Axis of Bob

They are poor numbers. If we're looking for a partner for Hogan, who runs his opponents into the ground all day, then I'd want to exploit that by matching him with someone who would do the same. Having a key forward that can't run makes us predictable up forward and easier to match up on. I think I'm coming around to the idea of selecting Curnow based on type (since I haven't seen them play), because getting the right forward structure will be harder than adding talent to our pool of midfielders. If we take Curnow, that leaves Parish, Milera and Oliver on the board with 3 live picks until our pick 7. Unless Essendon picks 2 midfielders and Gold Coast one, then we'll have one of those guys .... although it will depend on how we rate them. I think there will be midfield options at 7. Plus, I know Taylor rated Lewis Taylor, who is tiny, so the idea of getting a player like Gresham may not seem beyond the realms of possibility at 7.

The other way of looking at it is that we were trying to trade next year's pick for a top 10 pick this year, and giving a little bit extra in moving 6 to 3 was mutually beneficial based on who Gold Cost were hoping to draft. If you think about it this way, we may not have specifically earmarked a player for pick 3. That's not what I think has happened, but it's possible.

An interesting article for those who were upset that we were paying too much for Melksham and thought we should be paying 'hardball' like St Kilda. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/how-harvard-helped-the-dangerfield-deal-20151031-gkno93.html

How can you like the look of him? You haven't even seen him! That said, actually having seen him play could well be an impediment to your judgement.

They are OK highlights. They show that he has a good sized, mature body and is much more powerful than 17 year old kids. I'm not sure it tells me a lot else. But, if you want to treat yourself, these are real highlights: Real Draft Highlights

Currently the only videos are from an amateur watcher piecing together play involvements (good, bad or indifferent) from two games that were televised in the National Championships. Parish only has one game of involvements in Geelong where he only touched the ball 9 times. You are seeing those 9 touches in a game where he was a bit down (The previous game he had 24 touches and was BOG. The videos are not highlights. The highlights will be done by the AFL closer to the draft.

Mahoney has said this trade period that we are not yet a destination club. However, as we improve, we will become a destination club. We have targeted a player and acquired him with a minimum of fuss. What does this say? This tells Dion Prestia, Jaeger O'Meara or whoever we are trying to get, that if you choose to come to the MFC then you will be able to get here without a fuss. It says that the club will do the right thing by you to ensure that you aren't screwed over and potentially thrown into the pre-season draft. Can St Kilda say that? Why hasn't Essendon been able to land anyone decent? Look at what Hawthorn is doing to get Carlisle; they're just getting the job done without a fuss. If you were a player choosing between us and the Saints, would you choose the team that may potentially throw you under the bus or will you choose the team that has shown that it will get the job done for you?

You're you're going to keep throwing your toys out of the pram and acting like teenage girl because of the potential influence by people who are no longer at the club on decisions made by completely different people? I'm sure there's a meme around to explain how ridiculous that is.

Melksham for 25 is a fair deal. He's a relatively young, talented player who has played over 100 games of footy, so Essendon have already done all the donkey work for us. He is also a much more talented player than your average AFL footballer, and could fill a very good role for us in an area that we have been poor in for a number of years (providing line breaking run from half back). When I think about his recruitment I keep thinking about Rhyce Shaw. Shaw was an inconsistent wingman who was always in and out of the VFL. He was traded for a 3rd round pick to Sydney, who gave him a specific role in defence to use his run. At the time everyone was laughing at Sydney for trading for Shaw, since he was always derided by Collingwood supporters. Shaw took this simplified role, along with his added experience, and played nearly 150 more games with Sydney, including finishing 2nd in the B&F twice. Melksham has talent and speed, and has been underperforming for the last two years at a basketcase of a club. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a move to a better club, along with a simplified role across half back, would see Melksham become an important member of a good team. Certainly there is a better chance of him doing it than pick 25 (or whatever it becomes). You certainly couldn't pick up a player with his talent in this draft with pick 25.

Melksham is a mixture of good and bad, but his good bits of play are the type that we really lack and are hard to get. He has good pace and excellent movement in contests, which allows him to break out of contests into space and move the ball quickly. The best teams can break into space and that's where a lot of the scoring now comes from. Melksham can do some things that make you rip your hair out but he has a skill that we lack, in an age group that is important. If he becomes the quality midfielder he was drafted to be then great, but if not he becomes a mature role player to bring a unique skill to our team.

