DeeSpencer

Interesting that Bailey Rice did even worse with a 12.2 beep. I don't have a lot of faith that every beep test is created equal. If it's hot, if the distance isn't measure perfectly, if it's slippery then you might get a lesser result. 8.69 agility sounds pretty good for a big man coming off ankle surgery. That's a promising result to counter the average speed and poor beep.

I think if Brett's putting his reputation on the line he probably knows something. I also think Parish isn't all that special, so hardly a surprise we'd look elsewhere. Coming in to the 2013 draft everyone thought Kelly and Aish were the sure thing pick 2 and 3. They remind me of Parish. Personally I'm just as happy with Salem as those 2 and I prefer Bont any day of the week.

3.21 20m sprint 12.4 beep. Not great numbers. But considering his injuries and size not the end of the world either. I don't think those numbers would prevent you from drafting him. But they aren't impressive.

I'd be a bit surprised if we bid 3 on the GWS boys. But if either of them are there 7 then I think we will have to bid. They are worth it and we did give them a decent amount of points with the 2 picks for that swap of 7-10. It's not like they gave us charity. Considering we paid top dollar for the Tyson and Frost trades as well I'm not big on the idea that we owe them anything.

We could go: Pick 3 - Mills 4 - Hopper 5 - Kennedy And see them all matched. Then go a bit riskier with the Brisbane boys 6 - Eric Hipwood 7 - Ben Keays But I think that's the draft version of trade weeks "put them in to the PSD". Sounds great in theory, but in reality it screws your relationship with the clubs, risks you missing out on the player you want and getting stuck with the academy kid who doesn't want to be at your club anyway. Our 46 and 50 should come in to at least 41 and 45 which should still leave us with players we want on our draft list. Taylor mentioned in the AFL Podcast that he had about 45 names on his list worth drafting. With a touch of luck we could be drafting about the 30th-35th best player on our list at those picks.

She's so thorough that it almost becomes more complicated. A lot of it is for the Northern clubs to consider more than us. Trade week was where the real damage was done. I expect a pretty smooth bid and match for the highly rated kids come draft night. 1 rule that has to change immediately is the bit about the first round v later round discounts if a team like North bid with their first round pick that has been shuffled back. If it starts the night as a first round pick it should stay a first round pick regardless of how many academy players have jumped ahead of it. That will have wider implications if/when the AFL and AFLPA start bringing in some different length contracts for draftees based on draft round.

The reason I want Curnow or Weideman isn't so much for a tall forward but for a goal kicker. I like those guys you've named but they seem suited to either key back or 2nd ruck. We can't rely on Hogan and Garlett to kick all our goals and the best goal kickers are usually talls. It's going to be hard to develop a more attacking team if we still only have 2 options to goal.

I don't know why they did a needs based draft. They should've just drafted their best players with some consideration to types that clubs usually prefer. In fact if they had gone head to head with a pick each for the top 20 that would've been better. Twomey's phantom draft will be interesting. Right now it sounds like he's struggling for info big time.

The problem is if it's a consistent supply of top talent each year that makes topping up pretty easy. If you always have elite juniors pushing through then you will always be a trade destination and you can target with late picks for role players. It reminds me of what Hawthorn did trading away picks for players (like Hale, Gibson, Lake etc) and still finding some value in the later rounds to support their gun drafting of the early to mid 00's. Champion players (which often come from champion juniors) also bring leadership as well. A handover from one experienced leader to an up and coming junior leader protects culture through the years. It's worked out well for the bottom clubs like us, Carl and Essendon who had the currency and desire to deal as well as the academy clubs. But it's screwed the likes of Port, Richmond and other clubs who can't get the top picks because they don't have the currency or desire for them. Their mid/late first and 2nd round picks are the lifeblood of their future and they're now going to get pushed back by all the academy clubs using picks in the 30's and 40's to create top 10 or top 20 picks. If you are a mid tier club just trying to find the last piece of the puzzle then getting pushed back a few slots in the first round of the draft can really hurt. To use the Hawks again as a good example - they had drafted a lot of gun kids up until the 2007 draft but getting Cyril Rioli at pick 12 might just have been the player to win the 2008 flag for them. He was great all year and gave them an extra dimension up forward with the Clarko Cluster and then was great in the grand final. If they get shuffled back a few spots maybe they take Addam Maric and the rest is history.

Judging from the limited vision of him it looks the other way around. His decision making looks great it's just his kicking looks awkward and lacks penetration. The ball gets where it's going, it just doesn't look pretty. He's a strange prospect because it's unusual to see an early bloomer who then peaks before the draft have such a slight body and a baby face. Usually it's the man child type who stops growing. I can see why he or his mentors picked Cotchin for him to watch, because Cotchin is a footballer who (despite the finals flops) competes really well as an inside mid despite not having the body shape to really do so or any stand out athleticism. At this stage I'm not sure what position NOK would play at AFL level and so I'd probably have him more of a rookie pick.

New England (confident) Carolina (reasonably confident but they are due a loss, they aren't amazing) Dallas (not confident at all but the 3rd tips a disaster)

How many players in the comp break games open more than once or twice a season? The best 5-10 key forwards, the rare freak talent small (Rioli, Wingard, Betts) and maybe the top dozen midfielders? Oliver has size, agility and hardness that makes him attractive for sure. But if his kicking, endurance and smarts aren't there it's unlikely he breaks open many games. Ziebell is prime example of a player who could break open nearly any game but rarely does. Forget all the time he's missed injured and look at his good form this year and back when he won the coaches award or whatever it was and Marc Murphy's ball use and ability to rack up touches had a fair degree of hurt factor, but due to his size and lack of phenomenal athletic ability even without all the problems (injury, captaincy, terrible team) he's rarely going to break open a game. Nick Dal Santo might be another in that category. Parish is the best ball user. Oliver maybe the best ball winner. Unfortunately seems we can't have both. So the question becomes who will develop and produce to their potential the most.

