Dees247

43 minutes ago, Dees247 said:

On today’s Road to the Draft Podcast, they said that the Dees were keen to split pick 8, and suggested we might do it with the Cats, for 14 & 17. Also suggested Weightman might still be there at those picks. Went on to say that we weren’t going to risk loosing the player we want at 8 though. So I’d assume if we (somehow) knew we would get Weightman at 14, we would trade 8, take Weightman at 14, and take 17 to the draft.

I forgot to mention that they also said that Kemp may be there at 14 and 17 too. If we could get Kemp and Weightman (for pick 8) it would be a no brainer

On today’s Road to the Draft Podcast, they said that the Dees were keen to split pick 8, and suggested we might do it with the Cats, for 14 & 17. Also suggested Weightman might still be there at those picks. Went on to say that we weren’t going to risk loosing the player we want at 8 though. So I’d assume if we (somehow) knew we would get Weightman at 14, we would trade 8, take Weightman at 14, and take 17 to the draft.

1 hour ago, rjay said:

He could well end up better...who knows.

I think we will keep 3 now and take Young, it makes sense to me anyway.

I'm not sure what could be on offer that would make us split it...

7 & 10.

3 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Are you sure that would be better than 3, 10 and 22?

Yes, if you look at who is available, I would rather 7, 8 & 10 (personal opinion)

1 hour ago, Deemania since 56 said:

That would be the best result, I'd agree. The field is tight and the daylight is not wide between what is available. Some astute on-lookers already identify three or four great pick-ups, and 3 and 8 would get two of them. Go for the jugular - do not bargain with available picks. 

Best result would be having 7,8 & 10 imo

38 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

People need to actually get their head around the fact that maybe JT is actually genuinely interested in Jackson. This whole thing that he's playing games with Freo is just laughable.

Go back to the podcast with Jason Taylor and it actually makes sense why we are targeting Jackson. They see him starting his career as a key forward which is exactly a big need for us as there are still question marks over Weideman.

 

I agree, and think he could legit go at 3, even though I would rather others (same at 8 too)

46 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Isn’t that exactly what Cody Weightman is?

Yes. Jack Higgins is even this mentor

4 hours ago, Dante said:

Yes, but would we accept 7, 10 and 15, which was proposed by LH?

We will not get 7&10 for 3, unless Bell owes us one and after reading that Hogan has had more "extensive surgery", I doubt he will feel he does.

 

No, we wouldn't take 7,10 & 15. I also doubt we would get Freo's 7 & 10, for 3. But if a bid is going to come in early for Henry (there is a rumour Sydney are going to bid at 5), then maybe they will want our 3,to get ahead of it (and possibly get Jackson).

45 minutes ago, Dante said:

We can get the players we want with 3 & 8, not the leftovers after the other clubs have had their pick of the crop.

If they offered Taylor that and he accepted, I'd expect they'd buy him a new house and a car.

I suspect we would take 7,8 & 10

14 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Looks like the jungle drums are beating loudly.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/gun-wa-ruckman-luke-jackson-has-been-invited-to-draft-night-at-marvel-stadium-and-is-ready-to-move-with-melbourne-demons-and-adelaide-crows-threatening-to-scoop-the-fremantle-dockers-ng-b881371132z

Can anyone who is a subscriber let us know what it says?

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Draft Guru’s attempt at solving the mystery of draft pick 3 ~

WHO WILL GO PICK NO.3 IN THE DRAFT? SHEEHAN THROWS UP TWO NAMES

 

I have mentioned this before in other threads, but feel it’s again relevant here: If you listen to this interview, this “draft guru” says that we might trade pick 3 for a couple of picks in the teens. Surely not..

6 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Yep have to agree.  Not a great idea and strange thing to say after highlighting the attractions/strengths of Young & Flanders at 3.

I haven't listened to the interview so i'm taking your word that he wasn't asked about some rediculous scenario by Derwayne or someone and gave some answer that was tongue in cheek or being flippant.

Yeah I even went back to listen a 2nd time, to make sure I heard right lol

10 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

In terms of his knowledge base on the top 20 to 30 or so 247.

I don’t doubt that, I was just surprised that he said we might trade 3 for two picks in the teens.

51 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Because if you had that draft again Grundy would go pick 1 or maybe pick 2 after Whitfield.

He has: O'Rourke, Plowman, Toumpas, Mayes, Menzel, Jaksch, Corr, Garner, Thurlow, Simpson and everyone after pick 18 clearly covered.

You can make an argument for Macrae, Wines, Stringer, Vlastuin I guess but it's Grundy right?

If you think Jackson is even remotely similar to Grundy then he has to be in the conversation for at least pick 8. 

I remember at the time he was considered a top 5 talent, but slipped way out. Even at the time they were saying that the Pies got a steal.

27 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode?id=455137

Extract and link to the podcast above. 

Sheehan highly respected in draft circles.

