beelzebub

hmmm...interesting.. be funny wouldnt it...going to Port @16 !! They are now short on gun mids and will want to reverse their slide asap.. That would be hilarious for mine...and a deserving result looks like he might go further than Tulla.. and actually get on a plane

I understand the thought precisely...but you have to temper it with the notion that Richmond were/are ( til proven otherwise ) a basket case

no..hadnt mentioned 4 picks under 18 for some time Im just wondering if the club wont take a defacto rookie approach with 34 and 50. i.e they will get value+ and value with the first 2 pairs of picks. even at this stage we are streets ahead of most other clubs.. ..then a break. There is in all likely hood ( despite any other exercises in thinking ) still something at 18.. what though at 34 ?..or 50 for that matter.. I would presume nearly all the 'names' that are bandied around as having any front door merit will have gone. Its a given there will hardly be any 'kids' around for a while...so youre all but forced to look in different cupboards.. More mature/late developers.. athletically gited but raw...and the list goes on. I just have a funny feeling the FD will spring its surpises here at 34 and 50...last year was PSd..this year late picks in ND...just my gut oh btw...we have 4 picks under 18 ...did ya know !!

only highlights ..video footage etc. have you ?

we alll ( well many of us ) seem to think we'll pass at 18. I cant see any team using their first pick on Ball. nth and ess are in the 20's.. In rethinking Syd have their second at 14...would they...now with Kenelly back ? Im not sure if the Roos have expressed any real interest..essendon have. I just get the idea that Nth are too short on stocks and too far from real competition to fuss over ball I think if not us...then ess

but its two picks (under 30 ..assuming no trades etc ) for two years running in highly compromised drafts. All im getting at is we might want to look further down the track than the next 12 months of playing group. and its not the 4 picks under 18 that are the topic

you do understand what a hypothetical is dont you ? they involve ideas or possibilities: existing or non exisitng ,or involving something that exists as an unproven idea, or a theory, or a possibility. Its an exercise in thinking...its not gospel The constraint was very simple.. ( I thought ) at pick 18 what if you were still requiring a tall and all the fancied ones had gone. Yes a might earlier that realistic but that was the idea.. to force a different approach. obviously beyond some

agree

Im not convinced this is nearly as straight forward as it might have been in past years where you can see each year in isolation and for the most part pick in that manner. I see this years draft as the first chapter in a convoluted mess. Next year with GC in the mix the oder of things changes dramatically..and so to the accessibility to picks. Just for instance.. without getting too ahead of our selves lets say Melbourne are amongst the bigger improvers and say finish a modest 11th. That would put us 6th in the normal pecking order for picks. (2010) Given the concessions to GC that would now be pick 12. our next pick would be believe it ...at 30. This allows for no change at trade week I grant So from a year where we have 4 picks under 18...we go to 2 picks under 30. It might be similar or worse the following year with GWS . As we improve our pickings get worse ( effectively ) . You might start thinking that maybe this years picks 34 and 50 are better suited to a longer term outlook. I think MFC will go about this in quite a lateral way. just my thoughts

For the record Bob..I said this then..in response to the Daw criticism. I stated it quite early... you might call it back tracking..I call it clarifying...as obviously not every one can read !! <_< Apparently you cant either.. He wont be there at 50..if that happens all well and good edit to bold !

try reading the whole thing ...theres context...is that beyond you ? it was a hypothetical situation.... did i lose you there. Funnily enough youd consider him with the very next pick we have... so are you on half measure of crack ?? he wont be there at 34...just watch

ok..i'll keep this short.. Granted the original premise wasnt too likely but it was simple..if all the favoured talls were gone.. then why not look sideways. I proposed you pick a tall.. and you supplied more none tall utility types.. My premise was bult upon the notion as suggested in the article that Harrington was apparently hinting there might be a leaning towards talls after the early picks. So the criteria was tall..and a what if all the favoured ones were gon. I accept you view that there would be probably more sound choices..but that wasnt the construct ..thats al

wonder what the situation is with vacancies closer to Tulla ?

The whole thing has turned comical. An abject lesson in how not to go about changing clubs. one might say its a total Balls up !!!!!

probably the only time I'l ever agree with you So many are relying on Stockholm !!

long break to 11 !!! the gods are smiling huh

we have been veryvery lucky to have scored the two sponsors we did...when we did. They almost border on love jobs... well Hankook does in al honesty. Kasperky is visionary ( having been informed well ) Sponsors want exposure...generaly as long as its not detrimental its good. Whomever gets on board now ( sponsorship wise ) will get a very good ride. Results.. refer exposure. However the thrust of my sentence was not narrowed to sponsors only. You will note I did agree with you ( lol ) that we might indeed have some time. Using that time is the key. We have started ahead of many teams in the rebuild. We are fortunate in our picks. No one other than the newbies will get anything like that for years ( if ever again ) . we have a window possibly to be a littel lateral if it suits.

Richo to call it quits

aww..shucks.. brand new today as it haps !! were my thoughts for a whiles too.. but had the notion Ball wasnt keep to leave Vic.. Be kinda funny though I dont think Ess will take with first but would with second if we passed. Port might with 16 if Swans dont with 14... they have money and hed be good on their smaller ground.. his kicking not such a downside. Cant see him lasting til 18 either ..phew!! ...

really ? a bid sad ... a fair dinkum player ol' Richo. One of those from other teams I quite admire.

somewhere in amongst that 007 im in agreement with the idea that some of our picks may not necessarily be about the here and now...even less than with some years. In the same way that GC and GWS are future loading.....we can, if we choose look to some that have potential and dont fit the normal constraints (of say time and development ) but are worthwhile stocks. No one expects us in finals for 3-4 bar maybe some of us here who think a year or so sooner isnt totally impossible. Sponsors , the Club and supporters alike want to see improvement.., continued and sustained achieving and building upon that.

where on earth do I say that.. Im not advocating getting rid of either. you obviously read it wrong...I said we have a few ( meaning more than a few ) utility types.. i.e...yet to hold down specific KP.. Wonna is amongst them. Not all will be there from that group in coming years.. I didnt specify Wonna. Spencer you will note is in a different category..a different paragraph even

of course Mickey wouldnt blame himself now !!!

who do yo think will snaffle him Red ?

so you just go adding utilities to the pile ad nauseum ?? thats a plan Success is often found when you push limits. Maybe 18 is normally far too early..I agree.. But differing times call for differing actions. We have no capacity now to Rookie anyone...unless either Newton or Meesen are taken up. In this year of compromises other clubs will do things different than the norm as they too realise some opportunities just wont last So ..if Carlisle, Vardy, Butcher, Black or Panos are not there come 18...what tall would you KS take..and why ? granted if they are they are a better choice...but my premise has been to say ..what if they arent .