Lutz

Hell, with Ralph's attitude, why draft ANYONE? May as well just give up.

Yes! I remember that! Seriously terrible techno remix of the theme song. It was cringeworthy.

Looks like we had our eye on Dale Tapping from Sandringham Dragons as our final development coach, but Collingwood beat us to the punch. Lovett would be a good acquisition.

Noted, but I will be very busy next week, so it will actually be more convenient for me to hear (as opposed to read) the trade info as I'm going to see clients. I'll probably just listen to SEN in the end.

It's a sound theory. I've been thinking the same way. But I think a 2010 and 2012 class is pretty good. Geelong's major influxes of talent were 2 years apart. Worked pretty well for them. I think we'd seriously be asleep at the wheel if we weren't interested in at least 1 of the picks.

Thanks, but I already have the app. I meant the trade week radio link.

Really? That's your argument? Have you even seen him play? Have you seen how he has been used? Did you see how poor the crows midfield was in getting the ball to him? Or how his stats took a sharp rise when Bickley took over and had them playing a more offensive style? Hardly clever to just look at his stats. They compare favourably against Tapscott anyway, albeit Dangerfield is 2 years older. Tapscott missed his 1st year due to injury, Dangerfield spent his in Geelong still in high school. It's about what they are CAPABLE of on the field. And Dangerfield is capable of more, IMO.

Anyway, as redleg has already noted, this trade has about a 2% chance of even being considered, let alone happening. It's all moot.

Really? That's all it takes? Why didn't we think of that before??! Surely this could've helped Bate and Brock McLean? Ah, the benefit of hindsight... Come on, you really think Tapscott will become the explosive athlete Dangerfield is by doing a little core work..? Hardly "common sense", more like fantasy.

I favour tough hard competitors, but over them I favour explosive game-breakers. Dangerfield is that. I think our lack of tough hard competitors is more due to overall youth, but I see your point. And, I suppose, in the GF how often did we see the game broken open by athleticism? Not that often. Hard bodies win out. I think Dangerfield can become both. Tapscott I don't have as much faith in, in that regard. Don't get me wrong - is built for finals. But I think Dangers can simply be even better, therefore I'd do the trade. And the weight of numbers vying for the same spots don't help Tappy's chances.

It's moot because he ha family connections at North and that's why he wants to leave.

Cant keep him, but have to trade 4 picks for 17 year olds over next 2 years and can choose to not trade picks this year, keeping him in next year's draft pool. GWS does not select the player - the team receiving the pick chooses who they select (provided they are within the age bracket & have nominated).

If someone can post the link here, that'd be great. My trade week fever is building to a crescendo already.

I rate Tapscott highly, but I worry about his lack of height and mobility, specifically agility. In my experience, running capacity can be increased, but agility rarely improves. They're the limitations I refer to, personally.

Geelong traded one to Gold Coast for pick 15, in fact.

Don't agree. He's not a bad kick, in fact he's quite a good long raking kick. But he often lacks the space to kick effectively and picks the handball to a teammate rather than bombing long. Soon he'll be taught to sometimes just throw it on his boot. I think he's often so focused on what is within a 10m radius that he doesn't have the vision to pick a target upfield. It's more a refusal to bomb in hope rather than finding a teammate.

Unfairly maligned for his kicking. Put in one of the most critical positions on the field in a team that struggled to combat the press and provide options. Courage and integrity personified. Will be captain one day. Only question is... Midfield or HBF? I'm inclined to keep him in the backline.

I said it at the time -- 186 (30 July 2011) was a great day for MFC. It was the catalyst for REAL change. Without it, some of the developments we have seen recently might not be coming to fruition.

Well that's fine. If your opinion is that Tapscott is better than Dangerfield, then I can't argue against it. It's your opinion. I don't share it. Then again, I'd rather Gary Rohan over either of them.

Is that really how you see it?

Hence the word "seems". But you don't know that about ANY play under the age of about 23. The thing is you're comparing Dangerfield and Tapscott, and right now, Dangerfield is better (clearly IMO) and it looks likely to stay that way. Are you referring to Dangerfield being concussed, what, twice this year? The first time from having his head slammed into the ground by Trengove? Yeah, soft head. Good argument. You realise the very same thing happened to Tapscott too? Nice hyperbole though.

I think you need to read more slowly, because you miss a lot. I've seen Tapscott improve. I said I don't want to trade him. But in a Dangerfield trade you'd need to give up someone of his quality. Do you rate Tapscott above Dangerfield? I don't. What exactly does "go hard to trade" mean though? I didn't criticise Watts and backed him to the hilt. Like Lucas Cook. Talls take time. Kids take time. But that's fanciful in regards to Watts and what he has/had in him, as opposed to other players. You're taking a bit of artistic license there.

Nice evasive manouvres.

Does he? Or is he a thug like Campbell Brown who just like to deviate off the line to hit blokes when they have their eyes on the footy? I'm not saying he is, just asking a question. I don't think that sort of "toughness" is especially brave or valuable. Doesn't hurt though.

I didn't go the man. You brought up players from 20+ years ago. They hold no relevance. What I know about you or what you miss is also irrelevant. Arguing semantics about "tough" and "hard" is meaningless. I've not "gone off on Tappy", merely presented a realistic trade proposal involving a promising player that seems to have limitations. It seems to have hit a raw nerve among quite a few. Some don't like to face reality. A bit like the difference between hard and soft players maybe? Of course I don't know what he'll be like next year. No one does. Ever. In any trade. Relevance, your honour? Obviously few of those players will be there in 2013, and even fewer the year after that. Since we'd be trading for Dangerfield in this scenario, again, relevance? I don't understand what the hell you mean by we "should go hard now in this poor draft year." We should use the picks? Or draft aggressively? Do you know what that means? It means being prepared to do deals like Tapscott for Dangerfield to get better. And lastly - "Wattsy will be ok"? Is that the same Watts derided during his first couple of years for being soft? So you can teach a player to harden up..? Or you can't? I can't decipher what you're trying to say there.