Axis of Bob

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.

Oh no, what would we do without pick 40? 😐 Our recent drafting history with picks in the National Draft at 40 and above: 2023: None. 2022: None. 2021: Taj Woewodin (FS match). 2020: None. 2019: None. One would almost think that we have a drafting philosophy of doing whatever we can to get further up the list where the good players are, rather than picking later where the ordinary players are. I'm not going to cry over giving up additional late picks to get a top 10 picks.

"Oliver has cleaned out his locker ...." From this statement alone you already know this isn't true.

It didn't sound jarring at all. It's a perfectly reasonable question, and that's just my own explanation for it rather than the gold standard answer. I think there are some players that are being highly underrated because they haven't been playing in the midfield or have been absent. Players like Travaglia and Hotton, the former because he played a lot as a half back and the latter because he was injured. Even a player like Finn O'Sullivan, who has struggled with injury all year, has been seen by some on the internet to slip down to the latter half of the top 10 and ranked behind some fairly middling talents due to lower possession numbers, despite probably being the best player in the pool. But recruiting is difficult and I'm certainly no expert to listen to. I've just seen the same trends every year on the internet whilst following it for the past 20 or so years.

Because internet experts are not real experts. Every year there are players that jump up the order and everyone is surprised. Usually these are players that have low stats but show traits that will translate well into AFL. Windsor was one of those. Tholstrup was one of those. Tauru is another that has popped up late this year. There are a few players that I think will do the same this year that people are barely speaking about. It happens every single year that internet experts overrate players that get a lot of the ball over players that exhibit AFL level traits at lower volume. But internet experts are not real experts.

Really gives you some sympathy for those players going on post-B&F benders.

No, your summation of Jason Taylor’s words isn’t good. Taylor saying that “testing isn’t the be all and end all for determining that player’s draft selection or his footballing ability” is not the same as saying that it “barely makes that much of a difference”. I’ll take Taylor’s opinion over your incorrect interpretation of it. As for the rest of it, I’m happy with old55’s assessment. We all have different ideas of players in the lead up to the draft, which is what makes it interesting. I will say though that there have been very few slow midfielders taken in the top ten since that 2013 draft, and even fewer successful ones. That doesn’t mean that he can’t make it but it does probably mean that he’ll need to be special.

That’s not a good summary of the value of testing. The testing just shows what they’ve probably already seen in the field. They know Langford is slow in the same way that they knew Windsor was quick, but that certainly doesn’t mean that being slow vs quick “barely makes a difference”. Athleticism is important. It’s also more important for some than others, which is why all the other slowest players at the combine are talls/rucks. It’s rare to have midfielders be the least athletic players on a team. They need something special to compensate, which recruiters will have assess with Langford.

I didn’t say he wasn’t a good player, nor that he won’t be a good AFL player. But being able to run is important, particularly in a game that is quicker than ever and an emphasis on transition running. Bont is able to overcome his lack of speed with his brilliance of touch and skill to be able to win and distribute the ball under the huge amounts of physical pressure his lack of speed brings him. Similarly, Langford will need something to help him succeed under the highest amount of pressure because of his lack of natural athleticism. Will he have that ability at the next level? Time will tell. FWIW, I don’t see a Bont comparison. I think a fairer one is a 6’3 Matt Crouch. Still a very good player but more of a straightforward footballer like Crouch than a mercurial one like Bont.

You know who else did all that? Greg Williams. 😁

This is going to be like when every plodder junior got some support on fan forums because “Greg Williams was slow”. Turns out that none of those players was Greg Williams. We’ll see if Langford can buck the trend and be Marcus Bontempelli. He’ll need other traits that allow him to dominate in spite of being a plodder.

That's definitely true, however when you have a top 5 pick your expecting that the midfielder you are drafting will be worthy of being frontline midfielder. It's not like we're drafting James Jordon with pick 5 and forcing him to play outside the centre square, we're clearly expecting to draft a better player than that. The only current player I'd say is a full time midfielder for us is Oliver, with Petracca and Viney both being potential forwards for us. Versatility is good but it's much more important for lesser players rather than the good ones because you want your good players near the ball as often as possible.

What's your plan for a Gawn injury? Tom Fullarton?

🤔

It'll depend on how we rate the draft. If we think there's a top 4 or 5 in the draft, with a gap behind it, then we'll probably take one of them no matter the type. Taylor talks about talent 'cliffs', which was why we spend heavily to get our second pick into the top 12 last year. So much will depend on where he sees those cliffs. As for Smith, he's a good player. I think his contest work is underrated by most on here because he's light, but he has great ability to win the ball at the source. His games at the end of the year were his best, IMO, after he had a run in the VFL. He was able to play as more of ball carrier rather than solely an accumulator, which is a good sign for his AFL future.

Because they were fleeced by noted masters of trading and negotiation ..... Fremantle. 😁

Ignore them paying pick 10 and 34 for Lachie Schultz and giving Ginnivan away for nothing last year.

Cam McCarthy too. He even moved back to WA and sat the year out from football.

Can you demonstrate this by deleting your Demonland account?

Open letter written by a random member? Journalism! I’m sure they’ll treat it with the full respect that open letters deserve.

So you don’t know. But you’re comfortable stating that the reason why he’s possibly maybe not coming to Melbourne in a future decision he’s not publicly stated is because our club is ‘a burning building’?

Did we offer him the best contract?

Would you have rather lost them to free agency? Because that was the alternative.

#thingssuccessfulclubsdo