old55

I'd love to see those quotes. I saw someones else posting that we are going for the "best available tall forward". I find that very hard to believe. Yes Bailey said he wants another tall forward and that's where we went after Hale and despite his denial are interested in Thorp. But IMO there's no way Barry will go for anything other than who he thinks is the best player, full stop, with pick 12. And the odds are overwhelming that will be a mid.

Good point. Maybe GC with 9 of the first 15 and 7 before our pick 12 will go a bit left field too with the later of these picks to our advantage. If GC don't like Gorringe for some reason and WC, Brisbane and Richmond take Heppell, Gaff and Polec as widely predicted, and with Essendon in dire need of a mid and Hille and Ryder there - Gorringe may be available at 12. I wonder if we like him?

Yeah, yeah ... But what supporting evidence do you have for this direct statement: I given you the pertinent Collingwood example which doesn't seem to support your "opinion"

FMD, I wasn't comparing the season result, I was comparing the experience of the coaching panel! .

It's a good post Sylvinator. The thing that stands out to me is how drafters opinions divide later on in the draft - we got Gawn (rated earlier than 18) at 34 and Fitzpatrick (rated earlier than 34) at 50. That just shows how valuable this year's picka at 32, 49 and 52 can be - again we could get access to players we rate in the top 20-30. It show why trading out Kyle Cheney for an extra earlier pick and making the hard decisions on Junior, PJ and TMac can pay off more than the seem to on the surface.

Yes but it doesn't have any reference point - how about a comparison with the experience of the reigning Premier's coaching staff: Malthouse, Neeld, Buckley, Watters, Hudghton, Gavin Brown (replaced) Aside from Malthouse's massive experience is there a big difference between their assistants and ours?

Nope sorry I freely admit I have no idea about draft talent. I've never seen an U18 player kick a ball and even if I did there's no guarantee I'd be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. I think it takes a special skill. I do like to look at the patterns and theory of drafting though. Barry has 2 years of picks history now, I think he's on record saying you can't solve all your problems in one draft. 2008: Watts, Blease, Strauss, Bennell, Jetta, Bail, Jurrah, McKenzie, Healey 2009: Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Tapscott, Gawn, Fitzpatrick I'd like one more year of data to draw any conclusions about his persuasions. On the evidence so far I wouldn't be backing a tall at 12. There's Watts and Jurrah there in the 190-196 KP range and they were special cases. Fascinating [© Wilson] to see what happens.

Please also post your top 25 saves from burning orphanages

Good to see you happy then

Hale was clearly plan A and if we got him I guess Sinclair or similar would not be required. When the Hale deal fell through I'm hoping we had plan B and maybe that's where Sinclair might fit in, but maybe there wasn't time to organise a deal with GC.

So "The Dr" returns Just link to it: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=773539

I think you're onto it there 007. It seems we're not that keen or else we would have struck a deal with GC. I reckon rookie at best.

really? clearly the FD don't agree with you Yep all those 200 gamers picked up at 90+ in the rookie draft

Indeed, and the rest had a strong feeling that Bruce is headed north!

Happy with that outcome, as rpfc says: - Delist PJ and TMac get ND picks 49 and 52 - Delist Newton get Rookie pick 90 or something They're different decisions. We need a mature age ruckman somewhere in our 9 picks as depth if Jamar and Spencer are unavailable. Can be a rookie pick. I don't think Newtion is primary ruck depth he's fwd-2nd ruck, it's a different role. Fitzy and Gawn not ready for primary ruck. Martin - who knows? Ultimately if PJ is still there in the rookie draft and he's best available ruckman we can take him. Same goes for TMac - if he's best available at an RD pick we should pick him.

Yep Saints, Cats, Hawks or Dogs should rookie him.

Chris Scott said they're contenders in 2011 and he doesn't believe in re-building, the cycle or premiership window - he says a team can always be in the top 8. I reckon that might be true but that team may never win a flag. It will be fascinating to see if Geelong and Sydney can win another flag in the next 5 or so years. I think if everything went right for Geelong (and went wrong for some other teams) they could win the 2011 flag but I reckon from then on they start to progressively lose key personnel - Ottens, Scarlett, Mooney, Ling, Chapman, Enright and Corey. While Johnson, Bartel, Kelly, Mackie, Taylor, Varcoe and Selwood can keep them in the 8, they cannot win them flags. I think St.Kilda has a wider window - they lose the rucks King and Gardiner who are key to their game plan but the next oldest are Hayes and Milne and they have a couple ofyears left, then there's a couple of years gap to Riewoldt, Fisher and Kosi who will all still be around in 2014. IMO St.Kilda need to draft ready-to-go certainties and go for it. I might even rookie Travis.

calluses?

I usually reserve my "disbelief and anger" quota for decisions more important than Michael Newton vs Rookie Draft pick 90 I hope we retain him.

Yes but it's sort of self-regulating because I think the real prospect of stars, where you really want to pick one is at the start of the first round and by definition the "building" clubs have those picks and get access to Naitanui, whereas the "finishing" clubs have the later first rounders and get access to Rich. It's not a rule though, Geelong was building even though they didn't have pointy picks, and look at Cyril Rioli. Yes a key addition - I had Jurrah 30-95 but where's the mean? McAdam or Franklin?

Peanuts - I am thinking the scoring system is universal so that a mid at 90 is better than a CHF at 80 and vice versa - maybe that's impossible and I'm mad. Can you score current mature players out of 100 on the same scale - N.Riewoldt, Ablett, Sandilands, Hodge? Bob - On the Rich v Naitanui question, I think with top 5 picks you really want to get a star - they're so hard to find, 85 is not star enough (while Scully's 92 is) so I'd take Naitanui despite the risk of a bust. I think that's what happened in reality with Rich too.

Tom Scully - I prefer certainty. I think each player has a range of possible outcomes - this could be represented as a score out of 100. Scully has a high, tight range say 85-92. He wont be worse than 85. Watts (say 75-95) and Jurrah (say 30-95) have a higher maximum potential but a greater range.

"Look, LOOK! Behind you - the witch, THE WIIIIITCH!!!" "And guess what - Dil turns out to be a man!!!" "The guy with the limp IS Keysor Soze" "Son, there's no Santa" Need I go on ....

Agree with this - with the youth obsession some players over 30 are getting retired early. With unrestricted free agency from 2012, uncontracted players with 10 years service will be able to move clubs (there's restricted free agency up to 10 yerars service) http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=89810 It would also be good to encourage genuinely delisted 30+ year olds to stay in the game. Maybe clubs could be allowed one 30+yo outside the senior list who was picked up at 30+ and not count their salary in the TPP - these players could be selected in the ND or PSD. That way players like Junior, Tarkyn Lockyer etc could get a further opportunity. There would have to be a mechanism to stop required players e.g. Pav using this mechanism to move clubs - but they will probably use the Free Agency anyway because they can ensure they get to the club they want. Maybe a salary cap on the player selected on this list would work.

Agree that can't be a bad thing - we are abnormally sh!t there and need to fix it!