old55

I expect each of our 1st 3 picks in the ND to be a very good player, we're doing well if we get a very good player every 3rd PSD/RD. That 9x the hit rate.

True

I can't agree with that - senior full-time recruiter and team working all year on it - there's plenty of tiime to see enough of the 70 or so players drafted in the ND - there's no quick or uneducated decisions being made.

I'm not against that idea - but don't tell anyone ... 9 early picks in 3 years is half a team 2007: Morton, Grimes, Maric 2008: Watts, Blease, Strauss 2009: ???

I agree we're not as bad as we appear - it may take a little time but the seeds of a good team are there. I'm flexible with Garland because he adds flexibility, the spines: Garland-Martin-McLean-Watts-Miller (Emergency: Warnock) or Warnock-Martin-McLean-Garland-Watts (Emergency: Miller) both work for me, particularly with Rivers and Frawley; Dunn and Bate added. Plus Newton and Zomer with question marks. I'd love to get some better quality KPPs, but better ones than Miller, Martin and Warnock are likely to come at the pointy end of the draft not at pick 51, the PSD or the Rookie draft. We are likely to have an early pick and 2 in the top 20 in 2009. If the best players are an inside mid and a KPP that would start to round out our list nicely.

Strauss and Jetta add creative run. Frawley's got pace and is better kick than he looks, that backline has heaps of run except for Rivers and is definitely not top heavy. I'd rather have Grimes and Petterd in the midfield and Garland in the forward line.

Not sure about 2009 but looking further ahead Jetta and Strauss look like the right types in an area we are deficient, both have reasonable pace and are good users, particularly Strauss. Jetta is strong overhead which is key deep in defence. B: Rivers Warnock Jetta HB: Strauss Martin Frawley That covers most attacking threats and frees Garland to the forward line, I'm very optimistic about this area. Watts, Garland, Miller, Newton, Dunn, Bate, Sylvia, maybe Morton - there's plenty of options there as targets in the forward line if we can get our delivery right. I think our biggest deficiency now is winning contested ball - we need more better inside midfielders.

Untrue: 19.30 secs Usain Bolt (Jam) Beijing August 20 2008 19.32 Michael Johnson (USA) Atlanta August 1 1996 19.62 Tyson Gay (USA) Indianapolis June 24 2007 19.63 Xavier Cater (USA) Lausanne July 11 2006 19.65 Wallace Spearmon Daegu Sept 28 2006 19.67 Usain Bolt (Jam) Athens July 13 2008 There's a 3 course meal in there ...

Only 4 of the top 10 play for clubs that made the finals and none of them for the premier. The top 2 (by a long margin) played for the 15th and 14th placed teams. Just how important are rucks?

Good efforts there by Jack and Melon, both got the trifecta in their boxes - well done!

Wow Norm Smith Medallist and Brownlow Medallist - does he also look like a cross between Brad Pitt and George Clooney too?

Hope you win that $2K

Right and how many of your 14 would you back to stop Rioli? Yes different recruiters rate players differently - that's where you've got to back yours and his ranking, that's the art and science of recruiting. It stands to reason that KPFs and mids naturally come higher in the ranking than KPDs and small backs because the latter would be the former if they were good enough. How many KPFs do we need compared with how many midfielders? McLean is the only mid better than good ordinary player and he can't get on the park. A team has maximum 2-3 KPFs and a midfield rotation of at least 10 in the 22. That means for every KPF you need to draft 4 midfielders. Back Watts in as the KPF and then give me 3 midfielders.

Need to be strong overhead in case they get dragged to the last line.

I know what you're saying but I'd still prefer 3 mids - midfield wins flags. Small back is different from midfielder, engine is less important but overhead strength is a must. Pace is also a must. Bartram's kicking is not good enough and Cheney's too unknown. Frawley is most likely and he's a taller version like you note at Geelong. I think leaving out Wojcinski hurt Geelong in the GF btw.

I want best available at 1, 17, 19 and 35. The chances are we'll get someone we rate in the top 20-25 at 35. Last year I believe we rated Grimes well inside top 10 and got him at 14 and would've been happy with Maric at 14 and got him at 21. That said I'm strongly in the Watts camp and we need to assume he solves our KPF problems - he will make Miller and Newton better players simply because the opposition defence will need to go 2 and 3 up against him. I think we're good for key backs and small forwards but poor in the midfield in every area - pace, good kicking skills and ball winners. True midfielders need a decent engine - otherwise they're small forwards or backs. We'll need a spread of players to cover our midfield deficiencies - I'd be very happy if best available at 17, 19 and 35 are mids and there appears to be plenty of talent available. And yes, for the smartarses out there if BA at 17, 19, and 35 are all KPBs then I'd still take them at least at 17 and 19 anyway - we can always trade a good KPB for an excellent mid later. 51 and plus can be for needs and we need a good small back - discipline, kicking skills, pace and strong overhead for his size - with Wheels on the way out we're missing here. That's also where I think ruckmen come into the frame - I think we should add to our inventory and the chances of picking up a decent one late are good based on history. I think it's unlikley BA at at 35 and earlier will be either of these types. 1- Watts 17 - BA (hopefully mid) 19 - BA (hopefully mid) 35 - BA (hopefully mid) 51 - Small Back 60 something - Ruck project 70 something - pass, I think there's still the possibility of a reasonable pick in the PSD e.g. Meyer

Greg Miller used to give a draft preview to premium Richmond members and name picks - Jack Riewoldt for one ...

Yeah it's mystifying to me too why Luke Hodge, Gary Ablett and Adam Cooney aren't on the list

Look the counter-argument to mine is that 3 yaers ago Bateman and Sewell didn't look like key players in the premiership either. Chris Johnson is not irrelevant if he's one of them.

He's irrelevant because the bottom 6 in our 22 have never been the problem and that's where he sits at best. We extend out to around 30 players capable of playing football - our problem (as mentioned in the best 22 thread) is that our best 6 are sub-standard. We need stars and hopefully we going to get some out of the 2007-9 drafts. 3 years ago Young, Guerra, Osborne, Ladson and Campbell weren't looking like premiership players - they're interchangeable with our bottom 6 and it's the Hawks top 6 that make the difference.

The problem isn't the bottom end - we played finals with NQR. It's the top end - no stars. Same as it ever was.

5 pages on Chris Johnson!

Stop the presses! Delisted player has problems. He'd have to be a monty for the Saints with Cousins and Carroll.

That's broadly true but not exactly true - the 2009 draft is "compromised". The qualifying age for the 2009 draft is being raised by 4 months so approximately 1/3 of players will roll-over into the next year. The pool will be approximately 2/3 of a "normal" pool. I'd still be keen - perhaps even more keen because of this - to have picks 1 & 2

What do you think of Danny Meyer goodoil?