deelusions from afar

One thing that surprised me is that Tomlinson said HB he's probably the best stoppage player going around - if he's getting the chance to play in the guts in match sims, he's not exactly being wrapped in cotton wool!

As much as I love them all, if this doesn't work out (and potentially even if it does), one of Viney or Brayshaw are likely not to be at the club next year. Both great players but unlike Oliver and Petracca, they can't really play anywhere else but in the guts. Both had a lot of injuries so perhaps haven't seen their best in a while... but our inside midfield stocks look solid with harmes going to defence and the likes of Jordan and Sparrow not being able to crack into the team.

I wonder if Goldcoast didn't have pick 2, whether we still might have taken Jackson anyway?

I find it interesting that they have Lockhart training as a small defender (from reports). To me this suggests that they must intend to draft at least one specialist small forward and maybe even two. I thought Lockhart is one of the few on the list that might be able to play this role - too early to know if Bedford, Chandler etc will make it but it's one of the hardest positions to play so the odds are stacked against them in any case.

Trying to follow... are you saying GWS might trade pick 4 for two of our picks?

Is it just me or do others think that our "forward line issues" are really just the outcome of problems further up the ground? McDonald was poor in 2019 and Weid didn't come on like we hoped, but my memory of the games - particularly early in the season was terrible inside 50s and a low number of them compared to 2018. I honestly don't think the best forwards in the game would have made much difference. I think Fritsch and Melksham playing most games forward in 2020 will make a huge difference (and potentially injury free Hannan, Smith and McDonald) - but I think it is more about the additions of Langdon and Tomlinson (and maybe someone like Young) who give us a bit more run so that we are not so pressured and fatigued when kicking inside 50. Obviously some improvements / upgrades on the small pressure forwards locking the ball in wouldn't go astray either. Get the midfield run and delivery right and it won't matter whether we have A grade key position forwards - Weid and McDonald are good enough.

No we trade 3 for GWS's 6 (plus the best deal we can get e.g. next year's first rounder and anything else). We then use 6 (and whatever else from received from GWS) to trade for Freo's 7 and 10. Then we pick the three kids we want with picks 7, 8 and 10 - we miss a couple but there doesn't seem a clear consensus on the order of them in any case. Worst case scenario if GWS or Freo don't trade and don't match our bid, we end up with Greene and/or Henry - very unlikely and not a bad outcome in anycase!

I still think we'll do some deals on the night with Freo and potentially GWS so that we convert 3 and 8 into 7,8 and 10. If it's as even as people say around these picks then at least we get 3 goes at it - Freo and GWS would be open to a deal due to their Academy picks.

I get the sense that we don't rate these players in the same order as other clubs so who we would pick with 3 might still be there at 6 or 7. I'm hoping we do deals with GWS and then Freo to end up with 7, 8 and 10 rather 3 and 8. That way we're likely to get 3 of Young, Serong, Ash, Kemp, Stephens, Weightman (or anyone else I've missed).

Agree that threats aren't the way to negotiate (and not Mahoney's style). It only works if we rate Henry and are genuinely prepared to take him. Given we have another top 10 pick and we need a small forward (and have suggested this is what we'll target in the draft) I think he might be on our radar. I'd love to get him as he seems like a very good prospect - but there's lots of draft experts that follow it closer than me.

I imagine we wouldn't mind landing Henry - what if GWS trade 6 and next year's first for pick 3. We might then threaten to use 6 on Henry. Could this be enough to prize 7 and 10 out of freo (we might need to give up next year's first from GWS?)

I might be missing something here. But why wouldn't Goldcoast just redraft him (assuming they can fit him in - and they finished 18th so surely they can!). Even if he sits out the year sulking on $700k (or whatever Carlton are prepared to pay him), they will get another early pick in compensation when he leaves for Carlton at the end of the year. So say they finish bottom, it would end up being another top 2 pick? Maybe someone who knows the rules can clarify.

