stevethemanjordan

I would take the three first round picks ahead of Clayton at this point in time full stop. For a multitude of reasons. Hope that's clear enough.

I didn't need facts to see that Pedo was carrying condition and I called it before pre-season had even started last year as did others. He ended up losing 10 kgs so you I'm assuming you saw him post weight loss. And I'm not calling these blokes fat. Because clearly they're not. I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you've played any reasonably high level sport and have undertaken any sort of skin fold testing it's actually quite easy to tell who is carrying and who isn't. At AFL level, it stands out. Kent is in the same boat as Pedo. Clearly, he is unsure of what an AFL athlete's lifestyle looks like. Just by looking at him, there's no doubt he could get his skinfolds down through both his diet and working harder on the track.

Okay, apologies. I believe that aside from Oliver, we have some players who have star potential. They're not there yet, just like Oliver isn't. If we were offered three first round picks for Oliver, I would be confident that we could hit the draft and nail at least one player inside the top 10 who would have similar star potential plus two other chances of gaining high quality players. The underlying point in all of this for me is that Oliver has shown potential at this stage imo. Yeh he had a great year. But I've seen this with young players before and I'm also aware of the type of person Oliver is, regardless of how he turned it around at the beginning of this pre-season. There's a lot of growing to do and a lot of water to go under the bridge before we can call him a 'star' of the comp. People use that term all the time. Whether it was Zaharakis in his first year, Gysberts after his first three games etc etc. So at this stage right here and now, I'd take the picks.

One only need look at him in a pre-season training singlet to see why.

He'll be picked up. I imagine he'll seek a trade. I'm not sure how Lennon is inferior to Balic given their similarities as players, their form at the lower levels and their wildly different draft positions. Frankly I think that Lennon has found himself at a club who have opted to go with a different setup in the forward-line. I thought he showed a bit against Casey in the semi a few weeks ago. Regardless, I'm not saying we need him. Only that I'd rather him to Balic given their positions/playing styles.

Also, @Rhino Richards seems to only 'like' posts these days that are either quoting mine, or someone else that he seems to take issue with. So on behalf of all of us that irk you Rhino Richards, I'd like to say hi. I miss talking football with you. Steve.

We're on a bit of a merry-go-round here but I'll try to be more clear. I recognize that Clayton is a highly talented inside mid who has had a superb second year as a developing player. Having said that, I also recognise that as a midfield, most of our talent is concentrated in a contested-heavy group comprised of Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca and to a lesser extent Tyson and Salem. All are top 10 picks, (Viney would have been) and all (bar Salem) were elite contested ball winning mids during their 18's year and imo share similar weaknesses as players. Now obviously it's completely subjective as to where one rates Oliver within that group of talent at this early stage in their careers. Petracca has already done an ACL, Brayshaw has had concussion and knee troubles, Salem hamstring and Thyroid issues and Jack had an interrupted year this season after having an unbelievable year in 2016, arguably as good as Clayton's 2017. Aside from Viney for his first two years, Oliver is really the only player of that group to have had true continuity in both his training and playing from the day he was drafted. The rest are still largely unknown but in my view the talent levels and potential are hard to separate with the exception of perhaps Tyson. (My whipping boy). Hypothetically speaking, if an opposition club were to come to me as head recruiter of the MFC with three first-round picks on offer for Clayton at this point in 2017, I would happily shake hands on the deal. Two picks inside the top 10 and one outside. Clarry's unique attributes imo are how clean he is around the ball, his vision in close and his hand-ball execution to the right target in close. Both Trac and Brayshaw are similarly strong over-overhead and as far as everything else goes, I think we possess enough inside talent to let Clarry go for three first round picks at this point in time. That's one reason. The second would be these factors: Given the recruiting team we have now, the type of characters we seem to target, the development coaches and leaders we have at the club presently, I would back the club in to successfully identify three players - (who once developed) - would provide a better and more even balance to our list given we can target positional players and greater attribute diversity. It would allow us to have a more even spread of high-end talent across the entire list. One only needs to look at GWS this year to see how important that is when injuries strike. A risk? Of course. It's all a risk. Rejecting three first-round picks for Clarry would also be a risk. But I would do the deal given the reasons I have provided.

I think view typifies the stereotypical one-eyed supporter. You talk clarry up, yet only rate Lever against Rivers without expressing the same level of love or confidence that he could too similarly be a star of the comp. I don't doubt Clarry's talent and I certainly think what he achieved and produced this year was very special for a second year player. But as Melbourne supporter, I'm used to players not reaching or fulfilling their potential. So as I said, at this point in time I would take the hypothetical swap. Ask me in a couple of years or even at the end of next year and my answer may be different. I see a lot of potential with our young group but it genuinely irks me that some think it'll just happen for us.

