Axis of Bob

C&B, this is what you've got yourself so worked up about. You responded to monoccular's post about how bad Martin's actions were by saying "Let's not lose grasp of the fact that there is a gigantic difference between threatening something and actually doing it". Monoccular then said that the difference wasn't necessarily "gigantic", and then many others called you out for devaluing the incident by comparing it with a something else. It's simple, C&B. You went too hard, a number of people rightly called your out on it, and since then you have tried to attack everyone who disagrees with you in a vain attempt to save face .... especially since Stuie (who you have a historical beef with) has fallen on the correct side on this issue. If you wanted to weasel out of it, you should have said "I'm sorry, I think I phrased that badly. What I was meaning was ........" and then everyone would have accepted it and moved on. It's certainly a much better option than getting indignant and slagging off everyone.

My position on the bolded bit is the same as the 990 people; that's why the legal system has different sentences. My position on puppies is that I find them cute and adorable. My position on anchovies is that I think they have their place, but I don't want to overdo them because they have a very strong taste. Nobody is arguing that point .... you only think they are because you need to find something to oppose Stuie on. Unfortunately you are fighting a war that nobody else is bothering to fight, because it is irrelevant. You are getting indignant that nobody is answering your question, but nobody is answering it because it isn't a very good question. In dot point form: Dustin Martin did something bad. You said that at least he didn't do something worse. Everyone said, "Who cares, because what he did was really bad" You then got into a huff and said "Why don't you agree that murder is worse than threatening to kill?" Everyone ignored your question because it was irrelevant. I hope I've made this thread easier for you to follow.

Who cares what the penalty for murder is? It's completely irrelevant. It's like asking what the fine for jaywalking is .... it's not relevant to the argument at all. You have tunnel vision because you're worried that you look foolish in this thread. You are going harder at people now than you did at the start because you're cornered and scared. If you took a step back from it then you would understand it better, rather than simply opposing things because you're afraid of being on Stuie's side.

C&B, your are sorely out of touch with this issue. Stuie is right; by focusing on what he didn't do (commit murder) you are devaluing what he actually did do (a serious crime). If I called up your family and threatened to kill them by detailing graphically what I would do to each one of them, then I have committed a very serious crime - End of story. Arguing that I didn't fly a plane into the twin towers is completely irrelevant .... as is your argument.

Even the sole Sam Wiedeman thread, a player we drafted less than 48 hours ago, is hijacked to become another Jack Watts thread.

If you get a chance, do yourself a favour and watch the first quarter of the AFL Academy vs Northern Blues match from the beginning of the year. Wiedeman plays at CHF and is the dominant big man of the ground, taking 5 marks and kicking 2 goals. He could probably have grabbed another one or two with better delivery. What stands out is that he marks the ball in a range of ways; he's not just a lead and mark player or a body on body player. Instead, he took marks leading straight up at the kicker, marks bending his lead to space, jumping over the top of players, in a one-on-one push and shove, and pushing back hard into an opponent to mark in front. It makes it much more difficult to defend because you can't just play him one way, but you have to protect a range of options. He'll need to build up his running significantly, but he was supposedly in the top couple of runners at Eastern a few years ago, so I suspect he has at least some natural endurance to him. But if he can get his running up then he could be very dangerous with Hogan, because they are both players who can beat you in a number of different ways. Both players will need a multi-talented key defender to look after them.

The thing I like about Oliver is that I think he has the attributes to be a better than good player. That's not to say that he will, but he has the attributes. He obviously has the power in his game, which is great, but he has the ability to beat players using his sidestep in traffic. He is actually able to create his own pocket of space where there is none, and this often separates good players from really good players. For example, Bernie Vince is a good player but that's all he is. He gets the ball in congestion and gives it off quickly or hacks it forward, both of which are legitimate options for a good player. Whereas Pendlebury is a really good player. He can get the ball in congestion and then beat an opponent to create space for himself, which means that his clearance is now an attacking opportunity with clean possession retained. Oliver looks like he could create opportunities from contested situations with his combination of power, agility and composure. I'm not saying that he'll automatically be a superstar, but I'm certainly feeling bullish at this very early point. And if I can't be bullish now, when can I be!

FWIW, he averaged 6 tackles a game in the TAC Cup this year. For comparison's sake only, Parish averaged 3.

Based on the stats (and highlights) he's a lot more 'ruck' than 'forward' at this point in his career. He amassed 2 goals this year. But he was accurate with those two shots at goal!

Looks like a competitive running tall who uses the ball well.

I like that he clearly looks like a talented player, but he had almost no fitness base and looks to be carrying a bit of weight still. He should improve significantly, I would think, given AFL preseasons to trim down and get his running capacity up. But his stoppage work and ability to create space and time for himself seem to be excellent. The highlights look great, but they always do, however I think need to be looking for snippets of him doing things that are a bit special, which I think it does.

