View Full Version : Ruckman, National or Rookie????
Last year I remeber speaking to fellow cats fans about having 4 ruckmen on our list (King, Ottens, Chambers & Blake) and was 4 too many. It became obvious this year that we do need a fourth and with the release of Chambers the cats will pick at least one this year.
Odds are they won't play AFL this year so do you go for one in the National Draft or do you just rookie what's left?
I'd prefer to use our National Draft picks on midfielders (quick ones at that), goal kickers and a key defender and rookie some tall skinny kids to give them time so the start fillin out nicely.
Yes we might not get the pick of the litter but that's a risk I think we have to take.
catattack
11 Nov 2005, 16:47
In today’s modern age of football you should have four ruckman on the list.
Don’t wait until the Rookie Draft; pick up the best available in the National Draft. If they don't play for a season, so be it, Blakey didn't in 2004 and he's starting to turn good.
Tweak Talent
11 Nov 2005, 19:59
I agree with rosso, we should pick up a couple of quick, skilled m/f's before we look at a ruckman.
FootyGuru
12 Nov 2005, 11:11
a good ruckmen that will be late is rob warnock, 204cm and very fit quick and athletic, needs about 4 years of developement though and i think it fits the cats situation very well.
WestCat
12 Nov 2005, 15:25
a good ruckmen that will be late is rob warnock, 204cm and very fit quick and athletic, needs about 4 years of developement though and i think it fits the cats situation very well.
Sounds alright, we could use a real big ruckman and at 204cm he fits the bill. What's his footy like? Has he actually got skills or is he just a giant?
I think Freo proved with Sandilands that a really big and fairly mobile guy can offer quite a lot as a tap ruckman.
Sounds alright, we could use a real big ruckman and at 204cm he fits the bill. What's his footy like? Has he actually got skills or is he just a giant?
I think Freo proved with Sandilands that a really big and fairly mobile guy can offer quite a lot as a tap ruckman.
I'd pass on him in the main draft.
His height, fair mobility and skills make an attractive package of sorts, but his ability to put on weight and fill out is a big worry - barely tips the scales at 80kg. If the club is willing to gamble on his development, I'd hope they do so with the rookie card - gives him 2 years to, at the very least, show he can fill out his frame to some extent.
I'd wait out till next year for a ruckman - especially if we're looking to forge a partnership for Blake in the future. This year's batch is hardly blooming with quality ruck prospects.
Turbocat
12 Nov 2005, 17:45
Havent we been down Warnock Street and found it was a dead end.
Rookie only
carn_the_cattas
13 Nov 2005, 12:17
This guy could be good
Luke McEntee (http://www.footydraft.com/players.php?player=luke_mcentee)
Footy Draft have him down as pick 31 - Geelong.
DavidInellaFanClub
13 Nov 2005, 14:06
Know that geelong has had talks with trent west recently, from gippy power.
carn_the_cattas
13 Nov 2005, 16:29
Know that geelong has had talks with trent west recently, from gippy power.
He sounds good, 198.2cm and 89.8kg. Sounds like a pretty good build.
skywalk750
15 Nov 2005, 09:59
You pick the best player avaliable with the pick you have.
Know that geelong has had talks with trent west recently, from gippy power.
He did mention that Geelong spoke to him for a while at draft camp in an interview in Inside Football.
I just think that most of these big blokes are a bit similar and I don't see any reason to pick a bloke on the senior list who probably wont play for 2 years anyway. Rookie pick one and if he shows some signs then that gives you the chance to elevate him in either 2006 or 2007.
catempire
15 Nov 2005, 18:20
You pick the best player avaliable with the pick you have.
What happens if the best player available happens to be a ruckman 5 times in a row?
I take your point, but it's only true to an extent.
Turbocat
15 Nov 2005, 20:53
You pick the best player avaliable with the pick you have.
