poita

Except we traded out of the first round already. But I'm sure pick 89 will be a ripper.

I really don't understand this selection given that players such as Zac Smith and Daniel Currie were traded for picks around this point in the draft. Instead of taking a second project ruckman we could have added some experienced cover for much the same outlay. We've now got Mitch King and Jayden Hunt clogging up the senior list as players who should be on the rookie list.

I don't know anything about Matthew Flynn, but did our refusal to bid on the GWS academy kids earlier result in us not getting Flynn? If GWS had been forced to use earlier picks on Hopper and Kennedy, would they have been able to afford Flynn? Sometimes you just have to play the game.

They should let you bank credits from not getting a scarf each year, and trade them in for other merchandise (eg a cap) at a certain point. Run it through the Melbourne rewards program if they have to.

So water tight that nobody knew about our trade targets three weeks out?

So, we just need Carlton to butcher Weitering's body for two years, and then pay him a fortune to come to Melbourne? Good luck with that.

It's a weak draft already, and most of the best talents are academy kids, but we have thrown all our eggs into this basket. If the recruiting staff get this wrong it will set us back another five years. I sure hope these guys know what they are doing.

Not sure why we wouldn't throw a bid on Hopper after we bid on Mills. We have nothing to lose really.

It took Hawthorn 6 years after recruiting Hodge and Mitchell to play finals. Even Franklin and Roughead didn't play finals until their third year. Ditto for Ablett and the other stars Geelong recruited in 2001. There are a few people around here getting a bit ahead of themselves. If Goodwin is truly the man to take us forward, I'd be very disappointed if it isn't his team in everything bar title next year. Roos can take the press conferences and public scrutiny, Goodwin can run the football side.

More for interest's sake than an actual draft guide: Brett's Final 2015 AFL Draft Big Board It continues to worry me that we've doubled up in a draft where our pick 7 is actually going to give us the 11th or 12th best player. Does anyone know what next year's academy kids are like?

Our song is in the top three in the league and I will personally shoot the person who signs off changing a single word of it. Could you imagine an updated version, probably sung by Guy Sebastian or some other dickweed who knows nothing about anything, jazzed up to appeal to teeny boppers who couldn't give a rats scrotum about football anyway? I think that would be the end of me.

We had an aging list because from 2002 onwards Daniher wouldn't play the kids and traded for useless players like Fatboy Pickett who were just interested in boosting their retirement funds. Daniher did a lot of very good things at Melbourne, but there is no question in my mind that he played favourites with a number of players, some of whom became very good players elsewhere. Aside from the 1999 draft crop, we had a whole generation of draft picks waste away in Daniher's time. This is the number one reason why we went through Bailey's tenure with next to no senior players and leadership at the club.

I can't believe anyone thinks Lumumba should be in. What has he ever done that looks remotely like leadership? I would have: Jones ©, Dunn (VC), Viney, McDonald, and one more - happy for that to be Grimes if he looks like being best 22.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbournes-best-team-of-afl-era-mostly-made-up-of-players-who-played-under-neale-daniher/news-story/b54b2785fd53a7afc949521490954391

I'm curious that the media seems to be across every player on our want list at the moment. All three of our trade week acquisitions were publicised weeks ahead of the event, and now even our potential rookie selections are getting coverage. I can't see that us shouting our interest in Melksham from the hilltops helped us get the best possible deal, and I wonder why we would do it.

The 1994 team was a much better team than the 1998 team, but they came up against much stronger opposition. West Coast, Geelong and Carlton had very strong teams in 1994, whereas 1998 was a relatively weak year. Hence Adelaide were able to pinch a flag from nowhere. Our forward line in 1994 featured Lyon and Schwarz at the absolute peak of their powers, and the supporting players did their jobs nicely. The 1998 forward line had plenty of talent, but Lyon and Schwarz were past their best whilst Neitz, Farmer and Robertson were yet to reach their prime. 1994 easily for me.

Plan A only works whilst Gawn stays fit, and it is only a matter of time before he breaks down again. Then what happens?

If we don't think he's good enough for a senior contract, why would we bother rookie listing him? He has been in the AFL system for five years, it's not like we don't know what he is capable of. He's only unlucky by virtue of the fact that others like Jones, Newton and Terlich have contracts. With our recruiting and drafting over the past two years, he probably is not in the best 15 midfielders on our list, so I think we should cut our losses and move on.

Surely Daniel Gorringe would be a better bet, given he has been delisted by the Suns.

I'll be [censored] if they give us Hawthorn as one of our make up games next year. Watching us lose to those pricks by 100 points twice in one year would be more than any sane person can handle. Hopefully the make up games are Carlton and Essendon. And yes, the St Kilda game is a joke. Can't wait to see a 30,000 crowd squeezed on to level 3 whilst level 1 is deserted.

Why on earth would we give Hunt another year on the senior list? He has done nothing at all to date to suggest he will be an AFL player. Three years is what we gave Toumpas to prove himself, and he showed a million times more promise in that time than Hunt has. Really disappointed that the club has not come out and justified the Terlich contract either given that one year contracts are in vogue at present. Why was Dean given two years on the back of an underwhelming 2014 season? How many memberships are covering the cost of his contract? PS. I actually like Terlich as a player, but I'm not sure why he was contracted for two years when the coach doesn't rate him.

Let's be honest, we'll get at least 7 (maybe 8) home games against interstate sides. Most of these will be on Sundays. Aside from Collingwood, we'll get Richmond if the Anzac eve game is shared, and probably one of Carlton and St Kilda given their ladder positions. Everyone wants to host the big Victorian clubs, and we're just not a priority for the fixture team. I can't see us getting any Friday nights, certainly not as the home team. At least if we host the interstate teams it limits the number of interstate games we have to play. If we get away with one trip to Adelaide and one to Perth it would be a good result. Our number one request should be to get more games on Channel 7, particularly against decent sides. We were about 20 rounds in before I could watch a game at home with my son this year.

JKH needs to develop a stand out quality (or two), because at the moment there is nothing about him that suggests he is more than handy depth. There is nothing seriously wrong with him, but nothing exceptional either. He definitely has to find a way to get more involved in the game, because 10 touches a game doesn't cut it unless you are kicking multiple goals or providing serious defensive pressure. He currently does neither. I wouldn't object to him being tried in defense, because I'm no great fan of Jetta as a small defender and I think Jay will take the game on more.

Pretty tough on James making him wait 7 weeks to know whether he has a spot on the list for next year, but I'm sure the club has its reasons. Hopefully he can continue his good form from round 23 - it's been a while since one of our rookie elevations really had a decent career, most lately have been in the Evans / Nicholson / Clisby mould of doing nothing once they reach the senior list. Does no announcement re Vandenberg mean that he will start 2016 on the rookie list? Perhaps not a bad idea, as they can leave a spot open on the senior list and promote the best performing rookie prior to round 1.

The reality is that for the better teams players 18-28 on the list are fairly interchangeable. In our case it is probably players 10-28 that are fairly interchangeable. We have a small amount of top end talent, and a large amount of players who are either not good enough or who are still developing. We haven't traded in anyone who is better than average, so they'll just add to the pool of mediocre players clogging up the middle of our list. All three recruits are good enough to play senior football in a poor side, but will hopefully get squeezed out over the next few years. Until the likes of Petracca, Stretch, Neal-Bullen and this years draftees can step into that top tier, we will continue to struggle. Hogan, Brayshaw and maybe Salem stood up last year, hopefully a few more join them this year.