DeeSpencer

Would love to say I'm surprised. But as I said above a Bills win wasn't going to surprise me at all. Our defense blows and it's the coaching that's the biggest issue although the personnel is still louse. Our offensive line and WR's had injuries so it came down to Cutler doing enough and instead he made one of the worst INT's you can make. I really should've picked a team with either no QB and hoped they drafted a good one or a franchise QB. The bears have the worst possible situation, they are tied to a borderline franchise QB too good to cut with no replacement but not good enough to win games he should. If our defense wasn't so lousy I'd suggest we draft a QB in the first round next year and light a fire under Jay. But we have so much work to do to fix the defense

Detroit choked. Chicago's defense was just all time bad with the injuries. Not just a little bad like Green Bay with injuries but the next level of bad! Cutler played one of the best games he's ever played against GB last year and went drive for drive with Rodgers. It came down to a 4th and long, Peppers couldn't contain or get to Rodgers and our safety blew the play. It's one thing I like about the NFL is how unpredictable the playoffs are and how one slight mistake by a player can turn a game. A bad read by a WR can turn an easy reception to keep momentum in to a pick 6 that changes the result. Maybe I'm overrating Seattle but I can't see them faltering at home. Injuries will be key to stopping them. Totally agree about not super teams winning the superbowl. It's another great thing about the NFL. But my main concern remains physicality. I'm struggling to think of a team that wasn't super physical. Baltimore - not a great team but O line played out of their minds and defense has always been hard and tough. Giants underdog teams that had D Lines that became dominant at the right times of the year. That's the achilles heel of Seattle if their O line take some injuries. But as of the first game they dealt with the Packers easily.

You probably will. Rodgers will find a way to score more than he did against pretty much every team besides Seattle. My comments was more saying how good they are (particularly at home) not about you guys. That said I'm not all that high about the packers doing anything come January because I see the O and D line play of NFL is pretty much contested ball in AFL. If you don't win there you don't play 'finals footy' regardless of skill players. Packers O Line looks below par. The D line is relying on ancient Peppers and injury prone Matthews on the outside but looks very soft on the inside without Raji. Bit of Geelong about the packers.

2 issues for San Fran: On offense: One of your best O linemen held out of camp. Another is injured. Without top O line play your running game doesn't work as well (just like every team). Without the running game Kap has to do more by making good reads and throws and the offense struggles. Every chance the O line steps up. The veteran receivers play well. Gore is Gore. Kap makes enough plays with his legs and throwing and your offense scores against a dreadful Dallas defense. Wouldn't be overly concerned. On defense: Lost some players in free agency. Aldon Smith suspended for the start of the season. Bowman coming back from injury. That's 2 elite players missing. Ray McDonald should be suspended already but will be dealt with in Nov for domestic violence chargers. It just doesn't seem the same defense as the last two years. So I think you'll fix your offense and be an average solid offense but I'm concerned you wont be a great defense overall. Which means wildcard spot at best and doing it the hard way through away post season wins. That said you've got Dallas away and Chicago home to start. Not a bad way to get to 2-0. Home game momentum at new Levi stadium will be interesting. They've ripped up the grass twice after the first preseason game. And a fan died from dehydration after the first game. Not a great start.

Missed the official start but no one was ever tipping GB right so its ok? New England New Orleans (with caution) San Diego If in doubt go with the top QB's is my theory. Whether Rivers is a top QB is another question but he was last year and Jared Rivers form my transfer to cousin Phil. Also wanted to tip Minnesota over St Louis in a battle of back up QBs (Cassel is backing up Teddy just in reverse!). I'm a very nervous Bears fan. Bills having so many issues they might just all be a smoke screen and our defense and special teams are awful.

Heard that. Likely just a rumour or speculation based from sources, there's no way all 3 clubs would leak answers, if they've even made up their minds. But based on needs it's a fit. GWS have no need for McCartin and less need for Wright unless they only want to play him ruck and I wouldn't take a ruck number 1, a dynamic mid/fwd makes a better fit for them. St Kilda have Rhys Stanley as a second ruck or could use Hickey/Longer in combination and desperately need a key forward. And either a mid or Wright as a fwd/ruck makes sense for us. Just on the footage above Wright looks very raw. Clean with his skills but raw in terms of how he uses his body, his intensity at the contest and physicality. I wouldn't expect much from him for 24 months as he learns how to compete against guys without just being bigger. But once he did to have a big guy with clean skills and good athleticism he could easily be a Kurt Tippett deep forward and relief ruck.

