Axis of Bob

Gold Coast has the Bulldogs' first rounder, which is currently pick 12. That's probably just after they'd expect to get a bid for Lombard. They have enough picks after that to easily cover that bid, so it could be something like 25 + F1 for 12 + 20, or just F1 for 12.

Wait wait wait!!! I found it!!! 😁 I have amassed two posts on Demonland about Hayden McLean. They were both in August 12, 2022. The first one literally listed the statistics of McLean and Sam Weideman without judgement. This was the second: In response to your argument that McLean could be a number 1 ruckman, I responded that he hasn’t been playing ruck in the VFL, but rather that he’s a tall forward and listed the stats showing that. The post shows that I listed these without judgement of McLean’s quality, simply that we need to make sure we don’t overrate opposition players just because we don’t see them much. Funnily enough, Sydney then recruited Grundy as a ruckman rather than use McLean as the ruck, and McLean has averaged less than 7 hit outs a game this year. No offence but this is a super weird beef to have carried around with you for two years. I’m incredibly disappointed to go back to my posts and find that I was being so neutral and passive, as I thought I must have unleashed some incredibly brutal zinger that had buried itself so deep in your soul. Alas, I again find that I’m less interesting than I wish I was. 😢

Typo. Adelaide wanted Stengle out. They delisted him. Nobody picked him up. These are true. Nobody is arguing that they aren’t true. There were good reasons why those clubs wanted those players out. But SONS argued that we shouldn’t recruit players that other teams don’t want. I used these examples, which you agree with, to show that this wasn’t a good argument. I appreciate your support. Did I? I honestly don’t even remember discussing Hayden McLean nor having any particularly strong thoughts about him (past or present). Obviously you do and it was, apparently, quite important to you. 🤷‍♂️

We wanted Grundy out. Geelong wanted Stengle out. Gold Coast wanted Chol out. Port Adelaide wanted Teakle out. Gold Coast wanted Bowes out. Hawthorn wanted Mitchell out. It's not a good argument. We have paid peanuts to get depth players to complement the strong list we already had. Hawthorn paid a lot of money because they had salary cap to burn due to their terrible performances whilst we had a list with the contracts of Petracca, Oliver, Gawn, May, Lever, Brayshaw, Salem, Langdon etc on it. You're comparing apples with oranges.

Exactly. There’s no single person responsible for trades, so it’s pretty funny that some people have decided it must be all Tim Lamb.

I think it’s pretty clear that nobody here actually knows what Tim Lamb does, nor how the roles and possibilities of list additions and deletions are divided amongst those within the footy department. This is obvious by seeing those who apportion credit for previous training to Josh Mahoney but blame current trading on Tim Lamb, despite those two holding completely different jobs within the club. As far as I can tell it’s because Lamb has had been spokesman for the club during trade week rather than Mahoney when he was there. Hilarious but also stupid.

Depends who's saying it.

It's a big call but I too would like us to have the best key forward of the last 25 years.

After everything you have said over the years, I can’t believe that we finally discovered a point at which you feel shame.

It very difficult to describe a draft in a single word because it's made up of a number of people, each of whom has different attributes and are rated differently by different clubs. I think you'll get a pretty good idea from looking at how easy/hard it is for clubs to trade into certain areas of the draft, in terms of how many picks change hands and how much you need to spend to get in there. For example, last year you saw teams fighting to get Gold Coast's pick 11 (we ended up paying 14, 27 and 35) whilst Adelaide got pick 14 for only pick 23 and 26. That's because, as Taylor said afterwards, there was a big drop off in quality after the first 12 players in the draft, in the eyes of most clubs. In 2019 a lot of clubs were willing to move draft picks around in that late 1st round-early 2nd round range, which probably indicates that there was still a bit of quality around and teams were searching for specific players they were interested in for a pretty even draft (after the first 2 or 3). There were some really excellent players in that lot but some proper misses as well. Do you measure the strength of a draft on the quality of pick 1, 5, 10, 20, 30, 70?

It’s still early and I’m by no means any expert, but I currently lean towards Lalor. I think he’s the type of player we’ve shown ourselves to go after aggressively when we’ve had a chance.

I suppose my basis for saying it is that we made similar types of offer in the past for specific players that we really like. We offered multiple first round picks to move up the draft for Harley Reid and also for Bailey Humphrey, who are both strong, powerful inside mid/forward types.

I think so. I reckon that pick 25 seems about right to me (I'll wait for the clubs work out what the details of it are) and in line with what most of these types of deals usually get done for. I also think that a pick in the 30s is probably about right for McAdam, albeit probably before he had the down year that he had this year. We got lucky with Freo having a down year last year that allowed us to get Windsor (who last year traded Schulz for pick 34 and the premier's future 1st - which became pick 10), so it's all swings and roundabouts IMHO.

Then we shouldn't have played so badly this year. If we were top 4 again, as we hoped to be, then it'd pick 35.

We are unlikely to get many opportunities to bring in a young player who can be the centrepiece of our future midfield. We have long term talls at each end but we've seen the weakness in our midfield once Clarry and Trac were out of the picture. I would be shocked if we didn't use our early pick to pick up a contested, centre square midfielder to be able to build around. To this end I think we'll keep 5 and, if anything, we're more likely to trade up than trade down.

The thing that should translate across to AFL well is his clearance work. He’s very similar to Gus Brayshaw in the way he moves through a stoppage.

I doubt that Nibbler was only set on going to Adelaide. He has a huge amount of goodwill at the club to send him to SA and is not doing his negotiations through the media. If an announcement has been made it's likely to either be because a) Port aren't interested in him/can't bring him in (salary/picks etc), or b) Melbourne and Adelaide have already reached an understanding of what a deal looks like. I suspect the latter.

I’m with you. I think Lalor could be the best in the draft, from what I’ve also seen. There are so many parts of his game that should translate across at a high level. If we had to trade up for Lalor I would do it without hesitation.

Definitely, although this is not necessarily an unusual thing for monster mids. I'm also not convinced he's a natural inside midfielder in the contest at the moment, as he is quite poor at winning the ball in stoppages unless the ball is hit straight at him and he monsters his opponent. I also don't think he has great composure in the contest either. But he's a 6'4-6'5 monster, with a unique trait that will definitely translate across to AFL level and good coaching could have him develop into a very good player. I just have concerns int he back of my head that he's actually not as good a footballer as people think. But I'm just a YouTube judge, so I am likely wrong with some or all of this.

I’d be interested. If the club is looking to have McVee and Rivers play more midfield and to play a more dynamic style then we need more distributors from half back. We only have Salem and Bowey now as distributors, so Daniel is a proven player down there that fills that need well. The Bulldogs have many players of that role, do his opportunities have been more limited. Daniel is a good player and suits our team. I’d be keen to get him.

This is just plain inaccurate. We didn’t want to give up Bedford and were very disappointed that he chose to leave. We had contract for him but he got a bigger one at GWS.

Great size, absolutely ragdolls opponents in juniors which will still happen a bit at the next level at his size. My questions are around whether he has the work rate and natural inside midfield ability to go with his size. There’s absolutely no reason to have any doubts on the ability of someone like him to be a great AFL inside midfielder, yet somehow I still have some. Has some unique attributes but is definitely not a finished product.

Yeah, but why does it need a new thread when it is basically just a snippet of 6 month old information for the Christian Petracca thread?

I see Langford as being much more ‘in the eye of the beholder’ than most, so this makes sense. Some will see the things he does really well and others will see some holes. It’ll be interesting to see where he goes on the day.

Why is this so important that it needs a different thread to the existing CP thread?