Not 9 draft picks. And that's for Danger or Martin who have performed at an elite level year after year. I know what Wiseblood was getting at, I just wanted to be a smartarse. But if you're asking me honestly about Oliver, I would take three first round picks over him, but as follows: Two inside the top 10 and one outside. I love Clarry as much as anyone, but I want us to unearth a genuine star of the competition. And we haven't done that yet or ever for as long as I've followed the club. I hope he continues this trajectory in both form and development because if he does, I may similarly say that you can't put a price on him. At present however, you can.

I would. Without blinking.

Pretty sure he's keen to get home (WA). I'm not sure he is what we need. If Kent got serious about his footy and had a big summer/lost weight and played to his potential then he could fill that role just as well. Hopefully Dion Johnson comes on a bit over the summer too. Would rather give Motlop a shot as a FA. Is more versatile and dynamic and is a serious player when at the top of his game.

Less clown activity, more footballer activity. Is in the same boat as Watts imo. If both completely and wholly devoted themselves to being elite athletes, (for more than one season) we'd see an enormous improvement in our side. I get the feeling Gawn just thought it would 'happen' for him again this year. And hopefully it's been a big slap in the face for him.

He's an inside midfielder and he needs to have an injury free pre-season and season to get a leg up and get back to the pack of his draft class. I disagree with those who believe footskills are a strong point. I'd say he has a neat short kick and his penetration on both his right and left probably fool supporters into thinking he is an elite kick. Handy that he is comfortable kicking on his left however. What sets him apart is his overhead marking for his size, his tackling and scrapping ability and generally his football smarts. But he is as pure as a pure inside mid comes and that's where he needs to start next year. None of this Half Back nonsense.

^ Oath.

In playing style? Or just the fact that he is similarly a high pick who can't get a regular game at the club who drafted him?

Would much rather Ben Lennon who I think is not too dissimilar, but has been in the system for a while and can't crack a game in Richmond's small forwardline.

He is another I'd love but I reckon he'll fall between 10 and 27 so mightn't be able to get him. I watched him a couple of weekends ago in ballarat and for someone who looks like a typically outside player given his physical stature, some of his defensive efforts, tackling and spoiling was super impressive. He looks like he'll be a very very good player. A great balance of attributes. Super quick, beautiful left foot and was happy to scrap. Looks like a classier version of Jasper Pittard but with the same competitive nature.

Coincidence? Methinks not...

A quality thread. Well done to everyone.

I'm pretty underwhelmed. He'd be another depth selection given his skill set isn't what we're screaming out for. He doesn't possess speed or great footskills so I'm surprised to hear we're targeting him. Hopefully just rumours.

I imagine that will be the most likely trade and whilst it does seem like a lot, I think we'd be asking for the same if the situation were reversed. I also think it's necessary. Supporters get too carried away with draft picks and Lever is proven quality at the age of 21. He's also the same age as our core and if we land him it'll be enormous for our club and that group moving forward. We picked Scully and Trengove at picks 1 and 2 once upon a time. Brayshaw is an unknown at this point as a pick 3. You take quality vs potential where you can. Two second round picks this year could also land us some fantastic quality if we get it right. There are more Sloanes and Fyfes out there ya'll. Edit: For @Redleg

No, there are clear differences. Differences in spotting talent and promising signs during a game (but not only limited to that game), from a not-yet-ready young and developing key forward in his second year Vs posters suggesting we should trade Weideman after Tom McDonald plays a handful of good games playing as a fill-in key forward. Given Tom's close relationship with the word 'inconsistency', it only adds to my point about posters putting too much weight on a few good performances before making absurd calls like that. I merely made the point that through some VFL performances (the box hill one especially), one can see Weideman's talent and why he was rated so highly. It's there to see. I didn't call him a star or that he'll become one. So no, given the context there was no hypocrisy in my post. I just should have elaborated on the differences.

Your issue if you can't spot the differences.

Fingers crossed eh. Means I can stop talking about O-Mac as much if we do get him.. I'm sure that will please a few.

All I know is that the more players of serious quality we have in the same team, the higher our chances are of reaching the ultimate. Even if that means one of our young stars seek a trade for big dollars elsewhere down the line. I would rather watch our club win a premiership over keeping a bunch of young players for 10 years. Times are changing, plan for the now with an eye to the future.