DeeSpencer

Emma can get a bit attached to the academy kids as I think they get more exposure, I also think she likes high upside talent (due to not actually ever having to develop these kids!) and probably as a product of working at the Age and growing up as an Essendon supporter during the Sheedy years she favours Indigenous players. She's also a full time journo and only a part time recruiting guru. That said, she does have a decent eye for talent and no doubt gets some inside info about players that helps frame her list. But it does solidify my belief that the gap between the likes of Oliver, Milera and Parish is pretty small.

Thought about the Raiders, considered Philly and really tempted to go back to the wall with GB even though they let me down last week. But in the end: Atlanta NY Giants Denver

I'd stick with Kap for next year, but I've got no problems with them giving him some time off now to stop the punishment. I doubt trying to change the way he plays is the entire problem. They've lost their QB guru coach. Most of their defense to lean on, their once league leading O line and veteran RB. It's hard for any QB to get out of the pocket and run or pass when the O Line can't hold up and they don't have a running game. Obviously it's a round 1 aberration now but Kap looked fine against the Vikings in the first game of the year when they had a strong running game and the defense were making plays. I'd keep him regardless of the contract but first I'd fire the hapless coaching staff and try to bring in some talent around him.

Without having seen a heap of either of them I think Parish has Francis covered for speed, agility, decision making and running patterns. Francis looks like a man amongst boys as a forward and midfielder. I think like Goddard he'll start off down back and might develop his midfield game in time. I'm not convinced of his midfield potential at the top level. I wish Parish was 190cm and 90kg with a strong intercept marking game, then he'd be a heck of a player. But just because he isn't doesn't mean he can't be better than the bigger, strong prospect. He's a natural midfielder who brings run, carry and skills with the right mix of competitiveness.

Vikings GB Seattle

I like the way he doesn't waste the ball but still goes forward. No sideways or backwards with this kid. Surely it's easier to teach a kid when to hold up and go backwards or sideways than it is to teach someone to take it on. Probably don't read this if you are a member of the Oliver family: but he's fat, pale, red headed with a face only a mother could love. He doesn't look like an AFL footballer, probably why he didn't get picked for Vic Country. But he plays like one. And if he has the work ethic he'll get the body sorted out and the AFL player standard haircut and fake tan. Their might be more skill, speed and athleticism elsewhere for picks 3 and 7. But if there isn't I'd take this guy in a flash.

Do we get this London game on Yahoo tonight? Guess we will find out. Hungover as can be but might watch the first quarter if it's on.

Both could impact next year or take 5 years, you never know with big blokes. My main concern on Weideman is he looks like a big tall but not a 2nd ruck. So if you have him, Hogan and a 2nd ruck in a forward line how will they work together? North played 3 talls this year but Waite, Petrie and Brown are all very mobile and they didn't need a great 2nd ruck given Goldy can do so much. If our future plans right now are the 2 Max's ruck combination and Hogan, then that would be better complimented with a 3rd tall like Curnow than a 197cm player.

I'm staying away from the Bills in a London game with a chance their QB isn't right. Sea Hawks Falcons Vikings

Under 19's last year, so has anyone worked out how old he is? 18, 19, 20, 21?

Dees sign SOS aka Son of Smith Interesting. About time we used a Category B spot. Anyone know any more?

I amazed that you or anyone else don't. AFL footy is such a tough industry and games every week are decided by small margins. Clubs scrap for every dollar from us fans, they scrap for every dollar to spend on coaches and fitness staff and so on. Collingwood could've accepted picks 5 and 25 for Beams last year but instead asked for more and got Crisp who now looks like a very good player who should play 100-150 games for them. I'm all for paying up in a trade when it's needed. But when it's not then why pay more than you could?

GWS are all about the points. So every bit matters to them. We can offer them 29 and 45 for 22 and Bugg. They might say no. If we offered 25 and 50 that could be more points.

So if we waited until now we could trade pick 29 for Melksham and keep pick 25. Small difference, but every inch counts. Could be the difference between picking and missing a star player, like when we wanted Jack Redden and Brisbane pounced and we got Jamie Bennell.

Cincy Houston NE

Tyson's best (last year) was much better. More prolific ball winner. Better hands in close. Goal kicking from stoppages. Reads the ball from the ruckman better. He had a down year this year but is 22 and can likely spring back. If he had 2 more average years then he'd be where Melksham is. Melksham hasn't elevated his game in the midfield. Isn't winning big numbers, isn't dominating through great ball use. So he's getting reinvented through a move to half back and can hopefully step up a level with that chance.

