Radar Detector

What I'm interested to know, having not seen anything other than the highlights, is what deficiencies resulted in him being available so late in the draft? Can anyone help out? Looks like a nice prospect.

The irony.

Wouldn't surpise to see someone like Blease or even Tapscott spend some time as a dashing HBF with good skills. I reckon Morton will spend some time there too. All of which would release Grimes for some time in the middle.

Just to clarify, I have no issue with drafting a 27yo if they realistically add to our 22 and, more importantly, may still be there in 3-4 years time when our younger brigade are firing. If Riewoldt, Pavlich, Brown etc. were available, and we deemed their bodies to be up for it, then I wouldn't hesitate to bring them in (caveat: at the right price that doesn't jeopardise our ability to retain said young brigade when they fire). I was also in the camp that supported the idea of getting Hale who, whilst not being the world beater that the above are, would have been a versatile and useful addition to our team and in a similar age bracket to Hansen. What I don't support is bringing in players whose bodies aren't up for it or who otherwise just aren't much good. In my opinion, Hansen fits both of these categories and would be a waste of a spot. Apologies for the confusion - I agree that a 27yo is clearly not washed up as a rule.

No it wasn't. Not every prospective recruit gets shot down on here, only ones that make no sense - Ash Hansen is one of those. He is a 27yo with a body that's shot and was a very average footballer even when fully fit. Why would we even look at this guy when we just delisted Brad Miller - he is worse. And I'm not buying the "he's a premiership player" or "he just had a great WAFL season" arguments either. Plenty of pretty marginal footballers have premiership medallions and Miller (and even PJ) manage to dominate at the next level down. I'm all for looking to improve our list but improve is the operative word here. Someone like Hale may have been able to provide that but just because we couldn't get him doesn't mean we need to chase down every rejected tall going around. Our forward line this year is likely to see Green, Jurrah, Watts, Petterd, Bate, Dunn, Jamar and maybe Martin or even one of the new draftees spending time as marking targets. IMO that's enough depth without chasing another NQR for insurance. If, heaven forbid, our entire swag of tall forward options go down, we may as well give Howe or Cook some time like we did for Watts. There's nothing to lose and everything o gain by making sure the players we actually expect to be around in three years are, by then, ready to play their role. The bandaid mentality that some people advocate on here absolutely astounds me. End rant.

Have been thinking about this trying to convince myself that we will be able to compete with the new franchises in 3-4 years. The reality is they've had a number of very high draft picks, and I think Scott Clayton has said that between the 17yos they stockpiled and their bevy of picks this year, they have the equivalent of approximately 16 first round picks on their list. I would think that there would be a number of clubs, ours included, that also have around that number of first round picks on their list, the difference being that most other clubs have had the ability to weed out some of the underperforming first rounders over time. Think Daniel Bell (and you could even include someone like John Meesen) from as recently as this year. On that basis, I'm not really convinced they're getting as much of a leg up as some are suggesting. Sure, they have some great young talent but not all of them will become great players. In any event, people look at the picks that GC have had this year, but in the past 3 or 4 years we've had two no. 1s, a 2, a 4, an 11, a 12 and a 14 who all look like being seriously good players. Over the next few years, they will drip in a few more first rounders but may equally lose a few too. I would suggest that our drafting over the last few years has been at least in the same sphere as theirs. I would also add that I will be highly surprised if they go anywhere near vying for the eight next year. They basically have a raft of 18yos and about half a dozen decent AFL experienced players. Most clubs even with a development bias like us, the kangaroos and the tigers have a much larger core of senior players capable of playing senior footy. Too much will be left to the like of Swallow, Toy, Day and Weller in their first year of AFL footy. Don't be surprised if they finish right near the bottom for the first few years before some of their rising stars start to really develop. I would think finals is a pipe dream for this team until at least 2013.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. IMO he is far more damaging as a forward and should play about 80%+ of his time there for the rest of his career.

Have to disagree - E25 is spot on. At least Juice looks decent back at VFL level. Both have looked NQR in the AFL to date but Neagle would struggle for a regular game at Casey. I would say that, within reason, he IS just about the worst player available to take that key forward spot.

