Best 22 for Round 1?

[Psicosis]

Fair point.

Trade? We have too many flankers - maybe one of them with a pick?

Cant really think of anyone we'd be willing to give up, can you?, definitely wouldn't want to lose one of McKenzie, Garner, Mullett, Atley, MacMillan... That group of young flankers in that 18-22 age bracket developing together is going to set us up for the next decade

 

[Saintly31]

Cant really think of anyone we'd be willing to give up, can you?, definitely wouldn't want to lose one of McKenzie, Garner, Mullett, Atley, MacMillan... That group of young flankers in that 18-22 age bracket developing together is going to set us up for the next decade

I'd move on Macmillan and 26 for Crameri in a heartbeat mate. But that is unpopular here, apparently he is a "general" of our squad (by directing orders verbally everywhere on field, most of which he doesn't perform himself, especially structurally), but Bombers probably wouldn't take it anyway.

McKenzie? Hmm. Very slow and soft, but wow on foot skills. He is borderline, maybe a direct swap.

Rest, absolute no. Ats will have a better year, Mullett is a gun and Garner seems hard at it and has the right attitude to make a player.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

I'd move on Macmillan and 26 for Crameri in a heartbeat mate. But that is unpopular here, apparently he is a "general" of our squad (by directing orders verbally everywhere on field, most of which he doesn't perform himself, especially structurally), but Bombers probably wouldn't take it anyway.

McKenzie? Hmm. Very slow and soft, but wow on foot skills. He is borderline, maybe a direct swap.

Rest, absolute no. Ats will have a better year, Mullett is a gun and Garner seems hard at it and has the right attitude to make a player.

Crameri to the Dogs means 2 crap forward lines so it would not be a bad result.

 

[Psicosis]

I'd move on Macmillan and 26 for Crameri in a heartbeat mate. But that is unpopular here, apparently he is a "general" of our squad (by directing orders verbally everywhere on field, most of which he doesn't perform himself, especially structurally), but Bombers probably wouldn't take it anyway.

McKenzie? Hmm. Very slow and soft, but wow on foot skills. He is borderline, maybe a direct swap.

Rest, absolute no. Ats will have a better year, Mullett is a gun and Garner seems hard at it and has the right attitude to make a player.

Personally I wouldn't, with Bryce Lewis' track record, it would have to be a pretty enticing deal to make me part with pick 26, remember Aaron Black was 25. The 2009 draft, just like this one had a very strong top 20-30 and I'd almost guarantee that with all the midfielders, the likelihood of a good player sliding to 26 is very likely.

In regards to MacMillan, people have different beliefs throughout this board over his value to the team and the type of player he will become, I am not someone who refers to him as the "general", however at 21 years of age, he has done some impressive things at senior level, as well as some very poor things. However at the end of the day, there is no way that the club would be persisting with him in the way that they have unless they saw something special about him as a player, and for that reason I trust the club and have faith in JMac.

I think your judgments on McKenzie being "very slow and soft" are both premature and silly. His footskills are absolutely sublime and he possesses a fair sense of poise, at 20/21 years of age, he has an elite tool which can only improve our side. He currently sits as the best kick at the club, why would I want to swap him for a player like Crameri who does not really possess and unique, elite traits.

I understand Crameri would improve our side, however I think there are other players that we should be chasing before a bloke, who in my opinion, would be a second-rate Aaron Black.

 

[Daz]

Saintly just really, really didn't want to pick Tarrant.

Very harsh to call McKenzie soft.

 

[Saintly31]

Personally I wouldn't, with Bryce Lewis' track record, it would have to be a pretty enticing deal to make me part with pick 26, remember Aaron Black was 25. The 2009 draft, just like this one had a very strong top 20-30 and I'd almost guarantee that with all the midfielders, the likelihood of a good player sliding to 26 is very likely.

In regards to MacMillan, people have different beliefs throughout this board over his value to the team and the type of player he will become, I am not someone who refers to him as the "general", however at 21 years of age, he has done some impressive things at senior level, as well as some very poor things. However at the end of the day, there is no way that the club would be persisting with him in the way that they have unless they saw something special about him as a player, and for that reason I trust the club and have faith in JMac.

I think your judgments on McKenzie being "very slow and soft" are both premature and silly. His footskills are absolutely sublime and he possesses a fair sense of poise, at 20/21 years of age, he has an elite tool which can only improve our side. He currently sits as the best kick at the club, why would I want to swap him for a player like Crameri who does not really possess and unique, elite traits.

