stevethemanjordan

He ran what would be classified as a 'slow' 20 metre sprint I believe. Meaning there's no way anyone should go near him..... ..... .......

Too many red flags? There's one red flag, which is the fact that he's had a serious knee injury. After reading the article on the AFL website, he states that there's no evidence of damage to the ligament or the surrounding area which to me suggests he's made a full and successful recovery. The fact that he's very young and has been so diligent with his rehab also means the ligaments, tendons and muscles surrounding the knee will be stronger. Guys that have had a history with knees are the one's who clubs will worry about especially if there have been setbacks along the way. This bloke Lever has done a knee in a freak training incident, has made a full recovery without setbacks and is now ready to have a full pre-season. The severity of knee injuries and the chances for a reoccurrence changes on every individual. To think that Lever is as much of a risk previous draftees taken with a history of knee injuries is just ignorant. Of course there's an element of risk. As there is with any human being. Nick Malceski did the same injury years ago. I don't hear anybody complaining about him as a player or what he's been able to achieve individually since. I'd love Lever at our club. Perfect mix of character, aggression and skill.

He's outside attributes are very attractive. All I want to know when it comes to Laverde is whether or not he has the desire to fight nail and tooth to win the ball when it's there to be won. If he does, then I'll be happy with the pick. I want all of our picks to have that desire. That competitive streak. It's we're we've fallen down in the past. Even JKH standing at 174 or so cm doesn't shy away when the ball is there to be won. It needs to be inherent in their game before they come to our club.

I just can't agree with this when the evidence is so blindingly obvious. It is absolutely universally known amongst the footballing world that we are the team with the worst midfield. We are the team with the least amount of skill and depth in regards to our midfield and we have little skill coming off our halfback-line. By skill, I mean footskills. You cannot match teams in contested possession during a game but lose the inside 50 count by 15-20 and believe that it's purely because our mids have nothing to kick to. It is a fact that we have players who have below average skill and decision making skills that play throughout our midfield and backline. These blokes either turn the ball over, or don't have the confidence to hit up easily visibly leading targets because they simply don't have the skill. That is the number one reason we take so [censored] long to move the ball from our back-half to our forwad-line. Roos has also introduced an *actual* game plan meaning that he expects us to hold onto the ball and spot up free leading targets rather than Neeld's 'bombing down the line' approach. It is clear when we get the ball in the hands of blokes who can actually kick like Watts and Vince that we have no trouble getting the ball moving forward and being able to penetrate our forward-line effectively. Look at any successful team's midfield. Look at their skill level. Look at how much more functional the forward-line looks when they have players who can execute the most important skill required to play the game. We need to draft two mids who can see ball, win ball and kick ball and do all of those three things well. Adding another KPF is the cherry. Hogan, Dawes, Pederson with Gawn rotating will do just fine for 2015.

I remember some of the comparisons being made between Scully and Judd, I don't really know why. Nakia's body shape and dimensions are closer to Judd's. He's got a powerful lower half and already weighs around 85kgs. It's his explosiveness and his ability to win the ball in close and then burst away from packs with power that draw comparisons.

Closest thing I've seen to a young Judd. Very similar attributes.

Past list management and admin mishaps are the reason we're in this conundrum. We have an opportunity to make a player upgrade and Id be paying either McKenzie or Evans out. It makes our past list management and admin look bad. But not our current one. The fact that we've just delisted three former top 20 draft picks proves how badly we've managed, recruited and developed in the past. Any opportunity to upgrade our list should be jumped at. Especially if it's for McKenzie or Evans. Two players who shouldn't be on our list.

I believe Hogan will be twice the player McCartin will be. Maybe I would have brought it up at the time had I not been impressed by what I'd heard and seen of Hogan. But I didn't. I'm talking about the hear and now with McCartin. Part of the reason I gave a historical count of past key position forwards going early in drafts was to show that no matter the buzz around them during draft time, they don't tend to work out all too often. Whereas mids are a safer bet. You have less chance (even if it's small), of stuffing the pick up. If McCartin had a larger variety of attributes to his name, I might be happy to pick him up with one of our picks. But in this draft, from what I've seen and heard, I'd rather Petracca, Lever, Laverde or Wright over him. But that's just me.