You say he is highly respected, but in this interview he says that we might trade Pick 3 for a couple of picks in the teens. (I wrote this in another thread, but it seemed relevant here too).

22 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

If that were to be the case, we may as well just burn down the entire joint.

It’s a worry, this guy is meant to be one of the experts

38 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Thinks Flanders is a chance at 3, along with Young. Also says that the Dees are considering trading 3 for two picks in the teens (wtf?)..

When asked about Weightman, and other good small forwards, he pointed out how rare they are. He also said that when we traded for 8, we didn't have a specific player in mind.

When asked, he also said that Green was in the mix, and pointed out that we have bid on other academy players before, with the intention of actually taking them. He also mentioned Henry in passing. He hinted that there could be many potential trades of our picks.

13 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Luke Jackson in frame for pick 3. See him as a forward option. Don't see him as a full-time ruckman at AFL level. If we drafted him, would be playing with the forward group.

Interesting!

I think he was meaning he would be a forward early in his career.

1 hour ago, Mach5 said:

I still think this is a big change of happening.

GWS have, in terms of 2020 picks:

- GWS 1st round pick

- GWS 2nd round pick 

- GWS 3rd round pick

- North 3rd round pick

I think to satisfy us, it’d have to be pick 6, 1st and 2nd round picks at a minimum. Maybe even a third too. In a very weak & compromised draft, GWS should be content to trade out, just as we’d expect more in return than you normally would.

The other possibility is that we’re simply keeping pick 3, but want to prime GWS for us to bid on Green, to solidify our reputation as straight-shooters and ensure we have more options at 8.

I’d be bloody happy with Green, but they’ll never allow it to happen.

I think GWS have tried to be too cute, not working hard enough to complete a trade using players, or acquiring good enough assets before the end of the trade period, with the assumption that we’ll eventually trade as it gets the best net result for us.

The fly in the ointment is that I’m not sure we’re willing to give a competitor such an advantage without significantly benefitting ourselves (and bringing their position back into line).

Interesting times.

I could be wrong, but isn’t there a rule that, if you trade out your future 1st, you can’t trade out picks from any other rounds (unless you have more than one pick in a round)? If this is right, it would mean the best we could hope for is their 1st & a 3rd?

1 minute ago, JakovichScissorKick said:

He looks like one of those really annoying little [censored] who opposition fans despise as theyre so irritating  but  can tear teams apart  ...  ie.  Milne, Toby Greene

I'd love him at the Dees....  pick 8 might be pushing it  however

Yeah he is one of those players. He likes getting in the face of the opposition ?

3 hours ago, BAMF said:

I just watched the VIC Country Vs WA game as I thought it would be a good one to watch as I knew it was a close finish.

I was wrong. Weightman had a quiet game. WA pressure meant that VC sucked in the first half which was annoying as all the players I wanted to watch were all playing for VC.

Weightman Highlights:

Q1. A great tackle at the start of the match. This was nearly the only highlight for VC in the first half. WA dominated with pressure and VC never really got going. 

Q2. Was involved in a few passages which are barely worth a mention. It was a bad first half to be a small forward as the ball didn't come down that way often.

Q3. A great quarter. Looked lively, kicked a goal and was ferocious with some of his tackles. 

Q4. Was not involved in anything worth talking about. Virtually unsighted

Summary: Earlier in the thread I said that his highlights from the Stingrays didn't show any small forward talent. I was wrong. This boy can play the small forward role, just not the way I thought he would. He is lively, always on the move, positions himself well and has amazing pressure to lock it in the forward 50. He isn't the mercurial goal sneak that I expected but he does have talent. I will need to watch the other VC games as this one didn't show much.

I have no idea why I am bothering to spend so much time researching a kid I don't think we should take, but here I am... I have even created a video of the highlights mentioned above for you guys to watch. I realised early on that there wouldn't be any sound but didn't realise that it would have that watermark in the middle of the screen until it was finished. Just so you know the programme I used was [censored] and I would not recommend it to anyone. Started to crash once the file got too big which was concerning for a 3min video.

 

I watched the Vic Country vs SA game & he kicked 2 in the first quarter, another in the second and another in the second half. He is definitely a goal kicker, he only needs one opportunity and he’ll pretty much kick a goal.

On 10/22/2019 at 1:17 PM, Demon3 said:

I heard not long ago that pick 3 will head west to Freo, leaving us with 7,8 & 10. 3 picks inside the top 10. 

Cue.. who's your source and all that, but thats from someone who would have a good idea. 

At the time of this post, I didn't think that this was going to happen. But the more I've thought about it, the more it makes sense, and I now think that realistically, it may occur. Fingers crossed.

2 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Can you kindly point me to where he said it Axis? Was it on the radio? I just cant find anywhere in print where he's used those words - only journos interpreting the other line to mean an area we want to address . . . at the draft. 

Yeah I heard him say that too. It was on Trade Radio