Moonshadow

Think you're right. If the FD wants to increase our options, they might split either 3 or 8, then take best available with the split picks. I'd be happy with 3 and 8 though.

Got a link pls?

FMD! If that's not draft tampering then it's certainly against the spirit of the draft. This is what happens when the players and their managers hold all the CBA cards and the clubs fold.

From previous draft day interviews with Taylor and Mahoney, they have a list of draftees ranked in the order they rate them. I recall them talking about selecting the best available at the pick. These days, most clubs lists would be very similar. For example, they were wrapped that Petty was available at 37 in his draft year. They thought he'd go earlier. I don't want to search for the interview, but I remember them saying something to the effect that we weren't looking for a key tall but he was too good to pass at that pick.

The club will take best available at that pick. If they selected Henry at 3 I hope it would because he's the best draftee at 3. That he is a small forward of which we have a need is a bonus. We also need a running half back with sublime vision and foot skills (Young). A burst midfielder with speed comparable to Dangerfield would be handy too (Kemp) Personally, ATM i don't think Henry is the 3rd best in the draft. He's exciting and looks promising, though

Best available at 3. If it's Henry, he should be selected. I'd be wrapped if we got him if he's considered 3rd best. If not, no point risking a top 3 pick on the hope our bid is matched. Same with Green

3 selections in the draft. 97 will come down to something like 50 or 60 once bids have been matched and others pass on picks. Might be rookie upgrades, e.g. Lockard, Dunkley Might be DFAs, e.g. Murray. Might be PSD picks, e.g. Martin, Gray, Casboult, Christensen, Newnes (as examples only) Not sure we have a to have 40. Can't clubs run short with a view to selecting in mid season draft? Or is that for rookies only?

You are a one trick pony

Hope that includes French Island...

Adelaide or Sydney might also bid for Green, which means GWS would still have to use their pick 6 for him, thus increasing the value of 8

That covers 99% of us on 'Land

Anyone remember Buddy's 8 week 'hammy' a few years ago?

My understanding is that Darwin was never our zone. We have Central Aust/Alice Springs

Iirc, there were plenty on here keen on Butcher. Never a more appropriate player name...

That would be longer than me! I watched Jones running up and down Goschs one day last preseason about 50 times in an hour. At a decent clip, I might add. I was exhausted just turning my head left to right!

Historically, Bennell's hunger is apparently for another form of performance altogether. Not apples with apples DD.

Might need to see if you can survive a preseason first, DD!

Being reliant on one forward kicking 50 is not the answer IMO. If we are looking for a new star to kick 50 for us we are dreaming. If it happens, great. But I'd be more pleased to see a larger number of individuals kick 20, 30 or 40 goals The 5 x 10 was a counter to the 1 x 50. Obviously we'd want more than only 5 players only kicking 10 each.

You missed the point, editing quote didn't help either

Good to see you back Rangey/Matsuo

Who cares if it's a 50 goal tall or 5 x 10 goal smalls. Goals do not have to be kicked by a few, as long as they go through. Probably a mistake to focus on one forward kicking 50. "We don't care who gets the accolades. We all play our role, we don't care who gets the touches, who kicks the goals" - Dustin Martin

True, but we are in trouble if we use Freo's talent scouting as a guide. They did well recruiting Sylvia, Bennell, McCarthy, etc

Speaking of which, haven't heard much from @Bitter but optimistic of late. I know he's a big fan of Langdon's lush locks.

And as some have noted, if GWS are forced to match 3 with Green, there are only 3 picks before our next one at 9 (5, 7 & 8). A lot of good players in there. Kemp could go through to 8(9) ?

What an A-hole.