Melksham isn't/wasn't slow. There are knocks on him as a footballer, but he is a really good runner who moves very well. If we are going for him it will be because we think he is a better footballer than he has shown himself to be at Essendon. He has good attributes that would be help him be part for an AFL team, as he's quick, has good endurance, moves well and is versatile (and only 24). For a team that lacks run, these are attractive attributes. Remember how much people were laughing at Sydney for taking Rhyce Shaw? His background was very similar.

What is also influential is our ability to polish off the tail quickly. It Mitch Starc + New ball + Tailenders = Carnage

This thread wasn't on the front page and I thought that was disrespectful to Jesse Hogan. I love how he has 21 touches, 9 marks and 3 goals, which may well be as good a game as a key forward has had for us in a decade (and probably the most complete forward performance in the AFL this round), yet supporters are neither shocked nor surprised. I think we supporters may be getting 'superlative fatigue' with Jesse. He's a 20 year old playing his 7th game. He's just just phenomenal.

Agreed. He's dynamic and physically dominant, which gives a point of difference with our other midfielders.

It's interesting when you put all of those names together, BB, because it's interesting to see why they didn't have the success of Roughead/Buddy et al. F Watts: Too slow. Smith: Too slow. Hansen: Not sure he deserves to be in this group, but he's not physically dominant enough to beat his opponent up forward. Thorp: Tool, and injury. Dowler: Competitiveness, body size and injury. Tarrant: Bit left field at the time (talent?) and injury. I think that the general idea is that you are looking for athleticism or an AFL dominant physical trait. None of those players has a physical AFL dominant trait. McCartin is quick, so even if he doesn't become an AFL monster wrestler then he'll at least have the speed to beat his man. He looks like he can get the footy out by himself or on the lead through athleticism, rather than simply by jumping over packs (like Watts/Hansen), reading the play (Smith) or being good an the small man stuff for a big man (Dowler). I suppose you'd be looking for power rather than just strength, which McCartin seems to have. That said, I agree that it's really tough to project.

I have only seen stats, the televised games and highlights of these players. So my opinion should be taken with a mine's worth of salt. Based on what we need, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a surprise (or two) of the Bontempelli/S Hill variety. I think the players that are most interesting to me are Laverde and Ahern. Laverde is a tall midfielder that covers the ground really well and has great skills. Ahern is another with pace that has a flash of raw ability and awareness that is unteachable. We have a developing midfield chock full of young inside midfielders. But good teams have a mix of ball winners and ball carriers. We lack players that can carry the footy. Last year we drafted players that can damage outside the contest (Salem, JKH and Hunt) and I suspect (and hope) that we will do so again.

Not eligible. He goes wherever he's picked.

It depends on what you define as 'X-factor'. X-factor, to me, is the ability to do something different that few other can do. For instance, Gary Rohan has x-factor but that's entirely based on raw speed. Colin Sylvia, in that sense, has x-factor based on his power. He could win contests that other people couldn't win because of this. BRFE is right about his junior footy. He'd take a hanger or two every week as a midfielder. His team mates would just kick the ball to him and he would either win it or kill the person who did. He had natural endurance, but didn't work hard enough. He never developed the work rate or nous to become a high level footballer. He was, and is, a very flawed footballer. But that is independent of his 'x-factor', or whatever people with to call it.

Constantly. He had other limitations that prevented him ever getting to that top level, but his power was never in question. It was exceptional and a real point of difference for him

Disagree. Sylvia had plenty of X-factor, which was his combination of power and endurance. His power was exceptional, but his ability to turn it into consistent performance was lacking.

Why? Not a fan of Nat Fyfe? Stephen Hill? Stephen Motlop? Jack McCrae? Tom Lonergan? Marcus Bontempelli? Dustin Fletcher? etc.etc.

He was a mature age second round pick in 2001.

Who are these low draft picks at Hawthorn that have "elite disposal, contested ball winning ability and competitiveness"?

Turner says that every year. Then he conveniently forgets that and says it again a year later about another player.

These are my thoughts. I heard that he tests well for speed (sub 3 secs) and agility, but haven't heard anything about his endurance. On early impressions, I'm not keen on Brayshaw simply because he's more of a constant motion accumulator rather than a power runner.