rpfc

Surely that is a gust of wind of his shirt or something...

I don't think what I have said is conflicting, or necessarily ground breaking. All I have said is that the "group think" that sustains the chatter around the junior football circles has given some howlers when it comes to the 'best players from a draft class' - they have been so wrong, so often, and been so damaging to the equality of the game that it is something we should address. Of course, there is luck involved, but ours has been horrendous, an outlier amongst our peers in the league. I also wouldn't mind a club that went against what others 'think' they should do. The best example (off the top of my head) I can think of where a tiny bit of left field thinking paid off for us was when Todd Viney took Kent from the WA Colts program. The kid didn't make the WA team for the coveted U/18 Championships but looks to be born with a sherrin in his hands. Not even in the best 30 kids from WA, and yet he may be in the top dozen or so from that draft if my eye is right. As for whether the club is conducive to developing talent over the last few years - of course it hasn't been. And it has probably exacerbated the underlying 'luck' issue with drafting these teens; we needed to be stable, we needed to have good development structures, but we also needed to pick Dangerfield...

That's funny because I distinctly remember the AFL ruling that we didn't tank...

I believe it is best for both parties, but I want to also believe that Jack saw the need for him to do this and didn't take much convincing. I think the captain and the LG should be chosen at the beginning of every season. I don't like inheriting it because at some point you are going to be pilloried for not giving it up or for it not taken from you. I think they have short circuited that.

2m tall is short? BS. If you are 2m tall and 105kg and know how to use that frame - you are a force of nature.

At this point, BB - you are only making yourself seem immature.

Pedantry? I have been saying this for two months: just because the 'experts' claim they know who are the top talent they will be wrong. History and bitter experience proves this. Just because you 'think' all the other recruiters would have made so many mistakes - doesn't give credibility to your hypothetical. We will never know who Fremantle would have taken with Pick 11 or 18 in 2009. All we know is that they chose Fyfe at 20. And decisions like this is why we are where we are. I don't begrudge Prendergast or Cameron or anyone who wants to do this job - it's why I don't get involved in the vitriol that gets directed at Prendergast on here. But I am adamant that the mistakes that we made at the drafts between 2001 and 2011 (save for a couple of years) is why we have been so poor and why Roos has seen 19 changes to the primary list in his two off-seasons. If you want to discuss ways to make sure a club doesn't have a decade like we have had - that would be great. I would raise the draft age, I would have more picks, a number of 'train on' selections, and the ability for the club to leave the finalisation of their list till the eve of the season.

No, by the second half of the year the kids will be tired. Especially if they have played some AFL footy in the first half of the year. Cross, Bail and Kent may have different roles to Salem, CP, and AB. In fact, they almost certainly would have. They would have to be in great form to kick out those three players.

Your team would have too many kids. Kent should be showing what he is capable of on a consistent basis and Cross and Bail had the trust of Roos last year and played their roles. Brayshaw and Salem won't be able to fulfil the roles of Cross and Bail so quickly. Why can't these kids earn their game? You know, like a real club...

No, they are 'on the mark' - Emma does her 'phantom draft' on what her contacts tell her will happen, not what she thinks players should go at. And just because everyone gets something wrong, does not mean it is any less wrong. It just means that everyone is wrong.

Lets strip away a bit of nonsense - Jamar has a year left and his form has just not matched his 2010 I the years since. Gawn is a tremendous talent but can you bank on him? When he plays 1st ruck, he is cooked 15 mins into the 3rd. Spencer is a liability with the ball, which isn't a bad thing, but if you are a one dimensional player; it better be a bloody good dimension... Fitz is not solid enough an AFL player yet for 2nd ruck, let alone 1st. Pedersen undersized, and King is unfairly mentioned in this argument, he won't be ready until 2017 at the earliest. Watts in the ruck isn't a terrible idea but he is liable to be targeted and cut in half... Here is a name to help Jamar for 15 minutes a game - Hogan. He isn't foreign to the position and deals well with contact, and might actually appreciate the extra work and freedom. But, if Baulderstone, or some other ruckman from the state league is out there that can compete with Jamar - pick him up.

Didn't he win a flag at Norwood?

Better than Sylvia, Bell, and Gysberts. And we won't know where they are on the spectrum for years...

What are you referring to? I was saying that with regard to Dangerfield - we may end up with him through FA in a years time and have Petracca and Brayshaw. Have our cake and eat it too - so to speak.

If we were to give away 2 and 3, we would have got back more than Danger. I would have traded 2 and change for him. But the best bet may have always been to compete with all the other punters in FA. But I will reiterate what I said a few months ago - we need stars more than promise. I am very excited about what these boys might become. I am excited by what Dangerfield is.

Looks a good option. I am sure Gawn has the talent (and height) to be 1st choice ruckman - but the durability? Spencer has the spirit and desire - but the talent? Jamar has the ability - but the time? With King already on the RL, I don't think it wise to recruit another teenage ruckman. Either, get one ready to compete, or don't bother.

It's going to take years for the last two drafts to reveal themselves, getting frustrated with an opinion of reality is pointless - how we perform next year will prove me, and others, wrong if we begin to be a median team in crucial midfield statistics that usually dictates who wins. But I don't see it happening in 2015 (or even 2016); you can't expect a bunch of kids to take on the load of seasoned professionals. Dom Tyson exploded for us last year, in his third year in the AFL...

A clinic? Like an AusKick clinic? What an abstract celebration for a middle aged woman... I like it!

That's nice of him. Hi Nathan!

I hate to be the one to point this out but the thread title has '2015' in it. If these kids usurp the older players as the 5th, 6th and 7th best mid and take on the commensurate workload in the first year I would be surprised. I am not one to believe that Roos would put that pressure on them. Michie, Riley, McKenzie, and Newton will be given the chance with Matt Jones, Rohan Bail and Jimmy Toumpas. Then the kids will contribute as Roos sees fit. I put no ceilings on players, but equally, there are no trap doors for players 4 months from Rd 1.

They are in the mix. Hell, for all you know I could rate them 6th and 7th best mids at the club. But I haven't seen them play at AFL level yet, and until then - we have 5 mids and a number of auditions...

The top 10 mids at the Demons would be nowhere near the top 10 mids at Port. I think that Newton would back himself to win a spot in our rotation... 1. N Jones 2. Tyson 3. Vince 4. Cross 5. Viney From there it is M Jones, Bail, Michie, Riley, Toumpas, Trengove, McKenzie, Kent (Fwd?), JKH, Salem, Petracca, Brayshaw, Neal-Bullen, and Stretch. Some limited players and a bunch of kids. Newton should back himself to play a few games...

Redleg is simply saying that if we get another two kids on the RL that the LTI to Trengove will mean that Harmes is best placed to be the player elevated at the start of the season. Harmes needs to show something before he is to be considered for proper elevation like Jetta. I would get a Panos-type for this circumstance.

Yes, it is almost a bit surreal to think of the handwringing (my own aswell) over that trade - it now looks to have swung around entirely...

Yes, I remember it being a nuanced discussion, various opinions were: - it's not advisable to terminate contracted players, or to do it often more to the point - the rookie list is not seen by those on the primary list as a similar-in-all-but-name destination - that we should simply move on entirely and not bother offering a RL spot but 'honour the contract' - that we MUST offer the RL spot as 'honouring the contract' I am not certain there were many solidly against the use of termination and taking ND53 to the draft.