DeeSpencer

Do you really see Lever as a Pendlebury style midfielder. It's a nice dream but there's so little evidence for it. I think if we take him it will be as a versatile backman who can play CHB, FB, rebounding player and intercept marker. If he then can be developed as a midfielder then great. Lever is as big as Bontempelli who looks like making it as a midfielder, but even he was drafted as a roaming flanker type set to play as a follower but not really as inside midfielder. We'd be mad drafting Lever as a midfielder. If we take him it's because we think he can be a special defender who has the ability of someone like Luke Hodge whilst playing at half back. Because he could be the 3rd best player in the draft if he's an All Australian in that role. I do some what agree that just a key defender with pick 3 without significant other features to his game could be reaching, but I can still support that if he's a gun. I'd rather Frawley than Sylvia for instance.

Probably not. We should call Richmond.

Except for less of a Kent. He reminds me of a young Paul Chapman, with 10% less polish but 10% more speed. Patty McCartin still reminds me of Fev. I'm not sure if that's good or bad. Except for maybe some early Lunch Whitnall, Fev never got to play alongside a proper CHF in tandem like Hogan might be.

I think you answered your own question. As good as De Goey is I think the common school of thought is he's not that fast, not huge for a midfielder, not dominant at the clearances, doesn't win 30 touches every week etc. So he might have limited development. A key forward who can become a top liner has a lot more. Same with a midfielder with top pace or perfect skills. It's hard though. You look at Sydney. Rohan and Jetta in the first round. It's very hard to find players with that potential. Parker at pick 40, standard tough inside midfielder, standard size, seems to have solid marking skills. Turns our Parker can out mark a heap of players in the AFL as well as being not just a standard inside mid but a bull and also pretty good around the ground. Rohan and Jetta still have all the talent to do amazing things but couldn't buy a kick between them on grand final day. But Brad Hill and Isaac Smith are instrumental players for Hawthorn and they gave up a first round pick for McEvoy and traded for 30+ Brian Lake because without those key structural players it's hard to win big games as well. The main thing for our pick 3 is to find a player who will be at a high level at their position instead of comparing across positions. We can always trade for deficiencies like with Lumumba and Garlett. Cheap pick ups who arent great players in isolation but can fill needs and can play well at their peak.

No. This isn't about Evans. I have no problems with him being delisted. Nor anyone else who was delisted or traded in this trade period or in any others recently. With maybe a tinge of regret over Jamie Bennell. I'm simply passing on some things I have heard.

The only thing more ordinary than his Casey performances were the rest of the team and the relationship between MFC and Casey and just as importantly the relationships between the Melbourne footy department and the players playing at Casey. No doubt some of those players weren't up to it. Others were whingers who probably weren't ever going to have an attitude change. But I do believe there is enough blame for both sides and hence why I'm very pleased with the appointments of Plapp, Byrnes and McCartney.

Someone above blamed Neeld. My point was only to say it was Mahoney (who does the contracts) combined with Viney (list manager at the time) who were involved in recontracting Evans, not Neeld. I didn't blame Mahoney for the decision. As I said i too would've given Evans a 2nd year. I couldn't forsee him having such a poor year in 2014 that he was rated as he is now.

His lack of experience. That he was trained as a coach by Bailey and Neeld and educated as an administrator by Schwab. That the initial plan was for an experienced head of football until Jackson (rightly or wrongly) settled with Mahoney. That he was part of the group to so eagerly contract some ordinary players prior to trade week. That he seems keen to give out 2 year deals (Evans/Barry). That we seemed to be caught on the hop on the potential of the saints getting their hands on to Frost. And that in general he doesn't sound like the sharpest tool in the shed when interviewed. Plus a delisted player straight out told me he's a bit of a battler. Time will tell.

They should like big German kids like the Ox and Neita. We have to draft them!

I love all the kids in the draft equally. That way you can't be disappointed when we chose one of them! That said I'd have this guy as the 3rd best inside midfield prospect (behind picks 1 and 2) even though he's often been a flanker at junior level. He's got all the attributes to mix it with the big boys unlike the other outside types in the top 15 or so (and all the talls of course). So if we are drafting for need and trying to build the team from inside players out wards (which I'm not sure is a legit theory anyway but roll with it) then he'd have to be heavily considered.

Looks great trying to take the game on, but then doesn't use it well at all in those highlights. Too much fancy footwork and evasion, not the greatest actual vision for where to get the ball is my concern. But then maybe he's moving faster than his team mates in terms of using it by hand. And the foot skills weren't bad, I'd just like to see him nail that goal and lace out the targets a little more. But he's still a heck of a prospect. I wouldn't say no at pick 3 if the club thought they could refine him. There's no doubt he has a high ceiling. More Shaun Burgoyne than Judd by my estimations, but without Shaun's polish after he's won the ball.

Firstly Josh Mahoney recontracted him. He's my biggest fear at the club. Well him and Todd Viney actually. But that's for another thread. Secondly Evans was our second best healthy young midfielder at the time behind Viney. It's a joke but it's true. I have no problem with a 2 year deal for him. We beefed up our older midfield brigade. From Jones * 2 we added Cross, Vince and converted Watts to a midfielder. As well as Tyson as another young midfield gun. Trengove went by the wayside. McKenzie went backwards. A whole lot of guys - Toumpas, Michie, Riley, McKenzie, Barry (and now Newton) haven't shown that much more than Evans did in 2012. I have little faith in Evans long term. I have some inside info that I've given to some and in some places involving what I think is happening behind the scenes. But that's enough for now. I'm not whinging about Evans getting 2 years at the time though. With how poor our list was I think he deserved it from some decent games and his 2013 was unexpectedly poor probably due to the change in coach. The expectation that Roos would improve all players equally is a myth but you couldn't expect Evans to drop off in the pecking order as far as he did. (Not blaming Roos or saying Evans is a good player or saying Roos is wrong to drop him down the pecking order, I just think the FD were right to expect him to still be around the mark last year and worth another shot in 2014).

