Nasher

I think that if you're picking players who are no chance of being part of your best 22 then you're setting the bar too low. The only people outside the best 22 that remain on the list are those who the FD would believe have the potential to be part of the best 22 at some stage in the future. Once that starts looking unlikely then you're gone. That could be youths who have fallen short after having a few years to give it a shot (McNamara), or senior players who have been pushed out by better players (Miller, Bell). Basically, the recruiting policy should be to improve your list, all the time, every year. I don't see adding Hansen to be enhancing our list in any way, because there's not much chance of him challenging for a spot in the side. Who's he going to push out?

That's a pretty uninteresting stat though, because you could basically just fiddle with the date ranges until you get the result you want. Collingwood are kicking our arses at premierships since 2010!

Gold Coast will be an immediate force to contend with, just like Brisbane, Adelaide, Freo and Port were... oh wait. The only club to have been strong from day one was West Coast. The rest were either poor, or just slotted straight in to the middle of the pack, and those that won flags did it a number of years after they formed. I can't see why this team will be any different.

? It's not as easy as just "choosing" players to go there. Obviously they have their targets, but the player has to want to go. There's absolutely no reason why they could not have had Goddard as well if he'd wanted to go there. I doubt money would have been an issue.

That would be Demonology.

Indeed, we're in furious agreement here. This line of conversation started with Peanuts refuting the general "vibe" that all debt is bad debt, when it isn't necessarily the case. I don't reckon you'd find much disagreement to the fact that our specific debt was hurting us.

Indeed, we're in furious agreement here. This line of conversation started with Peanuts refuting the general "vibe" that all debt is bad debt, when it isn't necessarily the case. I don't reckon you'd find much disagreement to the fact that our specific debt was hurting us.

The banks' opinion would've been that it was fine so long as your cash flow is sufficient to cover your repayments. Actually, the banks in general want businesses to go in to debt so they can make a fortune from the interest. Removal of our debt frees up a heap of cashflow that would otherwise have disappeared down the toilet. As has been said, debt only becomes a problem if it restricts your cash flow to the point that continued operation becomes difficult. Otherwise debt is usually a necessary evil that businesses need to grow their asset base.

HT already covered this, but so did I (you even responded in the thread!): It can't possibly be James Cook.

He did if I recall correctly. As did Tom Rockliff, who we may have had earmarked for our PSD pick before LJ surfaced. Edit: Seems I made the Rockliff bit up but was right on McKenzie: http://www.afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=70706

Not drafted.

A little bit of maths wouldn't go astray there bud. James Cook is currently 36, so to be his younger brother, Lucas's dad would have to be no older than 35, meaning he conceived Lucas when he was 17 at most. Likely? I'd be looking at Fred Cook, Graeme Cook or another Graeme Cook. On a side note, I find it amazing that James Cook was only 26 when he broke down in 2000. I had always assumed he was older. Nothing wrong with claiming to be the same type of player as Staker. That's not the same thing as "I have the same ability as Brent Staker".

Ah-ha. Thanks for that - plucking him straight from DF did seem a tad unlikely.

This is an amazing draft pick really. I don't know anything about Howe specifically but I do know about the club he came from. Dodges Ferry plays in a second tier competition in Tassie, and given that the standard of the first tier competition in Tas is abysmal compared to the VFL, SANFL etc, Howe really has come straight from bush footy in to the AFL. Given this obscurity, I wouldn't have thought the demand for him would be huge. I'd have (in my totally uneducated opinion) thought he'd still be around for our picks in the 50. Barry and team must have really rated him to take him with this pick (i.e. felt they couldn't risk losing him between 33 and 50). This is the pick that will hold the most interest for me out of all of ours.

Just to nitpick a little bit (okay - nitpick a lot) - 'talent' is fixed, you're born with it, it doesn't change. "More advanced" would be a better term. Sheedy has used the wrong word but his point is fine. WYL and Demon Rob have nailed it anyway. It's an age-for-age comparison, which is fair.

You don't agree that it's just a bit premature to take Barry to the gallows over his draft picks this year?

Bang on, as usual. The stakes are highest on those early picks. Get the early picks wrong = no possibility of a flag. Get the late picks wrong = miss out on the occasional handy player.

Peanuts' version of the events is not as I understood it - I thought it was more like we had targetted Gawn at 18 but expected Tapscott to already be taken, so we took Tapscott, and Gawn falling to 34 was a stroke of luck.

Has a reputation for not being a fan of the hard yards.

My condolences also, and thanks for sharing. Gave me goosebumps.

That's being hopelessly optimistic. I doubt there'll ever be another Allen Jackovich. A once in a lifetime talent. At this point for Maric I'd settle for "good enough to make the senior side".

You haven't raised the bar much with this one.

Or you could just follow it online and see them in the correct order, as they happen. Fox are trying to make the event exciting and suspenseful, when by nature it's really not. Seems like ratings grubbing at its worst to me. I'm not sure what type of person would find watching the top 10 of the draft in reverse order exciting or interesting, but I'm certainly not one of them.

Is Andrew McDonald a good enough to be test batsman in his own right, or is this just Victorian parochialism speaking? (Genuine question, despite the fact that I couldn't resist the backhander ) Any time I see his name tossed up my first thought it always "surely this isn't the best we've got?" - however I freely admit I have not been following his recent form. I don't believe in selecting all-rounders unless they're first rate with one or the other. As well as injury, this was always my concern with Watson, however now there's no doubt whatsoever (over his batting at least - he still chucks a few to many pies with the ball).

If that was the case he would've walked out weeks, or even months ago.