I don't have a philosophical problem drafting all key forwards. Just some at the top end of the draft. It gets murky sometimes.I have a problem with posters believing that McCartin will be an absolute gun because of how he is rated within this draft pool. It's always the case that forwards stand out at tac cup level football. It's harder to predict whether or not they'll be as good at AFL level, and I'm making a calculated judgement that McCartin doesn't have the attributes required to become a topline AFL forward. That is all. I gave examples of forwards previously rated as highly as McCartin within their own draft who for varying reasons, never reached the heights that people had hoped. I've already stated that it was too early to tell for Patton, Daniher and Boyd. (All three of whom were standout number one draft picks and in my eyes, are more exciting prospects than McCartin). We can argue details of the others but Sam Day was drafted as a forward. Haynes I thought was too but maybe I'm wrong. The way in which we got hogan was a unique scenario and he is a completely different player with a much better set of attributes in my opinion.I don't know why you keep bringing it up. McCartin is a one-dimensional forward who's kicking for goal is questionable. No matter how he's rated in THIS DRAFT, too many types like him haven't dominated in the same way at AFL level. I'd rather go with a safer bet. A midfielder.

No I wasn't against us getting Hogan. We got access to the mini draft so it was different. And he couldn't be as accurately compared to other KP players of his draft. But I still believe Hogan has a better mix of attributes. But that's neither here nor there. The question should be, what do the MFC need to become more and more competitive? And my answer is midfielders.

KPP who featured in the top 5-10 of their draft year: 2006 - Gumbleton, Hansen and Leuenberger 2007 - Kreuzer, Grant(not sure if he played kp during 18's), Henderson 2008 - Watts, Naitanui and Hurley 2009 - John Butcher (slid to 8 after being touted as a number one pick during the year 2010 - Sam Day 2011 - Patton, Haynes and Longer 2012 - Plowman and Daniher 2013 - Boyd and Kolodjashnij The forwards of that crop of KPP: Gumbleton Hansen Henderson Watts Butcher Day Patton Haynes Daniher Boyd Bar Boyd, Daniher, Haynes and Patton (due to it being too early to tell), the rest of that group of forwards have been underwhelming to say the least as KP forwards. Day, Watts, Henderson and Hansen all started as forwards but haven't performed well enough as forwards at AFL level so they play different positions now. Gumbleton was a flop and Butcher is a great example of a KP forward who can't kick. The reason I am super cautious of drafting someone like McCartin is precisely to do with the list I've just provided. In isolation, each of the KPP mentioned in those draft years were 'talked up'. McCartin is one of three KPP in this draft who is highly rated. A full forward who's weakness is to execute the very thing forwards need to do. Kick goals. The MFC nearly broke an AFL record this year for inside 50 deferentials. And that's got nothing to do with our forwardline. Myself and other MFC supporters have every right not to be as impressed by McCartin as 'experts' of the draft. I'll back my judgement. And I'm telling you now, I want two mids.

Yes. And my comment was regarding the other post that contradicted the Fyfe and Sloane one. End of discussion.

Agree. Have a feeling Tappy might be delisted and then rookied like Jetta was this year. He, of all of those ooc has the most ability in my view. He's just so damn injury riddled. I hope Roos gives him one more chance and he gets a run at a full pre-season, and finds a set role to come into.

Yes, but the general consensus was that he was a top 20 pick I'm pretty sure. Impact. A fantastical word.He accumulated free ball. Did he have an 'impact' though? No. He did not.

Let him train with them. They'll pick Membrey with their first pick of the pre-season draft. We pick McKernan with our pick two as payback for not getting Frost for free. Happy days.

Was Tapscott a smokey? No, he wasn't. Cook was rated a top 20 pick at the time if I remember correctly, can't remember Gysberts but yes we took them both earlier than expected. Cook and Gysberts were just terrible picks and the way the club developed young players at that time wasn't much better. Tapscott has had more injuries than both of them put together and was also exposed to terrible club culture and player development. If still be interested in seeing him have a full pre-season under Roos in a set position as we've never seen the bloke injury free. If you can't see that Laverde will be a better player than Gysberts and Cook, I'm not sure what to say..

