View Full Version : Kyle Reimers- Where would he have been drafted if...
High Ryder
15 Jun 2008, 21:55
He was in last years draft? Obviously drafted in the super draft of 2006 but would of been eligible fr the 07 draft had we overlooked him. Thoughts?
Mattlowry
15 Jun 2008, 22:49
Hindsights always a wonderful thing. Certainly looks to have the makings of very good player. Where he was drafted was an accurate representation of what people thought of him at the time, obviously that will have changed considerably now...
Not really worth even guessing
I like him.
Late first rounder more likely second round IMO.
Trav 20
15 Jun 2008, 23:10
Behind Ricky Petterd.
Again.
TheGeneral
16 Jun 2008, 00:17
Reimiers is promising, but I wouldn't take him ahead of Steven Browne who was a bargain and played for WA in last year's champs.
Browny was taken with pick 36 in the 2007 draft.
pinkus maximus
16 Jun 2008, 02:54
He was in last years draft? Obviously drafted in the super draft of 2006 but would of been eligible fr the 07 draft had we overlooked him. Thoughts?
sorry to sidetrack this thread but, i dont understand why people say this? once you pass the minimum age you are always eligible
to answer the question, maybe he would have gone top 30?
Reimiers is promising, but I wouldn't take him ahead of Steven Browne who was a bargain and played for WA in last year's champs.
Browny was taken with pick 36 in the 2007 draft.
Would you ____ Browne?
Jesus, I try not to read your posts but every second one is about the kid.
bigburger
16 Jun 2008, 04:06
At the start of 06 he was sposed to be in the top 10. About half way through the season it was looking more around the 20 mark. Then he was drafted at pick 47.
Mark my words he is a very good player. Takes hold of games and had the biggest kick i have ever seen from a 16 year old by about 20m.
In the international rules series for the under 17's that famously had two draws in a row Reimers was suspended for the first two. He came in for the third and final and was regarded by Sheehan as the differrence between the two sides even though it was his first game with the round ball. Fierce competitor, maybe a little to agressive at times and his discipline lacks though this will improve as he becomes more mature.
I love him, our last three picks in the super draft are looking fantastic.
However, it was that kind of draft and every team seems to have picked up at least one "bargain" in the later rounds.
TheGeneral
17 Jun 2008, 21:09
Would you ____ Browne?
Jesus, I try not to read your posts but every second one is about the kid.
Bitter much?
I don't talk about Browne that often.
But Browne has certainly shown more than Reimers in his first season.
Browne has made the odd error like his kick out on the full against Geelong, but his efforts to run down Solomon to save us a goal and kick the goal that put us in front were all class.
Pick 36 was a ____ing bargain in a supposed weak draft.
WA's midfield in 2007 with Masten, Palmer, Browne and Morton is shaping up as a better midfield than the group Reimers played with.
The 2007 draft appears to have better depth of outside players and HFF recruited from WA.
play2win
17 Jun 2008, 21:32
kyle reimers.........don't rate him that much, probably my bias because he wears an essendon jumper. goddamn he is ugly tho.
Bitter much?
I don't talk about Browne that often.
But Browne has certainly shown more than Reimers in his first season.
Browne has made the odd error like his kick out on the full against Geelong, but his efforts to run down Solomon to save us a goal and kick the goal that put us in front were all class.
Pick 36 was a ____ing bargain in a supposed weak draft.
WA's midfield in 2007 with Masten, Palmer, Browne and Morton is shaping up as a better midfield than the group Reimers played with.
The 2007 draft appears to have better depth of outside players and HFF recruited from WA.
And Browne is comfortably below those guys.
Comfortably.
Jeremias
18 Jun 2008, 00:21
And Browne is comfortably below those guys.
Comfortably.
Wouldn't that be expected? Palmer, Morton and Masten were all top 10 picks. Browne was pick 36.
He doesn't post as much about Browne as you seem to about Wells :thumbsu:
We have every reason to be very happy with Browney based on what he has shown to date.
smithos
18 Jun 2008, 01:53
Browne was available in the 06 draft but overlooked, Reimers was the better prospect at the time hence he was drafted as a bottom-ager while Browne had another year in the system. Only time will tell who will be the better player. But Reimers is a lot better than Soloman and that's all the Dons care about.
Reimers (may be wrong but he had a rep if I remember for having a bit of a tood) ...went 47 in 06 in what was an OK draft.
2007 is shaping as one with bit more depth - still I would see KR going in or around the 30's
Longy413
18 Jun 2008, 10:10
sorry to sidetrack this thread but, i dont understand why people say this? once you pass the minimum age you are always eligible
In reality, it means they can still play U18 football the following year.
