hoopla

Surely the AFL has to look at this. Here is a bloke entering the market - and giving one buyer considerably more relevant information than he is giving all the others. There might be an argument to say that he shouldn't have to talk to the market - but how can he claim that he is not manipulating the market when he only makes potentially vital medical information available to the purchaser of his choice? I think the footy public should push the AFL to explain why young draftees have to undertake AFL- approved medicals when mature-aged players do not. Having said that - it would be nice if Mr Ball's season was ruined by injury!

Good answer!! ( ................except I'd be surprised!!)

Warnock is 192cm and plays tall - Hughes is 186cm and tries to play tall . The law of averages says the FD are going to get it wrong from time to time. Who would you rank below him?

I reckon that's it in a nutshell.

Not sure why all the frustration is being directed at the slots occupied by Newton and Meeson. To me Hughes - the oldest of the lot of them - is the main list clogger.

Well I've watched several matches - both TV and live - when Hughes has been named - and I've never noticed this lightning quickness of his. He must have been running where the ball wasn't ! He has a big spring but he rarely jumps at the right time to demonstrate his ability overhead. He was certainly a better player at Casey than he was at Sandy. Perhaps injuries have held him back - but they had better letter him go quick smart!!

Well it makes sense if you expect Hughes - who at 23 is not good enough to be on the primary list of the bottom side - to improve sufficiently to debut as a 24 or 25 year old in an improving side down the track. He's not a big man, he's not especially quick, and he doesn't exhibit any special football nous. He's never been a standout in the VFL. When you factor in his history of injury - you've got to conclude that the odds are stacked against him.

Well that's an extraordinarily clever piece of list management ......" That bloke deserves a game - but we're not going to see if he can play at AFL level - so that we can keep him on the rookie list............. And he doesn't want the opportunity to prove that he should be promoted to the primary list because he's got his heart set on being a mature age rookie.. !? You must have very close contact with the club - and/or the man himself. Last year the club was heard to say that it felt it had an obligation to rookie him again because of the circumstances surrounding the termination of his previous contract. Was that right or not?

I hope this is an attempt to be funny. Hughes is coming up for his 4th year on the rookie list - although he has never shown enough consistent form at VFL level to be a serious contender for an AFL game. The coaching staff have had to refer to future plans when asked about him - because he has never been part of their present actions!! On past form, his best chance of staying at the club is to be injured for yet another season.!

Xavier's got a bad enough reputation as it is - without this bloke dragging it even deeper into the mire.

I must admit that I was one who argued that we should take talls at #11 and/or #18 - so I was horrified when Gysbert's name popped out. But with Gawn and Fitzpatrick folded into the mix.......I was much happier by the end. My view leading into the draft was based on the conventional wisdom that "you could throw a blanket over picks 10 to 30" and that some talls were under that blanket. BP was convinced that Butcher was the only stand-out tall in the draft. If that''s right - and I accept that it was - I reckon we played it the right way - and have ended up with an exciting group. There will be pressure on the "Gismo" because he was really our first live pick - but right now I accept him as someone they really rate - and I look forward to watching him play. I just wish we hadn't wasted a rookie pick on Hughes - so that we had room to speculate a little more.....

He went to Xavier .....further proof that Collingwood supporters suffer from the lack of a decent education !! No point in replying - he wouldn't understand anyway

..... found anyone who agrees with you yet?. How could Fox seriously call that a live telecast of the 2009 AFL Draft? All they did was keep viewers away from the draft until it was all over. Does anybody have a spare copy of Lindsay Gilbee's autobiography? Unfortunately I think I missed the best bit when I called a mate to try to find out who we'd drafted.

No...let's be fair here. For someone who went from Broadmeadows Primary to Xavier College , he's done pretty well to find his way to a coherent website.

Sorry Darren... I'm not sharing them with you!

I'm pretty sure this guy is a 200cm- plus ruckman .... which begs the question - who plays where when all our rucks are fit?

Well ..if you right we are in heaps of trouble. You are effectively saying that despite all of our efforts over the last three years , we still haven't got the right mix of small and mid -size running players on our list. You want us to concentrate on mid-fielders again - which means waiting until the Gold Coast and West Sydney have all the early picks before putting a few young talls into our development program. I'm actually a lot more optimistic than you are - particularly knowing that we're picking up the two best 18 year old midfielders around anyway

Surely this is nothing more than a theoretical debate.What exactly is "equal talent"?.... and how do you determine that midfielder "x" has more talent than KPF "Y"? In reality once you get past the first couple of picks - the assessment of relative "talent" is so subjective that you have to factor the "type of player" into your equation. It seems to me that is exactly the approach that BP is taking - and he has strongly hinted that we're looking at talls for picks 11 and 18.

I'd like to think we would all agree with that - unless of course we assume that there will be no talls of AFL quality available after pick 10. The whole debate really depends on your assumptions. "If there is a gun midfielder".... "if we assume that Jurrah does x or y".... I'll make two assumptions 1. There is not going to be a lot to choose between the shorts, mids and talls available after pick 10 2. Our current crop of young mids - plus Scully and Trengove - will all develop as we hope they will. On this basis - we need to look seriously at two talls with picks 11 and 18. Change these assumptions if you wish

...and I suppose all the sponsors who operate under a budget would ignore the soccer hype and maintain their support of the local code through this disrupted season?

Absolutely correct ... a side with power forward options is far more likely to succeed than one without - and Watts and Jurrah are far more likely to have long successful careers if there is someone alongside them who can apply a bit of physical pressure. If Barry Hall is on his game ( big if!), the Bulldogs will be a stronger contender in 2010 than they were in 2009

No 1858 - that's fine ....and your thinking is sound ( and perhaps more realistic than we sometimes tend to be at this time of the year) A lot of it comes down to our options - and to our willingness to take a risk with our last pick. If we get as many injuries as we had last year - and he stays fit - we'll all look back in 12 months time and complement BP and IH for some very astute recruiting/ list management. If Strauss, Cheney,Bennell, McNamara and etc etc all develop he might have to spend some time at Casey. How's your crystal ball?

Even in those good games his work in the ruck was very ordinary... and now he is battling with stress fractures. I think we made a mistake giving him 3 years in the first place. If he comes back to our rookie list he can count himself fortunate that his career is still live. If Hawthorn take Meeson they are taking a huge risk ... good luck to them. At 19 - with obvious physicality and competitive instincts - Spencer has a big upside and I am pleased we have been able to keep him for a 3rd year on just a rookie's salary. Clearly he has to keeping improving his basic ball skills

I think Essendon are over-rated .... but I've got to agree the way they played last year ,they've got to be closer to the 8 than the spoon. The punters can say what they like. As last year finished the two contenders would have to be us and Richmond....... and may be Port. We've just got genuine reason for optimism

If that is true why is has he been talking to Fremantle? I still reckon that if Brisbane really valued him as a player and mentor, they would have fought harder to keep him.... or to ensure they got something back in a trade