CBDees

If we are getting a "top-up" on the same basis as Essendon, he will need to have been on an AFL list over the last two years!

Not too silly an idea. Not only would it: 1) allow us Cross's experience and skill, (for both MFC & Casey); 2) free up a salary in our 2016 coaching budget (which will increase our flexibility); 3) give us a player intimately familiar with Roos/Goodwin's game plan; and 4) be popular with the playing group.

Emma also had Ben Kennedy at #10, given that both Daniher and Viney were locked away as FS picks.

On current performance, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Gill took the AFL out of WADA merely so that EFC effectively did not have to incur their penalties. As it is, with top-up players etc they are trying to minimise the hurt as much as possible. If they did this, then Melksham and the others would be able to play this year also.

I am not worried about Melksham as we escaped lighter compared with the Saints and PA who gifted Esendon first round picks and now lose potentially key players, whereas they they could have drafted Parish etc. l am concerned however that the AFL are doing everything in their power to minimise any adverse effect on Essendon. It is ludicrous that the AFL are manipulating their own rules to allow the players to continue to be paid whilst sitting out the year, a decision completely contrary to the spirit of the court ruling. Of ourse this comes as no surprise when you consider that EFC paid Hird a $M to holiday in France. Finally, I am astounded that the AFL will further compensate EFC by enabling them to recruit ten "top-up" players in addition to promoting their five rookies. The ten players concerned will obviously be at the expense of VFL Clubs and other leagues who stand to lose what are their best players at the onset of the season through no fault of their own. l think that the penalties imposed on the 34 should be just that : Penalties! That the EFC is also damaged is how it should be as it was them (and Hird) who initiated the drug regime, not the players themselves.

Exactly my sentiments. Shame however that Casey effectively lose a good player from their list, however l am one that subscribes strongly to the view that the effected Clubs, particularly Essendon, should be topped up. If they were, the big losers would be the VFL (& the SAFL) through no fault of theirs.

Congrats Jack for the 2015 AFL "tackle of the year"! (Only sorry that l don't know how to paste the link.)

I get the feeling that Oliver won't be featuring too heavily in the Casey reports this year and that he will replicate Brayshaw in his Round 1 debut. Looking at the seconds reports shall be confined to salivating over Weideman.

Wouldn't it be nice if Clayton Oliver were to make his AFL debut off the interchange during the 2016 Grand Final!

Plus Vanders!

Nice prediction of Weideman and Oliver. How prophetic!

Petracca, Brayshaw, Salem, Hogan.

Leaving us with Curnow?

Missing pre-season with OP makes me think of Colin Sylvia. To think we were punting a Premiership with him and Brock Maclean as two top five picks. We thought at the time that they were the top mids in the draft.

YES it was as we drafted Cook, Watts and Molan whereas we traded in D, P & C from other Clubs, which was your suggested strategy in picking up established KPPs. It was our fault if we made bad choices and/or failed to develop their potential.

Are you seriously comparing these three with Hogan (who has three years in our system, two under Roos)?

Like Pederson, Dawes and Clarke! I'd rather develop our own like Hogan.

We were always going to swap picks 3 and 10 from the Gold Coast for an exchange which involved our pick 6. They were going to retain a pick ahead of pick 10 (6) and the later exchange with GWS which landed us 7, merely bought the picks closer together. I am sure that we discussed the exchanges at length with both GC and GWS before each Club signed off!

Don't you think that our FD discussed this at length when GC agreed to exchange picks 3 and 6? I am sure that we came to an understanding as to who we both were going to target. (Not so confident about Essendon playing ball though!)

That would leave us with neither Curnow or Weideman (contrary to every single Phantom draft that is going around).

Hopefully they take WEIDEMAN and Francis, leaving us CURNOW!

Remember we are pick 7.

I just like the idea of us beating Collingwood on the Queen's Birthday by a point through a goal kicked by WEIDEMAN after the siren!

Are we fully committed on pick 25 (vs. pick 29)? According to this morning's paper, it still adopts the wording of 'a second round pick' suggesting that we can utilise 29 and retain 25. Also, I cannot see why we cannot use 50 to get Bugg and either utilise 25 in the draft or use it on another player such as Plowman or Tomlinson (both of whom seem to be up for grabs)!

As Bonkers points out, over the last two years (post Roos) we have utilised our top ten picks to gain four long-term players who will represent our future going forward. None seem to be duds. I trust our recruiters to make the right call again this year, whether it be Parish, Francis or Curnow!