old55

We appear to have been posting at the same time. According to my approach: 11. as the old saying goes - 9 times out of 10 the Mid, the other time think about it for a minute then take the Mid 18. Now you're in the range where they may be close enough to equal - a good recruiter would admit a fair % error range. What's the relative likelihood that the KP will be a star compared with that mid? What do we need - do I assume KP? Neither of them sounds much chop at 18 actually - how does the ruckman look?

What's the likelihood that they'll play ANY effective AFL football. If there's any doubt about that then I wouldn't be using pick 11 or 18 on them. That would be the place I'd start. Then I'd move up through the levels. What's the likelihood they'll be a 100 game player? What's the likelihood they'll be a 200 game player? What's the likelihood they'll be a star? I would avoid getting involved in the relative value of roles - it's an impossible task. I'd just assess whether they can compete in the designated role. I hope for example that this is how we picked Watts over Naitanui and Rich last year. There is/was some possibility that Naitanui wouldn't play any effective AFL football - so Watts wins While they'll both probably play 200 games Watts is more likely to be a star that Rich - so Watts wins. If the two players in question had equal likelihood then I'd pick on need. I know it's not that simple but that's the basis for a decision. Otherwise you risk picking Molan over James Kelly.

Stef Martin? The PSD has been good to us. To pick up Luke Ball would be 3 good results in a row.

I don't think too many people will argue that Robbo does not still offer something significant offensively - but he's very selfish - 12 kicks means 12 shots for 5 goals. But it's his defensive play that is the big problem - when he's lying on his back while his man runs free. Yes he might kick 50 but he also might give up 30 from rebounds out of the forward 50. It depends whether Carlton can live with this or think they can reform him. We don't want players who play that way and we don't want that example set to our young players. I saw a dad seriously teaching his young son to kick goals back over his head on the weekend - hmmmmm - no doubt a Robbo admirer.

Sounds like Garry Lyon.

The 2001 draft is a good example of not fixing on a tall - OK if we didn't take Molan at 9 we would have had to take Matt Maguire, Aaron Rogers, Tom Davidson, LRT, Ashley Hansen, Henry Playfair or Brad Miller - sure some of them would've been better than Molan but we would've passed on Brent Reilly, Nick Dal Santo, James Kelly, Steve Johnson, Sam Mitchell and Leigh Montagna - all went before Hansen. We went tall with 3 picks in a row - but you can't pick a good tall if there isn't any there. we took: Molan - Rogers even best case talls: Maguire - LRT when we could've had: Dal Santo - Mitchell Brian Harris was taken at 71 in that draft, but then Dane Swan was taken at 58. Surely on that evidence no-one can say we MUST take talls at 11 and 18. Scully-Trengove-Maguire-LRT OR Scully-Trengove-Dal Santo-Mitchell which one are you going to be happiest looking back on? Best available.

How do you know? That's like saying there's not not going to be a lot to choose between the best midfielder available at 1 and the best KPP available at 1. There could easily be a standout mid or a standout KP there. Or more particularly - only doubtful KPs there. I'd like KPFs at 11 and/or 18 too but ... Best available and if that means 4 mids - so be it.

Unfortunately as unpalatable as this attitude may be it's pretty accurate when you compare us with Adelaide, West Coast or Collingwood. We're on our last chance to get permanently out of debt, establish a sustainable, profitable business model and wiin a flag with the current group of players. It's this 10 years that's make or break for MFC.

Emma Quayle interview on BigFooty: http://bigfooty.com/forum/blog.php?b=783

Resident Draft Dreamer!

Only thing interesting about that is it is completely incorrect. All contracts expire on 31 October prior to the ND. Rhino is right about AFL player contracts - the $s and the term are both important to the player. The player expects to get an opportunity to be an AFL footballer for the term and that's very important, it's not just about paying out the $s. This is a bit different from other employment contracts where you may be happy to take the pay-out and move on to another job. That scenario may not be on offer in the AFL and the player wants and deserves every opportunity to establish himself. Sure Bub, by the letter of the cotract it can be terminated early and paid out (maybe there should be some extra compensation written in for this to protect players) - companies can do all sorts of things within the letter of their contract (e.g. "other duties as directed from time to tume") and some of them may earn the company a poor reputation in the marketplace and make it more difficult for them to attract quality employees.

The defence rests your Honour.

