Axis of Bob

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

When you look at that video you notice two things. 1) He makes great decisions very quickly. 2) He is sooooo clean with his hands. At at high speed. It's a really tough skill, but it buys you so much time.

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.

Just watching the Country v Metro match, the thing to note with Parish, his 'point of difference' or whatever you want to call it, is that he makes good decisions incredibly quickly and he just doesn't fumble. One of the reasons why Toumpas struggled is that he struggled to find space with the extra pace of AFL and got stuck with the footy. Parish, on the other hand, is just so quick with his decisions that he gets the ball and finds a great option before anyone has time to tackle him. It's an underrated skill, but is very important at AFL level, especially when he can also be very creative at that speed. A bit like a rich man's AN-B.

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

Parish has a few little highlights here (about 5 mins in): http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-06-17/u18s-sos-jnrs-big-day-out A few here (5:30): https://www.facebook.com/FutureStarsTV/videos/vb.130437356973525/1180023382014912/?type=2&theater Plus there's a full replay of Vic Metro vs Vic Country on afl.com.au (his first game back) http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-06-07/under-18s-vicc-v-vicm-q1 http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-06-07/under-18s-vicc-v-vicm-q2 http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-06-07/under-18s-vicc-v-vicm-q3 http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-06-07/under-18s-vicc-v-vicm-q4

I feel like I'm watching Jordie McKenzie's draft highlights.

I had a bit of a think about forward lines last night, and I think that versatility is very important. By that I don't mean that being able to swap your CHB and CHF, for example, but instead that your set forward line is able to function in a number of different ways depending on the situation. For example, in the Grand Final Hawthorn kicked a winning score with only 1 goal between Roughead, Bruest, Puopolo and Hale. They got their goals from Rioli, Smith and Gunston instead, and in the Prelim they got their goals from Roughead, Rioli and Schoenmakers. Bruest kicked 6 in the semi! You are right about West Coast, who placed a lot of eggs in the Kennedy basket. Once Frawley got him, they were out of ideas. Hawthorn were able to neutralise the long ball forward with Roughead and Schoenmakers (plus Hale) and then allow the smaller, quicker players to break forward into space, like Rioli, Smith or even Gunston. What we need to do, as a forward line, is to compete for the long ball (even if we don't mark it) and then have a variety of options who can win the ball in general ground level play. We only need the talls to compete for a long kick, not mark it, but then after that everyone's a midfielder. The question is, how many players do we need to compete for that kick? I think that we need two players to compete, because the workload (and risk) for one key forward is too much. But that doesn't mean that it has to be a big three pronged forward line like West Coast's, but it could just be a resting ruckman type. It could even be Frost. Not because he's a a skillful high marking player but he is athletic enough to get to a lot of contests and strong enough to disrupt the opposition's defenders and bring the ball to ground. The role doesn't require someone to be a superstar, or even very good. You just need someone who works hard and stops the oppositions taking intercept marks. In that role, Dawes (despite how much he is maligned) is actually perfectly fine. The idea of drawing defenders away from your main key forward is slightly outdated, because there's almost always an extra defender anyway, no matter who it is being kicked to. Plus forwards very rarely get to lead at the ball carrier from deep in the forward line like they used to. So the key is being able to bring the ball to ground and then having players that can win it when it gets there. If you can have running, crumbing players who are good enough to mark when they get a run at the ball, then you require their defenders to guard them in the air, which will create more opportunities at ground level.

Except in this case, it's like saying we can give you $1000 this paycheck and $1000 next paycheck ....... or we can give you $2500 now.

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.

I think Mahoney said that they weren't sure if they'd go mid/forward or mid/mid. So there appears to be some sort of leaning towards picking midfielders early in this draft.

Emma Quayle did the calculations (so if I'm wrong, blame her .... and me for being too lazy to check them!) and she said that the tipping point for the Gold Coast trade was 11th next year. In other words, if we finish 11th or better next year then we win the trade, but if we finish worse then we lose. But we clearly knew that we could quickly turn pick 10 into pick 7. So the tipping point for a win in this trade for us is now 14th (but still 11th for Gold Coast). Plus GWS get more points than they would have. That's a win-win-win and good trading from all parties because we have all come together with the same assets and all walked away better off. Plus it's a tremendously fulfilling way to screw Essendon and Carlton .... especially since we did it with the picks that originally came from Collingwood!

A role that's like a combination of Isaac Smith and Jack Gunston.

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?

I used to find it really frustrating to see how stupid, reactionary and reflexively negative a lot of posters (generally the most prolific ones, but not all of them) on here are. Now I just find it amusing and wonder how anyone could possibly live a happy life when they are so doggedly committed to trying to make themselves unhappy.

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.

I don't think he's a real priority for us. Mahoney was saying that his name was raised as part of a different trade (I'm assuming Toumpas), but they weren't considering him part of the Howe trade.

Thanks. I feel a lot more beautiful now.

So you don't know much about him as a player, but are basing your thoughts on his ability/style based on how attractive you find him. Because ugly people must be harder footballers, while attractive ones must be soft?

Those skill tests are pointless time/media fillers. The recruiters already have all the information they need about their skills after watching them play for 2 years. Athletic results are more difficult to get a hold of, which is why the camp exists.

I agree, but unfortunately that would go against their argument for the last 10 years. With the full Free Agency model, the advantage that it would have over the US model is that the trading only happens once a year during the trade period.

I like the idea of raising the draft age by a year if we move to a free agency system. It means that clubs have more certainty over the draft picks, hence making them more valuable in a trade. It means that clubs are more likely to get good players (ie, value) all the way until they become free agents, which makes that investment worthwhile.

Unfortunately the whole free agent thing is about allowing players to move to their workplace of choice. Your proposal doesn't allow this to happen. I think the AFL is a bit caught up between a proper free agency model and a proper draft model (like we had). Basically on any deal (except for the draft) the play has total veto power in a trade and free agency. This means that once a player is in the system they have all the power and clubs have very little, which will skew the player movement towards big/successful clubs. For instance, Frawley would previously have gone to Hawthorn but Hawthorn would have to sacrifice something (their future) to have a better chance of winning a flag. We went from a system where both club and player had powers to STOP any trade. But now we have a system where they just (in effect) removed the club's veto power but retained the player's. The model we should have, which the AFLPA will hate (because it's so good for them now), is where the players give up that veto right so that players can move more freely. That is the real Draft/Trade/Free Agency system that allows free movement and equity. Perhaps, in exchange, the players will become Unrestricted free agents after 7 years (ie, about 25). I'd rather keep the older draft system, but the current system is a bit of a hybrid that has skewed the power unreasonably towards the players.

Excellent runner, ordinary user. Also, I was just looking at his stats, and he didn't get any Brownlow votes for his 44 possession, 2 goal game. Probably a bit stiff!