The interactive/photo features are her rankings, the numbers are in the top right corner.

She chose 5 players at the start of 2007 to write a book on. 2 - Cotchin 9 - McEvoy 11 - Veszpremi 12 - Rioli 13 - Ebert Now I'm sure they were all pretty highly rated at the start of the season, but that's not bad going. Whether she's using her own eye or collating the knowledge of others doesn't bother me. If her top 30 is a group think of the collective knowledge of a bunch of recruiters then maybe it's more reliable than any one persons opinion. One of the weaknesses of the draft is that players go ahead of the order if 1 club has a massive opinion of them.

Hipwood is the bolter of the group. The 3 mids are right up there though. Hopper dominated the TAC cup all year, Mills the NEAFL as a 17 year old and Kennedy played senior bush footy. I don't think any of them woud've struggled in the top Division under 18's. Given the next pure midfielder on her list is Oliver who's another big strong inside mid who also hasn't tested himself at the top junior level it's not that unreasonable.

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.

The games he kicked lots of goals deep against the Saints and GWS (at Etihad, no surprise there, there is no CHF on that ground, you connect through the wings or corridor to inside 50) were great but my favourite games were the ones where he did the work up the ground and back. Round 1 v Gold Coast on the underrated Steve May was a ripper, as was his Richmond game as was his game against the Dogs the first time. Not to mention the North game where he and Dawes swapped nicely and both were dangerous. Certainly he is at his best when involved in the play and up the ground, with the reality of modern football meaning versatility is key. Neither Curnow nor Weideman seem limited to CHF or FF from what I've read. With Curnow's tank he can certainly get up the ground, but he also takes enough contested marks and kicks enough goals to play deep. Weideman might start closer to goal but he has the skills and ability in general play to link up.

She thinks every Collingwood youngster is a star and is keen to give Bucks the flick. The sub rule hurt Kennedy, but not nearly as much as his lack of endurance. It means he gets tired and makes bad decisions and skill errors that you can't afford especially given his role in the team at his size. A consistency run of games at AFL level will build his match fitness and see him improve, but just like Ben Newton he needs to have a big preseason to build his tank.

You like Weideman and you don't like Curnow right? Which is fair enough, you've outlined your reasons well. But if that's the case you have to draft Weideman at 3 and hope Parish lasts don't you?

Being in the remedial running group is probably not a good sign.

This is probably the knock on McKay http://www.foxsportspulse.com/team_info.cgi?action=PSTATS&pID=199683400&client=1-118-10448-339768-20320238 The goals, marks and possessions really dried up after the champs. Although looking at the hitouts he seemed to ruck more. Less average marks, contested marks and goals (in 3 more games) than Curnow. Obviously Weideman was injured and Curnow is raw and missed time, but McKay still counts as the most raw to me.

On Dawes: What do you mean by competitive? Do you mean he's a competitor who is good at bustling for the ball and chasing, tackling etc? Because I agree with that. But in terms of being competitive as able to play at the standard, beat your opponent and be an average AFL standard forward I disagree. The service to him isn't great but for most of the last 2 years he's drawn the 2nd best defender and rarely hit the scoreboard, dropped a lot of marks and also suffered injuries. He's now a below average player. From the 2013 draft class Hogan, Boyd, McCarthy and McStay would play ahead of him, obviously some super talents there. I'm tipping McCartin and Peter Wright from last years draft class start to be regulars next year and would play ahead of Dawes. On trading in a forward: I look at the Bulldogs in their prime under Eade, Freo and the Tigers now and think getting in a good forward is very very hard if you are a club without a reputation of success. There's just not that many on the market. On Frost: His athleticism means he can get out on a lead, chase well and can bring a bit of speed and movement as a back up ruck. But sorry he's not a forward. Just doesn't read the play or mark like a forward. I 110% agree with your last line though! Can't risk it if they aren't right. But if they are it should be a big green light.

I think I've made my mind up. I rate: Parish - for his clean skills, relentless energy and great run Oliver - for his hardness, burst and ability to kick a goal Milera - for his evasive skills and slick skill in traffic and space I'd be happy with either of those three at pick 7. There's two pretty gifted key forward talents in this draft who will be available at pick 3. Both have concerns but both have significant upside. If we don't rate them then that's fine. Pass on them. But if we rate either of them as really good prospects them we take the one we like at pick 3. The midfielders available simply aren't good enough to take ahead of a key forward who you rate.

The proper highlights video of Curnow is up on the AFL draft machine now. Strong marking on a lead and one on one. Protects the drop of the ball. Long arms. There are certainly knocks but you can see why clubs would rate him very highly. His best is a contested marking, goal kicking forward. If we think we can develop him I can see why he'd be pick 3.

I think this year you'll actually have to deduct from some of the Vic Country boys considering how easily they won all the 6 games. Could be like trying to evaluate a Hawthorn fringe player. They would've liked to see Oliver play at the state junior level but the TAC level is good enough to make judgements IMO. He played 3 games for Richmond VFL and averaged 15 disposals.