Way to contradict yourself...In the other thread you've expressed your concern that we'd be drafting a 'smokey' in Laverde. (Who is hardly a smokey in this draft, he's going to be a top 10 pick). Yet Sloane and Fyfe were both outside the top 20. One of them would be in the top 5 midfielders in the AFL, the other is still an A grade mid and you make a post like this? Short-sighted is exactly the word I intended to use initially... But maybe I should now use nonsensical.

That may be all well and good.But goal kicking is a WEAKNESS of his and he's a fulltime forward. Not just technique. But mentality. That's not something that I'm cool with if we're looking to draft a fulltime one-dimensional forward. Kicking goals should be up there with his stronger attributes. But it's not. And its a worry. Roughhead is a brilliant field and goal kick. Which is what makes him such a great player. If Roughead couldn't kick, he'd be half the player he is now. You've compared their weight and height as players. What other footballing attributes do they share?

A punt for us forum dwellers. Less of a punt for a competent recruiting team who id imagine have built up quite a portfolio on Laverde. You know what I'm saying Machsy. There are a combination of reasons that take players like Fyfe from where he was at under 18's year level to where he is now. It's not just, 'Laverde didn't play as an inside mid this year therefore he can't win his own ball so he's not what the MFC need'. Of course there's an element of 'punt'. But you're basing your assertion on a field position. Which is a bit silly.

During Fyfe's 18's year for WA, he was predominately playing as a forward. I don't think anyone envisaged him becoming one of the strongest inside mids within the AFL at age 22. But he is. Which is thanks to competitiveness, body size, attitude, development, environment etc. Not to do with what position he played during his under 18's year. Just because Laverde was used as a forward/outside midfielder during his under 18's year doesn't mean he can't win his own ball. There's a lot more to it.

Short-sighted and ignorant comment. Nice.

Demonland is a place in which supporters can pretend to be draft gurus based on limited footage/highlights of players. Save yourselves the time for those who continue to belittle posters who are sharing their views on players based on limited video footage. Everyone on the forum is aware that nobody is an expert. Everyone. We'll see soon enough whether McCartin is the real deal or not. I will now share my expert opinion... Given that this draft isn't particularly strong and there are no standout unbelievable forwards, it's hard to judge where McCartin stands in comparison to the Hogans and Danihers of previous drafts. But, based on the very limited footage I've seen of him, here's what worries me about McCartin as a player. - He has diabetes and doesnt look too fit - For a one-dimensional old school full-forward, the fact that his goal kicking isn't a strength is a major concern for me. - I haven't heard anything about his leadership skills or professional attitude from a young age, which for where the MFC are at the present time, is a number one pre-requisite. I will be unbelievably surprised if we select him for where our team is at the moment. We don't need him. He is not the once in a generation forward that we could potentially be missing out on. The MFC need two midfielders who have captained their respective sides, are workaholics, self-driven die hards who will do anything to be the very best. Two mids who possess a number of attributes. They must have skill. They must be able to win and have the desire to win their own ball. That is what we need if we are going to survive as a club.

Stranger that we rookied him in the first place in my view. I never understood why we picked him up. A mature-age KPP who stands at around 187cm who's only attribute is his one-on-one contesting ability. He literally offered nothing else. Even if he was picked up for 'depth', why not go with a younger KPP who at least has a similar height to AFL KP forwards but who also shows other attributes and perhaps more room for improvement in his overall game. It's such an MFC pickup. Can't understand it.

If we improve to the point where we are challenging for a flag then I agree, Howe will look top notch.He has a really good set of attributes and he'll look a lot better and a class above as our team improves and as we climb the ladder. Howe at Hawthorn would be as dangerous and as effective as Jack Gunston in my view. once we get our engine room firing, Howe will be an extremely dangerous player.

For anyone who is concerned with Petracca not being able to match it against men as heavy and as thick as him at AFL level, remind yourselves of what Ollie Wines has been able to achieve in his first two years at Port. They're almost identical in body shape. And they both play hard, contested footy. Petracca and Brayshaw are the players we need. Lever if Petracca isn't available.