I understand Crameri would improve our side, however I think there are other players that we should be chasing before a bloke, who in my opinion, would be a second-rate Aaron Black.

Fair enough (even if we disagree)

More than happy to back Lewis in for another gun pick. Just because it is second round doesn't mean it can't be a good one (hence why I so was so anti-Dal Santo if using that up)

When all you quote are McKenzie's footskills sounds good, but probably needs to show a bit more. Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking him just not sure he is the future star that is basically expected. He has a fair way to go, and maybe he can.

If Crameri is a "Second-rate" Aaron Black then well, still do it for mine as hardly an insult - more quality players for us the better.

We have Petrie near retirement, Daw is unknown, Tarrant (no words here), and Curran gone. I think we need to bolster key players, but yep, only if worth it (and Crameri may not be, but I just think he could improve us)

 

[roos_fanatic08]

Saintly just really, really didn't want to pick Tarrant.

Very harsh to call McKenzie soft.

McKenzie is slow but he ain't Soft when it's his time to go he will always put his head over the footy

 

[djgk53]

Are the back 6 people are picking, defensive enough? I have seen a lot of sides with the three of Atley, MacMillan, McDonald and Mullett. How many (and which) of these guys can we fit into a backline without losing defensive prowess?

I think there's still a spot there for McMahon to play a defensive role on a smaller forward and as a general for the backline. Wasn't that long ago where he was the most important player back there.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Are the back 6 people are picking, defensive enough? I have seen a lot of sides with the three of Atley, MacMillan, McDonald and Mullett. How many (and which) of these guys can we fit into a backline without losing defensive prowess?
.

Macmillan is more a defensive mid in the sense he covers rebound.

All the others are solid one on one, MacMillan is only 21 but not exactly solid one on one given he has a fair frame.

 

[franjon]

I'd move on Macmillan and 26 for Crameri in a heartbeat mate. But that is unpopular here, apparently he is a "general" of our squad (by directing orders verbally everywhere on field, most of which he doesn't perform himself, especially structurally), but Bombers probably wouldn't take it anyway.

McKenzie? Hmm. Very slow and soft, but wow on foot skills. He is borderline, maybe a direct swap.

Rest, absolute no. Ats will have a better year, Mullett is a gun and Garner seems hard at it and has the right attitude to make a player.

You're not serious, surely?

If you are, you've been shagging it a bit too much, son.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Are the back 6 people are picking, defensive enough? I have seen a lot of sides with the three of Atley, MacMillan, McDonald and Mullett. How many (and which) of these guys can we fit into a backline without losing defensive prowess?

I think there's still a spot there for McMahon to play a defensive role on a smaller forward and as a general for the backline. Wasn't that long ago where he was the most important player back there.

With Hansen playing loose and marking everything that comes his way, I believe that we can play Atley, Mullett and McDonald together.

 

[Grogg]

Fair chance Two Dogs won't see much backline action.

Personally I'd be slotting him onto a wing first up and won't be surprised if he's given a run on the ball before seasons end.

Some good reading in here so far.

 

[Saintly31]

Fair chance Two Dogs won't see much backline action.

Personally I'd be slotting him onto a wing first up and won't be surprised if he's given a run on the ball before seasons end.

Some good reading in here so far.

Think I have him positioned there to start with too, but in hindsight may be wrong. Reckon he will be a quality mid down the track, just as a matter of how he gets there.

Probs wing you are right Grogg.

 

[Winter]

I'd suggest a more accurate formation is: 7-6-5 with Hansen playing spare man back, so perhaps a more accurate best 22 is:

McMahon, Thompson, Mullett
Atley, Hansen, Grima, Macmillan

Wells, Ziebell, Dal Santo
Goldstein, Swallow, Cunnington

Harvey, Petrie, Thomas
Tarrant, Black

IC: Gibson, Adams, Bastinac
S: Harper

Again I may be biased but that's a strong 22! I'm sure if you had a look at 2014 ages we aren't a young looking team anymore either.

 

[Passmore]

Essendon won't take the dogs pick 22, how the hell are we supposed to get him?

Add to that we would need to pony up a $500K a year deal for 3. He' s handy , but not at those odds.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I'd suggest a more accurate formation is: 7-6-5 with Hansen playing spare man back, so perhaps a more accurate best 22 is:

Hansen, Thompson, Mullett
Atley, Grima, Macmillan, McKenzie

Wells, Ziebell, Dal Santo
Goldstein, Swallow, Cunnington

Harvey, Petrie, Thomas
Tarrant, Black

IC: Gibson, Adams, Bastinac
S: McDonald

Again I may be biased but that's a strong 22! I'm sure if you had a look at 2014 ages we aren't a young looking team anymore either.

