IvanBartul13

Most of these journalists would have lauded Richmond endlessly for a masterstroke had they been able to prize Tyson away from GWS at the end of last 2012. The annoying thing is Barrett and Denham, in particular, can't even get there head around the fact that that the trade wasn't a straight swap of Tyson for Pick 2, nor do they even go close to examining where Tyson would be drafted in this year's draft pool if he was in it, which is one of the the important considerations when assessing the trade before the materials of it have had a chance to play. Tyson could very easily have been picked high in the top 10 given his attributes in this draft pool. Kelly is class so the likelihood is a win-win for both clubs.

Agree he is talented but there is no chance I would have thought. We don't need a high-leaping half-forward, so doesn't make sense from that aspect, to speak nothing of his troublesome past.

That strategy is analagous to trading up from Pick 80 to Pick 72 in the main draft in the hope that our 45th ranked player will be there at pick 72. If it was that crucial to obtain such a player, you would take them at Pick 57. This kind of thinking would have you constantly trading manically upwards in paranoia.

Freeman is a not a great kick, but he's not a complete ball butcher either. If you're assessing Salem v Freeman. You're looking at Salem's versatility ( he can probably play in defence/run with roles) his kicking, probably a more consistent player, up against an outstanding physical specimen in Freeman, who loves to take the game on, has tested sensationally all through his junior career, but is more of a haphazard but destructive player, with an OK, but not piercing kick. Its an interesting conundrum, you could argue that getting Cross, Michie, Vince, Tyson, Riley gives you the freedom to swing for the fences and take Freeman. But then again Salem probably fits the mould of the player Paul Roos has historically used, with the more rounded game.

It is based on the number of players on your primary list. AFL clubs must have a minimum of 38 players on their senior list and a maximum of 40. Technically you are allowed then to top up with rookies up to a maximum overall list size of 47. But player 45 to 47 (any players above 44 players on the list) must be what are called category B rookies (academy players, international rookies, players who've been unregistered in football for 3 years et cetera) In relation to Melbourne we will have a list of 40. Which enables us a maximum of 7 rookies - four rookies proper and 3 category B rookies. Likely we will have 4 rookie picks in the rookie draft and perhaps add Maia Westrupp as a category B rookie. If a club has a senior list of 38 they can have 6 rookies and 3 category Bs. Some clubs could do this to massage its total player playments under the salary cap as rookie list contracts are less burdensome on TPP. That is why we see different rookie sizes. Brisbane and Sydney's are usually larger because they can add their local state academy players as catagory B players. Other teams who have international rookies on their list will have larger rookie list sizes. Some clubs with one Irishman will have 5, clubs without 4 et cetera et cetera. Gold Coast and GWS have different list sizes rules altogether at the moment as well.

Waylon Manson?

Ummm...Luke Reynolds?

Not sure what runs on the board means in the context of 18 and 19 year olds, especially in relation to players that have played senior state level footy, you're supposed to draft players before they have runs on the board and they put those runs on the board for your club. Barrass is more an example of this than the three players you have potted and clearly have no idea about. Barrass Has actually played very little football of any substance, mostly school footy and some reasonably under 18 and reserve footy. He is promising and will be on a list in some way shape or form. What O'Hara, who has been playing SANFL footy for half a decade has to do with McKay, Page or Edwards I have no idea.

I cant find from limited search, but Sturt versus Eagles was shown on the ABC. If anyone can find a link for it, that game will show you what Riley's footy is about.

Yeah Barrass is a defender, Gibson is a defender. That is where the comparison mostly ends. Barrass plays mainly a man-on-man game, Gibson zones. Gibson's finishing move is the constructive spoil. Barrass takes contested marks. Gibson is a factor in the counter-attack/rebound game. Barrass has a long way to go in this regard. Barrass is also roughly 6cm taller, so they are completely different size/shape profiles. Its like comparing Nathan Brown to Nick Maxwell. It's just not right. I'll bow to you if you can find anyone with some clout comparing the two. Barrass is going to be a very big defender (195cm/95kg) down the track. It will be a tragedy if Edwards isn't on a list, especially when he has spent much of the season cleaning up some of the mess Barrass' rawness creates. He's a terrific talent and has played senior footy. Page and McKay are longshots, but in their different ways deserve it. Page has a 3rd in Sturt's B+F (ahead of Aiden Riley, who is just a good old-fashioned unconditional footballer, who outplayed Kerridge in the Sturt games I watched this year) as a lockdown defender at 19yo and has a management deal so he is closer than you think. I tried to get clubs and management companies to take a chance on him last year on the back of an outstanding SANFL under 18 game but they all basically said he didn't do enough and wasn't on radars and some hadn't heard of him and he played a couple of Sturt reserves games. He didn't even nominate. A year later he has played for SA under 23, has a senior B+F placing, a management deal and is nominating. He is probably too small to make it (173cm), but the kid can play. McKay has been unlucky but in a weak year could get a shot for a club looking for hard-edged young mid. I suggested him as he could have added some depth, but Riley and Cross' pickups have mitigated against that. I really don't know if you are taking the [censored], but I didn't shoot you down. Just the fact is Pongracic isn't well liked by most AFL clubs (it does only take one suitor, though) because he is vanilla and doesn't have enough tricks. Barrass is quite a fair bit different a player to Gibson. You're shooting me down, insinuating I'm blind et cetera, yet cannot fashion a reason why the players I suggested have no hope of finding themselves on an AFL list.