Masten2McKinley
18 Jun 2008, 12:17
i like kyle reimers but u cant tell where he would have gone i dont belive top 15 maybe around 20-30
hes not that good was never a stand out in colts
Smyth94
18 Jun 2008, 12:49
Reimers (may be wrong but he had a rep if I remember for having a bit of a tood) ...went 47 in 06 in what was an OK draft.
2007 is shaping as one with bit more depth - still I would see KR going in or around the 30's
Other way around mate...The '06 draft is the one which had plenty of depth with players such as Houli and Reimers going in the 40's and Westhoff at pick 70 something.
Other way around mate...The '06 draft is the one which had plenty of depth with players such as Houli and Reimers going in the 40's and Westhoff at pick 70 something.
We will have this debate in 5 years time :p
However there are players like Mayne (40) Polkinghorne (41) Bird (59) Smith (62) ....07 may prove to be deeper and of a higher quality in terms of early picks.
dirtywhitepacker
18 Jun 2008, 18:11
Wasn't Bird apart of Sydney's scholarship program? Hence the low number he was taken...
Longy413
18 Jun 2008, 18:28
We will have this debate in 5 years time :p
However there are players like Mayne (40) Polkinghorne (41) Bird (59) Smith (62) ....07 may prove to be deeper and of a higher quality in terms of early picks.
This isn't about results though is it?
It's about pre-draft perception and the pre-draft perception leading into 2006 is that it was to be one of the deepest drafts of all time.
The 2007 pre-draft perception was that the top end was good and it went pretty thin, pretty quickly from there.
Wasn't Bird apart of Sydney's scholarship program? Hence the low number he was taken...
Could well of been...I really didn't research it too much to be honest.
This isn't about results though is it?
It's about pre-draft perception and the pre-draft perception leading into 2006 is that it was to be one of the deepest drafts of all time.
The 2007 pre-draft perception was that the top end was good and it went pretty thin, pretty quickly from there.
Actually I thought this was all about actuals rather than perception.
Asking where Reimers would go ...well we know who went in 06 and 07 ...lots of growth and challenges in their but I would wager that 07 is looking like a better and an even chance at being deeper (disclaimer yes it is another 5 years until we know)
I think the quality of the top 10 is clearly weighted to 2007 at the moment (though the KPP's take time).
Depth is pretty close IMHO.
Wouldn't that be expected? Palmer, Morton and Masten were all top 10 picks. Browne was pick 36.
My point exactly, Browne is nothing special.
He doesn't post as much about Browne as you seem to about Wells :thumbsu:
Difference is, my clueless brother, that when I speak about Wells, it's 98% of the time, in a Wells related thread.
I have seen Brownes name, posted by General, in some threads that doesnt even concern Browne.
We have every reason to be very happy with Browney based on what he has shown to date.
Thats great, but what does he have to do with this thread?
I can come on here and just say "Urquhart > Browne", which is true, but has ____ all to do with this topic.
Longy413
20 Jun 2008, 10:18
I think the quality of the top 10 is clearly weighted to 2007 at the moment (though the KPP's take time).
Irrelevant.
The opening post asks where Reimers would have gone in 2007 if he was overlooked in 2006.
It's asking to compare the strength of the respective drafts, pre-draft and slotting in Reimers based on his performances as a junior. Not an AFL footballer.
Where would Reimers have been drafted if he was in last years draft?
That's the question. Not if the draft happened again based on performances and development of the players that were taken in respective drafts, where would Reimers fit.
High Ryder
20 Jun 2008, 13:07
Irrelevant.
The opening post asks where Reimers would have gone in 2007 if he was overlooked in 2006.
It's asking to compare the strength of the respective drafts, pre-draft and slotting in Reimers based on his performances as a junior. Not an AFL footballer.
Where would Reimers have been drafted if he was in last years draft?
That's the question. Not if the draft happened again based on performances and development of the players that were taken in respective drafts, where would Reimers fit.Spot on, as usual Longy.
TheGeneral
20 Jun 2008, 14:27
And Browne is comfortably below those guys.
Comfortably.
So is Reimers, what point were you trying to make? :confused:
Browne played back pocket for WA becaused they had guns such as Rich, Masten, Palmer and Morton ahead of him.
Would Reimers have played midfield ahead of those guns?
I doubt it.
Browne was available in the 06 draft but overlooked, Reimers was the better prospect at the time hence he was drafted as a bottom-ager while Browne had another year in the system.
Palmer and Collier were overlooked in the 2006 draft and were drafted in the first two rounds.
My point exactly, Browne is nothing special.
And you'd know?
He's a better talent than Swallow who you pumped up and hasn't played since he was dropped.
