ignition.

Rapped for him. He is a top bloke and deserves it.

I think that's a relatively fair assessment. Although, I believe that Viney, Oliver, Lever, and Gawn can take their games to a new level again. They are at a point, however, which is probably more dependent on how the team around them performs as to how much further they develop. Likewise, the development of the others will be catalysed if the team as a whole, including the game plan or execution of it, improves.

I'm glad you a thread on him (after I seeing him pop up in another yesterday). He certainly has the talent and I have no doubt he can perform at the AFL level. I'd be happy to see the club draft him with our first pick (if available). With our new indigenous program led by Matthew "Wrecker" Wheelan, plus the likes of Jetta and Garlett at the club, I'd easily back the club's ability to facilitate his transition from both Perth and into the AFL.

I suspect we'll have to upgrade our pick no. 29 today so that we can confidently acquire Fritsch. I'm concerned the Bulldogs will snatch him up with no. 28. Supposedly they were shattered to miss out on Hannan last year (from their VFL team). I doubt they would target Fritsch to spite us, but I'm sure they are at least interested and predict we'll use one of our second round picks on him.

I'm not arguing that a club can not build a team using late picks and development. But on that note look lets look at the premiers: Cotchin #2, Martin #3, Riewoldt #13, Rance #18, Ellis #15, Caddy #7, Rioli #15 (all first round picks). I'm arguing about currency. We have no Leverage, excuse the pun, to draft or trade a "star" in next years super-draft. I'll repeat that I'm thrilled we got Lever. But Mahoney & co. could and should have played it better.

Where they were selected is irrelevant. We could name just as many or more "star" players that were drafted early. One way or another, draft picks are currency. Early picks effectively offer a higher probability of selecting a star (particularly in next years darft) or used are used to directly trade a star (like Lever). I'm thrilled we acquired Lever. My qualm, however, is that Mahoney & co. rushed it and paid overs. They could have played it much better.

Paid overs. Well done MFC on bending over again. They went all in at first. Our first offer should have been the final offer. Isn't next years draft rated as another or near-superdraft? No wonder Adelaide were adamant on getting our first round pick. STUPID!

The club can now argue that he didn't even poll in Adelaide's B&F top 10, so why would they offer more? Obviously, a few of his votes were taken out. What a poor and unprofessional way to handle his departure. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/adelaide/jake-lever-told-not-to-attend-adelaides-bestandfairest-after-trade-request/news-story/b5a13c82a91449ab806c3017a431ed34

Quoted from KC of Casey in the Jack Trengove win the Casey B & F thread. "The runner up (of the Casey B & F) was promising youngster Bayley Fritsch who also won the VFL's Fothergill–Round Medal for 2017 which is presented to the most promising young talent in the VFL competition." Great to read! I hope we can acquire him in the draft (before another club selects him).

That has to be the most Gentleman-like argument I've seen on here. Hats off to you both

I'd be happy to take Lever, but why do we think he's the highest priority? We need a replacement for Vince and other fringe midfielders. It will likely be another couple years and the same will said for Lewis and Jones. If we're to truly challenge for a premiership we need one of, if not the best midfield in the competition.

Excellent proposal. It would be tough indeed. Certainly worth the discussion. Should also come at a lower cost than that rumoured for Kelly.

Who said we'rs restricted to one recruit?

I don't think Zac Jones gave anything away in that interview. However, our own Nathan Jones seemed to have greater trouble at holding a straight face when probed about it on the Thursday footy show a couple weeks ago (13/07/17). I can't recall exactly what he said, but you can tell Nathan wants him over. He mentioned how he's 7-8 years his younger and that they've never played together. He then referred to it as a fairy tale and a dream come true if it were to happen. Clearly, the club is targeting him (from list management to captain). We can only hope they're successful.

Hey mate, First of all well done for speaking up, it takes a lot of courage to tell those around you (friends and anonymous people). My partner is a psychologist. So here are some tips for you (if you haven't already) or others on here that might be considering help. All the best A BIG PROBLEM for many suffering with mental illness is the price it costs to receive continual help. Here are a few pointers for people wanting or needing it. One can go to their local GP and ask for a referral to a psychologist. This will entitle them to 10 free sessions covered by medicare. At the same time contact a local university clinic (Swinburne, RMIT, LaTrobe to my knowledge) and get on their waiting list as 10 sessions are typically not enough. At these clinics one will receive help from a provisional psychologist (in-training). It is very cheap ranging from FREE - $60 (average is $15 - 20) an hour/session depending on one's income. After discussing this with my partner, I feel the quality at these clinics are just as good as private practice. Where the students lack experience, they see fewer clients and thus put more thought and energy into helping them outside the hours of their one-one sessions. Of course, they have well-experienced supervisors they can turn to for advice regarding treatments and interventions. They're often quite enthusiastic as well. Also of note, if anyone has or intends to go to a psychologist keep in mind that a particular psych may not be the right fit for them. Like in life, some people we click with while others we don't. If one ever has a bad experience or feels it's not helping don't give up on the idea completely, just try someone new. As long as you yourself wants to improve and progress, take what they say on board, and they will guide you along the way. LINKS: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/psychology-clinic/contact http://www.swinburne.edu.au/lss/psychology/pc/ http://www.rmit.edu.au/about/our-locations-and-facilities/services/health-clinics/health-sciences-clinic/psychology

Clarry's got a brother 2 - 3 years his senior who plays country footy. It would be interesting to see how fares in his local games, as well as determine if he has the right/ or similar attributes to improve and succeed in a professional environment.

