stevethemanjordan

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/afl-draft-2015-melbourne-and-essendon-keen-on-sam-weideman-but-must-weigh-up-risk-v-reward/news-story/961caef11d039dc9fe7d5dbf8c59803f Seriously. Get him.

Why unlikely? From everything I've been hearing from our own recruiting staff (Taylor) to draft 'experts', it sounds quite likely that we'll go one mid and one tall and I'd like to think that tall is a natural forward. Which is why I like Weideman. I think he'll be there at 7 and I think he possesses the right mix of traits including his personality which will see him succeed at the top level. The question mark is obviously his injury history. But I've heard he's having an individual combine screening for a few clubs, (including us) to see how he's progressed. Given Taylor and co's record at finding some gold at later picks and the rookie draft (ANB and Vandenberg), and considering our all three of our new recruits have the capacity to run through the midfield, I'm not sure why we'd be drafting two mids with 3 and 7 unless they were players deemed to be steals. It's clear we need future support for Hogan and we know the best forwards go inside the top 10 in the draft. Weideman over Curnow for me because he is clearly the more natural forward and if you hear the bloke speak, you'll see that he's the kind of character we'd want at the club. That's just my feeling.

I'm the same, Parish and Weideman

For a top 10 pick and where our club is at with it's list, I want a surer bet than Curnow. I disagree on his football smarts and draft profiles I've read also seem to think it's a weakness. You've named contested marking as his strength. The ability to 'move well' as a tall forward in the AFL these days is almost a prerequisite. His pace isn't great either, I'm not sure why you say otherwise. The sample size over his last two years is not big enough for us to justify taking him at 7 let alone 3 in my view. Again, he is a bundle of 'potential' at under 18 level and whilst I understand recruiters are looking at these guys with an image of what they'll become a few years down the track once at an AFL club, I can't see the MFC in it's current state taking him. We'll see what happens. Wouldn't be surprised if he went at 10 or later though.

I guess the term 'natural' footballer may differ slightly depending on who you speak to. I'm talking football specific skills like kicking, handballing, ball-handling, tackling, competing as well as possessing footballing smarts which also encompasses a number of other elements that are learnt from playing from a young age. I don't want to hear the words 'he's still raw' or 'he has the potential to be'. To me they are words that are linked to players who are not 'natural' footballers but players who possess some freakish ability, a couple of elite traits, (in this case running capacity for his height and size and contested marking) but other than that a whole lot of 'potential'. If you flick to 45:55 of this video, you'll see how awkward he looks hand-balling on his left hand, picking the ball up off the deck and doing the kicking test. It's not that I'm basing my opinion on him from these few seconds, but it does back up the knocks on him that I have read from draft profiles. His weakness's are field kicking, ball-handling below his knees, speed off the mark and footy smarts. For someone who is meant to be a versatile tall who could be 'anything', they're not the kind of attributes you want to be struggling in. Compare that to Francis. Francis is a natural footballer. He executes every fundamental football specific skill to a very high standard and is a very competitive player. Athletically, he's not as gifted. But there are no question marks with his footballing ability. Just like there weren't with Brayshaw. Now if Curnow was a key forward and had been playing that position and dominating over the last few years it'd be a very different story. But he's not. He's a midfielder turned forward because of a growth spurt and hasn't dominated either position. The MFC can't slip up with another high draft pick. They can't afford to. We still need players who will help build the fabric of the club and in my opinion Curnow is not that player. We need footballers. Not potential footballers.

Cannot understand the Jake Stringer/Charlie Curnow comparison. The more vision I watch of him, the more I dislike him. Sure he's got some athletic gifts, really strong running ability etc. But he isn't a natural footballer. That's for sure. Of course I am no expert, and we may well take him with pick 7, (can't see it being pick 3) but to me, he just looks like one of those guys that will always struggle to make a consistent impact at AFL level. This whole 'body of work/evidence' over a two year period is pretty important. And Curnow's isn't great. Obviously injury didn't help him. But for where we are and for the reason we traded to get two picks within the top 10 says to me that Curnow will be an unlikely choice for us. Too risky.

