ignition.

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.

Ok then, better not forget Cotchin, Deledio, Macrae, Bartel, Heppell and Polec. All of which you could name next to Parish. Then on the contradicting side there's Rich, Palmer, Ellis, X. Clarke, and Sylvia. Comparing a U18 prospect in this manner is ridiculous, and the argument is very easy to twist.

Oliver is strong over the ball but can't or doesn't kick on his left. When confronted and forced to use his left he will try and twist and turn out of traffic to get onto his right or get away a handball. It worked fine for him in the TAC cup as he can monster over other teens but I question how well he can keep it up against men, and how at times it may slow down or impair a set play.

After speaking to him my impression was that the deal is already done and I expect that he'll be signed as soon as trade week officially opens. This gives me comfort knowing the club is currently chasing other unknown targets. So please GET AROUND HIM! By all means he must prove himself and earn the respect of the club and its fans, however he shouldn't arrive with any negative connotations derived from the Essenscum supporter base.

While on holiday in Germany guess who my fiancee and I ran into yesterday, yes Jake Melksham along with Michael Hibberd. Initially running into Hibberd I had a very very brief conversion with him. A minute or two later and around the corner waiting for him was Jake. So straight out I asked "Are the rumours true mate, will you be at the Dees next year?" A little coy and thrown off he replied "it's highly likely". I responded "well i'm a Dees supported" and the conversation turned to his and our trip with him relaxing quickly. Overall we spoke to him for about 5 - 10 minutes and he was a very nice bloke. He didn't have to stand there and chat but he wanted to once we found that commom ground on travel. He asked us many questions as we did to him and shared the usual travel stories and experiences. Aside from the start we didn't talk any footy and I didn't want to push it, I got the impression that was the last thing he and Michael wanted to discuss and righfully so as I'm the same with my line of work atm while on holiday. Overall I think he'll enjoy a fresh start, and after that conversation welcome aboard I say and I hope he flourishes. Cheers!

Melksham NO THANK YOU! Never rated him and would much prefer to see Kent or JKH named ahead of him. Wasteful trade for both time and resources.

It' been awhile since I've been on demonland AF (currently in Europe). But all I have to do is read your posts and feel relieved there are still fellow Demon supporters talking sense, pparticularly during this time of year. Thank you!

Fair points mate, particualry with Toumpas. I feel with our relatively young list that he could be of better value on the trade table to get a quality deal over the line. I'm not throwing him on there for the sake of it, or for any dislike, but yes if the price is right. As for Garland, he's an RFA so the concept of trading him comes at a risk. I would rather see him signed early at his market value rather than see it dragged out to the end of the year which could attract other clubs and a higher price to match if we desire the trade. If the trade falls through we'll be stuck having to pay for an overpriced Garland.

Thanks for the info, and I like your discussion on Pederson - I'll happily see him kept as well. Any idea if Michie is out of contract this year or the next?

