Dappa Dan

Whoa. Rodgers carted off.

You think you were weak. How do you think I feel.

I thought about Detroit too. Giants? You'd have balls of stainless steel to pick them.

I laughed. Then I thought about it... If they're not #1 in terms of names... they're not far off. Rams - Watkins, Gurley, Kupp, Woods, Austin Packers - Nelson, Cobb, Adams, Bennett Steelers - Brown, Bryant (you have to include them) Giants - OBJ, Sheperd, Marshall, Engram Cowboys - Dez, Beasley, Witten maybe? Falcons - Jones and it doesn't matter who else? Patriots - Edelman, Cooks, Hogan Broncos - Thomas and Sanders Raiders - Crabtree, Cooper, Lynch Bucs - Evans, Brate, DJax, Howard They're the ones that jump out at me. Eagles have good ones with Ertz, Jeffrey, Agholor... but too early to put them up with the big boys.

McCaffrey 10 receptions. Also, Gurley 'aint as bad as Stewart. Also I'd take your WRs over Panthers WRs.

Not just third downs, but third and 10+... At one point last week he hit 3x3rd and 11s... I dunno. Surely that's not a tactical thing, but just a bit of luck. Fell back to the pack a bit this week. 35% hit rate or so. Man... the week 14 game vs the Rams is going to be a helluva thing. I reckon by that stage both our divisions will be praying for a win.

The run D was startling from the Eagles. Dropped them in the backfield more often than not. I think they ended up averaging 3 inches per run play. That in turn led to Cam having more pass attempts than any game in his career. Eagles corners did enough, even though they were one on one... then Cam got hurt on an almost TD run... And he couldn't throw right at the end. Was an absorbing game, but not one for the highlights. Not that we care. 5-1!!!!! If you said to me at this stage Eagles would be on 5 wins and Dallas, Giants and Skins would have 2 or less I'd have laughed in your face. And add to that Zeke is going to be out for 6 weeks! It'll still go down to the wire, the NFC East... But as of an hour ago, Eagles are the favourite. Couldn't be more pumped.

Anyone gutsy enough to pick Eagles?

What's his ceiling? A few games over 2 years then delisted? Same as the Kennedy's etc? I'd rather take a 1/100 punt on Schache. Still. Like I say, the club knows what they're doing. I imagine they still view him as they did a couple of years ago when he was drafted, and think he might not be ruined yet. Same thing with McKenna.

Ah I see. Yeah. Feels to me like any of those other Fitzpatrick/McKenna type deals where a club doesn't really want a guy too much, the guy wants out, the club knows they don't have any bargaining power since the kid hasn't done anything. Make it happen for a regulation swap of late picks. I don't want to be a negative nancy... but I had high hopes for guys like Kennedy. Balic comes with even less to recommend him. Seems a lot to me like it's list clogger. But I spose the club might think he's better than whoever is available at pick 60ish.

Ugh. That would suck. Balic isn't worth anything like a second rounder.

I probably shouldn't tip this early, but it's one of those weeks. Pats and Packers and... Bucs.

Upside down 6, his old number.

Just to change topic... Has anyone looked at his highlights package on the app? Actually sat through all of them? I know you can likely do that sort of thing for a lot of players.... but still... Imagine all those pack marks up one end, and Jesse up the other... That'll make you forget about the 2018 draft quicksmart.

