Axis of Bob

Intriguing. I love eveyone's comments. It must be draft day!!

You can't do that to an 18 year old kid. It's not human.

Groin doubts? "Heppell, who was initially thought to go as high as pick five to Brisbane, could slip as far as No. 12 to Melbourne in what could be a coup for the Dees." "Melbourne is tipped to happily benefit from Heppell's sudden slide as the Gippsland star was arguably the best-performed player through the second half of the TAC Cup season."

Lynch to GC? "If the Suns opt for an extra midfielder, Lynch looks likely to be snapped up by Melbourne at No. 12. He would complement Jack Watts and Liam Jurrah in an emerging forward line. Melbourne was the only club to speak to Lynch after the draft camp, when coach Dean Bailey and recruiting chief Barry Prendergast visited in October."

Do I? I didn't notice. I thought that my comment about an innocent mistake you made in missing Gorringe was light hearted. I could possibly avoid humour in the future if it makes you feel uncomfortable. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

He rates Daffey's draft as being so bad that one he selected for us isn't even in his top 25!!

Well put, sylvinator.

As the great George Costanza says, "It's not a lie if you believe it". For the rest of us, it's still pure hyperbole.

I agree. Kelly did really well because he was disciplined, but once the ball was there to be won he basically played as a midfielder and won the ball. Hunt played more of a straight line game which was limiting. Bartram defends well because he's always been a midfielder, so he plays well in 360 degrees rather than just straight line. The thing about the dangerous forwards, too, is that they are generally so worried about being dangerous that they can be easily run off. When your opponent isn't dangerous (a la Bartram or Steven Baker) then you only have to worry about attacking. But if your opponent is Corey Enright (or Heath Shaw, or Luke Hodge) then you have to play defensively too. Bartram does well in that he doesn't make many mistakes. He realises he's not much of a kick, so he limits his mistakes by taking safe options. Problem is that it slows the game down and we're a better team when we rebound quickly, requiring us to take risks coming from defence.

I have no problem with you thinking that Bartram should get first crack. I agree that he is currently our best defensive small player and is should be played there next season. I agreed with old55 and Rhino that a real A grader (like Alan Johnson or Corey Enright) as a small defender could be a real positive in the make up of our side. Bartram is not an A grader (and is unlikely to further develop into one) because he isn't damaging enough with the footy. So I said that I would be prepared to draft one at 12 that could become an A grade small defender. It has nothing to do with being a premiership player. I was looking to draft an A grade small defender. I have no intention of replacing Bartram with a draftee at the start of next year as Bartram did a really good, honest job this year. Hopefully we draft someone who, later on, develops to surpass Bartram. I agree with what you say, but I'm not sure you quite understand my position still.

satyricon: I don't recall saying that I wanted to "throw an physically underdeveloped teenager on some of the competitions most dangerous small fowards". To be honest, I don't particularly know what it is that you thought I was saying/meaning/implying. Could you please explain what you thought I was trying to say? Cheers.

Rhino, I'm still not 100% convinced about Bail's disposal but he definitely is a good enough runner. I'd be happy to have an A grade mid down back because it's such an important role. Possibly moreso now. Just look at how Geelong used to set up down back with Enright (among others). I don't think Bartram is the long term answer and I'd be prepared to draft for that role at 12. More than prepared.

Just going from my quick stats (from afl.com.au), a few of the players noted for slightly iffy disposal: Clint Bartram 289 disposals @ 77% disposal efficiency. 11.1 disposals per clanger. Ricky Petterd 77 disposals @ 66% disposal efficiency. 8.6 disposals per clanger. Mark Jamar 273 disposals @ 77% disposal efficiency. 4.5 disposals per clanger. Jones 425 disposals @ 73% disposal efficiency. 9.0 disposals per clanger. Gysberts 63 disposals @ 63% disposal efficiency. 21.0 disposals per clanger. Martin 18 disposals @ 67% disposal efficiency. 3.0 disposals per clanger. Spencer 10 disposals @ 90% disposal efficiency. 2.5 disposals per clanger. Grimes 425 disposals @ 73% disposal efficiency. 9.0 disposals per clanger. Interesting numbers.

So you would prefer to have the ball in Stef Martin's, Jake Spencer's or Jack Fitzpatrick's hands than Bartram's? Sounds like hyperbole to me.