Out of contract players: 2015 Jamar 31 (UFA), Garland 26 (RFA), McKenzie 24, Howe 24, Gawn 23, Fitzpatrick 23, Toumpas 21, Pedersen 28, Hunt 19, Cross 32, Bail 26, Riley 23, Harmes ® 19, King ® 19, White ® 18 Obtained from rpfc, 2015 contracts thread. ------------------------------------------------------- DELISTINGS: - Jamar : Gawn has become the #1 ruckman. - McKenzie : I've never really been a fan, nice bloke but not AFL standard. - Hunt : He was a wild selection on draft night and unfortunely hindered by few times by injuries, although I feel he's had his chance and the list must continue to turn over. - Bail : Similar to McKenzie, tries his heart out, good bloke, but not AFL standard. TRADE: - Howe : I would prefer to re-sign him, but if the rumours are true based on his asking price of $600k+ I would rather see that put towards poaching a gun midfieder (Dangerfield, Treloar, T.Mitchell, all gettible but hard). - Fitzpatrick : I said it a few years ago when he was re-signed, he should of been traded then while showing AFL form (Carlton were a suiter). Either way he'll be traded if he's of any value, but most likely delisted as I don't see him cracking our already tall line up. - Toumpas : He's improved yes, but unfortunitely for me I can't warm to him. For everything good he does, he's often a liability. I don't want to verbally [type] bash him, but I'll happily see him traded if the price is right. RE-SIGN: - Cross : I think he's proved his worth for another 1 year contract. I can't name anyone currently in the seconds who should play ahead of him and his training standards are brilliant, particularily for setting the benchmark for our young blokes. - Garland : He's in his prime and I want to see him re-signed, I'm of the belief that he'll re-find that 2013 form, particularily if the team lifts as a whole. UNKNOWN (these ones I can't figue out): - Pedersen : We do have a lot of tall talent. I like Pedersen, I actually consider him on par with Dawes without "the name" or "over-rating". But don't know, potental re-signing or delist, probably on the cusp. - Riley : Potentially re-sign, potentially delist, he'll be on that cusp depending on what happens surrounding trade week. - Harmes : He's had his crack at the big time, but didn't crack it for me. One game isn't a good enough indication, I hope he's given a few more opportunies, but again don't know enought about him to really comment. - King : Big men take longer, and I don't know how he's progressing in the secord nor his training standards. - White : Similar to King for me, don't know enough about him. I'm often happy to see a rookie get their second year. Please tell me your thought and let's not turn it into a "you hate Toumpas, I love Toumpas thread".

I don't think so, should take the two best talents available (not possition) and if the club rate McCartin within their top three he should be taken if Petracca goes at one. I like the concept of having Hogan and McCartin develop together, they could become a fantastic combination over the years. Ideally I would prefer Petracca and Brayshaw, however won't be disapointed if we end up with McCartin due to the Saints taking one of the previous two.

For me it's the top two talents, not positions. I'll be happy with two of these three: McCartin, Petracca, and Brayshaw. Ideally Petracca and Brayshaw if the Saints take McCartin. If they take Petracca, it's McCartin and Brayshaw for me.

I must say I love the thread P-man, along with the witty title. I'm sure at some point I'll be sitting here on the couch.

Quite frankly I'm sick of hearing that Tyson/ Kelly comparison and I'm also sick of hearing the skewed argument of the actual trade. As Carlos Danger said above with reference to the facts of the "actual trade", it was Tyson (2011 NAB pick 3), pick 9 (we selected Salem) and pick 57 (we selected Hunt) for pick 2 (GWS selected Kelly), pick 20 diluting* to 22 (GWS selected Gardiner) and pick 76 (GWS opted to pass). Diluting* was due to three FA compensation picks along with the loss of Essendon's first round pick. As for this endless comparison between Tyson and Kelly, Roos has stated (refer to his round 8 post-game press conference) that if the club held pick two they would not have selected Kelly with it but instead use it on someone else (presumably Billings, Aish, or even Scharenberg). As it was reported many times prior to the draft clubs were having trouble differentiating and ranking the players past pick one - many clubs would have had a different order. This idiotic comparison has been driven by moronic media jocks like DB and Sam Edmund who have probably never touched a footy in their lives. Unfortunately it's caught on to the point where Tyson's name can't be mentioned without reference to Kelly, for example it was very frustrating watching the Rich vs. Melb replay with Luke Darcy stating how good he thought Tyson was and naming him within a short list of future stars of the game (Tom Liberatore was another), then Matthew Richardson buts in including Kelly, Darcy's response was something along the lines "too early to call". Overall I'm over the moon with the trade, so far it's well and truly looking like we ended on top. As I stated above Tyson is showing all the signs of a future star, and Salem is showing all the signs he is no draft bust and may have a long career ahead. It certainly was a good year at the trade and draft table for us.

I'm looking forward to watching Tyson's game develop more and more. We have picked up an excellent recruit (not to mention Salem) who at the age of nearly 21 is showing all the signs of a future star.

