titan_uranus

Totally correct. Just because someone is better than the other players we have or have had, doesn't mean we should be drafting them. If the FD think Thorp is good enough to play CHF or FF or HF or whatever, then they'll take him. But they won't be comparing him to Newton or Miller or anyone else.

Just confirmed on 3AW that Rex has gone to MMM. I guess that means BT is taking his spot on 3AW. I've always listened to 3AW because I like Rex and Dennis Commetti. But I can't stand BT. I think I'll switch to MMM now.

Yeah you're right. I can definitely see him going to Essendon at 24 or 26. More likely now that McPhee's gone too. Which all just further perpetuates the idea that he isn't, and was never, going to get to Collingwood.

So we waste pick 11 because we want to make a point? He will not be the best option at 11. Taking him at 11 will be only to ensure he isn't taken by someone else before 18. Waste of a pick.

I hope that's a good thing... I'm too young to even know who Bill Barrot and Peter Moore are. But Akermanis, Michael, and Jolly all have the same thing in common. They had all won a premiership before they moved. Ball has not.

I just hope that Essendon decides to take Ball at 10 as a result of this. But I highly doubt they would do that.

The Bulldogs weren't a successful team when he left (end of 2003).

If we waste Pick 11 on Luke Ball I'll be livid. There is no justification for taking Ball that high. Absolutely none.

Like 1858 said, Judd already had a premiership when he decided to move. Big, big difference.

I would agree, except in football I'm not sure this happens. Can you think of someone who purposely left a successful club and went to an unsuccessful one? Most AFL footballers have one dream, and that is to win a premiership.

Not at the required price, no. Best available (kid) at 18.

I would think that Victorian kids would want to just get selected. PA might be the least preferred option, but as a kid you probably just want to hear your name get read out. So would I, actually. I'd prefer some other club to waste a higher pick than 18 on him, thinking we'll take him at 18. I really don't care what we say or do, to be honest, so long as we don't take him.

Good news for Richie Benaud fans: he's staying on for another 3 years in a downgraded role: http://www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/...ory/434568.html No more commentary after this season, but he'll be there for other things.

Good post. Of course I will, because by then he will be a member of the team. I just don't want him to be a member of the team in the first place. Well there's a flip if I ever saw one. And you can add Burgoyne to that list.

This sounds like draft tampering to me. But if the end result is that Connors dissuades us from taking him, then I'll be happy. He's not worth Pick 18. Let's start looking at young talent instead, and leave this crap for Essendon and Collingwood to deal with.

I'm going to stop arguing with you about whether or not Moloney was best 22. You said he wasn't. I say he was. Let's leave that one there. As for Tenace, I've never seen him play a good game of AFL level football. I just cannot see any possibly upside.

That doesn't mean they weren't best 22 at the time. Moloney was best 22 until they decided Ottens was more important. There's a reason for that.

Yes, well I hope he does... Play well, I mean. Like I said, though, I'm not sure he has it in him.

That's wrong RR. Moloney was best 22 for them. Geelong, though, realised that they weren't going to get Ottens without another high pick, and Ottens was more important to their team than Moloney. So they let him go. There is a marked difference between Prismall/Moloney and Tenace. The difference being that the first two are decent players. Tenace isn't.

Ball's body isn't in prime condition. In 3 years there's every chance he'll be struggling to play at AFL level. If the FD is happy to draft someone at age 26, which seems to fly in the face of our recruiting process of the last few years, then OK. But I don't know if he will be good enough or fit enough to be in our 22 in 4 or 5 years.

That is an absolutely ridiculous comparison to make. To even suggest that Kane Tenace is similar to Prismall or Moloney is a joke. Moloney was traded because Geelong needed picks to get Ottens. Prismall was traded because he wanted to leave. Neither player was delisted because Geelong thought they were crap. Tenace is nothing compared to those two.

The number 1 thing for Ball is to leave St Kilda. Since he didn't get traded, it leaves him with either ND or PSD. He chose ND because the PSD is a certain move to Melbourne. At least in the ND he has a chance of going somewhere else. According to Hannibal, he still thinks he can get to Collingwood. Pick 11?!?!? No way. I doubt that Ball will be in our best 22 when we are good enough to win the flag. I'd rather use our picks on 18 year olds.

Left Valenti (and I assume Buckley, don't remember) in the list of favourite players... If you don't have any ideas for new merchandise you should direct the club to Jaded's stuff.

Oh boy...

Turns 26 next year. How many more years can his body hold out for? I don't believe he is good enough, or will give this club enough, to warrant using Pick 18. There's also the matter of him not wanting to be here, but even that aside, I still don't think his return will be enough to make using 18 worthwhile.