You're a great judge of talent.
Browne reminds me of Murphy with his hardness and poise, yet I've never seen Murphy do this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MpwqIhAiF8
Nothing special when you back yourself to do that in your first game and with your first "touch".
I have seen Brownes name, posted by General, in some threads that doesnt even concern Browne.
Because it was relevant.
I mentioned Browne because I think Reimers would have gone second round in the last draft and the Blues had Browne at 20. Greenwood would be a better kick than Reimers if the wraps on his skills are right.
If anything, the Dockers should have picked Reimers ahead of Collard in 06.
bomba4eva
20 Jun 2008, 15:54
Loving little Kyle Reimers. Rapt that we got him so late in the draft. Absolute bargain. Would have been significantly higher than pick 47 in the 2007 draft especially if you look at his current form. The two picks in the 40's from the 06 draft yielded us Houli and Riemers. Thanks Freo for that trade.
Jeremias
20 Jun 2008, 16:35
My point exactly, Browne is nothing special.
Simplistic argument. You're trying to argue that he's no good because he was picked in the 30s.
You're right. They may as well stop every draft at pick 30 because, as you say, he's nothing special.
:rolleyes:
Difference is, my clueless brother, that when I speak about Wells, it's 98% of the time, in a Wells related thread.
Does calling me clueless instill you with a little more self-confidence?
This thread was about Reimers in the 2007 draft. Since Browne was in the 2007 draft, it's pretty clear that Browne is relevant.
I have seen Brownes name, posted by General, in some threads that doesnt even concern Browne.
Great. So why bring it up in threads that do concern Browne, even if they don't directly mention his name?
Thats great, but what does he have to do with this thread?
As I said, he was in the draft that was mentioned by the OP.
You seem to fail to realise that just because someone doesn't mention a name directly the thread may relate to him still.
Browne was taken in the 2007 draft which is what this thread is about so a comparison between Browne and Reimers is appropriate because the comment was made that Reimers wouldn't be taken ahead of Browne.
Simplistic argument. You're trying to argue that he's no good because he was picked in the 30s.
Talk about simple views.
Whoever said Browne was shit?
You're right. They may as well stop every draft at pick 30 because, as you say, he's nothing special.
Well judging on Browne, yeah, maybe you could forward this thread to the AFL to use as an example of how average players get drafted in the 30's?
Although there are exceptions, Corey Jones is a gun.
Oh and I deleted your smily, it's shit, boring and you use it everytime.
No offence though.
Does calling me clueless instill you with a little more self-confidence?
Oh man, trust me when I say I dont give a ____ about what you post or you, buts that just me and 87% of Bigfooty.
This thread was about Reimers in the 2007 draft. Since Browne was in the 2007 draft, it's pretty clear that Browne is relevant.
Sorry, doesnt cut it, he asked about opinions on Reimers and where would he have been drafted.
Pretty obvious it aint about Browne.
Great. So why bring it up in threads that do concern Browne, even if they don't directly mention his name?
Stop repeating yourself and read what I posted above.
As I said, he was in the draft that was mentioned by the OP.
Another irrelevant sentence, read above.
You seem to fail to realise that just because someone doesn't mention a name directly the thread may relate to him still.
Do you just post the same shit but rephrase it?
Browne was taken in the 2007 draft which is what this thread is about so a comparison between Browne and Reimers is appropriate because the comment was made that Reimers wouldn't be taken ahead of Browne.
I dont think the OP wanted a comparison, he asked where would Reimers go in a specific draft.
____ all to do about Browne.
But, as the great man said, let the circle jerk begin.
Jeremias
20 Jun 2008, 20:19
.
Talk about simple views.
Whoever said Browne was shit?
Noone, in fact, thats the first time "shit" has been mentioned. You did, however, say he is nothing special.
Well judging on Browne, yeah, maybe you could forward this thread to the AFL to use as an example of how average players get drafted in the 30's?
Sorry, seems as though you've missed the point so you have resorted to posting stuff that makes no sense and is completely irrelevant. You based your argument on him being no good because he was drafted in the 30s.
Although there are exceptions, Corey Jones is a gun.
Yeah, he's had a super year! :D
Oh and I deleted your smily, it's shit, boring and you use it everytime.
No offence though.
No worries.
Your arguments are always the same, always shit and boring. It's a wonder that I keep bothering with you.
Oh man, trust me when I say I dont give a ____ about what you post or you, buts that just me and 87% of Bigfooty.
Personal insults are AWESOME! :thumbsu:
Sorry, doesnt cut it, he asked about opinions on Reimers and where would he have been drafted.