Baffling decision all around. What if he's not top 3 by then - it can change within 12 months Or heaven forbid he may get injured - look at Beau Dowler. Kinda ruins the big televised reverse countdown in 2010 after only 1 year - I guess that's ruined anyway "Yet another GC17 pick ..." He must be the Tom Scully equivalent.

I think it would be a good idea if they were tradable though. It would free up the market even further and help resist introduction of free agency. Collingwood could have negotiated with us for PSD 1 and with St.Kilda for Luke Ball. We might have taken 25 or Wellingham or both for PSD 1. Once PSD 1 is traded and Ball is guaranteed to Collingwood then Richmond becomes the focus with PSD 2. Of course Hawthorn would've been first cab off the rank offering us pick 8 for PSD 1 to pick up Burgoyne, so if we'd taken that Collingwood would be dealing with Richmond. It certainly would be a massive increase in the power of PSD picks - it might be a good replacement for the priority pick. Gotta be a better idea than including future year draft picks.

North at 25, Essendon at 26 or Collingwood at 30

Whatever the full story behind that event - and I'm not sure that's it. It's an ugly scene that I don't think was our finest moment. The equivalent would be Shane Valenti when he's told he's being delisted storming through training and berating Bailey for not wanting him - no-one would be impressed by that. It's a business and players will move or be moved on - to pretend otherwise is hyprocrisy. Look at the way Brock McLean handled his exit, pure silk in the interview I heard. If as I hypothesised Buckley has moved on then it sounds like it's been handled better all around than the CJ episode and we're making progress.

No I'm not, Burgan has said 5 are in contention at 11. And it's quite likely that some of them will be gone by then and very possible all of them by 18. That's the point of the post about his rankings. Unless - the cream of the 5 KPFs as rated by Barry Prendergast has been picked out by 11 OR - there's a midfield slider that is clearly best available and too good to pass up at 11 I reckon we'll be picking one of those 5

It's the earlier ones that count.

True, there's a hundred phantom drafts on BigFooty all of varying quality and many just following the leader. I could make one up and it would be worth jack. But Emma Quayle and Matt Burgan have good records with their predictions. The fact that he rates Panos out of our zone whereas quite a few BF phantoms have him going to Port is instructive. The early ranges he's set on those players is also instructive. 5 means North or Sydney might be the first interested 8 means Port 10 means us and Carlton because Essendon will probably take a mid.

Anyone consider that Buckley may have delisted us? It's pure speculation but we did 1 year deals with Jamar and Miller. It's quite possible we offered a firm 1 year to Buckley and he had a better offer elsewhere.

Yes. And if we're looking for a KPF at 11 and possibly 18 these are the tall forwards candidates he lists: Aaron Black (10-25) John Butcher (5-20) Jake Carlisle (5-20) Ben Griffiths (10-35) Daniel Talia (8-25) Panos is rated later

If he's set on leaving St.Kilda he doesn't want to come to us through the PSD he'll have to go into the ND He's the right age to go to West Coast, fits in with Cox / Glass / Kerr window and they have 22 and 23 but I'm not sure if he suits Subi. I'd expect him to go to Essendon or North at 24, 25, 26 if not he'll probably make it to the Pies at 30.

That's definitely possible and I hope it's the case. I guess right now only he knows what he's thinking, but we'll find out. Either way I could understand his reasoning.

Half-wit I am then, but maybe that's half more than some. Richmond's midfield is superior to ours right now and they have pick 3 in this draft. At Melbourne Luke Ball would be our best midfielder and get the most opposition attention - he'd be the human shield as our midfield grows up. I can see why this has limited appeal. At Richmond he'd be one among Cousins, Deledio, Foley and Cotchin I can see how that would be more appealing But I agree there'd be no way he could get to Richmond without our consent. I agree that there's something disagreeable about drafting aplayer who says he doesn't want to be at our club but there's somthing equally disagreeable about bending to this attitude when the rules give us the right to pick him. What if Trengove said he didn't want to leave South Australia or Scully said he loves Richmond and only wants to play for them?

The AFL could go a long way by making the Brownlow a non-drinking night. Geelong and St.Kilda players seemed to cope OK. I guess because the AFL have an alcohol company as a key partner they're in a difficult position. http://www.afl.com.au/corporate%20partners...26/default.aspx "...Carlton Natural Blonde will be seen everywhere throughout the home and away season. ..."