Clint isn't a great kick, but he beats the hell out of Stef Martin, Jack Fitzpatrick, Jake Spencer and even the big Russian may struggle to get past him.

I was going by Emma Quayle's comment that he won't go to Gold Coast. Nowhere else in the article does she actively state that a club won't take a player, implying that they've made a decision to not take Darling. Further, in her article on Darling she states that "some [clubs] simply wouldn't draft him, at any pick". If you are not prepared to draft him at any pick then you must have some pretty serious issues. Also a club recruiter saying "We couldn't keep up with his drinking". I obviously haven't been part of any interview, nor do I know Jack. But the evidence seems to be pretty that there are few things not quite right. Maybe he'll suddenly mature as soon as he steps into an AFL club. Maybe he won't. Do I want to take that risk? Not particularly. Certainly if I was going to take the risk then I'd want the potential payoff to be much, much higher considering we'd be paying pick 12.

Really?

I don't want Darling. And it's not just because of the off field issues. In fact, I think that his poor off field stuff has almost elevated his playing ability in supporters' eyes. Firstly, if Gold Coast have decided that they won't touch him with their raft of high picks then why should we? We've just lost some experienced leaders, so these players are going to have to create their own culture. I don't want someone like he apparently is having a role of deciding this. We've got some great talent with some quality young kids who can create a great side - let's not [censored] it up. Secondly, I don't think he adds much to our forward line like everyone parrots. He plays the role that we would expect Tapscott to play. The hard hitting, physical roaming half forward. The difference is a few inches, but both play as physical and undersized half forwards. The player we want in the forward line is a tall monster forward who can contest the long, slow, high ball. Darling would be good with the ball moving quickly because he could win it one on one with his physicality, but we already have a whole bunch of players who play well when the ball moves quickly so he doesn't really complement our current forward line at all. Thirdly, I'm not sure he's that good. Someone built like he is should be absolutely smashing junior footballers. As it is he's just going. He relies a lot on his physicality too, but when he gets up to AFL level he's going to playing against players who are just as big as him and more athletic than him. He wants to play a key position style but his lack of height means that he's having to move into 'smaller' roles to make his mark. He's now a low possession hit man who's too small to play as a key forward. So why would you spend pick 12 getting Mitch Hahn or Jarrad Rooke? And not just that, but a version who has off field issues, potential brain issues from being clubbed, and doesn't fill a role that we really need?

Interesting that there is so much focus on talls for us. MDT. I wonder whether it's because everyone thinks that we will draft a tall or whether it's because the best players available at that point are talls. History indicates that the latter is unlikely. Although this could work in our favour, with Gold Coast perhaps looking to go tall with one or two of their picks at 9, 10 and 11 (rather than 13) thinking that we will take a tall at 12. I still think we'll go small early and then a tall or two later on.

If Gold Coast has about 10 early picks (thus allowing them to take a few risks) and they still won't take a risk on Darling because of his off field issues, then what does that tell you? Do. Not. Want.

Surely we took Gysberts at pick 11 because we thought he was the best player available at pick 11. If there were players we rated more highly then surely we would have picked them.

old, get used to it. I guarantee there will be people here annoyed that we 'reached' for a player early, or elated that we picked a 'slider' on the cheap. Apparently recruiting managers don't read BigFooty. Remember what happened when we picked Frawley in the first round?

I realise I was talking about the VFL. I think that I specifically mentioned it. At least it felt like I did. Wait ..... yeah, I did. I said that they were directly pitted against each other in that game and Miller smashed him. I said that I found it concerning. I didn't say he was better or worse than Miller. The only comparison made was by you.

Miller pretty much smashed him at everything. Led at the ball, doubled back, found it in space, and out marked him. Anthony didn't do himself many favours with that performance.

Bailey is in the process of trying to recruit and build a list of players that can win a flag. Bruce wasn't going to be part of that, so Bailey isn't going to lose any sleep over his departure. If he really wanted to keep Bruce then he would have just given him the terms he wanted, but he didn't. What does that say? As for losing the players, once we have a list that can win a flag then I'm sure that Bailey will do everything he can to keep them together. I don't think too many players will be looking to leave when we're pushing for a flag. If we made a prelim in 2011, do you think Brad Green would leave the club if he was offered a one year contract?