DeeSpencer

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?

Still amazed how many posters care about the difference between pick 25 and 29.

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?

Don't think it will make a difference in the end. Either pick would have been used for Bugg. We wouldn't have had either left over.

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

What's the difference between Jake Melksham and Dom Tyson?

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.

Yeah the falcons turn overs were bad. How many dropped catches as well. It was like they had Vaseline on their hands.

Saints looked much better but I can't see them making up ground especially since they are 1-2 in their division.

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.

Over 100 games at 24 is a good achievement. He becomes a walk up start to our 22 and I think will flourish in a new, fresh environment.

Pick 25 is a fair price to pay for that.

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.

At the start of the year, would you have proposed trading in the players above for Howe ,Toumpas and whatever minor picks are involved? Nine months on, Bugg and Kennedy have hardly played in the seniors, and Melksham has been an average player in a poor team. Howe has played every game and Toumpas has looked ordinary.

There's no possible way you can spin things to make out like we're looking to have a successful trade period. I know it's early, but nothing that looks like happening is anything to get excited about.

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.

Toumpas or Wines

Kelly or Bontempelli

Watts or Hurley

Parish or Curnow

I know who I prefer

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.

I highly doubt anyone at the club is thinking that way.

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.

Possibly Howe and 25 to North for 35 and 15? Seems like a win-win. 35 to Essendon for Milkshake. Howe deal may not get done until later in the week though, essendon want it done ASAP

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.

The half back talk does give me some hope, with Howe and Cross leaving.

If we play 3 talls defenders and Jetta in a back pocket then we are left with:

Salem, Lumumba, Mitch White, Grimes, Terlich. The last two aren't AFL grade. White is a rookie who might be good enough to play more next year but probably isn't a full time starter.

So Melksham would slot in to a starting role.

I just hope he can adapt and play it well. He's ok but not amazing in the air and doesn't make good decisions under pressure from what I've seen. But maybe the space at half back and being able to kick off both feet might help him.

Pick 25/28 seems like a bargain for an established player to me. Reckon people way, way overestimate the value of draft picks.

Later picks I agree, but even in a weak draft you are a chance at a good player with pick 25 and there should be ways to find guys good enough to fill gaps with late picks.

I think the need to find more quality players should trump the need to find decent depth in the 22, especially when it's a player in Melksham who hasn't demonstrated any leadership ability or other intangible quality as far as I know.

We are banking on improving Melksham and/or reinventing him in a new role and that's a dangerous game to play I think.

Should've gone Bills or Cardinals, darn it. I thought the Lions turned it around last week, obviously not.

Cincy and Dalton getting it done in a big game might be the story so far, particularly with the Ravens losing again.

Can anyone else see parallels between Denver and Freo?

Are the 4 AFC divisions and the NFC North all decided?

Anyway.

Pats

Broncos?

And why not. Jaguars!!

Yep, the Colts have now won 2 games without Luck and with a 40 year old Matt Hasselbeck.

That division is theirs for the taking - it's really only a matter of the seeding number for them if they're fair dinkum.

The Colts are the anti-Melbourne. They've swallowed all our bad luck.

They dodged Ryan Leaf, tanked for Luck, can't draft any decent talent for the O line or defense but play in such a dumpster fire of a division they still make finals every year.

We are the oldest team in the comp, the Colts stole a historic team from another city. It all makes no sense.

A former pick 4 who hasn't lived up to his potential after 3 years is quite different to a former pick 10 who hasn't lived up to their potential after 6 years.

In no universe are they like-for-like on the trade table except in Dodoro's eyes (and that's exactly the reason you know they aren't like-for-like).

Pick 4 v Pick 10. Cale Morton v Patrick Dangerfield. What does that matter.

Same for 3 years v 6 years. Neither look all that likely to make it at their current clubs.

I rate Melksham at about pick 40 and I'd rather something a little more than Toumpas but I wouldn't be holding my breath.

If we end up trading Toumpas for either of Kennedy or Melksham that doesn't bother me too much even if it's slight unders.

SeaHawks got away with one today. Can't believe the refs either didn't know the rule or didn't review that. Had to do one or the other.

The Hawks defense still looks amazing but without Lynch at least the O line doesn't do enough to help Wilson or the run game. For the life of me I can't work out the Jimmy Graham trade.

Interesting thread. If there is a position where we should be interested in a bit of mature depth then I think super fit outside running mid is probably the one.

Packers

Panthers

Raiders