Pick 57 is irrelevant in the rookie draft, he was one of their scholarship players so could add him to their list without burning a higher pick.

Nothing like Gysberts, Riley is tough/works his arse off in games.

Either someone is getting delisted or Clisby will be added to the list via Pick 57. Seen a bit of Sturt this year, Riley is a real workhorse, not a flashy player, but very hardworking, grab it, get it forward type. Very good SANFL player. Think he played a bit for Adelaide across half-back as well. Outperformed Kerridge in the games I saw for Sturt, Kerridge's decision making and ball usage was a real problem for me. I'm not comparing him in terms of ability with Andrew Obst, but he is similar in terms of physical attributes and plays a similar way, at SANFL level at least.

I'm obviously assessing in the reference to the overall trade. Obviously I'm not advocating an organic 2 down to 9 trade. But Tyson and 9 v 2 and 20 is seeming to work out well. It is a good draft for that kind of m0ve.

If you take as gospel the fact the club thought that the players they'd take at 2 would likely still be there at 9, that would indicate Scharenberg may be graded by the club lower than a Freeman or a Lennon or whoever else they had in the mix to take at 2. I think it's becoming a shrewder move to drop down a bit in the draft as the days go by. Although the performance of Tyson and Josh Kelly (most likely) will determine that to a massive degree. Of course the players hypothetically rated above Scharenberg by us might be similarly graded by other clubs and organically he could be the 9th best player and he comes to us as well. It's a fascinating draft and the club is effectively the backboard, ready to absorb the player the slips through or likely able to pinpoint a specific player that isn't as highly rated by the other clubs.

He missed the last month of the WAFL season with a knee injury. Would certainly have played in that St Kilda game and his best band of form led into the game he got injured, so he was finishing the season strong, as you would expect given he missed all of 2012. I agree the expectation that some seem to have that he is a guaranteed ready made best 22 mid is unrealistic. He may be that, he could also not be good enough. But he was a pretty good junior and there is upside in the sense that he's never really much of a chance. I think it's exciting in a subdued way that we've got a ready to go kid, who is untapped. Just don't think there can be any confidence about him, much like any draft pick.

Peel Thunder won 3 games so his B+F win is of no real consequence as a barometer with regards his place in our Best 22. Matt Jones finished fourth in ours and, while I like him as a player, is no certainty of being in our best 22. Most WAFL best and fairests won't be on an AFL list next year. Moreover, Paul Johnson and Mark McGough finished top 5 in the entire WAFL (Sandover Medal). I'm not potting Michie but saying his B+F win for the worst club in a major Australian football league is of huge significance re: him being in our best 22 or being a good AFL player is nonsense.

We dont have a shutdown back pocket. I know that's a key plank in the premiership model. We also don't have a crumbing/pressure forward of any note. Question marks over the ruck division linger.

Gawn is younger than Hannath, Fitzpatrick is the same age. Don't really see the point holding a list spot for four years so we have a ruckman who may or not be good enough enter his prime as a 27 year old ready to overtake a couple of 27 year olds who may be better than him in any case.

I didn't shoot you down. I rate Barrass very highly and lot higher than any phantom drafts and the like. He is a very promising player. Just seems that if you are comparing him to Josh Gibson, then you don't know much about him, or haven't seen him play much. I don't rate Pongracic that highly and know that most AFL clubs don't see him as an AFL player and have heard numerous recruiters describe him as a wombat. Guy Page has got classes on Pongracic and we don't have a small back pocket to play on indigenous smalls. He was very rarely beaten this year. I'd be amazed if you've seen him play and obviously there is some interest in him as there were numerous management companies keen to get hold of him and I know some spotters went over to watch him this year. I provided my report on Edwards who is that far superior to Pongracic in terms of talent it is hilarious. McKay, again I'd be amazed how much you've seen of him. Knee injuries have hurt him but he is hard, tough and uses it well. They are rookie prospects this year. You spit out Barrass, who is arguable the best key back in the draft and Pongracic the most overhyped player from last year, who every club didn't rate. But if you want to call people neanderthals, make sure you bring the noise when the time comes, don't want a mess being made.