I don't think anyone can question Bruce's contribution to MFC over the past decade, and some of the vitriol towards him at this point probably goes too far. Likewise the suggestion that we can't make finals without Bruce and the subsequently unreasonable comparisons to junior players. The fact is that Bruce is now our oldest player and this represents a risk when negotiating his contract. Signing him for a one year deal mitigates that risk and is necessary IMO. The fact that he was recently 6th in our B&F is not important and should be taken in context. Brad Johnson was 4th in the Bulldogs' B&F last year and then fell off a cliff. Bruce would probably be a handy player to have around the club next year and maybe for a year or two after that but the end of his career is near and the end typically creeps up quickly. For this reason, nothing about the club's stance seems unreasonable to me. They are fast chalking up a reputation for making shrewd commercial calls. It would be good if Bruce stayed for a bit longer but I doubt it will impact us much either way. Certainly not by 2012.

Not only that, but the payments have to be funded from somewhere. Just because it won't be 100% caught in the cap doesn't mean we should pay any more than Bruce is actually worth. We don't have the funds of Collingwood to splash around.

Let's hope we don't end up as disappointed with our bevy of jacks. Can't really see it happening.

Yep, this is the best draw I can remember us getting for some time. The travel assignments are as good as we could have hoped for. One "home" game at TIO, then WCE in Perth (not Freo), Suns at the Gabba and Power in Adelaide (not Crows). All winnable games. One home game at Etihad is really not so bad. It's against WCE who can't win in Melbourne and the AFL are deliberately fixturing every club on the G at least once. That weekend is Port's only MCG game for the year. Even Collingwood have an Etihad home game (round 1). And we have MCG home games against Collingwood, Hawthorn, Carlton and Richmond. We even have well poitioned byes in rounds 5 and 16 and long weeks after all our road trips. We have a bye after playing the Suns, a ten days break after WCE and an 8 day break after TIO. In any event, we have every chance to play finals with this draw and the crowds will look after themselves if we're winning. I'm pumped. Bring on 2011!!

Unfortunately no. Starting off in Adelaide. While I hate the thought of playing there, winning a game or 2 at AAMI even in the pre season may help the psyche and set the tone for a decade of dominance at that cesspool.

Sylvia Davey Jurrah Scully Watts Frawley and Green very stiff.

Agree with this. Martin has played his best footy as a backman. This is exactly the type of "if it aint broke don't fix it" mentality I was speaking of. Newton is probably not the one that will make the difference, but if you think our backline won't need any improvement in the coming years you're kidding yourself. Nothing. Last time I checked our last rookie spot will be what? Around the 150th pick overall and in a weakend draft pool. One year to see if Newton can fulfil the role or not will cost nothing if the FD deems it worthwhile. FWIW I haven't seen anything to suggest Newton will be any better as a defender than a forward, but if he's retained with that sort of experimentation in mind, I won't feel that we've lost out on anything.

Back to Newton, I agree he hasn't taken his chances at AFL level to date and been a massive cause for frustration, but having said that I have never seen hime play in defence. I may be wrong but I hazard a guess most on here haven't either. That's not to say he'll be any good in the role, or even retain his spot on the list, but if the FD decided to try him in a different spot, I wouldn't be too disappointed. On the available evidence he will not make it as a forward. Period. But we don't lose anything by trying him as a backman. The question keeps cropping up as to who in the team he would replace if we went down this path. The consensus is that our defence is the strongest are of our list and he will be hard pressed to make an impression there. I don't disagree. But building for a flag means constantly evaluating and trying to improve every area of your list ALL THE TIME. It would be foolish to exempt the backline from this kind of analysis. If Newton can force his way into the mix, displacing one of the incumbents, we will be a better team for it. In any event, I see Frawley and Warnock as the only true KPD on our list. Garland is a jet but IMO is better suited to third tall role that Rivers / MacDonald currently play. Warnock is a good workhorse in his role but there is clearly an opportunity for someone to make one of the KPD roles their own, Newton or otherwise.

As a mature age rookie maybe, but only with the view to it being a last resort if Spencer gets injured and the young kids still aren't ready. Having said that, Taylor might be a better proposition than Skipper in that context. Still, strong preference to follow the youth path for a couple more years.

