DeeSpencer

So EQ is on to it again. 42 has disappeared off the list but Brisbane still have it and will likely use it. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-draft-2015-what-are-hidden-afl-draft-picks-20151120-gl4ecy.html As for the picks: GWS will pick 2 or 3 kids (Hopper, Kennedy +/- Himmelberg) using 10, 34 and 42 - we move up 0 or 1 pick Brisbane will pick 2 kids using 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 - we move up 2-3 picks Sydney will pick 1 or 2 kids (Mills +/- Dunkley) using 33, 36, 37 and 43 - we move up 2-3 picks I'd be surprised if our picks don't end up 40/41 and 45/46.

If we do recruit Parish I can see him spending a lot of time at half back rotating in spurts on to a wing. He'll build strength and stamina in time to play wing/midfield permanently but without a stand out factor it might take a while. Just having another natural run and carry player with good skills will help the team a lot, it's just more about how good he can become and whether he's worth the early investment.

I didn't. And a quick internet search shows Ed Curnow listed in several Indigenous players listings but also not mentioned in Carlton articles about Betts/Yarran/Garlett and talk about him being Mauritian. As far as I care the Curnow's are from Geelong. I consider that a separate racial grouping.

Imagine if Petracca has convinced his old school and team mate to tank the beep test and we were in on it. Wouldn't that be something. Come to pick 7 Sam.

Emma's latest thoughts. Which players will help shape the AFL draft order? Sounds like Weideman and Oliver would be our picks if we had 3 and 4 and confidence in Sam's ankle and fitness. But it's not like she's definitive. Essendon's priorities seem to be Oliver, Francis/Curnow. That makes sense to me. As much as I want to know who we are picking I love that the club is holding it's cards so close.

If the draft goes: 3 - Parish, 4 - Oliver, 5 - Francis, 6 - Milera and we've ruled out Weid - injuries and Curnow - character then we might have to draft outside that range! And that group of 6 seems to conform just a little too perfectly with a lot of the medias phantom drafts. If the MFC were holding on to an outside the box choice I don't think they'd let it leak to a supporter group.

We do and we don't. For example in Francis' best position Garland and Dunn can keep us in games. If Francis significantly out played those 2 in year 1 I'd be surprised. The squad we have now with the addition of Petracca and the 3 trade ins has to be good enough to at least back up 7 wins and hopefully push towards finals next year (8-10 wins would be satisfactory). We need unexpected guys to improve to help keep momentum, but it could come from the late picks (another Neal-Bullen) or the rookie draft (like a Vanders) or someone like Jayden Hunt or Mitch White really lifting.

I just don't seem his a forward or midfielder. He looks much more settled in the backline and when he jumps up from kids or SANFL to AFL footy I think he'd struggle in other positions. He reminds me a lot of Jared Rivers. If we drafted him I think he'd take that 3rd defender role and play 10 years there, which would be pretty handy. It's just I think we can fill that role through later picks and need elite forwards and midfielders if available. If not, that's fine, get him.

Not the first or last to do something stupid at this schoolies time of year. To be honest I'm more disappointed that he didn't just take the breatho and take his medicine. Why compound the problem by refusing the test? 1 mistake I can live with, but the decision making to compound the mistake is not wise.

Naughty boy

I'm guilty of it as much as anyone but there's way too much talk of needs going on here for 2 top 10 picks. Best available is the way to go. We need 2 high end talents no matter the position. Of course we need a 2nd tall forward and that's a priority. You are kidding if you don't think that. But it's still best available unless we rate 2 prospects as equal, then we go the tall. Taylor has already said that.

The Vic Country stuff is irrelevant. He clearly wasn't the same player when carrying a bit of weight, battling OP and building fitness in the first half of the year. Look at these stats: http://www.foxsportspulse.com/team_info.cgi?action=PSTATS&pID=197829314&client=1-118-10450-339768-20320221&ocompID=339768 Second half of the year he's hitting the scoreboard regularly, taking more marks, drastically increasing his kick to handball ratio. And after his 2 game stint in the VFL he reels off 3 best on grounds and then two 2nd best on grounds to finish the season. I'm not saying I know the answers on whether he's the right pick or not but the Vic Country stuff doesn't bother me at all.

The interesting thing to me is that the club doctors and physio's would each have their own opinions but really the only people fully qualified to account for the risk would be specialist ankle surgeons. You'd think the one who did Weideman's surgery would issue a favourable prognosis, but I wonder how the 18 clubs assess it. Do they each hire their preferred surgeon? Do a group of them share the same advice from one surgeon whilst others use another? Or do they almost all end up with the same level of risk and then make a decision based on that. I'm thinking our history with Trengove would probably have us on the conservative side with Wedieman, especially for pick 3.

Heaps of misses with key forwards at the first round. But still: N Riewoldt, J Riewoldt, Kennedy, Franklin, Roughead, Daniher, Lynch, Stringer, Pavlich, McCarthy, Darling, Schulz Father son's who would've gone first round: Cloke, Hawkins, Waite Mini draft/undrafted: Cameron, Hogan Even if it's a 50% strike rate if you get it right you've got a great player. That's the reality with key forwards, they are either boom or bust. If our recruiters don't rate Weideman and Curnow that's fine. But if they do I'd almost live with a bust knowing that we had a crack. They don't have to be superstars either. Taking the extra pick a year earlier, having Dawes and Pedersen who both aren't great but at least provide some depth, the extra interchange spot and mainly the Hogan factor mean we have much better development circumstances than the Lucas Cook debacle.

Is it the same footage as on the afl draft machine?Because if not you should watch it. Sometimes he uses his physical size and hardness, but most of the highlights are his smarts and athleticism. He might not have the same ability on his left foot or amazing tackling but his highlights show more class than Brayshaw's did last year, and I wouldn't mind 2 Brayshaw's!

That's the way I see it. Because if we rate a tall at 7 we are almost certain to rate them at 3 and somewhat duty bound to take them. The only way I see it otherwise is if we rate a midfielder as a standout pick and rate the talls either: - Not at all, so won't pick any of them - Equally, so we can take whomever gets through - Rate 1 (or 2) of them enough for 7 but just not worth missing out on the mid at pick 3.

His handballing seems a bit funny but his kicking is quite fluent. But where I see class is the way he moves in traffic, the way he knows who is around him and in his marking. In his AFL highlights video there's some clever tap ons, some really smart gathers, especially the way he gathers and changes direction and a bit of cheek as well. That's his class. I think the combination of a big strong clearance winner with decent skills who also has the agility and vision to move in to open space and buy time is a pretty special package and why he's rated top 10.

If Oliver, Weideman, Parish and Curnow are gone (one of them to us) then who do we take at 7? Is it one of the South Australian's in Francis or Milera? Is it big H McKay? Are the next best options Darcy Tucker and Ryan Clarke? They might be my choices of the rest. More skill from half back or elite gun running through the midfield would fill needs. We seem very focussed on the 4 players - 2 forwards, 2 mids. Is anyone willing to make a case for someone else?

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.