Nasher

That's a lot of words based on a false premise KS :D Joel Macdonald is a native Queenslander.

Exactly. He'd be beside himself with excitement at the opportunity. He'd just be desperate to play I reckon.

Finally. The most boring draft of all time has finally passed by, and we can stop reading nonsense posts from all the jokers who actually thought there was even the most vague possibility we would not select Newton or Meesen. Is it March 2010 yet?

I'm actually embarrassed for you.

What makes it strange is that previously, listed players could not nominate for the national draft e.g. Luke Ball would have been forced in to the PSD. With the change in rules this year, the PSD is now just an extension of the ND. It does allow players _some_ degree of control over where they end up, but not much. Seems pointless to me. But to answer your question deanox, yes, it's very much a 'just in case' mentality. In the example above, there's nothing to have stopped Richmond from taking Grimes with their last pick in the ND, but this way they can see how he trains etc, and gives them an opportunity to see what else may pop up in the mean time.

Karma for what?

Austin Wonaeamirri re-injuring his hamstring hardly calls for a wholesale review.

But they have been. They've been delisted, you can't get any more removed than that.

Think you've missed deanox's point there RR. Read the last line in particular. rpfc asserted that Newton's lack of body strength was due to him being lazy in the gym; how could anyone outside the club possibly know that? deanox rightfully pulled him up on it.

He is in a world of hurt. His problems are pretty well documented here in Tassie. I hope he's getting all the help he needs at the moment and wish him the best of luck.

Agreed 45HG16. I don't see what this has to do with Collingwood at all, and am pretty disappointed the author of the headline and the article bothered mentioning it. It's not relevant. This guy is just a farquit, it doesn't matter what football team he supports.

I think ks's post was a crack at the other guy, not you. I laughed when that guy said you always agreed with RR. :lol:

Great, now do a list of all the duds who came and went on rookie lists. There's obviously a few notable exceptions, but I'd guess that in 9 cases in 10 (or more), recruiters get it right when overlooking players in the ND.

The only person who could have "corrected" Colin Sylvia's attitude is Colin Sylvia. Obviously there's ways to 'encourage' the correct behaviour, but ultimately you just have to wait until the penny drops. Then we just have to hope that it's a persistent change and not a fleeting one.

Does there need to be a press conference before you will believe the things that are patently obvious?

2007, 2008 - Isaac Weetra

The reason why the forum groupthink drew the conclusion it did has had zero bearing on my decision.

I have not given any consideration to the past whatsoever; someone eventually has to get the number, and far as I'm concerned any new recruit is as worthy as any other. The _only_ reason I put Scully in 31 is because forum groupthink subliminally planted the idea in my head; nothing to do with Barassi or any other esteemed wearer of that number.

Is 9 "better" than 28? At what point do the "bad" numbers start? 20s? 30s? 40s? The only reason why I gave Tapscott 9 but Gysberts 28 is because given my other choices, there was only one low number left. It was an arbitrary decision, I could easily have reversed them, or given them both higher numbers (or both low). I just went with what I thought sounded good.

I'm surprised I didn't see another thread on this already, so if there is one and I've missed it, please point it out. It's the time of year to have a crack at the new jumper numbers. Cam Schwab has said on Twitter that the new numbers will be allocated within the next week. These are the current jumper numbers as they stand. 1. 2. JONES, Nathan 3. BARTRAM, Clint 4. WATTS, Jack 5. 6. BATE, Matthew 7. MILLER, Brad 8. FRAWLEY, James 9. 10. MORTON, Cale 11. JOHNSON, Paul 12. SYLVIA, Colin 13. 14. DUNN, Lynden 15. PETTERD, Ricky 16. GRIMES, Jack 17. 18. GREEN, Brad 19. MARIC, Addam 20. GARLAND, Colin 21. BELL, Daniel 22. MOLONEY, Brent 23. McDONALD, James 24. JURRAH, Liam 25. CHENEY, Kyle *26. MEESEN, John ® 27. RIVERS, Jared 28. *29. NEWTON, Michael ® 30. McNAMARA, Tom 31. 32. BRUCE, Cameron 33. WONAEAMIRRI, Austin 34. MARTIN, Stefan 35. 36. DAVEY, Aaron 37. WARNOCK, Matthew 38. HUGHES, Daniel ® 39. JETTA, Neville 40. JAMAR, Mark 41. BAIL, Rohan 42. SPENCER, Jake ® 43. BENNELL, Jamie 44. 45. 46. BLEASE, Sam 47. STRAUSS, James 48. 49. McKENZIE, Jordie ® 50. HEALEY, Rhys ® * To be redrafted. These numbers could become vacant, but for the purposes of this exercise I'm assuming they won't. These are the players to be added to the list: Scully, Tom Trengove, Jack Gysberts, Jordan Tapscott, Luke Gawn, Max Fitzpatrick, Jack Macdonald, Joel While I recognise that these are not the set in stone list of players yet, there's a very strong chance that this is what they will be. For me I like: 1: Macdonald 5: Trengove 9: Tapscott 13: Blease 17: Strauss 28: Gysberts 31: Scully 35: Gawn 44: Fitzpatrick

I think you have hit the mark on what type of player we're looking for him to become; an A grader to support the stars. That is exactly what Joel Corey in particular is.

I would assume that it is. The fact that he did not nominate for the ND eliminates any doubt; there's no way he would limit the possibilities of being drafted like that unless he had a concrete promise.

I'm sure BP recognises that this was the necessary trade-off for having picks 34 and 50 available.

McDonald, Bruce, Green, Davey, Moloney, <token young player>.

The Bruce comparison was more to do with type (tall, large engine, strong one-on-one) than quality. We all know Bruce's limitations, I don't think there's any need to keep rehashing them.