I'm really impressed with Dom's sheer workrate. He was also one of the few blocking for the tagged Jones that also made his game all the better. One particular block (MCC members wing in the second quarter I think) allowed N.Jones to receive the tap down and clearance from Jamar which was delivered inside 50.

I'll take your points and we can agree to disagree on the description of a project player As for pulling the trigger too early on Hunt with regards to my original post, I would have preferred the club stacking the odds with that pick (and future late picks) by selecting players that are more likely to succeed based on good or excellent performances at a higher levels that slide in the draft (TAC Cup and U18 Champs), as apposed to a player in others inferior competitions (School Football). Compare Honeychurch to Hunt, Honeychurch was in the premiership winning team of the TAC cup, represented Vic metro and was further named as an All-Australian in the U18 team. Hunt had a few good performances for Brighton Grammar. As for Templeton, I agree not all clubs rated him as high as some but his performances particularly during the U18 champs rated him higher than Hunt. If the club again this year chooses a school boy who did not play TAC cup or represent his state over one that did who also performed well enough for to obtain or fall just shy of All-Australian selection I'll be livid.

My AFL scouting/ recruiting friend. A few days after draft night I asked him and he confirmed he was taken too early. I presume by the way you wrote that he must have been on "your list" come draft night... was he? He was and is a project player (aka smokey), he didn't play TAC Cup in 2013 let alone represent VIC metro. He played school boy footy for Brighton Grammar. The trigger was pulled far too early on him, and if another club selected him as their project player it would not have been a huge loss like you elude it to be. As I said I have nothing against him, I hope he succeeds and makes something of himself, I'm just saying we could of selected him in the rookies and we could have selected a greater and more probable prospect at pick 57. For example Honeychurch who went at #60 and was on my list (I was PO with this on the night), and interestingly Langdon at #65 (although I was unaware of how good he would be), and then of course Templeton at #3 RD. I just don't want to see these later picks in the national draft used for prospect players or smokeys when there are talented players that rack up stats available. Ummm... no.

I'm at the point now where I just don't care about the draft anymore in reference to the number of our first round pick. Look through any draft and you can see the best player being obtained from any number in the top 10, sometimes in the 20's or even 30's. It also takes years for a player to break out and show their full "potential", sometimes they never get there. So really I don't care if we have pick 1, 2 or 3, I will happily see it traded again for another Tyson and Salem. Taking that punt on a pick 1 might get us another Watts, Gibbs or Kruezer all of which have underperformed, or alternatively yes a Murphy or Deledio but it's still a flip of a coin and no certainty for success - just over exaggerated media hype that takes years to determine if the pick comes to fruition. All I ask is that the recruiting department makes well calculated and smart decisions by stacking the odds in their favour (e.g. 2 quality players with high "potential" like Tyson and Salem for 1 with high "potential" player being Kelly). I also ask they rank the players based on talent and output not entirely athletic "potential" (NOTEI love draftees that win a lot of the contested possession as they are more likely to succeed). For years clubs have let players slide because they may consider them a bit too much of a "plodder" like Luke Dunstan, or lack that physical frame like Nathan Fyfe, or will never have a big enough tank to play AFL football like Tom Rockliff - all of which killed their final U18 year. I hope they STOP drafting "smoky's" at relatively important picks like they did last year on Jayden Hunt. Nothing against him but he could have been obtained with our second Rookie pick, using his pick on say an Eli Templeton who was rated quite highly by a range of clubs. Not only do I want the club to get their first pick "right" (there is a greater probability of doing this), I think it is equally if not more important to get those later picks "right" and those that are usually correct are selections of those players that slide due to physical traits like JKH's height or a presumed lack of fitness like T. Rockliff and S. Mitchell that produced highly (excellent stats) during their U18 years.

For me "Other" and that's Viv Michie. Tyson will also be an excellent find.