LegsLeoncelli

Y'know what? I get that we all want to have the best 22 that we can on the park each week, but the reality is that if we want to push for top 4 and beyond, we need to have depth and flexibility in our squad. If Dawes is out, Sellar or Pedersen need to step up. If Jetta becomes our first choice back pocket, Tapscott or Garland need to do the job if he is unavailable. Don't like the specific names I've used? Fine, choose your own, that's not my point. The coaching department will pick teams each week where particular players will be tested and asked to prove themselves. That is part of our journey, from rounds 1-23. This is not a sprint, but a marathon. If you want to see a rebuild, look at Hawthorn, circa 2005. That's where we're at, and I for one have the confidence and patience that we will get there.

Isn't that Brett Kirk?

"our first round pick"? "a top 5 pick"? Whoa!!!! Settle a bit guys...

young-dee-enthusiast flops Guy Rigoni um, no.

No offence to OP as a means of providing information, but so far, 4 pages of meh and counting. Bring on 2013.

I'm sorry, I don't have the capacity for a witty follow-up, I'm only good for a silly one-liner... So, in all seriousness, I believe that Jamar is only really at his full potential when in the ruck- resting in the forward-line he is only productive if he marks it in the goalsquare due to his atrocious kicking, and even when a kick behind play he seems to be inevitably 10 metres from the fall of the ball when it is marked in our defensive 50. Martin was, in 2011 at least, a more reliable target up forward but whether he fits into what is now a completely different forward set-up from then will be decided by more knowledgeable folk than us. Certainly the current 3-1 interchange system benefits ruckmen who can stay on the ground for longer periods.

So, just to clarify, is this thread about the primary role of the back-up ruck or the back-up role of the primary ruck?

You know, I honestly believe that in the end, the main factor that affects the ability of kids selected in this part of the draft is the coaching (i.e. DEVELOPMENT) that they receive once they get into the system. For mine, it appears that in the past some clubs have had the belief that young players will develop naturally, and that others intensively direct and hone that development to "manufacture" footballers. I would put MFC, Dogs and Dons in the first category, and WCE, pies, hawks and the lions of the last two years in the latter. Although it is painful to admit, it is no coincidence that teams like the Filth and hawks have been able to stay up for so long, while teams like us have a plethora of first round picks (as well as more speculative picks in later rounds) on our list who have not progressed since the day they walked in the door. The presence of a new FD led by Neeld and actual, real development shown in players such as Tom Mc and even Watts has given me some hope that all the picks that have been taken over the past few years may not yet have been in vain.

And I don't think FA will really come into it for some time yet because if a young fellow wants to get out of GWS or GC and a trade cannot be done there is a good chance that they will nominate for the PSD. It's a high probability they will want to get back to Vic.

Based on Tom McDonald's (and to a lesser extent Watts when he was down back) development, Rawlings' ability seems encouraging. Hopefully Strauss, Bennell, Tapscott or whoever else the FD have earmarked as the core defensive group continue to show improvement.

I haven't researched this but my understanding is that Goddard's manager and the Stingers lodge the proposed contract with the AFL and St Kilda and the Saints have 3 days to match it. No other club can enter the negotiations at this point.