TRIGON

@Red and Blue realist's post Mentioned in this article about the kids who missed out on the chance to push their case this year: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-draft-2020-the-victorian-smokies-hurt-most-by-nab-season-shutdown/news-story/6c2c4b96dc13feaf9dec6f3f222557b0 "Flanker/wingman Deakyn Smith, a natural footballer who played nationals at under-16 level, had worked hard on improving his skills – one of his deficiencies in the past – over the pre-season" Amazing, in just paragraph the HS can describe someone as a 'natural footballer' and as having "skills deficiencies'... ?

Yes, and quite frankly any pick in the 50's onwards is next to useless for us.

Yes, and depending what GWS can prise out of them for Cameron, it may be that Geelong will hardly be touching this draft.

Whoah back @Nudge, @Chook in Perth is Demonland royalty.

Pick 30

Thanks. I see it differently, that he's better when he can get some space further up the ground and that he's also quite good below his knees - which I think is a great trait in a CHF. Re your comment about him getting lost up the ground, next year - when we can watch from the stands, will watch with interest to see if you're right.

@drdrake, what's your logic behind Weideman not being able to play CHF?

We have AFL and AFLW already. AFLM is the logical next step and Geelong have well and truly got the AFL Masters covered...they could even bring back Gary (maybe both of them?).

I wonder if we could create a package that netted us their recently acquired future 2nd rounder (from Port)?

Under that scenario the trade picks then look like; Melbourne: 26, 43, 50, 68, 69, 89 North: 2, 11, 28, 31, 33, 41, 70, 71, 81 North's currency (as highlighted) means that they have the flexibility to create a pick swap package that the Dogs (the holder's of pick 14) could find very attractive. For North, 3 picks in the top 15 - a great start to a rebuild.

Agreed, don't panic!

Whilst in a broader philosophical sense I agree with you, in this case I think it's about trying to get Ben Brown without overly diluting our potential 1st round pick prospects.

If we combine conventional U.S.A Election logic with Trump style logic then everyone's the winner. Agreed, we have to add additional sweeteners. Essendon says hi.

I agree with your valuation. When it comes to evaluating the List Manager's performance we need to comprehend the currency they had and the situation they were in. Getting May for pick 10 may simply not have been achievable.

What would you have paid for him Patches and how would you have made that happen?

Aside from Lever (where I think we over-payed) what other scenarios come to mind?

I think that would be overs because the situation is different; Brown's been pushed out the door and Cameron's a required player Agreed, If we're offering two of those picks then we may be struggling to get back into this year's 1st round. In that case we should be chasing their future second round pick as part of the outcome.

Whereabout in the draft would you expect him to go?

Maybe so, but what do YOUR sources say?

Wait for it....

Well with academy bids etc it's hard to know if it will get pushed out or sucked in.

Yes, good point you raise. Can anyone shed light as to whether it's allowable?

The above equation is correct, what I'm suggesting is: Looking to trade for Dog's 1st round pick, send Pick 26 to North (keep picks 33+50 to trade with Dogs) Not looking to trade up in the draft then send Picks 33+50 to North and keep Pick 26 (draft for quality, not quantity).

Think the points discussion applies to the specific Ugle-Hagan situation that the Dogs find themselves in this year. Otherwise I tend to agree with you, that higher picks are worth more than two middling, especially so if you are trying to add the icing to the list and not starting a major rebuild.

That depends. If our intention is to trade with the Dog's for their 1st round pick then trading pick 26 to North for Brown means that we have more currency to trade to the Dogs. Pick 26 = 729 Points, Pick 33 + 50 = 836 Points. If we're not trading up (or can't) then I'd be inclined to go with the option you mentioned; it gives Jason Taylor more opportunity to draft quality (instead of quantity).