Interesting that the academy players have not been as highly valued as most anticipated. Seems like they may have been overvalued.

Also, Chris Judd didn't attend Draft Camp because of a shoulder reconstruction, so I don't know where you got those results from. Where did you get those results from?

Brock McLean did a 3.03 second 20m sprint. Would you say that Oliver has 'Brock McLean-esque explosiveness'? Would you say that Judd had 'Brock McLean-esque explosiveness'?

No it isn't. Please stop pretending that you know anything about the players on every thread you post in. You may end up accidentally predicting the player we select, but it will be pure dumb luck.

I can see us picking Oliver at 3 and Weideman at 7. Oliver seems to have a better skill makeup to be a high quality player at the next level, especially given the amount of improvement he should have left in him. Given his lack of exposure to elite programs and his absence of preseason, I can see his game improving especially in his ability to win the ball outside contests. I imagine that Essendon will probably take Francis plus whichever midfielder we don't take. If we rate Oliver as being the best mid, then we should take him here. Weideman tested poorly, which worries me, but that will probably be the thing that allows us to pick him at 7. If we're looking for a partner for Hogan, we probably need to pull the trigger here. He'll take time, given his style and testing, but but I suppose that's why we've taken he pick a year early.

Same. I still think he'll be a good player but not what you'd be hoping for at with pick 3. Heppell is an excellent endurance athlete and is 189 cm. The frame is not what worries me, it's his running.

I think Viney has genuine pace and power in his first few steps, but I don't necessarily see that with Parish. Parish looked like he gets his space because he's already moving at the stoppage; I wonder if he's going to be able to do that at AFL level with the extra numbers and opposition size.

Riley Dunn, David Trotter, Luke Molan and Clayton Oliver OR Brett Deledio, Chris Judd, Brendan Goddard and Darcy Parish. You choose which type MFC should pursue.

McKenzie, Valenti, Stark, Oliver OR S Burgoyne, Rioli, Deledio, Parish. You choose which type MFC should pursue.

That list is awful. It doesn't support your point at all because your have been disingenuous with which names you included. For example you included Matthew Richardson, a father son prospect who was 197cm, ran like the wind, and took 21 marks in a single Teal Cup match! You also included midfield/forward Stevie J, Matthew Lloyd, who was a 16 year old pre selection and was considered to be the 2nd best 16 year old in the country behind Steven King, Fraser Gehrig (who was a first round selection), Sumich (a WA pre selection), Carey and Longmire (NSW 16 year old zone selections .... drafted in the 1980s!), Tredrea (ha!), zone selections Neitz and Brereton, Richard #^*#ing Osborne (a 182cm small forward/midfielder recruited in an era without drafts in 1981!!!), Alistair Lynch (drafted in the first draft pick in 1986, when nobody knew how to draft). The only names you could use to argue your point are Daniel Bradshaw, Cam Mooney, Brendan Fevola and Adam Goodes (whose draft placing was artificially low given that clubs could only draft one 17 year old at the time, but I grant you that he wouldn't have been a first rounder). Four names, two of whom were 'workmanlike', one was a nutcase and the other a superstar.

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.

I think it's also entirely possible that we could take Curnow/Wiedeman and Parish ........ but not necessarily in the order most assume we will.

I like the simplicity of the logo. It's the sort of thing that you could give to a tourist that won't make them look like a tool. The campaign to release the rebranding is also good, because we're letting people hear about it from different places. It's more organic and gets people talking about what's happening, rather than just telling it at them by putting up a press release and a staged photoshoot on the website plus 30 seconds on the 6pm news. And Daisy ......... she is absolute gold for this club.

Having not seen enough of these players (and also not being a professional scout), I am especially interested to see what we do with our picks based on how they help improve our list. On that part, I can see a benefit to either Curnow or Parish. Parish is a clean midfielder who uses the ball well and is just a good footballer's footballer. He would complement our other midfielders well as a link between the grunt and the runners. He's clearly a good player and would be a safe pick. Curnow would help our forward line enormously (and I imagine we'd be picking him as a forward, not midfielder) because he would complement Hogan and a possible ruck/forward really well. He playes as a proper key forward, but his movement around the ground and endurance is very good. In terms of a forward line, we need a mobile marking player who can compete for a long ball when needed or work on the ground as a second banana to Hogan. High endurance key forwards are very, very valuable, especially with the modern tactics. I don't have a preference either way, because I don't know how good each player is and I know we've moved up to pick 3 because there's probably a player there that the club really wants. I suppose I secretly hope it's Curnow, because he's a rarer type of player and moving up to pick 3 means that we really wanted/needed that player as part of our structure. But if it's Parish then I'll be happy because they just think he's really good.