I'm not saying he was good and every comment regarding a recruiter's performance has to be judged in a somewhat hindsight-driven fashion, otherwise the majority that were in raptures at Blease and Tapscott's drafting and after Cook's NAB cup outing ought bite their tongues. But constantly on here there is editorial bemoaning the selection of Cook (who incidentally will be playing for North Ballarat next year) for example, yet very little praise attributed to the fact that in that draft a 1st round talent in Howe was drafted and what many believe on here to be a foundation piece defender in Tom McDonald was acquired as well. To me, that's a pretty decent return from that draft, yet constantly Cook is being brought up with Prendergast as if that pick has been the greatest disgrace in the club's history. I don't think the other drafts are shambolic either to the extent that the vitriol on here makes out. And as Baghdad Bob instructs, it's too early to be casting concrete judgments in many cases. Aaron Black from North hadn't played a game in his first four seasons and if he was in this year's draft pool would be a top 10 pick for sure. He was given a great deal of time and patience.

Juggling the order serves the purpose of asking the question how can people lament the 2010 draft when if it went 12 Howe 33 McDonald 50 Cook etc they'd be lauding it. The fact is he missed an opportunity at pick 12 to have a genius draft instead of a solid one which has netted two presumptive 200 gamers. If Gawn was pick 11 and Gysberts 34 the same, there wouldn't even be an issue with that draft and that makes no sense versus the malicious comments. The same people would battle to make picks in 2011 at our spots even with the benefit of hindsight. The other years whilst not great are not atrocities either and he gets slammed for picking Scully who was rated by the market as the best player in football at the end of his second season. Not necessarily giving him the thumbs up but the pasting he cops is unfair in my opinion.

He was appointed because he was a highly respected football figure - VFL coach et cetera with a resume better than most recruiters. I actually don't think he was a good recruiter, just think he is far better than the consensus view. The fact that people besmirch him constantly I find utterly ludicrous and I actually use people thinking he is the essence of the clubs current problems as a basis to believe they have no idea. His first draft: Obviously Watts is still in the debate zone but I don't think it's a bad pick. Blease and Strauss have had injury nightmares and they haven't worked out that well. Bennell I think was hastily delisted but I can concede its an average pick. Jetta and Bail have performed above variance at their respective draft spots and Jurrah and McKenzie were excellent PSD draft and Rookie Picks. Had the picks in that year been 1. Watts 17. Jurrah 19. Blease 35. McKenzie 55. Strauss 70. Bennell 80. Bail 85. Jetta Thats not the performance of an utterly incompetent recruiter. 2009 Well Scully has turned out to be a marvellous pick, we got a king's bounty for him. Trengove is the captain and hopefully he can overcome his issues to become a very good player. I dont think that's a bad pick. Gysberts has turned out to a bad pick and the Tapscott selection, as well, seems a poorish pick, countered by us getting Gawn and Fitzpatrick, who are big guys of reasonable potential about to hit their prime. 2010: Lucas Cook turned out to be a bad pick, but he's made two terrific picks - Howe is a fantastic smokey pick that could become anything as a player if he can improve his consistency and find a role and Tom McDonald looms as a 10-year promising key defender. Pick 12 went astray but its countered because at pick 33 and 52, where youre not really expected to find quality players, he redeemed himself. He also found a player a lot think can play in Michael Evans in the rookie draft 2011: Is a wipe of a draft and a highly compromised one. Taggert, Tynan, Sellar not great picks, but people blue about those selections yet its a battle to find difference makers taken after them, with the exception of maybe Jack Newnes. We got Mitch Clark with our first pick, which is genius without luck. Basically I just think the ribbing of him is completely unfair and premature. He battled a bit a bit with late first round picks and did well at other spots. His predecessor destroyed better drafts a lot worse than that and made far more grievous errors, as have Hawthorn and Sydney at various points. Hawthorn: 2005. Pick 3 Xavier Ellis Pick 6 Beau Dowler, Pick 22 Beau Muston 2006: Pick 6 Mitch Thorp Sydney Swans: 2004 Pick 15 Josh Willoughby 2006: Pick 15 Dan O'Keefe 2008: Pick 12 Lewis Johnston 2007: Pick 11 Pat Vespremi, Pick 26 Brett Meredith Prendergasts batches havent even hit the magic 22yo mark where the players have hit the maturity to impact games of football consistently at a high level, yet he cops the blame as if Cook who should only really be mature to play now and Gysberts not being good have destroyed the team.

Agree and we should delist the two players he took with subsequent picks in that draft.

I think its a bit overblown to be honest. Reality is Hannath will battle to get games with Freo next year and he'd struggle to get games with us as well and he was pretty mediocre last year. They made an error in judgment on Gillies and they got unlucky Hannath didn't fall. There was no arrogance and naivety, they didn't have a senior list spot, which was perhaps a strategic error. The PDS is a light of other days in any case - free agency has all but destroyed the need for it.