DeeSpencer

We gave up 20 as well in that deal. We paid a lot for Dom. 2-> 6 . Richmond are calling North’s bluff on Tauru and saying we aren’t giving you a top 20 pick for that move. You’re doing that for effectively a future 2nd kind of value. F1 -> 11. Trading back in will cost you in this draft. We don’t care if you suck. West Coast suck and want that pick. Essendon aren’t good and want that pick. You have to relinquish the value you got in 2-6 to get that pick or we’ll sell it elsewhere. From North’s perspective - they are taking Tauru no matter what so may as well do it at 6. They have big gaps on the wing, half back, half forward that they can fill with 11. Getting that pick in right now is worth the overpay. And if they suck LDU gets them first round compo anyway!

Im not always wedded to best available. In 2019 I was all for Jackson over Green and Young because we had the Tracc/Oliver combo and quality in a lot of spots. Plus Jackson had a crazy high ceiling. Unless you have 2 gun mids but no key forwards the answer is Tracc from Hogan with the ruck 3rd (sorry Max). The big body powerful mid is the most important player in the game IMO. So if there’s a Tracc level type at 5 then sign me up. What I’m seeing isn’t anyone remotely on that planet if Lalor and Langford are gone. Right now we don’t have the gun key forward and the future of the 2 gun mids is both up in the air. So from a longer term list perspective there’s no push one way or another. But I’m not convinced JVR yet alone Jeffo are the main men up forward so if we think Armstrong is that guy then grab him. Hoping we can recreate the last few games of BBB exactly when needed in 2019 isn’t a reliable strategy.

I’m having a Knightmare trying to work out what he was saying in that tweet!

Gus - Windsor ANB - Kolt JJ - Sharp Harmes - pick 9? I’d like to rebalance the list with more midfield depth than that too but when it comes to pick 5 you got to go best available. I can see the case for Armstrong being the best available.

There's no doubt we really could do with an outside in midfielder with run, skills and pace. But people are seeing Jagga's very good run and extrapolating skills and pace that isn't there. Run is good and we need someone who has vision and smarts, but if it doesn't come with attacking drive or quality kicking just how valuable is it? Breaking down Jagga's game against Vic Country: 0:07 - nothing handball 0:13 - cut back, never looks for the diagonal target, backwards switch (misses target) 0:20 - quality clearance (awful defending) but kick doesn't get over the interceptors 0:30 - great follow up run but handball doesn't connect 0:40 - nice pick up, runs to space, kick hangs in the air, gets spoiled 0: 44 - fumble! 0: 48 - sharp hands 1:04 - unmarked at the stoppage, hacked turnover kick 1:10 - smart crumb, nice throw to set up the shot at goal 1:20 - dropped mark 1:30 - burns quick options, lobs it 40, Sims nearly swallows it 1:45 fumble! 1:49 second fumble, htb! 2:01 - crafty spin out clearance win, kick misses target After that I got bored, a couple of nice pieces of play and finds the footy but there's still no evidence of quality foot skills, creativity or genuine speed. In the same game Langford had one of his lesser performances of the year with his hands full with Smillie, his kicking was a bit hot and cold, but his handballing is both quick and creative, he looks to play on quickly and executes quick kicks and he can take big pack marks. Whilst he doesn't have speed his outside game looks really strong. He's not quick, but he seems to run as well as Jagga and uses it better. He can bomb it at times but usually it's when he's under pressure and generally to a target. Plus he actually has the leg to bomb it long quickly, which as much as we think can be bad Melbourne footy can be really good footy if you have marking forwards who can take advantage of it.. He's a mile more advanced than Sparrow who rarely looks comfortable with the footy in his hands.

It's not so much kicking as decision making. He has a nice enough punchy short left foot kick as well as the ability to roost it, but he makes bad choices by hand and doesn't see options by foot too. I certainly feel like it's time to sacrifice some athleticism and ball winning for quality decision makers. Maybe not if he was Tracc/Oliver level contested beast. But he's not that either.

It's not like we'd be saying no to talented kids and chasing a 35 year old from the Managatang thirds. I get the concerns both in terms of list build and doubts on his game but there's a lot to like in Armstrong and if Langford, Lalor and FOS are gone there's plenty of doubt over what's left. Plus we get one of them with 9 as well.

8!

No you can go from 38-4 to 36-6 but you’re giving away cap space for nothing if you aren’t 36-6.

If we’re drafting for now it has to be players who slot in the best 22 regardless of future role. If it’s best available then who cares who we have left after Tracc, Oliver, Viney. We’ll have plenty of holes to fill.

List sizes are 36 + 6 + 2 cat B. If Moniz is now a cat A rookie - which I believe he is - then our rookie list is full and someone had to be elevated, may as well be Melk (who was last year shuffled back as we had more senior list guys than rookies). (If Moniz is still cat B then we do have a rookie spot but it’s highly unlikely we’d want to hand out a main list spot to pick 84 after already using pick 83 as it currently stands, we’d promote Melk and use a rookie pick).