They did make it to those pair of AFC championship games. And were what 8-8 last year. So they remind me more of St Kilda or Richmond that us. It's just I think I could coach offense better than Rexy. I'd hire him every day of the week to be my defensive coordinator, but stay the heck away from offense! Unfortunately we can only dream of being the Jets. I reckon we are more Jacksonville or Oakland. Is anyone watching HBO's Hard Knocks at Atlanta's training camp. The first episode was hilarious.

Explain to me how Adelaide win? I think Lyons might have a future as a haf forward/midfiled player with decent speed and size. I think Tapscott whilst really hard and tough is short, slow and not all that great with the ball and isn't up to AFL.

My apologies. What a silly system where he's part of the academy despite not being able to be selected from the academy. I suppose it makes sense. I wonder how much of a knock on him will be that his brother was a gun junior as well but now is a bit of a plodder who was cut by the Suns (but is turning it around at the Saints a bit as a tagger). Didn't seem to affect the Swallows but maybe Lachie will have noted the things Mav didn't do in his early years at AFL level (ie. get super fit, work on his skills, speed and versatility).

Or will go in the second round depending on what the clubs with picks 6-9 do and what the AFL does with the academy rules between now and draft day.

I saw that at the carnival. I rate my ability to pick out players traits. What I know I have no idea about (and many recruiters probably don't) is to identify what flaws are fixable and which ones aren't. Can you teach that skill? Roos always has our boys doing a bunch of handball drills to work on that but I wonder what percentage improvements you get. As for Duggan the 183cm may be a concern. With the way the game is going that's short for a back flanker or mid. If his speed is only average then his limited to positions and roles. You'd probably take a guy who's 188cm with 10% worse kicking because they'd be able to take more marks, defend more opponents and probably have an easier time winning clearances etc.

It's all there, but he's still very raw. He's not Jaegar O'Meara ready to go. Unless we hired a new fitness boss (and definitely with Roos' focus on defensive work rate) I'd expect him to start as a forward flanker, I'd be shocked if what I saw at the carnival translated to immediate ability to play midfield time, but then again Wines did it at Port.

Are we that young though? On the weekend we had Tyson, Viney, Kent, Salem, Barry as guys in their first 3 years. If Cross and Trengove are fit 2 of those guys probably don't play. The backline hasn't featured a young player all year. Tyson and Viney are the only young guys who have seen midfield minutes and up forward it's been Kent, Salem, JKH that's about it. Hogan will come in to that mix. And Gawn is a young ruck or even a young key forward given the development time they take. I'm certainly hoping Tyson and Viney (who are already doing well) aren't too many preseasons away from having the bodies of mature midfielders. And Kent and Salem both had significant interruptions in preseason, neither did serious training on the track before Christmas. We need mature depth and we need top end talent. I wouldn't put one as more important than the other. If the option is there for a Tyson trade then I'm all for it. If the option is there for Vince and Cross types to come to the club then that's what we need as well. If we have picks 3, 4 and 21 then if you can trade 21 for a Vince compared to pick 4 for someone not significantly better and unlikely to be elite then it might be the right move. Imagine trading pick 4 for Andrew Gaff and him being a pretty boring average wingman and seeing Petracca become a star.

Sensation game from Ed Langdon on the highlights tape. Presumably brother or cousin of Tom at the Pies. Kicks 4 and sets another one up. Some smart attacking run and play. Would be useful as a small forward if this games any guide.

He hasn't come yet. But I can't wait for Lyons to come next year and have 42 possessions and 4 goals.

Half forward/outside midfield. Ultimately we need to add top end quality to the list but we are still at the stage where we can add more guys around that 22-24 year old mark who have some experience and match fitness to contribute. If you had 5 or 6 first and second round draft picks you'd go for top end kids or trades only. But we dont so we have to gamble on at least one more guy who's in the same redemption category as Riley and Michie. On the weekend we had: Bail and Matt Jones - good effort players but lacking in skill Salem and Riley - both not fit enough to play at the level Kent - only in his second year and needs time to find consistency Plus Tyson and Viney playing big midfield minutes when more mature bodies should spell them And now we are talking about bringing in Blease. Plus Byrnes played earlier in the year! We will likely have to cut 6 or 7 from the list who just at the end of the year. Jetta gets elevated. After that it's still 5 or 6 spots and can't fill them all with 18 year old draft picks unless it's a super super draft. Once you get to pick 50 in the draft you usually get the same player with pick 70 or PSD anyway. So if we still think he has a future then Lyons is worth a shot.

