DeeSpencer

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.

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.

Jones and Dunn stay. It's time for T Mac and Viney. Preseason will decide who of Garland, Dawes, Lumumba or Grimes get in the group. All important for their off field leadership and standards, but need to keep showing it over preseason and show improvement to be recognised. One year of footy is too early to throw him in but I'm keen on Vanders as a leader of the future.

Of course. There's no guarantees and a high risk/reward proposition. It's very hard to find a solid role playing key forward. They either kick 30+ goals and look the goods or end up not making it. I'm not saying we have to take a key forward, but if we don't I can't see us getting one for a couple of years. It's just incredibly difficult to find one via a late round pick, trade, free agency or convert a key defender.

Couldn't hold his spot down back. Went forward and managed some junk time goals in different games. With the recruitment of Bugg and Melksham he wouldn't be best 22 down back and would only waste a spot as a forward. So it's a no. When you go through the list of delistings I don't think there's anyone worth more than a rookie spot. Which is why Mahoney has rightly said we will take the 4 picks to the National Draft. I expect we will think about the best options come the rookie draft if there aren't any kids we like. A depth state league or delisted ruck or forward/ruck might be on the cards for the one live pick we have.

This is 31-46 on the AFL's draft machine. David Cuningham MID 18 20–45 184cm 80kg Ben Crocker FWD 18 20–50 185cm 84kg Aidyn Johnson FWD 18 20–50 184cm 75kg Brayden Fiorini MID 18 25–50 187cm 76kg Alex Morgan DEF 19 25–50 181cm 79kg Harrison Himmelberg FWD 19 25–50 194cm 87kg Bailey Rice DEF 18 25–50 184cm 83kg Blake Hardwick FWD 18 25–60 181cm 79kg Mitch Brown MID 19 25–60 196cm 93kg Jesse Glass-McCasker DEF 18 30–60 196cm 91kg Corey Wagner DEF 21 30–60 180cm 74kg Brandon White DEF 18 30–60 189cm 79kg Matthew Allen FWD 18 35–60 193cm 72kg Kurt Mutimer MID 18 35–60 185cm 81kg Thomas Glen MID 18 30–70 187cm 75kg Mason Redman FWD 18 35–70 186cm 77kg You never know who will get through but most of the top 30 are well regarded. So far there hasn't been much concern about personality or family drama with any of them. I'm not sure we are in the market for a key defender and my personal preference is to avoid late round tall forwards, it's hard to find the right combination of skill, athleticism and physicality. Himmelberg is tied to GWS as well, whether they take him or not is a different matter. So that leaves a lot of midfielders and flankers. Cuningham is a great prospect but doubt he lasts. Mutimer seems the kind of competitive, strong over head, left footer, dandy stringray who'd the fans would warm to. White is another Stingray who looks to have dash and left foot, good size as well, is he related to Mitch White? Aidyn Johnson does a heap wrong but his line breaking talent is obvious. And that last name on the list Mason Redman might be the pick of the bunch, he's a straight running, clean marking type.

As for Oliver he's a pale read head of similar build to McKenzie, doesn't have a great kick on him (but is miles from McKenzie) and has a couple of movement related things (shoulder shrug, tongue out) that seem similar. But he's clearly a different football. That said, I'll take McKenzie's work rate, tackling and hardness if it comes mixed in with elite agility, attacking instincts and goal kicking.

He's not a forward. Read the article on the club website. Doesn't want to be a forward. For a couple of years he might be better than a draftee but more chance than not he'd plateau as an ordinary forward without the creative spark, speed or skills to make it work long term. Plus it's a big hole at CHB to ask Oscar and Frost to fill or to fill with a draftee. There's merit in taking the best 2 players available with the early picks for sure and using Dawes, Pedersen or trying McDonald. I get that. But they aren't long term solutions and at some stage we will need a long term solution. The vast majority of gun forwards were high draft picks or father sons who would've been. Just scroll down the Coleman list: Kennedy, Cameron, Stringer, J Riewoldt, Roughead, Franklin, Hawkins, Hogan, N Riewoldt, T Lynch, Waite, McCarthy, Pavlich, Daniher, Cloke. That's the majority of talls who kicked over 30 goals this year. There's only 1 converted key defender who did that in Bruce and he's only done it for one year so far. There's a few late round draft picks - Tippett, Jenkins, Ben Brown, but they are rare as hens teeth. You can draft 10 key forwards with 3rd round picks and you'll be lucky to get a good one from the bunch. A 3rd round pick key forward is really a key defender.

I'm not big on the term 'natural footballer' and using it for someone like Curnow because to me he looks like he is out there playing in an undeveloped and unmanufactured way. He is playing his natural game. 'Well rounded' is probably the term to describe a player who has a high level in most of the skills and I agree that isn't Curnow. Ground balls, left sided skills and his high ball drop are definitely a knock. I also agree it's important to take away some of the flashier traits and examine the base. So forget about the very good tank and the possible midfield ability, it counts for nothing if he doesn't have the basic qualities. Where I do disagree is whether we can afford to take a riskier proposition. I think we can. We have to build the fabric of the club based on player development, culture, consistent drafts of talent finding it with late picks including rookie picks. Yes it's early days, but the signs are starting to look towards an ability to develop talent and find it in the later parts of the draft. We've been spoilt a bit by Hogan who does the basics so well and can do special things as well and that's what I'd be looking for in every draft. But if the choice is between the guy who does the basics but has limitations or the super talent who has deficiencies then it should be decided without fear of failure.

I've tried to read between the lines on Taylor's comments. He's strong in his praise of Parish, whilst careful not to give too much away there's no doubt he's fan. If we had picks 1-10 I think it's clear Parish would be one of them. Otherwise he confirms when asked about Curnow and Weideman that they are in the mix 'amongst others'. I'm glad to hear that we will be considering what Essendon and the GC will do, but we won't be too clever by half. I have wondered if we included in our deal with Gold Coast for them to not take our player at pick 6 but I doubt that given we originally got pick 10 in that deal. There's - to my creative mind anyway - a bit of a tell later in the conversation about who we will be picking at either pick 3 or very likely at pick 7 if they make it. But I could be reading too much in to it.