Wrote this before seeing your post GawnDog... good minds think alike! Got a theory – so bear with me! I think there will be fireworks on the trade night. 1. Melbourne has made no secret that we are after small forwards – particularly with publicly chasing Elliot. That in itself is strange because our pattern the last few years is to only allow the speculation (leak to media?) when we know we are going to get our target (Lever, May, Langdon & Tomlinson). 2. We have a history of bidding on academy players (not sure exactly which ones - Heeney, Mills?) so to say we will do again cannot be dismissed as bluff. 3. We have 2 picks in the top 10 – if Greene is as good as reported, it would not be a terrible thing to get him at 3 if GWS don’t match and we can still target the outside run with / small forward with 8. 4. GWS and Geelong are clearly interested in our pick 3 (it’s likely others such as Sydney would be too). Reportedly, GWS offering 6 and next year’s first round is not enough for us to trade 3. Well played! 5. The draft “experts” have said the best small forwards are Liam Henry (Freo academy) and Cody Weightman – depending on what you believe Melbourne rates Cody as high as 3 and others believe he will go as late as around pick 28. 6. Fremantle hold picks 7 and 10. 7. Unlike some years, there seems to be little consensus among the draft “experts” as to the best players from 3-12ish. Is there a way we could trade pick 3 and end up with 7 and 10 (while keeping 8)? Given the reported evenness of the draft, I think this would be an enormous win. How do we do this? Probably smarter minds than I would have a better idea. I don’t think Freo would trade 7 and 10 for 3 (and probably wouldn’t believe we would nominate Henry at 3) but if GWS believe we will take Greene at 3, then they will be forced to offer us a deal we can’t refuse – pick 6, next years first + anything else they have / can trade for. We then have 6 and 8 and tell Freo we will nominate Henry with 6 – because picking him at 6 would not be a terrible thing for us at all. He is reportedly a gun and fulfils our need. They trade us 7 and 10 for 6 (not sure how much of what else we’ve received from GWS would need to be part of the deal). They can then draft someone with pick 6 and Henry with their next pick - 22 (I think that’s right?). We can then use 7,8 and 10 to get Weightman and 2 of Serong / Stephens, Flanders / Ash / Kemp / Young / whoever else I’m missing

Will be interesting to see what they do with S Selwood - they seem to use him a bit as their pressure forward of late with reasonable success... but surely they would want him in the centre stopping Oliver or Brayshaw

After the injuries over the weekend, it got me thinking that although very unlucky for the individuals concerned (particularly the battles Tyson and Kent each have had this year and had seemingly overcome), we had dodged a bullet in terms of the injured players not de-railing our finals campaign – perhaps it is easier to say this with Viney ready to go and Hannan looking like he will come back in for Kent. Maybe Tyson is a chance in any case. It got me thinking about who is the most valuable member of the side – not the best player – but the player who if they went down to suspension or injury, it would have the most detrimental impact to us. Obviously this is something that changes constantly with development, form and number of games played – AvB has been enormous since coming back in but has only played a few games & Harmes has hit a purple patch… do we measure him at this standard now, is there a like-for-like replacement on the list if they are out, how important is the running capacity of ANB or other role players, how experienced they are (I don’t put great weight on this) etc. I have Hunt last in this list, but I feel like up to halfway through last year he would almost have been top 5. Hopefully he can get back there next year. It’s interesting to ponder – not just in terms of the players we’d least like to lose in the finals but also those who have missed a significant amount of footy this year. Anyway, here’s my list as of form to date this year. Would be interested to hear other people’s thoughts. 1. Gawn 2. Oliver 3. Tmac 4. Hibberd 5. Viney 6. Lever 7. Brayshaw 8. Harmes 9. Hogan 10. Jetta 11. Melksham 12. Salem 13. Frost 14. Fritsch 15. AvB 16. ANB 17. Petracca 18. Omac 19. Lewis 20. Jones 21. Weiderman 22. Spargo 23. Kent 24. Stretch 25. Tyson 26. Vince 27. Smith, J 28. JKH 29. Garlett 30. Pederson 31. Smith, T 32. Wagner 33. Hunt

Good post. I found this interesting too. I took it more to mean that he is well aware and doesn't want the media to look into it so it becomes "a thing" - so just dismissed it. Clearly it would be a concern. I'm also concerned we seem to be worse at the MCG than we used to be - given it is our home ground and where the GF is played this clearly is not deliberate. I'm hoping it is more about tidying up our weaknesses e.g. defenders having confidence in each other and therefore not flying together, Tmac / Weid straightening us up & perhaps adding some more speed to the team - Viney & whoever makes it out of J Smith / Frost / Baker / Stretch at the expense of the slowest (Lewis / Vince / Tyson). Maybe (hopefully) these things will be enough for us to get our "game plan" to click at the MCG. Because the current style of kicking to the boundary (same side every time) and backing your inside mids to win it every time is far too predictable, leads to poor and wide I50s and will not stand up against anyone in September.

"...The 41-year-old Goodwin, entering his sophomore season as senior coach..." I hate this American jargon being brought into our sport. Why wouldn't they just say second? Looks like Fox Footy are trying to squeeze a little more out of this non story. The headline and article are over the top when you read what Goody's quoted as saying.