I'd say traditionally Collingwood. But for some reason (maybe the 2000 GF), personally for me it's Essendon. I hate those bast**ds!

Again you seem to be jumping to conclusions mate, when did I state that Wines was rated higher overall, or that he was the "obvious" choice? Go back and re-read my last posts. I suggested they were close and worthy of debate, and by no means was Toumpas the outright choice and general consensus as you elude to. ???? Yes stuie I did, so please remind me what T. Viney's role at the club was in 2012?... Head of Recruiting ring a bell? T.Viney (2012 head recruiter) rated Wines as the better draft prospect, whereas Neeld specifically wanted outside run presumably supporting the opinions of the S.A scouts. In ways yes he was the flavour of the month. I recall people getting their knickers in a knot because "Jimmy goes for a run on Christmas day". Please show us all these fancied selections by all these experts? or are they newspaper clippings a couple days before the draft?

I provided evidence on p.18 that our head of recruiting wanted Wines ahead of Toumpas. Instead of the selective reading, my point was that the top order particularly between Wines and Toumpas was hard to differentiate, and that in no way was it a general consensus that Toumpas automatically should have been selected ahead. That "evidence" you seem to support is nothing more than inside intel as to how the draft will fall by questioning clubs on who they intend to select a couple days prior. NOT the general consensus by all clubs as you seem to suggest. Do you really think that journos would be asking Sydney (pick 22) who should go at 4 or for their top 22 listed prospects? - the same applies for every other club. So please provide a shred of evidence that Toumpas was outright ahead of Wines by multiple scouts (amateur or pro) / recruiters. The only hint available that suggests so is Knightmare's but then he says (which supports my point that you seen to miss): "This top region is much more even than advertised and I see very little separating this group. Crouch, Wines and Stringer to have the most immediate impact. " So no it is not blatantly right.

Hindsight is not the case for some. Leading up to the draft I will un-happily admit I wanted Toumpas ahead of Wines, although I liked the risk of Stringer ahead of the two. For those that said Toumpas went or he fell where he should have, unquestionably ahead of Wines, based off newspapers articles are blatantly wrong. Without question Toumpas was in that correct range and the debate between the two was valid at that point in time. The fact is, as S.O.N.S and I have mentioned previously, it was a fierce debate between T.Viney (then head recruiter) and Neeld over the selection of Wines and Toumpas respectively, and Neeld's overruling has proven costly (now hindsight) (see previous links for the appropriate referencing). Overall I would love to know where Harrington stood (then list manager).

Sorry ProDee but you're completely delusional, or you haven't watch the Dees play in the last 4 years. Jones has been bloody good in a very poor side. If you had taken him back then and placed him in the Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydeny, heck even Collingwood line up you and everyone would be calling him a "star". So please spare us the rubbish.

Again Emma's was published 4 days before the draft primarily based off know how, she then published an altered version the morning of the draft (your previous link) where she near nailed the top ten by only have Stringer and Macrae in the wrong order (again by know how). Shifter's who I agree would be one of the most knowledgeable, is not ranked but merely the top 30 prospects in no particular order (the associated link is part 3). The fact of the matter is that T.Viney wanted Wines, whereas Neeld didn't. Why? Because he knew the player that Wines was then, for what we all know today. In 2012 he had the year to match with both a phenomenal championship (runner-up in the Larke) and TAC Cup.

Look at the dates, excluding Knightmare's, they're are all one or two days before the draft. Each and every year they seem to change from what was previously touted as they are given the inside word regarding the way in which it will fall. The journos don't have them independently ranked via their own talent identification, they are simply in the know how a couple days prior. For example Cal Twomey's changes drastically over the final month from his own identification to the inside word. As for spirit of norm smith's original quote and your's and C&B's question, David Schwarz presented on SEN radio that Viney wanted Wines whereas Neeld overruled his decision - and I sure as hell believe the direct nature of his sources. I had also independently heard something similar a year or so prior regarding a dispute between the selection of Wines and Toumpas but wasn't sure who supported who. REFERENCE FOUND! LISTEN TO THE POD CAST, STATED AT 2:50 min/sec http://www.sen.com.au/news-archive/08-15/schwarz-dees-fans-not-copping-blame#SCLOzfo4hld1vaEv.97

Hoping like crazy Mathieson doesn't get to the bombers in the late 20's. Really hope he, Tucker or Balic slide to one of our late picks, but I doubt it.

We'll be seeing the comparison of Oliver and Weideman vs Parish and Francis for the next 10 years. Here's hoping we have the better of the two. Quietly after Oliver I was hoping Parish would slide, but am still very happy with Weideman.