DeeSpencer

Love his kick as well as his mark and he can run. There's a lot more to footy than that of course but really it's the basis of AFL football isn't it? Wouldn't at all be surprised to see him playing half back or rotating through a wing as part of his development.

Competitor without the ball. Good evasive skills and vision with the ball means quick and quality decisions. That's a nice combination. More of a midfielder than a speedy crumber but as defenders get quicker I don't think pure speed is going to run them down all that often. I like the pick and I think he'll be a player.

I like Bailey much more than Baker if I was lining all the kids up in the draft. I don't have a full list, I don't watch the kids I just see a few games of state champs or TAC plus make judgements from what I read or see in highlights. I'm just not overly enamoured with him like others seem to be. Sounds like Bailey will be gone by our first pick and he would've been a nice fit there but I think there's others who are as good. Baker seems like someone fun for our later picks.

Do the outside players? If the inside mids are getting it 50 times there might be less footy for the runners! I like the look of this guy and I think he suits our needs, but I'd rather take best available for a couple of picks and get him with the 3rd or 4th choice. He's linked with our first pick much more than any other player and there's other speedy outside types in the draft so I think there's probably some truth to it. That said, once you get linked in one phantom draft the other 'media drafters' often just follow it.

Averages 16 disposals which probably isn't too bad for a 19 year old outside player. His team went 8-10 so were probably not all that great at getting the ball out, especially up against the stronger AFL reserves sides. He looks like he plays a bit taller than a 6 foot guy and I think that's maybe where some of the interest is. If he can hold his own in the air as well as take the game on at ground level then he might not need to win a lot of gound balls. I've seen a few times his endurance has been listed as needing to improve to play regular AFL midfield footy. That might be my biggest concern. If he runs hard and has the speed and evasive skills then that's almost enough for a good player. If he doesn't have above average endurance then he's probably going to be more of a Gary Rohan than an Isaac Smith.

The AFL website list is after rookie promotions. They've already assigned a pick 80 (for example) to him and done that. They changed the rules a year or so ago to stop the charade of reading out promoted rookies on draft night and made that process complete before the draft.

Back on to Liam Ryan - still seeing him mocked to the Eagles in the 20's. I think they'll get him in the 30's. I don't think we can risk it for a player with a strong go home factor and doubts over his defensive game. I'd love to have him and move the ball in quick to him one on one and see what he can do but too much of modern footy isn't played one on one anyway

Nope you're wrong. Joel Smith is part of the 36 on the senior list. Rookie upgrades just get assigned a late pick and upgraded now, they don't have to go through the draft process. We wouldn't have to use 47 on him anyway, we had a pick in the 80's or 100's available if needed. We can and should use all 4 picks on Friday night.

My new favourite from the highlights videos is Matthew McGannon. 183cm skinny but rangy kid who seems suited to flanks, inside or the wings. Just makes really quick and good decisions in moving the ball on and mixes his kicks between weighted and flat. Not afraid to use his left foot or hand either. Doesn't look fast but seems to glide out of trouble when needed. Any draft watchers seen him play?

Andy seems fitter, faster and a more penetrating kick that Gus. He's fitting the mould of how the game has swung back towards pace and running the ball with the Dogs and this Richmond team. Gus is bigger, stronger and more suited to the style that was in vogue when he was drafted of big bodied mids. I am hoping that with a strong fitness base and consistent game time that Gus will mature and get sharper in his ball use and quicker on his feet. That's been true of a lot of players over the years, like a Josh Kennedy at Sydney. The other thing I think recruiters are picking up on is that with the number 1 pick especially but also with top 3, top 5 or top 10 even you have to pick a player who will thrive under scrutiny. That can be a Dusty or Clarry who outwardly look like lads but have inner determination or it can be an Andy McGrath super professional type but they have to be resilient. Andy Brayshaw seems like that.

Have a look at Oskar Baker's highlights on the AFL website. Kicking needs work but he looks like a lot of fun. Speed to burn.

Get him fit at the start of the season and playing all the practice games - compared to his usual month at Casey getting match fit - and I think he has to be considered to play as a key defender.

Ok he looks good overhead on the lead which is nice. And his kicking and decision making seems decent. Better at pack hangers but he actually reminds me more of Luke Breust than of Cyril. More of a goal kicker who can gather possessions up the ground as well than a pressure player.