Agree he'll be huge for us once he gets a couple of full AFL pre-seasons under his belt because currently he is well behind which is scary to think about considering the impact he had for us this year. He is the kind of player you can't help but fall in love with. The thing I love about players like him is how they manically chase when an opponent has the ball even up to 20 metres away.. Brayshaw, Viney and Vanders all have the instinct to chase and pressure without question. I won't name names but there are still a handful who do not possess that sort of urgency and they need to take a leaf. Aside from that, he's actually a really smart footballer with a great overhead mark and an ability to hit the scoreboard. A full pre-season of running without interruption and he could well become one of our most important starting mids with his size, aggression and versatility.

Green improved his physicality over the course of his career no doubt and this was highlighted especially by his 'running back with the flight' style marks and spoils that stick in my mind as something that clearly weren't acts that he attempted from the get-go. In the first few years of his career he certainly did look timid and played without a 'presence'. But through the middle and toward the end of his career, regardless of his weaknesses as a player, you could certainly see a visible change in the way he played and he began to play with an assertiveness that clearly gave him the confidence to go for those types of marks and spoils. You hope that all players will improve that aspect of their game as they grow both in age and games experience and this is all we can hope with Watts. Levels of fearlessness, physicality, competitive nature, aggressiveness etc, etc vary in all players. On one end of the spectrum you have players like Jack Viney and Joel Selwood who possess these traits in spades. The antithesis of these two are players like Watts and Grant. (Please refrain from pointing out that Watts is '10 times the player Grant is' as it's completely missing the point). Grant is the perfect example of a player who cleary hadn't improved in the areas I'm talking about. Aspects of the game in which the game itself demands a certain level of. I seem always read posts trying to pointing out that 'Watts will never be a pack crashing/bone crunching/rib tickling player'. Something that would have been fairly obvious from day one. Does it mean he's exempt from ever having to display or improve in these areas he lacks? From what I read about Jack these days, it honestly seems like there are posters who believe so. Which only further highlights the task he's facing. I want Jack to succeed. But time is running out as our list improves and the club moves forward. Next year, he must show more of a presence and consistently improve in his physical approach to the game. If not, I fear the worst for him.

On par with my Ectomorph comment PD.

Salem the ectomorph? (I should never have opened my mouth).

Would rather him or Daw as back up to Gawn over Spencer.

Couldn't care less about the fixture. Only good thing is that we play most of our games at the G in the early rounds which we should take advantage of and come out with a bang. 'If it is to be, it is up to me.' (Us).....

Seriously. Have been having a think about him and whether or not we'd be tempted to pick him at 7 if we go with one of Curnow, Francis or Weideman with pick 3. I understand why he's not being talked up as a top 10 draft pick but as far as elite skills, agility, football smarts and general lording go, he'd have to be top one or two surely. He is Cyril's nephew and he looks like he could be every bit as good. The question then becomes: Will he? Here's a little story. I used to play footy for Old Scotch in the Amo's, (the school in which Cyril boarded) and a handful of the blokes I played with either finished in the same year, played school footy with him or were mates with him. A particular conversation that remains with me was the story of why a player with his elite football skills and athletic capabilities went outside the top 10 in the draft and basically there were two main reasons. The well documented one being that some of his combine test results were less than satisfactory and had made recruiters question his work ethic and application. But the more significant reason and one that still makes me smirk is that during the interview process with clubs at the combine, he'd choose (depending on which club it was) to either present really well or to present really poorly. And this, (so I was told) was the main reason he wasn't picked up before Hawthorn and Hawthorn was where he was keen to go to. Now whether you choose to believe it or not, I don't mind. However, it certainly gives me a bit of perspective, (albeit from a sit-at-home draft expert) when assessing potential 'risk' factors involved in taking a player who certainly hasn't 'dominated' numbers wise at TAC cup or Nationals level. As they say, we're assessing these kids on the players they'll become, not what they already are. Daniel Rioli has elite AFL traits and attributes. He is the type of player that we are genuinely crying out for. He is as talented as his uncle. He performed unbelievably well at the draft combine unlike Cyril. Unfortunately I don't know what his strategy was during interviews... I think our list and club are now in the position to draft a player like him, (who doesn't have favourably comparable numbers to the other highly rated players being spoken about). I think it's time we take someone with his talent levels and develop him into the player we hope he could become. It seems a long shot, but I'm convinced. (That handball at 38 secs. GTFO.)