Ok. Predicted superdrafts usually end up with more than the usual AA players. We're not talking about pick 44 becoming a freak, we're talking about first rounders going on to have good 150-200 game careers, and be decorated. I don't remember 2006 being called a superdraft. 2008 has been a success largely. Watts is a good player (not great but will rack up 250 games at least), NN, Hill, Hartlett, Hurley, Yarran, Ziebell, Davis, Sidebottom, Ballantyne, Trengove all within the first 22 picks. All have shaped the fortunes of clubs. Yes there's a few Vickery's in there, but that's true of 2001 as well, and the Buddy draft (Tambling). If you can't call 2008 a good draft then we don't need to continue this conversation at all. I don't know what planet you're living on with 2013. Everyone talked that up as a strong year I thought? All the Kelly Bont etc stuff. I think because we traded away our pick 2, it's got that reputation, but leading up to it I don't recall anyone poo-pooing it. And 2015 I don't remember being called weak either. I've been following drafting like everyone else, but only from about 2006 onwards. My point is that you can find exceptions to the rule, but there hasn't been a big superdraft year that was a complete let down. And a lot of meh draft years ave turned out to be just that. The Scully one is the big one that springs to mind, mostly cos we all follow demons. Saints get picks 1 and 2 and get Riewoldt and Kosi. Hawks get 2 and 5 and get Roughie and Buddy. We get Scully. People predicted it, and they were right. There's no comparison. Your second point: Of COURSE you can find a few good names. That's true of every draft ever. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't claim that just because Dusty went in a draft with Fyfe that it's a good draft. Look at the name around them. Scully isn't that great. Trengove and Morabito went on to do nothing (yes, yes, we know about injury), Cunnington's a good honest footballer not much more, Rohan's a flashy but inconsistent player, Sheppard and Butcher (who?), Moore, Melksham, Gysberts, Lucas.... Am I painting a picture here? That is a LOT of junk for what was, so you say, NOT a weak year? The pundits exaggerate a lot of the time, but the gist is usually correct. Having said all that, if the club thinks the 2018 draft isn't QUITE a superdraft... or perhaps they're projecting that we'll have pick 14-18... and that a pick in that area will get only a B+ player... Then hey, they've done well. It's risky... but aggressive. I really do want that first rounder in 2018... but these guys have earned our trust.

No disrespect, but that's EXACTLY what it's about. Trade tables and free agency if done badly can be the difference. Noone knows that better than MFC fans. Everyone's making good reasons for why it's a good trade. And good reasons for why it's not. The only real question that will last into the coming years is... what's better... Lever and no 2018 first rounder. Or Lever AND a 2018 first rounder. The second option is always preferable. I've noticed the glass-half-full folks on here haven't made the argument "There's no way we could have kept that 2018 first rounder." I suspect the truth is we could have, with a lot of messing around with later picks. THAT'S the point. Pick 35 could be the next Hunt. Lever could go on to win 3 Norm Smiths and a couple of Blueys. It's irrelevant. We'll never know now what we could have done with that extra first round pick. The pick that everyone seems to agree we could have kept. I'm still waiting with bated breath though. Two second rounders (albeit late) and the Watts trade. You never know. We could find ourselves with, say, the Pies 2018 first rounder. There's no doubt that as of now, the Pies 2018 first rounder will end up being an earlier pick than our first rounder in 2018.

It's one of the funniest things happening in AFL at the moment. Now that we're bringing in draft day trading, I think this rule will be considered an oddity of history.

Well that's not true at all. An above average draft is talked about as a superdraft. And a slightly shallow draft is looked on as "weak." People go to the extreme of whatever the popular opinion is. This year was spoken about as a "weak" year for the last 3 years. Next year has been a superdraft for the last 18 months. One annoying thing about these popular opinions is they tend to be self fulfilling. Predicted superdrafts always end up being exactly that. And weak drafts always end up with only a few AA players. You should have seen the pasting I got when I suggested it was a shame we got the first two picks in a weak draft year when we took Scully and Trengove. Now go back and look at that draft. It stunk. The predictions weren't wrong.

There's a lot of confusion about that rule. Geelong broke it, but requested permission from the AFL, which they gave. I feel like it's something that would have cancelled the trade had that rule still been in effect. So we should be ok.

Technically, yes. But it's almost the last pick of the second round. In a weak draft. It's still good though. Pick 35 with our recruiters is worth about pick 19 with the Pies recruiters.

Interesting. Good get. Doesn't change the fact that a 2018 pick is worth more than a 2017 equivalent. But still well done on the sums.

I hate when I'm right.

Yup. I said before the end of the season that two first was worth paying. But in the weeks leading up, a 1st and 2nd made sense given it was a superdraft. Even two early second rounders that could be flipped to get us into 2018 again would have been better.

Big talk. You should tip them, right?

I'm inclined to agree. PhillySS.