Yes but way way too slow. Good kick, really nice size, good intercept mark. But Pedo has pace especially since he's got his fitness up. Sellar always lacked a yard I thought. My answer to the McDonald problem is Pedersen by the way. If Gawn steps up and we get some more mature and fitter forward flankers then I'd put Pedersen down back. He's got run and faith in his kicking.

Half of his long kicks to forwards were shanks. Even if you are bombing it long you should kick it long, with some height and to the forwards/rucks preferred side which is usually the boundary side. Instead he was kicking it and it was landing short and to the defenders side. He certainly wasn't our worst. This thread isn't about him being our worst. It's about me not seeing improvement or as much potential in him. I can't help but think we thought Al Nicholson was the future of our backline and player him year after year until we finally had to do something about it. My concern is that McDonald is going to be an Al Nicholson. You can win games with him. You might even win a final. But unless he gets a whole lot smarter you wont win big finals with him. In case you haven't notice Petrie is on his last legs. He's pretty much done and hasn't played well all season.

Drew Petrie. Really?

Let them. Hawthorn wouldn't touch a key defender who can't kick. Or they wouldn't put him in the team until he learns how. And they always defend and run with perfect intelligence. When their defenders get beat (Cheney and Schoenmakers, even Gibson) it's because one on one they get beat, it happens.

I hope he's restricted in his fitness because 1 goal 5 and 11 marks for Petrie including Petrie getting him on the lead multiple times is not up to scratch. I know North had good delivery but it's the lack of desperation to stop kicks up to the wing/flanks which is McDonald's main strength which is lacking. It's why I'm thinking he's just not smart enough to zone and read the play.

Don't care if this bites me on the back Jetta or Pedersen style. I'm putting it out there. It's not the kicking. With time that could improve. It's not even the defending errors that happen occasionally, they'll get better and he does a lot right. It's the lack of pace for a guy who's meant to have speed. It's the incredibly bad decision making with ball in hand regardless of kicking. It's the lack of help he provides team mates by running to help, at one time today Grimes got the ball under pressure and turned towards the boundary with Ziebell on his hammer. McDonald had run back behind Grimes to where he couldn't help at all instead of towards where Grimes would need help, and Grimes (less said about him the better) is nothing but consistent. I'm over Tom McDonald and I'm now at the stage where I'd love to be proven wrong. Personally I'd rather start again with someone who's a footballer first not an athlete.

I know GWS have had so many picks they must be thinking needs based but would you really want to draft a tall defender/back up ruck number 1 overall? That's not a marquee position. I look at Collingwood with Frost coming off the rookie list and doing really well and even experienced defenders like Tom Lonergan, Teddy Richards, Zac Dawson and think it's more about finding some good athletes and tough guys and developing them rather than spending a number 1 pick, same with rucks. And if they did go needs based with the ruck I'd go for Wright as he's legit ruck size and can play the second ruck/forward role. I like the rest but I feel someone will burn down the kennel if they don't go a tall. Hrovat and Dalhaus are meant to be half forward speedsters. Johannisen from half back if he develops. Macrae isn't slow. Depends on the rest of their draft but they need some proper tall prospects.

Watts. Gets the ball. Wanders back 3 steps. Moves two steps to the side. Is called to play on. Now starts looking for targets. So annoying. 1. Lead 2. Mark 3. Play on straight away OR two or three steps off the mark, then spin quickly 4. Push back further off the mark 5. Move in the direction you will kick

I have to ask why are you on a footy forum talking about footy and interested in the draft yet your only watch Melbourne games. Considering how poor we've been on late that's an impressive level of dedication!But yes. Beau Waters is a hard as nails tough back pocket/flanker, Sam Mayes is a smooth moving, skillful utility who can play half forward, half back, wing and probably eventually midfield. So if a player is compared to both of them then that's impossible to know what he does well or not. The two I've read and seen on that list the most are Hugh Goddard and Jake Lever. Goddard is your prototypical tall developing prospect. He's got all the physical and footballing tools the question is just whether he really leaps out and dominates games. But he has skills and athleticism and you could put him half back or half forward. He probably reminds me of Lachie Henderson in that he'll end up a good player at a minimum. I'd say we'd be super keen if Frawley left and he was around and we had pick 3-6. Lever you'd like to see grow just a bit to 195cm so he's the right size but he's a natural key defender. Just one of those kids who's way ahead of the others his age at defending. But he's done a knee and missed this year. But he's like Col Garland as just a quality half back who will stop goals and get the ball going the other way. Whether you'd use a top pick on a guy coming off a knee who might be undersized and just a half back is another question.