You really are an idiot. Where Reimers would have been drafted not only depends on how talented Reimers is, but how talented those taken in the 2007 draft are. I can't believe you can't see that. Especially after all the time you spent trying to convince me that you knew a lot about football.
Pretty obvious it aint about Browne.
Once again, you ignore a key fact. It is about Browne. Not directly, but it's about players taken in the 2007 draft. Browne was one of them.
Stop repeating yourself and read what I posted above.
I'll repeat myself for as long as it takes the point to get through your skull, which it still hasn't.
Another irrelevant sentence, read above.
Umm...read above...AGAIN. It was entirely relevant.
Do you just post the same shit but rephrase it?
Again, read above.
I dont think the OP wanted a comparison, he asked where would Reimers go in a specific draft.
I'm convinced you're an idiot, after all that. LOL at you if you can't see that where Reimers would go in a specific draft depends not only on him but also on others taken in that draft. :D
____ all to do about Browne.
But, as the great man said, let the circle jerk begin.
Dare I say read above? Talk about posting the same shit over and over!
Reimers (may be wrong but he had a rep if I remember for having a bit of a tood) ...went 47 in 06 in what was an OK draft.
2007 is shaping as one with bit more depth - still I would see KR going in or around the 30's
Irrelevant.
The opening post asks where Reimers would have gone in 2007 if he was overlooked in 2006..
...and I answered it in the 30's
It's asking to compare the strength of the respective drafts, pre-draft and slotting in Reimers based on his performances as a junior. Not an AFL footballer..
Great.
Pre-2007 draft I thought the draft looked like it had a deeper top 10 and I thought it was overall a deeper draft.
Is that OK?
I think it might be because I am not saying ...Reimers is great and would have been top 10.
At the moment he looks OK .....Mayne went at 40 and I wouldn't swap him for Reimers - so IMHO he is solid but jury is still out.
Has he been stable at Essendon as there were real questions on his discipline off the field over here.
Where would Reimers have been drafted if he was in last years draft?.
Ummmm 30's.
That's the question. Not if the draft happened again based on performances and development of the players that were taken in respective drafts, where would Reimers fit.
OK based on my theoretical pre-07 view...I'll go 30's.
If I was to factor in actual performances to date ...I'd go 30's.
Could I also point out that whilst I answered the question posed in the OP, you appear not to ...where would you ahve him going?
Me thinketh the problem is that when the quality in a draft comes from the West ....the Vic supporters seem surprised of the quality and depth. Guys like Browne will go all right - if he was a TAC guy you would be all over him.
I'll give you a heads up for 08 ...it is going to be deeeeeep and a lot of it from the West (just so you can not be surprised). Perhaps good for Essendon seeming your liking for the West.
Noone, in fact, thats the first time "shit" has been mentioned. You did, however, say he is nothing special.
Yep and he is.
Nothing special doesnt mean he is no good.
Sorry, seems as though you've missed the point so you have resorted to posting stuff that makes no sense and is completely irrelevant. You based your argument on him being no good because he was drafted in the 30s.
I based my argument on this thread being about Reimers not Browne.
It's true too.
Yeah, he's had a super year! :D
Injured.
Your arguments are always the same, always shit and boring. It's a wonder that I keep bothering with you.
Hypocrite and you want me to prove it?
Personal insults are AWESOME! :thumbsu:
You really are an idiot.
When you post, kinda think of what you're gonna post.
It usually helps.
Where Reimers would have been drafted not only depends on how talented Reimers is, but how talented those taken in the 2007 draft are. I can't believe you can't see that. Especially after all the time you spent trying to convince me that you knew a lot about football.
My point was The General brings up Browne in threads not directly related to him. When he has a chance, even if it's 0.5%, he reels his name off.
Obsession.
Once again, you ignore a key fact. It is about Browne. Not directly, but it's about players taken in the 2007 draft. Browne was one of them.
And the cornerstone of his argument or statement was about Browne. Maybe a sentence about Reimers, than he switched back to Browne.
He has taken quite a liking to a no-name player.
I'll repeat myself for as long as it takes the point to get through your skull, which it still hasn't.
You can keep going all you like, I'm out of here in an hour and partying all weekend, something I think you never do.
But hey, when I get back, I'm sure there'll be a response, probably something about Browne.
I'm convinced you're an idiot, after all that. LOL at you if you can't see that where Reimers would go in a specific draft depends not only on him but also on others taken in that draft. :D
Yep, I am an idiot. Love being one.
But this Browne has ____ all to do about Browne, it's all about Reimers.
Dare I say read above? Talk about posting the same shit over and over.
What General was trying to achiece was making people think Browne was/is better than Reimers.
Which is far from the truth.