Incredibly unlikely they win the division but the 2nd wildcard spot seem pretty open. Who's looking at better than a 9 win season from (taking out the Packers and Cardinals): NFC North - Vikings maybe NFC East - whoever wins, plus Cowboys if they get hot late NFC south - one of Carolina/Atlanta yes NFC West - Seahawks capable, Rams possible With 2 wins the Saints are now tied for the 2nd wildcard spot for wins. Going 7-3 and 9 wins isn't impossible if they start to clean up in the division. I love the wildcard system, it's going to be a good race in the AFC as well. Steelers, Chargers and Jets probably the favourites, but Bills, Browns, Raiders all in contention for a wildcard spot is fun for their fan bases.

Jack Watts has played 100 games and is a walk up start in our 22. No other club would touch him for that price. The 100 games is a statistic. It means nothing on it's own. He was a high draft pick that was ready to play early and mostly played in a mid level team or below that never had huge pressure for spots. Certainly at no stage did Essendon have a deep midfield. The experience means he knows what it takes to play AFL but we are moving his position which counters against that.

Taking a C grade midfielder who doesn't make great decisions, giving up a good pick and hopefully turning him in to a solid defensive and attacking back flanker. It's an interesting tactic. Half back isn't a bad spot for us to bring in a mature player, I'm just not sure he's the right one.

What is a success though? Besides landing a gun free agent (and for free not in a match and trade) I think success is hard to judge. Because to win a trade you almost have to have the club on the other end stuff up. Even if you get a superstar to nominate you like Brisbane and Beams it costs a hell of a lot to get them. We've made some really good moves over the last few years. But when you break them down almost every deal has cost something to get something which is how it's meant to work. Our best deals: Letting Sylvia walk for pick 23 Garlett Our very good deals: The Vince trade with the Sylvia pick Signing Crossy Letting Frawley walk The Salem Tyson for 2,20 deal We can't recreate any of those this year it seems and that might be disappointing, but it's also about opportunity and needs. There isn't a Garlett this year as far as I can tell. We don't have a Sylvia to flick or a Frawley. We don't have the need for Crossy type. Trying such an ambitious move as the Tyson trade isn't really on the table. I find it hard to think Howe and Toumpas out for Kennedy, Bugg and Melksham makes our list any worse. I'm a touch disappointed we didn't have someone better than Melksham lined up knowing Howe would leave. But then I look around at the trades and I struggle to see who it would be. For the late 1st to 2nd round market (because we aren't signing a star this trade period) there's: Henderson, Yarran, Zac Smith, Redden (left for success), Jetta, Sinclair (contracted, would avoid us), Bennell (no), Ben Lennon (unlikely). It's not a great bunch. Aish and Freeman are the 2 young players out of contract, leaving cheaply and possibly available that could fit our list build and have great upside. But I'm not exactly disappointed we didn't get them. I don't think West Coast made a single trade last year and they jumped right up the ladder. The Dogs traded out Cooney and Griffen for Boyd (who rarely did anything) and jumped up the ladder on the back of their kids improving not trade ins really. Hamling was a nice find as a delisted free agent and that was about it.

Stephen Hill or Jack Ziebell Andrew Gaff or Josh Caddy The skinny smaller guys might be a bit hit or miss but they are also incredibly valuable to your team. By the way Kelly isn't a Bont (in size or ability) but he's not exactly small. Even with the growth in size of midfielders 183cm isn't going to be small and he's skinny but not tiny and is building his frame. Treloar leaving will only up a spot for him to get more midfield time and I think he'll develop pretty nicely.

No but if we trade up the supporters will

I'm a little worried about moving up to pick 3 to take this kid or any kid, because I think it's a throw back to the messiah days. Especially given our need for pace and skill I think a lot of pressure on him to improve our ball movement which is quite ridiculous given there are 18 players on the field at once. If we did do it and it's a decision based on a player we think is head and shoulders above the rest then I still think he'd need to be managed cleverly. The idea that a kid is going to step in on to a wing in his first season and revitalise a stagnate team is quite silly.

they want to bend us over before we wake up to our own stupidity

The man swallows helium like it's going out of fashion.