Total fallacy, perpetuated over and over. Just who mandates who is the best player. One clubs best player may not be another clubs best, its all opinion and opinion is influenced by need. Best available player, unless we are talking elite players then its all just like picking the best looking girl at the dance.
catempire
15 Nov 2005, 21:16
Total fallacy, perpetuated over and over. Just who mandates who is the best player. One clubs best player may not be another clubs best, its all opinion and opinion is influenced by need. Best available player, unless we are talking elite players then its all just like picking the best looking girl at the dance.
The truth is that you pick the best player of the type of player you are after. If that makes sense.
I just think that most of these big blokes are a bit similar and I don't see any reason to pick a bloke on the senior list who probably wont play for 2 years anyway. Rookie pick one and if he shows some signs then that gives you the chance to elevate him in either 2006 or 2007.
On that plan, wont we run the risk of ending up like St Kilda, with a whole bunch of average ruckmen (bar Justin kosi) ?
Turbocat
16 Nov 2005, 11:32
The truth is that you pick the best player of the type of player you are after. If that makes sense.
Even if you are only after mids, probably the most comparable and plentifull group of players, its still only down to what one personally likes in a player.
eg. Deludio #1, no problem, Griffen #3 , Tambling#4. Richmond stated that they believed that Tambling was as good as Deludio but knew others thought otherwize. By picking Deludio they had a chance of getting Tambling but not the other way round. Bulldogs apparently rated Griffen better than both and were happy to get him at three. And this was in the top 5.
My point is its not like you can define it excactly, its all black box stuff, it depends on the attributes you prefer.
Mostly though you dont just get to compare mids,it KPP's and rucks as well and variations on them all. Sometimes a player will standout so much that you will not pass on him, need the type or not other times clubs will as you say pick the best based on need.
Did we pick the best when we went Mackie? I'm still not sure and thats years down the track, so who the heck knows the best when their drafting them.
Did we pick the best when we went Mackie? I'm still not sure and thats years down the track, so who the heck knows the best when their drafting them.
Well said. After reading this I had a look at the full 2002 draft list and I have come up with two theories:
a) 3 seasons is not enough time to assess the strength of a draft
b) the 2002 draft stinks
Not a huge deal to pick from really when you look at the selections.
skywalk750
19 Nov 2005, 13:49
What happens if the best player available happens to be a ruckman 5 times in a row?
I take your point, but it's only true to an extent.
Then you get the ruckmen and develope then. If you have too many trade them off for first rounders..
Total fallacy, perpetuated over and over. Just who mandates who is the best player. One clubs best player may not be another clubs best, its all opinion and opinion is influenced by need. Best available player, unless we are talking elite players then its all just like picking the best looking girl at the dance.
We have a bloke called Wells who picks the prettiest girls :D
Turbocat
19 Nov 2005, 19:44
We have a bloke called Wells who picks the prettiest girls
Correct and our list reflects his taste.If we had a different man in charge we may well have a very different list. You give your future over to their judgement and I do trust his as much as anyone but in the end its opinion and all opinions are flawed.
Imagine you had first pick in the draft, imagine a young Gary Ablett,Leigh Mathews,Glen Jackovich,Tim Watson or Tony Locket was in this draft, who do you pick? All you can do is satisfy yourself that you will add a very good player to your list no matter what so you may as well pick based on need.
I say again best available is a total myth.
jock_burns
24 Nov 2005, 01:36
Ok he isnt a ruckman but for what its worth S.Phillips may get on as a rookie listed player from what I read here. He is small only 174 cm /67 k
Played Vic metro but didnt get draft or screening also he would be a mate of R.Warnock I hear was from same local club and tac club
Im told
Byrnes like player very good around goal very fast with room to improve
For what its worth S.Phillips may get on as a rookie listed player from what I read he is a small but 174 cm /67 k
Played Vic metro but didnt get draft or screening
Im told
Byrnes like player very good around goal very fast with room to improve
He's a ruckman? :confused: