The Chazz

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, maybe the KPFs in this draft don't have huge amounts of upside to them. Why risk it??? In regards to your forward structure, add Stef Martin to your list of tall forwards (this has come from BP's mouth - I personally spoke to him earlier this year). He WILL play full forward, Watts WILL play CHF, and LJ will do whatever he bloody well please. I'm over this sh!t about us not picking a KPF, we got what we needed - gun midfielders and 2 rucks. KPF far from a priority for mine.

Wont know for 3+ years. Hopefully he will come out and show signs next year and we will know the answer sooner. With all the players available at pick 11, do you think BP would have picked someone he didn't see having a bright future? McLean walking out on Melbourne means we have got the better of that deal.

Ok, a couple of things... Our forward line is far from small, so DON'T put Garland there to fill a hole. He has played great footy for us as a defender, let's just hope he recovers from his injuries and actually plays at the top level again. Now, in regards to our picks tonight; * While we all have our favourite nominee's, and it's not possible to select everyone's preferred picks, don't forget 1 thing, BP is far more experienced in this field than any of us. While it's an open forum to voice your own opinion, there is personnel at the Club that get paid to do this stuff. * Because of my above point, has anyone that is whinging about us taking no dedicated KPF stopped to think that maybe the ones available were no bloody good? Obviously they don't have as much potential as the mids that we selected, so instead of carrying on about us needing a KPF, how about you be thankful that the Club kept cool heads by selecting the best available player, rather than picking for a need. Obviously we need a top KPF, but if there is none there, WHY PICK ONE??? * I am stoked with the picks. As I have mentioned before, it is very difficult for a team to get more than 1 star per draft (when was our last one?), so the fact that we may have 2 this year in Scully and Trengove, as well as Watts last year, I was always going to be open minded with picks 11, 18, 34 and 51. It's far from the class of 2001, actually, this years draft, outside the top 2, will more than likely prove to be a terrible draft. * The choice of picking 2 rucks is great. By the time they both develop, we will have limited ruck stocks. I think to some degree it proves the Club may feel the same about Spencer as I do. I am hopeful that Gawn can turn out to be that ruckman that can be very competitive and win his share of the taps for this midfield we have got. * I think this year's draft showed just how little depth there was. Guys like Vardy were picked up at 30+, Patrick and Grimes weren't picked up at all. Outside the top 8, the selections were a lottery, this is because the pool seriously lacked depth. Players that the experts and us were expecting to go top 20 or so, actually went lower (eg. T Taylor). As I said, I'm stoked that we got Scully and Trengove (although we have known this for ages now). I have complete faith in BP's other decisions, and while I'd like to have seen Ball come to us, I'm not going to sit and whinge that he didn't (unlike other posters that didn't get "what they wanted for Christmas"!!!). Bring on 2010!!!

What pick do you think Liam Jurrah would have gone in the ND had he nominated? BP would have seen Patrick play, so if he has the X Factor like his cousin, don't you think we would be snapping him up at 11, or even 1 or 2?? And because of his relationship to LJ, he has drawn attention from other clubs. Why aren't they talking about taking hm in the top 10? I am a very big fan of the indigenous players, but just because they are one, doesn't automatically make them a superstar.

Go to a pub or mates place that has it! That's what I'm doing!!!

What is your arguement here Roost? It makes no sense to me. Are you saying we should pick Patrick over Gawn just because his cousin is a freak? In regards to the Sandilands comment about how Freo don't win with him...I don't think you can blame Sandi for that, he gives his mids first opportunity more often than not. He does his bit in that team, just a shame most of the players around him are crap. Also, can you chase up the head-to-head stats for Melbourne vs Freo? I think you would be horrified at our success against them. I always cringe when we have to play Freo, even in Melbourne, think I'm still burnt from the late 90's/early 00's when they stopped a losing streak against us, at the MCG! It was back when Modra was playing for them, very sad moment in my life.

I think it will be less of a risk taking he or Vardy at 18, than taking Butcher or Talia at 11. I still think/hope we will take Ball at 11, then ruck at 18. Almost the safest picks we can make.

The main reason we wont see many of that giant-type is because there's bugger all of them around! Sandilands always smashes Melbourne when we play them (more often than not anyway). He is consistently in the top 3 rucks in the league, and does his fair share of work around the ground, especially when he goes forward - very hard to beat one-on-one. I would love to have the next Sandi-type play for us. A mate of mine, who barracks for Geelong, any time we watch Freo play, we always comment about how he is too tall and that there should be a height limit on AFL players! Picture Sandilands wearing the red and blue, tapping it down to our midfield, gives me a bit of swelling I know that!

If there was a ruck prospect in the draft that had high wraps, they would go top 5 at least, if not earlier. Nick Nat last year could have gone pick 1, Kreuzer went pick 1 the year before. This doesn't mean they were the best player in that draft, it means that Clubs rate a ruck with good potential just as high as a midfielder with great potential. If BP is saying that Vardy and Gawn are going to be solid players, you will find that they will go higher that what you hope. Taking a punt on a ruck with a later pick will be very high risk, more so than taking a KPF at a later pick. I think we would have more benefit out of Vardy at 11 rather than Talia, Black or even Butcher, this is assuming that BP rates them all evenly. When we are developing such a talented midfield, we need someone to feed them. I know that midfield will need to kick it to someone, but there is no reason why our mids and flanks can kick their share of goals.

Just sent my Carlton-supporting mate a SMS saying how I'll be using tissues for different reasons that he'll be using them for tomorrow night. I guess that means I'm pretty (s)excited!

Hey Deb, can confirm 5:30pm telecast starting time on Fox Sports 2 for us qld viewers. Not sure if I'll be able to sleep tonight, might as well start making the popcorn now! Wasn't going to tell you because of your Ball comments, but decided to do the right thing!!!

Hey Deeman, why is there a possibility that the kids we pick at 11 and 18 playing 200 games, and Luke Ball breaking down in 12 months, but there is no possibility that Luke Ball could play 100+ games for us, help lead us to a serious finals attack, and the kid that we pick up at either 11 or 18 (whichever we don't use Ball on) breaks down in his first full preseason and barely gets 50 games for the club. It's a pathetic argument this whole issue about Ball's body. How many of the kids in the draft, INCLUDING Tom Scully, have been reportedly suffering from reasonable types of injuries over the past 12-24 months? There is a lot of talk about some KPF's having a history of hamstring troubles, and even Scully with his knee problems toward the end of the season. While it's great to be getting Tom and Jack this year, I'm sick of my team not winning games. Sacrificing 11 or 18 to get Ball will ensure we are a more competitive team in the immediate future, which will see us win more games in the next 1-3 years. By the 4th year, blokes like Grimes, Morton, Watts, Jurrah, Scully & Trengove will be topline players who will ensure greater success between the next 3-10 years. Winning games as of 2010 will increase memberships, give us more opportunity to attract better sponsors, and raise our poor crowd figures. Am I the only one that thinks this way???

Too big of a call to make Daz. Best thing you could do is get that idea out of your head straight away, and if Butcher comes to Melbourne, hope that he can be a handy forward. Anything better than that is a bonus, but at this stage, I can't see it happening. I'll settle for a handy tall forward though! Easiest way to look at it - last year, Watts was touted as a potential "elite forward". Watts is so much more a potential elite forward than anyone in this draft, hence he went at number 1, and this year, we are hoping the next elite forward will slip to 11. Not a personal attack, just being the person that is realistic!

Win for Melbourne. Ball is far more consistent.

Just quoting myself from an earlier post; the "Ball-bashers" haven't ripped me a new one like I thought they would. Maybe it's because most are over the topic, or maybe it's because of the 2 rules I made about what not to include in their arguements. After those 2 rules, they've got nothing!

Interesting quote from BP in the Herald Sun this morning; ""We are also at pick 11, and last year it was Steele Sidebottom, who stepped up and played really good footy. We would be rapt to get someone like that at 11, but in this draft we are not expecting it..." While he does say that the first 25 picks will be solid, it doesn't give me as much confidence as others in here when thinking we are going to get the answers to our prayers at 11 and/or 18. I have thought this all along, hence my desire of picking Ball at 11. It's a safe bet that Luke Ball will turn out more than solid over the next 5 years. From your list of names above, I want Ball and Vardy. I think our ruck stocks are at the URGENT stage, and he appears too be the best in this years pool - how good that will be, who knows, but as I said above, getting 2 potential superstars at 1 & 2, and a top midfielder in Ball at 11, anything after that is a bonus.

Great poll. I had us winning 10 games, maybe a bit hopeful, and picked that we would finish above 6 teams, meaning we will finish 10th. If we win 10 games, we will go close to finishing in tenth spot. This poll works well if you are realistic!!!

I don't think there is much gap between the "better" talls in the draft. Therefore, waiting til 18 to pick one up will mean we get a similar quality one, we just have less to choose from. I'd like a tall at either 34 or 51 too, to go with the one at 18!

Best idea to date Baz! I was a fan of the pick 1.5 for both, but the old coin toss seems fair. Either that or both Tom and Jack have a paper, scissors, rock-off! For the record, I picked JT. I'm not a believer of this "go home" factor, but giving him the number 1 title will make it harder for him to ever consider. I think he will handle the number 1 tag, as he seemed to handle the build up the the SANFL grand final very well. The AFL is obviously a lot bigger, but that's my reasoning. I'm just grateful that we are getting both, just not sure which one will be my favourite player.

