume he should be (ie, a coalface inside midfield distributor like Cripps or Green), like his great kicking. Your mind immediately sees him and thinks "Wow, he's Patrick Cripps but he can kick! He'll be a superstar!" but as he plays and more you start wondering on the base assumption .... "Is he actually Patrick Cripps or is he a non-ruck Brodie Grundy or is he a non-forward Jake Stringer?" and then his rating drops accordingly. He's likely none of them, he's just Josh Smilie. I'm having a really hard time working out how I feel about Smilie. He does some things that are really, really offputting for me (laziness, play style, his inability to get his hands free in traffic) which infuriate me, but I also understand that if he can sort these out in a professional environment then he could be a star. There's a really wide range of possibilities for him and I can see how teams in the top 10 will rate him very differently.

And they likely know a lot more than me. I think he plays like a half back flanker who woke up one day in the body of Tom Green and he’s still trying to figure out what he’s doing. If he was a great stoppage midfielder then, at his size and with his skills, why would he not be pick 1?

As a casual observer (who isn’t an expert), I’m wary of Smilie. The game he’ll need to play at AFL level is different to the one he plays now, so there’s a lot of risk. He’s currently an outside midfielder trapped in a tall’s body being asked to play as an inside midfielder. He’s not a great stoppage player and he struggles to release the ball in traffic, instead trying to bust out of tackles with his arms down. He wants to receive the ball out in space to use his good kicking but he doesn’t run well enough to do that at an AFL level. He also doesn’t mark the ball well for his size. He has a bunch of really great traits that read incredibly well for a recruit. But his work rate and ‘football’ ability mean that a lot of these skills are mismatched and there’s a lot of risk that he’ll be a constant ‘almost’ player. If the inside work clicks and he discovers AFL work rate then he’ll be a gun. Personally, I’d take that risk at 9 but I’d be very nervous at 5.

The headline says ‘failed trade’ but Oliver only ever talks about ‘having a chat’ or ‘meeting with’ Geelong. At no point did he say or even hint at any desire (or otherwise) to leave. A little bit of a peek behind the curtain there, seeing how the media creates a narrative rather than reporting things straight.

What a load of absolute steaming [censored].

I find it hilarious how riled up people get about the least important players on our list. The same way that people are getting annoyed about giving up an extra 3rd round pick or two when trading for pick 9. No concept of value at all.

Just because it isn't listed in the provisional draft order at the moment doesn't mean that our draft picks stop and we can't select any more players. We have draft picks to fill all open list spots, they'll just be added on at the end (in reverse ladder order). If we traded away all of our draft picks and still had 5 list spots open going into the draft, then we'd get 5 draft picks (eg, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81) at the end to fill out our list.