On Carl Peterson, some guys just don't have the head for it, no matter how good the infrastructure a club has in place. Whilst I don't want to understate the impressive dynamic that Davey, Jurrah, Wona etc. have developed, I don't think we should just assume that we can reform every head case out there. No from me.

Sure. How about Jake Spencer? Whilst Spencer may not yet be as good as Skipper or even PJ, it is a better move to give him game time. Skipper is not much of a player and will be 28yo before next season starts. I just don't understand the urgency in bringing in a recruit to fill the 2nd ruck position. If we lose one or two games next year because we play Spencer, but he improves with the extra game time, I consider this more beneficial than winning a couple of extra games by playing a Skipper (or PJ) and stalling the development of our young rucks by another year or two. At some point, these kids need to be played in just the same way as we did with a young Frawley and are currently doing with Watts. And before I get jumped on with the "we shouldn't play our rucks too early" argument, Kreuzer and Naitanui have been playing games since the year they were drafted. Mitch Clark was almost AA at 22. Closer to home, Darren Jolly had played about 50 games by the time he was Spencer's age (also off the rookie list) and Jamar played 22 games in 2006 as a 22yo. Spencer is physically ready to go and the best way to develop a young ruck is to give them serious game time. We see it time and again. But if you absolutely must draft in a more "ready made" type, I'd prefer someone like Callum Sinclair who is not necessarily stop gap but may improve enough to actually play a role in our future. Apologies for the rant but I'm of the firm view that the quickest way to de-rail your development is to go too early on recycled players. In two years we'll be in serious contention and will know where the holes are on our list so we can trade to fill them then.

Unless the player we recruit is a Callum Sinclair type who can play the role we had earmarked for Hale and who still has his best years well and truly in front of him.

We were looking at Hale as a forward who rucks a little and was being considered as much to help shape the games style as for the actual football ability he would've brought to the table. Skipper rucks a little and doesn't do much else. And he is just ordinary as a ruckman. I am bemused that looking at deserving delistees like this from other clubs would be considered a sure step. Development has got to be the name of the game until we're approaching serious contention, not plugging holes that may only be short term problems in any event and could cost us two years of development in a promising kid. The best sure steps in my view are still to get games into those who will be playing when we are making a serious tilt at the flag. We won't be premiers next year so what is the downside in giving the Spencil (or Fitz or Gawn if they deserve it) a decent run? Even if he doesn't fully fire next year, we lose nothing for giving him the chance to prove himself. Chasing duds like Skipper is the result of people getting too focussed on short term results rather than the big picture. Patience people, please.

I have to disagree. Skipper is a 193cm ruckman who is a stop-gap at best. We are still in somewhat of a development mode and have three young ruckmen on our list, all of whom will hopefully have the benefit of a full pre-season going into next year. Jake Spencer is at a stage where he needs AFL game time if he is any chance of being the sort of player we will need in 2-3 years time. Skipper will never be that player. Period. If we want an average 193cm battler who can ruck a bit for a year or two we still have Newton on the rookie list. And, I think we should stop using "better than PJ" as a benchmark (although I'm not sure it even applies in Skipper's case). If we're going to be a powerhouse, we need to aim higher and think more "big picture" than that.

^^ What he said. We are (usually) pretty focussed on putting together a team that will contend for premierships and moving players on that we don't think fit within the plan. If the Hawks have identified 11 players as not up to it (and I find it hard to disagree with the culls) then cutting your losses and trying to unearth a diamond in the draft is not such a huge gamble IMO. In any event, half of the players they delisted were rookies and they have already added Hale and Cheney so they have really only freed up four selections in the national draft. I daresay that between the rookie and senior lists our situation this year will be pretty similar.

These delistings represent a big steaming heap of garbage that I hope we stay well away from. And I would rather play Spencer in the seniors on one leg than see Skipper in red and blue. C'mon guys, I thought we'd moved on from chasing this sort of garbage a few years ago now. If some people can't see a place in a flag team for Nathan Jones... Wade Skipper. Wow.

I agree with this. Morton's natural gifts are just about the most impressive of all our youngsters, he just needs to bulk up a little. I also suspect that if he had held his form from twelve months ago he would have been in many people's top 3 or 4.