Looks good.

My changes in bold. I'm expecting McDonald to start the year on the field but for now, he starts in the green vest.

Wright, Harper, Garner, McMahon would all need big preseasons to get into the side if I was selecting.

Loads of pressure on Adams/Macmillan with many options to replace those two in the side if their form is poor.

 

[FAILTOSUCCEED]

FB: Mullett Thompson Hansen
HB:McDonald Grima Atley
C: Wells Ziebell Bastinac
HF: Harvey Tarrant Thomas
FF: Black Petrie Harper
ON: Goldstein Cunnington Dal Santo
INT: MacMillan Adams Gibson
SUB: McKenzie

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

FB: Mullett Thompson Hansen
HB:McDonald Grima Atley
C: Wells Ziebell Gibson
HF: Harvey Tarrant Thomas
FF: Black Petrie Harper
ON: Goldstein Cunnington Dal Santo
INT: MacMillan Adams McKenzie
SUB: Garner

Bastinac?

 

[FAILTOSUCCEED]

Bastinac?

Theres always 1 player I forget!

EDITED: Basti to wing, Gibson to bench, McKenzie to SUB. Garner just misses, but will break his way in I think throughout the year.

 

[Jay-Z]

I'd suggest a more accurate formation is: 7-6-5 with Hansen playing spare man back, so perhaps a more accurate best 22 is:

McMahon, Thompson, Mullett
Atley, Hansen, Grima, Macmillan

Wells, Ziebell, Dal Santo
Goldstein, Swallow, Cunnington

Harvey, Petrie, Thomas
Tarrant, Black

IC: Gibson, Adams, Bastinac
S: Harper

Again I may be biased but that's a strong 22! I'm sure if you had a look at 2014 ages we aren't a young looking team anymore either.

Agree the 7-6-5 format is more accurate.

FB: McMahon, Thompson, Mullett
Loose: Hansen
HB: Harvey, Grima, MacMillan

C: Dal Santo, Ziebell, Atley
R: Goldstein, Swallow, Wells

HF: Thomas, Petrie, Bastinac
FF: Black, Tarrant

Bench: Adams, Cunnington, Gibson, McDonald
Emergency: McKenzie, Harper, Hine

Couple of notes:
- I'm hoping Scotty Mac has a huge pre-season and gets back to his best form. If not, I hope Hine is able to step up and take that defensive back pocket role so Atley can be pushed up the field.
- I have Boomer coming off a back flank as he was very successful in this role in games like the Geelong wins of 2012 and 2013. Reality is he will still have a player paying close attention to him regardless of where he starts.
- Found it really hard to fit Two Dogs and McKenzie (who is IMO a little over rated on this board) in the same team.
- That midfield.... C.L.A.S.S.

 

[LpH94]

First try at doing this but my team would be.
FB: McMahon - Thompson - Mullett​

HB: Atley - Grima - Harvey ​

Loose: Hansen​

C: Gibson - Ziebell - Dal Santo​

HF: Bastinac - Tarrant - Thomas
FF: Drew - Black​

Foll: Goldy - Cunnington - Wells​

INT: Macmillian - Mcdonald - Adams
SUB: Harper

I couldn't pick a sub out of a number of players. ​

 

[TheKanga]

I've never really rated Crameri that much, never seems to play well against us anyway.

 

[showusyacunningt]

B: McMahon, Thompson, Grima
HB: McDonald, Hansen, Mullett
C: Wells, Cunnington, Dal Santo
HF: Adams, Tarrant, Harvey
F: Black, Petrie, Thomas
R: Goldstein, Swallow, Ziebell
I: Bastinac, Gibson, Atley
S: McKenzie/Garner/Harper/MacMillan

Delaney pushing for McMahon's spot, that could be decided on pre-season form. Adams also under some pressure. Rotating sub to ensure players still get 4 quarters most weeks.

 

[Pykie]

I'm interested to see the jumper numbers.

Will Taylor Hine get moved on to another number for NDS?

Hamish half broke the curse of #1, but will that go to McDonald? Or the fabled #15?

 

[Hunters Host #3]

I'm interested to see the jumper numbers.

Will Taylor Hine get moved on to another number for NDS?

Hamish half broke the curse of #1, but will that go to McDonald? Or the fabled #15?

Currie should keep #1.

Numbers that could be available.

#4 - #14 - #15 - #21 - #28 - #36 - #37 - #39 - #40

Give McDonald Blighty/Winnie's #15?