ignition.

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.

The draft itself was considered the worst in recent years. A friend working as a scout/ recruiter for an AFL club told me prior that it was as deep as the top 15 at best and after that clubs were practically guessing (if you get my drift). So as for Taggert, Tynan and Sellar being busts I can't really blame the recruiters on this one. Looking at the draft now the only really good quality picks amongst the vast range of later selections would have been Michael Talia and Lachie Neale.

Cale Morton was also highly rated as a junior... Dane Swan was highly underated as a junior, as was Goodes... some just don't cut it at the big time whereas others excel!