mitch morton

[peggles]

doubt that we'd part with a draft pick.....esp our priority pick or our 2nd round pick as suggested by the BF thread.....they're way too precious....

also....no way we'd trade away cogs......so what if he's had 2 knee recos.....his style of play was never based on speed and explosive moves....it's the in and under, dishing the ball out to the runners, a clearance player.....esp since we're considered to be weak in the midfield (clearance types), cogs would be a required player for us for years to come....no way we're parting with him....

i say if anything, we part with maybe krak, meyer, tivo, hyde etc......esp since morton at this stage is just based on potential anyway...hasn't really performed at afl level despite having "dominated" at wafl according to BF

[bluey_21]

wilkes through the rookie only for me

not worthy of a PSD

[one-eyed]

He had a big rep as a 17 yo. I'm surprised he hasn't played more games. The fact that WC have had such a great midfield over recent years has made it harder. Apparently in 2006 he had injury problems.
It's hard to monitor WAFL form from here, so I have no idea how his form has been.He could be ready, at 20yo, to burst onto the scene in a big way.

Mitch Morton
Height: 184 cm
Weight: 77 kg
DOB: 28-01-1987

About
Was looking in good shape pre-season until damaging a knee in the second intra-club pre-season practice match. Will have a delayed start to the season, but will view this season as an important one in his career. In his third year at the club he will be looking to create more senior opportunities by playing strongly at Claremont upon resumption.

Draft history: 2004 NAB AFL Draft 3rd round father-son selection (West Coast) No. 44 overall
Morton has always been considered a top AFL prospect, and was widely thought of as a top draft pick had not West Coast selected him under the father-son rule in last year's NAB AFL National Draft. He was selected in the 2004 All-Australian U-18 team, and won the Ron Barassi Medal (best player) on the U17 tour of Ireland.

2007 AFL Stats

Rnd    Vs         K   H  P M T FF FA G B
R8   Demons     7   5 12 6 0 0 1 3 0
R9   Hawks      11 11 22 6 1 0 0 0 1
R10 Kangaroos 8   2 10 3 3 1 1 2 0
R11 Bombers    8   3 11 3 1 4 0 1 0
R12 Saints        2   5   7 2 1 0 2 0 0
R15 Power        9   7 16 5 3 0 0 0 0
R20 Tigers      11   2  13 7 1 0 1 0 0

2007 WAFL Stats:

        K  H   D  M FF FA I50 G  B
R5:  15  4  19  4  1  2  2  2  1
R6:  16  3  19  5  2  1  9  3  1
R7:   8   3   11  2  -  2  3  1  1
R8:  25  4  29 10  2  -  5  5  3
R12: 17 11 28 10  1  3  5  2  -
R14: 19  4  23  8  1  1  3  2  -
R15: 16  8  24  5  1  -  7  1  2
R19: 16  5  21  7  -  3  2  3  1
R20: 12  6  18  9  2  1  2  2  1
R22: 17  2  19 11  1  3 10  4  1

[mightytiges]

With word Judd wants to head to the Dees, our focus I guess will turn to Mitch Morton. I'd still like to know why we are apparently wanting a HFF when we have so many more pressing needs - FB, onballer and a ruckman  ???.

[Ramps]

With word Judd wants to head to the Dees, our focus I guess will turn to Mitch Morton. I'd still like to know why we are apparently wanting a HFF when we have so many more pressing needs - FB, onballer and a ruckman  ???.

because we have no strategy for success.

ENA BOURDELLO IMASTE!

[Hellenic Tiger]

With word Judd wants to head to the Dees, our focus I guess will turn to Mitch Morton. I'd still like to know why we are apparently wanting a HFF when we have so many more pressing needs - FB, onballer and a ruckman  ???.

because we have no strategy for success.

ENA BOURDELLO IMASTE!

Ahahahahahahaha Ramps LOL.

[mightytiges]

because we have no strategy for success.

In this case it seems so. Makes no sense whatsoever .

[{X}]

maybe they are after mitch because they want cale also.

i know there are big wraps on cotchin, but cale could be the better option

cale is a kpp iirc, cotchin isnt

it wasnt long ago we chose a mid over a kpp in the draft and many say it was the wrong move


maybe getting cotchin is the wrong move, cos getting the morton bros, we are getting a mid and kpp

hopefully we get the mortons and pick up say mclean or judd in the psd and cotchin wont even get a mention

btw, dosnt cotchin seem to break down a fair bit?

[mightytiges]

Those times we overlooked a tall for a mid, the tall was a 196cm solidly built mobile KPP forward. Morton is 192cm, 75kg so maybe we see him as a potential defensive tall but he's been compared more to an Embley type.

Maybe they are trying to eliminate any go-home factor both getting both brothers but I hope we don't end up with just another two flankers  .

[bluey_21]

Morton is not a KPP, loose Joel Bowden\Chad Cornes type.

I'm really starting to Masten, we need that type of player but unfortunately we will probably overlook him 

[mightytiges]

Morton is not a KPP, loose Joel Bowden\Chad Cornes type.

I'm really starting to Masten, we need that type of player but unfortunately we will probably overlook him 

Agree bluey although Masten may slip a few spots given it's reported he has OP.

[one-eyed]

The Tigers are keen to do a deal with West Coast to get key forward Mitch Morton, whose brother Cale is certain to be a top-three selection in the national draft.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22548196%255E20322,00.html

[one-eyed]

The Tigers were confident of securing West Coast forward Mitch Morton for an exchange of second and third round draft picks.

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=303337

[Ramps]

The Tigers were confident of securing West Coast forward Mitch Morton for an exchange of second and third round draft picks.

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=303337

If this trade is Morton and 46 for pick 18 then its a rubbish trade from our point of view. It reeks of stupidity. Morton isnt worth more than a 3rd round pick and finding a player at 46 isnt going to be easy. Hopefully I have misunderstood what this trade means. Its an appalling start to trade week if its true.

[Nugget_12]

i think its meant to be:

Morton + eagles 2nd & 3rd round picks

for

Our picks 19 + 35

clarification would be appreciated.