And if not Jayden, I would go after Hibberd. Hibbo sets up so many of our plays from defence. I remember noticing in the Adelaide game how he peeled off his man and even ran away from the contest time and time again to be the free kicker once the ball was won in defence. I know others commented on his low tackling stats - it's not that he can't but he's more valuable to be allowed to use his skills. I'm not sure of the stats but it seems like no team has really tried to stop him do this so far. I would think that if you were coaching against Melbourne it would be worth having a defensive forward mind him at all times / or try to use whoever his man is to make him more accountable. The rest of the backline grows in confidence with the ball in hand knowing they can always go to him to get them out of a tight spot.

Wonder if we can tempt a team (who we predict are on the slide) into trading their first round pick for next year in a similar vein to the Saints did with the Hawks last trade period - even if it involves sacrificing our first pick this year. Everyone seems to be more excited about next years draft (although often this is the talk early in the championships) but there are a number of teams that will need extra picks to land the big name players bandied around. Next year we still have the likes of Smith and Maynard to come into the side and Weid should continue to develop so could we leverage into getting two first rounders for next year in a stronger field. Thoughts?

I heard Mason Cox only played a half in the VFL on the weekend - what is the chance he will be a late call up?

Agree - Frost caused a number of errant kicks from the Giants that resulted in turnovers. Like Garlett, his defensive skills only work when the rest of the team is 'on' and playing their role - if we have everyone manned up / covered with our zone then the defenders running it out need a bit more time to assess the options and dispose of the ball. It's in these moments that Frost gets them as they don't expect someone of his size to get to them that quickly and they sh!t themselves! If he can kick a goal or two here and there and keeps up the pressure efforts then he is more valuable than the stats would say.

I don't have a particular liking for Frost but I think his contribution to the team is undervalued on here - there were a number of pressure efforts that don't lead to stats that he did which directly lead to turnovers - I noticed this a number of times in the first quarter. Having said that, it would make things a lot easier if he could clunk a few more marks and be a threat kicking for goal!

Multiple draft threads but thought this fits best here. Obviously hard to pick how a player will develop when they're 17-18. It's interesting hearing that people think the likes of Curnow or Francis could develop into a tall midfielder (a la Fyfe). Thought it might be interesting to compare what people were saying about Fyfe around this time of his draft year. For those of you that remember, it was a bit of a surprise Freo taking him as early as 20 - some suggesting young ruck / forward prospects Gawn and Fitzpatrick were on their radar and of course we'd just got Tapscott at 18! From Quigley on Big Footy - http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2009-big-footy-official-phantom-draft-the-real-deal-selections-only-thread.649044/page-2 From AFL draft info - http://afldraftinfo.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/nat-fyfe-claremontwa-draft-profile.html It's funny reading some of his weaknesses back then knowing what he's become eg tendency to fumble, concern about ability to bulk up, does not win many possessions etc and his potential was rated as "6-8.5 out of 10" (love to see the player with potential of 9.5!)

I'm not having a go at Knightmare or this thread... but I always find it interesting comparing these write-ups to players we know down the track - who could forget Sylvia's?? This was by Knightmare in the middle of 2012: The description is of exactly the type of player we need! Does this mean it's worth trying to get a bit more out of Toumpas... or should we be a bit wary of these types of write-ups... or neither / both. I'm no expert with this but the way the game is going I like the sound of a Curnow type... although I suspect the comparisons to Stringer are equally unfounded

As crazy as it sounds, I don't think being able to "coach" in the traditional sense of the word is necessarily a high priority for afl coaches these days. You have development coaches, people who assist with the game plan, forward, back and midfield coaches, recruiting staff and scounts, fitness people etc.... the key is being able to manage people. From what we've heard, this was one of Neeld's biggest weaknesses (although admittedly he didn't have the right structures of PJ, experienced assistant's etc around him) Obviously you have to have the passion, drive, knowledge of the game etc Most of us here have no idea about who's best suited as we don't see the inner workings of the foot club or know the potential candidates personally. However, looking from the outside, given where both Ling and Kirk have come from in the early stages of their careers (as fringe players) to be premiership captains and galvanise their respective groups that were/are both seen as setting the standard for culture in the comp, they would seem to have as good a background as anyone around. For me where the likes of Buckley, Hird, Voss never had to struggle (they were always stars), Kirk and Ling had to modify their game to become greats not only at their club but in the competition. I think they would well placed to relate to all members of a playign group. From what we know, they seem to manage relationships and people very well too.