The thing I like about De Goey and (from the little I've seen) Cockatoo is they win their own ball but then have some speed and skill to win it or use it on the outside. I can't say either are good enough for pick 3. I really can't decide who I do or don't like for that pick. But I do know we are desperate for ball winners who can then use it as well and can also play in various positions.

Add the saints with Schneider and the dons with Aylett. My mail all along is that we want to do the same with a player on our list it's just getting the player to agree. The player is within their rights to ask for the cash and to be delisted outright instead of re rookied.

My favourite bit about this all is that everyone thinks we'll either get a superstar or a dud depending on a choice. I bet Richmond with pick 12 or even Hawthorn with pick 31 would gladly take whoever we pick at 3 be it McCartin, Lever or one of the mids. Of course we should aim for a superstar and take the best player. But we just need to pick a guy and develop them in to an above average player, that's the most important thing. The picks above demonstrate it. Roughy and Lewis were very decent early but really took years of development to become stars. All 4 of those Geelong stars were the same. And the order in which they became good players is almost inverse to the heights that their careers got to. It was Kelly, Bartel/SJ then Ablett early, now it's the reverse. Only Franklin was the rare freak who is just a class above from very early and he went pick 5 anyway! Even the Hawks didn't take him with their first pick!

He's tall, broad and really really cut. He's not the mass of big buckets Holland is his prime, but he's a pretty decent specimen of an athlete. Looks well built for his size and age. Tom McDonald looks a little stronger than last year as well I think. Hoping we have two key posts in these guys. Not the most skilled but with the right athleticism and attitude.

A lot of the tests are to fill in time. The interviews are the most important thing. And from there they may as well get an accurate weight and height as well as doing a medical. The skill and athleticism tests have little value. Probably the endurance running is pretty important because you want to see which kids can handle the pressure, go out and produce a big mental and physical effort to make a good time.

You didn't bold the 'hope like hell' bit. He'll be long gone by 40 if he's anywhere near as good as some think.

Have Shield games always been 4 dayers and if so why? Why not make them 5 days? There are new rules this year that reward a team for getting 5, 7 or 9 wickets in the first 100 overs. Or for making >200 runs in the first 100 overs of the first innings for either side Just crazy. We need a number 3 batsmen and we don't need an attacking one. We can have Rahul Dravid. We can have whichever style as long as they can average 45 and perform in a variety of conditions. We have 1, 2, 4, 5 and options for 6. We have a keeper. We have and always will have some decent quicks. We need a spinner and a number 3. Asking teams to bat quicker or take more wickets in the first innings of shield games does nothing for the development of either of those positions.

Dallas, Denver, Pittsburgh. I'm sorry I'll see you guys next week as Chicago has another bye this week.

Nothing wrong with the current one. We won 3 of our 4 games in it this year. I like that we have a clear 'non clash'. I like that it's red and blue. And I don't think white is a colour as such, I'm happy that it's a neutral background. Unless you get a kid to design it (worked for Port, didn't work for Adel) I presume it costs a fair bit for someone to design one and there's always a chance it could be worse (hello silver).

A school coach on a top 5 draft pick. It's like asking a mum whether she thinks her babies cute.

Ball literally doesn't come down in the first 15 minutes (13:30 on the inside clock). A few dummy leads then to the bench. Back on lead out in space, double back, his man went to the contest and he stayed out, crumbed and snapped a point. SA were killing them in that game and he was stuck in the front half (often around CHF) and still the ball didn't come down. (Heavy breeze to the other end). A bit of repeat chasing sees the hands go on the hips. A shocking kick drops passed him at the 18 minute mark. His man does a better job of picking it up and getting back in the play. At 19:25 he's avoided with a kick inside 50. Doesn't get involved in the ensuing loose ball scrum. No crumb, big tackle or hard ball get. Then the hands are back on the hips and that's about it for the quarter. Pretty uninspiring stuff. But very very little chance to do anything. He seemed to lead to decent spots and position himself well. But without seeing what was up the ground that's very hard to judge. The team had 2 or 3 inside 50's for the quarter and he scored a point. That's about all there is to say.

ACLs are rarely collision injuries, just thought I'd add that. And if we took Darling off his 17 year old form we'd have done really well. Anyway it's all a bit irrelevant. We'll draft who we draft and worry about it then.

At the 54 second mark a guy makes ground on him but he maintains balance before kicking. At 1:07 he jogs along with the footy and a guy inside never closes. At 1:50 he puts in a couple of quick steps to make sure he can get a kick away (after first keeping his eyes down field). At 2:04 he toys with a little fella. At 2:30 he turns and sprints (mainly agility) to receive a handball. The rest of the time is him embarrassing forwards by being on their tail then judging and marking the ball. You're right it's little sprinting speed and a lot more agility and mainly that at least in those highlights his football brain speed is warp speed compared to his opponents. I don't conclusively trust the draft combine 20m sprints is all. I'd like to give him some more training in them, plus a 40m sprint and check out his agility. Mainly I'd like to see more footage on his pace shutting down a lead as well as running and carrying the footy.