Rams Chiefs Lions

Season Grade Games Kicks Handballs Disposals Marks Goals Points Tackles Hitouts Frees For Frees Ag. 2017 League 23 255 56 311 108 73 35 39 0 22 18 Table doesn't come up very well and is out by a column but it's 23 games, 255 kicks so about 10 a game, 108 marks so 4 a game, 73 goals which is very impressive but only 39 tackles. Under 2 tackles a game when surely he would've been told time and time again that to play AFL he has to impart forward pressure isn't a good sign. That said, the counterpoint is at over 3 goals a game he was most likely the focal goal scorer so it's harder to tackle when your job for the team is to kick goals. And the WAFL footy is more open anyway, it's not the same style of game as AFL. Having just turned 21 I think he's too good a goal kicker not to have a go in the AFL system but from the reviews on here and the stats I'd rather use our 4th pick than any of the first 3.

Vikings Cowboys Texans

Nope. Maybe for Lever but more often than not you have the top teams paying their A graders good money and their depth kids stay developing in the 2's and are happy to bide their time on fair contracts. Meanwhile the bottom sides who have lots of young talent pay them all big bucks to stay whilst they don't perform yet and then they cut and run when they are about to perform. It's very rare to have a Lever situation. Geelong and Hawthorn both lost Ablett and Franklin at their peak which no doubt helped keep things together but otherwise they didn't push the guys they wanted and didn't lose quality. They certainly didn't lose quality whilst they were on the way up, they had each won 2 flags before the superstars left.

The clubs should fight back in the next CBA. It doesn't help them to have to pay big money for 21 year olds to stay. Or the 700 players copping less cause Boyd gets 1mil a year Only helps the managers

I get what you're saying but the AFL has: Unrestricted free agents - 8years or 10 years for top 10% paid or whatever it is Restricted free agents - 8 years - deals can be matched by another club. If they aren't matched that player moves for free. Delisted free agents They don't call uncontracted players as 'free agents' because they aren't technically free, they have to be traded for and their original club has to agree to the trade. But in other sports that would be called a restricted free agent. I think we should do away with the Lever style uncontracted players and make all uncontracted players restricted free agents, then put in place ways for clubs to keep on to them and trade them as part of a reasonable trade deal. Club options for 4th years, franchise years, restricted agent offers, a tender system....there's ways to allow clubs to keep someone like Lever then do a trade. As it stands it's better to just call Lever an uncontracted player not a free agent. Don't confuse the terminology.

The business started as liquor run - they delivered alcohol on scooters and Joel even drove the grog himself. A good idea but low margin and I'm sure with regulations it wouldn't have been easy to turn profits. I think even Joel would admit there was a huge amount of luck in hiring the right IT guys to set up the software which became incredibly valuable at the right time and is now the business. Full credit to him for recognising that and growing the business, especially with the way he's gone overseas and really taken it on.

The whole thing is a bit of a fluke but good on him for starting a business and getting lucky. Strauss and Bail were also involved, hopefully they kept their shares. Also it's not real money if you can't sell your shares, so it might be a little premature.

Carolina Tenn New Orleans

What does that mean? It gives us a reputation of being popular with Damian Barrett, who cares? Players join clubs for money, success and opportunity, not because they make trades quickly. And yes it matters because every time you pay a bit more you lose in the draft order. Might only be a few picks here or there but that's the difference between getting your man or not and over time that adds up. If it's little bit by little bit eventually you end up with missing just 1 or 2 good players who might be the difference. Nailing the occasional 2nd or 3rd round pick is how you stay strong and win flags. I really feel we need to nail 2 of our picks this draft period and I hope being down the order doesn't cost us.

Not necessarily. His manager might've wanted good money for him ie. 300k a year for 2 years. Melbourne might've said that's too risky have 200k for 2 years. A one year 250k deal might've been the compromise. If he settles in and plays well for the year he might get more in 2019 on a new deal than if he signed for 2 years now. From what he did in a few games this year and WAFL form I think he's a very strong chance of getting another contract if he doesn't have the personal issues.

We have: 29, 31, 36, 47 and 66. They have: 41, 42, 57, 60 and 79. I doubt we will use 66 even if Garland retires. We are better off having a look at delisted free agents, the preseason draft or an extra rookie and then having flexibility to promote one of them. 66 I'd suggest is on the table but the Dockers will want more. So we can do 47 down to 57 or 36 down to 42 or similar but ideally it comes with a 3rd party who might be keen on taking on later picks to move one our picks up the order.