rpfc

It's hard to stave off the Syndrome though - I keep thinking: "what's the catch? At what point will this blow up in my face?"

I don't think he has registered entirely with me... What is he? 20? He just got 11 clearances, kicked two goals and had 27 disposals against a very good midfield. WTF?

And make those new players earn it.

So: Tyson and 53 for pick 22 and 73? That's a good deal...

Yeah, if we want to move away from comparisons - I like that he is neat, takes the game on and tries to not waste a possession. He's composed. He doesn't have great speed, but he does know where the footy will be. That's the toughest skill to learn for a mid.

I wanted to get away from the forward-midfielder comparison to a pure midfielder comparison. He finds the footy and links up well. Stanton does the same (from time to time), he is neat but not explosive. He is a good player Stanton. JKH can punch through this ceiling but he has already shown me that this is what he can get to on exposed form.

He reminds me of Brent Stanton, minus the clangers of course. Wins the footy, can link up, knows where to run.

A harder, bigger Dal Santo. Pendlebury is a very high shelf... Love his attitude and confidence - never rushed, short memory with mistakes, doesn't give the footy away in close.

I always find it funny when 'experts' say someone was taken too early. History will judge that. Every year, in every draft regulated sport, there are experts saying that players were taken too early. You just can't tell who will slip through to a later pick, or who will represent value in a few years when the dust settles. Look at Fyfe - I don't recall much fanfare but if we took him many picks earlier would the 'experts' have said we are 'reaching' and that we should have gone for someone else? They wouldn't say it now...

You say 'forget priorities' and then describe a mid first round and before second round priority picks under the old system. So you don't want to forget the priorities? I am all for equalisation - and that includes a team's list when they are perennially bad - what annoys me is when Melbourne supporters fall into the trap set by other supporters that drone about it as a form a 'undeserved welfare.' Or that 'we had our chance' with these priority picks and 'screwed them up' but do they know that Sylvia, Scully and Strauss were the only PPs we have received? They are including all our early draft picks in that empty argument. And how does that hold up? We chose poorly at the draft so we shouldn't be able to draft anymore? Equalisation isn't a 'give it one shot' situation... So I would say 'don't forget the priorities' to the commission. It is a part of the rules (!) that they can be given out to teams that need them to compete. So how about 'remember the god-damn rules' as a declaration to get behind?

Lovely. Or someone who can't play in the cold I presume?

I wonder if people have a different opinion of Frawley now. His value is going up. The thing about losing him is not just losing a very good player (that's bad remember - you always complain about that), you are also hamstrung in Free Agency once again. We won't want to go after players as it will dilute our probable Pick 3-5 compensation for Frawley. I hope we keep him and he will be well paid - we don't have much talent to pay, so the talent we do have is overpaid. Deal with it.

Internal pressure from Members and coterie members after the Essendon game last year led to the aftermath.

I try not to individualise drafting, recruitment, or development strategy - it's been a collective failure on all fronts for the club over the past decade. Those that want to hold grudges can do so, it looks petty anyway. But those who are genuinely looking for ways to get better (or reasons why we have been so bad) - can't ignore past failures as a point of reference. Ignoring the reasons that have led us to this point is not healthy.

Take your own advice - if you don't like people judging how we went in the 2011 draft - don't click on a thread titled '2011 Draft'...

lol What the hell is the problem with talking about past drafts? Or is the drafts we do badly in we can't mention? Honestly, think before you post.

To expand: we traded Pick 12 for Clark. A fruitful year to be sure... But lower down on the list of drafting failures.

Come off it - what do you say when someone has a similar refrain about Jake Spencer?

*backs out of thread slowly*

I find that saying 'he wants $X - that's ridiculous' is a little meaningless as the Salary Cap will near $10m next year. I would prefer to talk about percentage of the cap. And Betts 6%? That's ridiculous...

Had a fantasy auction and got Brees and Gonzalez as 'best in class' for their positions but had to settle for Gore and Ball as RBs to back up Lynch. Welker is a gem pickup IMO and I hope Mike Wallace can get near the puss that Tannehill will throw at him... I am pretty confident but we will see how the 49ers and the Broncos use their RBs before being too confident.

This is what I am talking about - Jetta is a mid. Tapscott doesn't get to the right areas, Kent is a baby and a mid, Bail is a mid, Blease is a wing. Only Davey and Byrnes are small forwards and they are both about to retire or a year away from it. Get a good small forward to work at the feet of Dawes, Hogan, and Clark and it will mean we keep the ball down there and are a more dangerous proposition.

196cm small forward... The idea is that Hogan and Dawes don't have to create a contest and then be asked to fight it out for their own crumb. I don't think we should fashion a forward line that sees Watts close enough to their space to crumb from them. Watts will bring his defender into the contest, and you don't want another 190cm+ defender competing with Hogan in the air. You want to isolate him and his man, and get a small into his area at the right time. And you cannot just plug a midfielder into the forward line and call him a small forward. If he doesn't get to the right areas and if he doesn't kick goals - he is going to be easy to defend. You have to have a small forward who is aggressive offensively and can also play a periphery role.

Yes, but I baulked at your assertion that we should 'get midfield types who get their own ball and kick goals'... It's much easier to find a small forward and make them useful up the ground or in a complimentary role. Teaching mids to play small forward is tough. Get a crumber, who reads the play well and has kicked goals and teach them a complimentary role.

rjay - you are being far too simplistic with this 'Small Forwards don't exist anymore' spiel. They do exist, but some have had to bring another skill to bear so as to avoid being one-dimensional as you say. Rioli goes into the middle and is aggressive in his defence work. LeCras goes up the ground linking with the midfield. Stokes runs through the midfield. But these guys, and others, are dynamite around goals. If you ever play in a team with dominant tall forwards (which I do) and you don't have a small forward smart enough to get to the right areas (which we don't), then you really feel the effects of wasted entries forward (which we do). A small forward who can read the play and be useful when he is not kicking his 3 goals are a great resource and definitely a priority once midfielders are found.