He'll build a frame as long as he has the desire to work as hard as he can, (which from what I've read, is one of his strengths). He looks 'athletic' rather than skin and bone. The frame is there. Obviously the most crucial element in this hypothetical is how we'd develop him, what position we'd play him early in his career and what role he'd be given early days. As far as his attributes go, I think he'd compliment our midfield rotation nicely. I look at what Collingwood have done with Steele Sidebotttom, Freo with Stephen Hill, Hawthorn with Bradley etc. From the day they were drafted they were developed and nurtured appropriately and obviously those individuals benefitted from having strong lists but I think Melbourne supporters are still scarred and scared about what happened with players like Toumpas, Gysberts, Morton etc etc. I'll back our current coaching group to pick up whoever and give them the best preparation and chance to succeed at AFL level. Our list depth/quality and coaching group now should alleviate these worries that supporters have when it comes to drafting players like Parish. Whoever it is at 3 and 7, I'm confident they'll be staple best 22 players in a few years at the very least.

Some good points. Just on the Toumpas/Wines talk, I still firmly believe that the book is still open. It'll be interesting to revisit the debate at the end of their careers but I have no doubt Toumpas will eventually show why he was so highly rated. He's a confidence player, we played him too early in his career with a limited pre-season and coming off hip surgery. It was basically a horrible snowball effect. He will play his best footy with Port and I think the change is what will contribute to that.

As a DFA, why such a definitive no?

I remember it clearly also. I'm talking about him as a forward and the thought is again mainly about having depth and creating some more competition for spots. Hogan, Dawes and Pedo are our only three permanent KPF. McDonald, Garland and Frost are swingmen. Frost is certainly not a natural forward and Garland and McDonald have played 99% of their AFL careers as defenders and I really don't like the idea of either of them moving forward next year in any sort of capacity. They need to be our rocks next year as defenders. It just makes sense to throw a bloke like him a lifeline. King needs to keep maturing and next year it'd be nice to see him play some really solid VFL firsts football. Most teams have 4 + natural kpf. We don't and we need backup until we unearth another really talented player. Watson is a safe backup with the potential to be a handy player forward. Especially if Dawes or Pedo break down again.

Was wondering whether or not he was. Even better.

I've a sneaking suspicion we may give this bloke a lifeline. 23, former top 20 pick, never showed much as a defender but has shown glimpses as a forward. (Including the game against us). He's got a mature body, a nice shot at goal and he'd provide some good depth and competition for Dawes and Pedo which in theory would improve training and playing form of both those two. Even if we end up drafting a young KPF at pick 3 or 7, you'd think that player spends most of the year at Casey unless he's tearing it up every week. I'm sure there'll be mostly negative responses to the proposed idea but we wouldn't be giving much up and we're pretty light on for KPF. I'd be happy to pick him up with pick 50 in this years draft if he were still there. Thoughts?

He's guessing like the rest of us. I wouldn't be worrying too much about what people like Anderson are saying.

I don't wish to compare him to a player like Fyfe but for those questioning his height and therefore his position, I'd like to point out that Fyfe in his draft year was predominately a forward and was a similar height. The difference with Francis is that he has played midfield through the champs. He also looks to be a really natural footballer. Similarly is an aerial specialist to Fyfe and is really competitive and is a great contested player. I want us to take him at 4 as I think he's such a point of difference and looks like such a well rounded player.

It was jokes.

We must nail 3 and 7. Must. We've done so well over the last three years with our early picks. Considering the club will chase a big name mid again next year, (from all reports it'll be Prestia), I can see us going Francis with pick 3. He just looks so well rounded and seems to tick so many boxes. Questions on his tank but it means little. As long as he has the desire to work hard at AFL level he'll build one. He is so skilful, really competitive, great contested mark and has already been plying a bit through the midfield. Surely he's a must. At 7 we go best available mid. Would love Rioli as a player who can add that speed and skill dimension. Not sure he'd go top 10 though. Parish and Francis would be ideal but I can't see either being there at 7.

Except the Toumpas and Hodge one yeh?

Reckon we need a tall at the pointy end of the draft. We're not a very tall side and we have a couple of NQR talls on our list presently.