I think a lot of people on this site are putting too much expectations on picks 11 and 18. When it's all said and done, we are drafting 2 potential superstars of the competition...Scully and Trengove. These two kids have been likened to Chris Judd and James Hird respectively, as well as any other stars including Nathan Buckley, and current players like Bryce Gibbs. The reality is that if they both live up to the expectation, we will have made this the best individual club draft in many years. The last time a team drafted 2 or more superstars in the one draft would be back in 2001, where clubs like Geelong landed Bartel and Ablett (although Gaz was pick 40 via father and son), St Kilda got Ball and Dal Santo, Hawthorn got Hodge and Mitchell, the list goes on, but my main point is that the class of 2001 is like nothing we have seen before, and will be a long, long time until we see it again. I'm amazed that Melbourne were about the only team that [censored] up - possibly cost us a crack at the flag in the later Daniher years, but that's a side issue. Have a look at the selections, quite an amazing draft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_AFL_Draft So, what I'm getting at is that picking up Ball at either 11 OR 18 will be a massive collect for the club. He is proven, he may not be a superstar (when comparing him t the likes of Judd, Ablett, etc), but should he play for Melbourne, I would rate him in the top 3 at the club. IF, and it's a very big "IF", Scully and Trengove turn out to be the A+ midfielders that we need, and we get an "A" midfielder in Ball, we have done very, very well, and we still have the chance to pick up another A- player with 11/18 (whichever we didn't use on Ball), as well as 34 and 51. Saying that we are going to get a quality forward at 11 and 18 is a massive call, and in time, may be correct. I would call it a massive risk for the MFC. In that 2001 draft, Melbourne picked Luke Molan at pick 9, missing out on names like Dal Santo (pick 13), Stevie J (24), Campbell Brown (32), Sam Mitchell (36), Dane Swan (58). At the time, they obviously thought Molan was the best available. To Molan's defence, he never had the chance to prove if he was every bit as good as those other players selected in 2001 (http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/unlucky-pick-from-the-superdraft/2008/11/24/1227491463795.html). Looking at the quality of the kids that are earmarked to go around that pick 11 and 18, I think there is more chance that they will end up, at best, average players, as opposed to the "high quality" status that a number of people on here have them tagged as. So, my question is, why not take Ball at 11? While I'm not a big fan of his, John Butcher would be the only player I would consider at 11, should he be available. He has shown ability/potential, at one stage he was a contender for pick 1 or 2 (Daniel Rich proved the form of former top draft picks that slide can turn out very good). If Butcher isn't around, get Ball. Put the bullsh!t aside about him not wanting to come to us, we (the general public) will never know the true story behind the scenes. Picking him at 11 is assuring we are going to get a top class midfielder (for Melbourne's standards) for the next 3-5 years. He is a player that will help win games of footy for the Club, absolutely no doubt about it. I want to see us win games, do you? I think the difference between pick 11 and 18 is minimal. I don't think we can say that a kid at pick 11 is showing much more potential than the kid likely to be picked at 18, that's why I think Melbourne isn't sacrificing anything by picking Ball at 11. We have a history of stuffing up early picks, but getting something handy at pick 30+, I can't see why that wont continue this year (the bit about us jaggin something with a later pick). I know the anti-Ball community amongst us will be licking their lips reading my post, so I'm prepared! Just make sure you don't use 2 things in you arguements; 1. The line on "he doesn't want to come to us". As I said, we will never know the full truth in regards to this. 2. The line about "his body wont last 3 years...blah, blah". Read the above link on Luke Molan, a former pick 9, INJURIES CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE!!!

Good post. Wouldn't he (Ball) be the best spokesman the club could have in the next 3-5 years if some of our young guns start thinking about going to another club. Ball could get in their ear and say "stay here, you don't end up going where you want to go"!!! Is it coincidence that Ball is asking $500k a year, and we're $500k short in our TPP? And in 3 years time, he will be paid $75k, when blokes like Grimes, Watts, Morton and Jurah can hopefully put their hand up for a payrise? Maybe the Club has spoken to him already, and are just using the media as a smokescreen. Perhaps we have told him to demand $500k a year, knowing too well that 95% of the Clubs can't fit him in their salary cap.

Picked Vardy, due to the fact that I feel we need a solid ruck more than we need a KPF. While this goes against my idea of selecting the best available, Vardy will be in amongst the big list that could be classed as the best available at that pick.

Not sure where all this talk has come from about Macdonald being a defender that can potentially take Rivers' place. I really see them as 2 totally different players. I also don't see the theory behind Rivers being a CHB. What I do see in Rivers is a bloke that had a cracker debut season, then struggle with injury for the next 3 or 4 seasons (apart from 2006 where he played 22 games). 2009 saw easily his best season since his Rising Star year, with a better preseason under his belt. Some will obviously argue that if Garland had've stayed sound, Riv may have struggled too keep his spot. I agree, Garland is a good footballer, what could he have been like this year without injury?? Ask yourself the same question about how good Rivers could have been if he had had an injury free career. The inclusion (if it eventuates) of Macdonald could be good. Sadly, blokes like Bell and Cheney will be struggling to get a game, when we've got other backs like Warnock, Frawley, Rivers, Garland, Joel Macdonald, Bennell, Morton, Grimes, plus we are going to have to slot Junior in there somewhere. I'm still not convinced that we will pick J-Mac up, signs are obviously pointing in that direction, but there has been no word from Club or Player/Manager. Media reports are only assuming we have done a deal.

Hence my reasoning for my early post on Warnock playing in the backline somewhere.

You've taught us too well Belze!!!