Pick 5 I highly doubt we move but there’s a case for it if we don’t like who’s there on draft night. Pick 9 seems out of the range of the top quality and we’ve already had one crack at a better guy at 5. So if we attempt to recreate the Pickett-Rivers deal in 2019 it makes sense. Based on rankings and mocks so far Harry Armstrong and Murphy Reid are the 2 highest upside guys here and if JT doesn’t believe in either of them let’s get a flanker in the mid teens and bank another pick. If it works out that way I’d especially like to get another pick in the 30’s and have a crack at a tall there assuming we go mids/flankers with the first 2 picks. Faull, Shanahan, Dodson, Sims, Gerryn, Whitlock x 2, O’Farrell, Barrat, Mraz. There’s 10 talls who go somewhere between 15 and 40 and I think in most years these guys would go between 10-30.

I’m not sure who you could like that Langford would underwhelm you, he’s about the best possible result. Because he’s about the best possible player. Lindsay at pick 9 might be a tad underwhelming but it could be very smart business. I’d be whelmed by watching his kicking!

To the extent that there are even sliders I would only call them that if they start to drop from at least now if not closer to the draft. Until now any orders by Cal or anyone else are just their best opinions with some club help. As the process goes on that starts becoming clearer on where clubs rate players. I might be completely wrong on Jagga but he was never rated as a pick 1 contender going in to this year, he was always seen as a fair way below Ashcroft, FOS, Smillie, Draper. He was seen more in the 5-10 range. The buzz he got from strong performances elevated him but even in July he was 6th in Cal’s form guide. Good vfl games especially at Richmond when they have pick 1, big disposal totals, a cool name. There’s a number of factors that started getting him thrown up the order yet he’s right back at 5 in Cal’s form guide and come the draft he’ll slot in somewhere from 5-10.

Kentfield is a non factor, a throw at the stumps who might be something in a few years. Armstrong would be somewhat redundant with JVR, Turner and Jeffo but Clayton Oliver was the same when we had Tyson, Tracc, Gus, Viney. I suspect he won’t but if JT loves him then take him and sort the rest out later

Daniher rucks too but he was excellent forward and won them the game against GWS to even make the prelim. Brisbane have gun mediums too but that isn’t an argument against good talls. Hawks had Dear, Chol and Gunston and often times rucked Weddle or Nash to keep that forward set up in tact. Or sent Sicily forward after Gunston was subbed. Mobile skilled key forwards are only getting more value. Sydney’s talls lack mobility and skills. I’m suspect on Armstong’s skill level and just how mobile he is but if JT thinks he’s the real deal we should take him.

At pick 5, a gun midfielder like Harvey Langford, Jagga Smith or Josh Smillie would be handy. At pick 9, Melbourne would surely have to look at Sandringham Dragons key forward Harry Armstong if he was still available. There’s nothing new, insightful or possibly even likely there.

- January birthdate who’s finished school and spent the year training giving him a significant development advantage - Average speed, no power, good agility/endurance - very little creativity - very poor value per possession, prefers to handball, often goes laterally or backwards - doesn’t drive his legs through a stoppage or fight through tackles to release runners forward of the contest - no kicking penetration - no aerial game We could do with a balanced midfielder but his inside work is going to need a heap of development to stack up at afl level yet alone become a strength and his outside work is undermined by being so safe, bland and lacking oomph.

Well we should probably draft someone with aggression, pace and kicking skills rather than out the Backa Jagga. Every comparison to Butters hurts my brain.

Arrrgghh FOS, Lalor and Langford cementing themselves as the best 3 available and even with Tauru to North looking as likely as anything we are 1 pick short. No idea where we go with 5 if the top 3 are gone. Draper’s perhaps the safest bet of the second string mids. Smillie maybe. I have no interest in Jagga. Bo Allen seems too big a gamble on fixing that decision making. I wouldn’t be shocked if we went all the way down to Jesse Dattoli chasing a mid/forward with some aggression and skills.

From what I’ve seen of his decision making if he left Melbourne heading for Perth he’d end up at Casey so it wouldn’t be too much of a worry

12 disposals. 0 percent efficiency

I’d be surprised if Smith goes top 5, and Richmond could do anything at 6 including a trade. Smith would fit there depending what they do at 1 but with more picks to come they might go tall if they don’t trade. St Kilda with Sos and Dalrymple from dogs/swans I’d expect to target pace and big bodies with at least one of their picks. Maybe not Armstrong, key back and small forwards are other needs. Travaglia and a Berry/Hannaford could make sense If we take Smillie or one of the other mids I wouldn’t be surprised if we still pass over Smith or use him falling as a trade chip to to get a great deal to move back.

I believe Alix Tauru and Christian Moraes are both in the Hawks NGA but not eligible for draft concessions. Then again, St Kilda have a kid who's parents were born in Switzerland. It's inconsistent and frankly stupid to have advantages that don't include Pacific Islanders in Melbourne's South East, but some of the conspiracy whinging stuff is sooking. Brad Green has enough to worry about before getting to NGA eligibilities.

It’s not our style but if Langford, Lalor and FOS are off the board I’m making that trade right away. 5 or 10 are worth about the same. Then moving 11 for the Eagles future first and hopefully something (F3) that gets us in the draft in the 40’s if possible. 9, 10, 45 and the eagles future first covering the loss of our future first. That would be good list managment.