Burges at pick #11 smart?

[daddy_4_eyes]

There's a fair bit of depth in this years draft, yet everyone is tipping us to take the relatively unknown Burges at a VERY high #11. To be picked up in the top 20 a kid has to be pretty good with a lot of upside, to be picked at 11 the kid has to be something special. Somehow I don't see us taking him that early, as he has proved nothing at the higher levels of junior footy, and at draft camp didn't impress as he was apparently injured (Yakuza says he was a last minute invitee, so clubs don't know much about him anyway).

Should WCE take Ray, Surjan, Moody, Mundy, McLean, Morrison or Dunn at #11, who will all likely be outside the top 10 (judging by most phantom drafts) and hope another club doesn't take a punt on Burges with a top 20 pick? Did WCE really hide Burges, or was it just a media beat-up that got out of hand (and turned a possible late pick player into potential #11 pick)?

[ozzult]

I guess we will find out in late November. I have enough faith in the club that they will select the best available talent.

[Sera]

The thing that may appeal about Burges is that he is bottom age, and so really could have another year in the underage system. Having said that, school football, especially the PSA, is a poor guide to how they will perform at the top level. He sounds alot like James Davies of x-Essendon. A gun, athletic player that dominated at high school but when he mixed it with the big boys he was found out. There really is no reason to take risks with 1st round picks. At least McPharlin had shown something at colts level (kicked 7 goals in his one game) while Burges only got 7 possessions.

[Boxhead85]

Thankyou Sera!!!

I have been saying that performance at PSA football level means nothing in the long run, take into context these players whom went to Wesley college while i was there.

Scott Stevens : Carved up like nothing else, he was an absolute gun in yr 12 footy but struggled in the afl.
Matt Coughlan : Coughs was actually a good player in PSA but not that good, this is the key because noone thought he would make it, look at him now.
Ricky Mott : Another super gun at school was so big no opposition ruck man could stop him, now he can't get a game.
Andrew Mcdougal : was very good in school, yet he also looks very promising in the early stages of his football career could be the exception to the rule.

[Streaker]

Originally posted by Sera
At least McPharlin had shown something at colts level (kicked 7 goals in his one game) while Burges only got 7 possessions.

How much game time was he given to get those 7 possesions?

[Streaker]

Originally posted by Boxhead85
Thankyou Sera!!!

I have been saying that performance at PSA football level means nothing in the long run, take into context these players whom went to Wesley college while i was there.

You could say the same thing about performance in the WAFL competition. How many players have been picked up in the draft from the WAFL comp and gone on to be duds? How many ended up being stars?

Recruiters now days are looking to find talent before they reach competitions such as the WAFL Colts. Every recruiters dream is to find a Brownlow medalist before the others have heard of him.

Pulling Burges out of the draft at pick 58 would have been a coup for the Eagles. They were basically looking at getting a top 20 draft pick at a bargain price, it didn't pan out that way and now they have to decide whether he is worth their first pick or hoping he will be available at pick 20. As it stands now the Eagles would have to use their first pick if they want him or he will be picked up by another team.

[Sera]

Burges played most, if not all, of the game I am led to believe. Its pretty hard to hide a player at Hale. I really doubt we have been trying to hide him, and if we have, we have done a poor job. I would love to know how the rumour started though. Yakuza politely described it as an internal error, that could mean anything.

Daniel Kerr and Andrew McDougal both got drafted on a combination of their PSA form and their form in Ireland. There are some success stories but there are also some DUDDS that get drafted. The point is, its risky to draft on the strength of PSA form alone.

[dasler]

Originally posted by Sera
Burges played most, if not all, of the game I am led to believe. Its pretty hard to hide a player at Hale. I really doubt we have been trying to hide him, and if we have, we have done a poor job. I would love to know how the rumour started though. Yakuza politely described it as an internal error, that could mean anything.

Daniel Kerr and Andrew McDougal both got drafted on a combination of their PSA form and their form in Ireland. There are some success stories but there are also some DUDDS that get drafted. The point is, its risky to draft on the strength of PSA form alone.

I agree simply because I dont think PSA is any good as a comp.

[Mead]

Everything I've heard about Burges suggests he's pretty good. The rationale for taking him now is that in theory, we're getting budget price access to a Judd/Cooney calibre draftee, albeit one who is probably a few years off that level- he's a gamble, but one which might pay off handsomely, because if he turns out as good as he's supposed to, we've stolen a gun who would probably go a lot higher in a few years time.

imo, i don't reckon we should take him with #11- thats too high a price to pay for someone who we'll be pouring development into for quite some time. Pick 11 for someone like Chaplin or Moody or whoever is around, and if he is still there, pick 20 for Burges.

[dasler]

Originally posted by Mead
Everything I've heard about Burges suggests he's pretty good. The rationale for taking him now is that in theory, we're getting budget price access to a Judd/Cooney calibre draftee, albeit one who is probably a few years off that level- he's a gamble, but one which might pay off handsomely, because if he turns out as good as he's supposed to, we've stolen a gun who would probably go a lot higher in a few years time.

imo, i don't reckon we should take him with #11- thats too high a price to pay for someone who we'll be pouring development into for quite some time. Pick 11 for someone like Chaplin or Moody or whoever is around, and if he is still there, pick 20 for Burges.

Problem with that being Moody isn't worth a first round pick anymore. His stock has fallen faster than a Wall Street Collapse

[Streaker]

Originally posted by dasler
I agree simply because I dont think PSA is any good as a comp.

In your Phantom Draft you have the Eagles taking him at #11.
For someone who is "not convinced" about him and doesnt rate the PSA comp you seem to have him going pretty high.

Why do you think we will take him at 11?

[theorangeapple]

i think he is the reason we got pick 20. that sounds about right IMO. pick 11 HAS to be used on a quality player that has proven himself. Im thinking it may be Surjan but i like the sound of Watts, Chaplin, Mundy (esp).

[Streaker]

Thats if he is there at #20. My understanding is he is worth a top 20 pickwhich means he could go anywhere between 5 and 20. With other teams who have 2 picks in the top 20 showing interest we might be forced to take him at #11. It all depends on how much we value him.

[Juddamania]

Originally posted by Boxhead85
Thankyou Sera!!!

I have been saying that performance at PSA football level means nothing in the long run, take into context these players whom went to Wesley college while i was there.

Scott Stevens : Carved up like nothing else, he was an absolute gun in yr 12 footy but struggled in the afl.
Matt Coughlan : Coughs was actually a good player in PSA but not that good, this is the key because noone thought he would make it, look at him now.
Ricky Mott : Another super gun at school was so big no opposition ruck man could stop him, now he can't get a game.
Andrew Mcdougal : was very good in school, yet he also looks very promising in the early stages of his football career could be the exception to the rule.

At least you had good guys at your school. The boys at my school were better at Netball!!! (They won the championship!)

I'm pretty sure Des Headland went to my primary school... only that he was 5 yrs older!!! His sis went there too.

[dasler]

Originally posted by West Coast Stre
In your Phantom Draft you have the Eagles taking him at #11.
For someone who is "not convinced" about him and doesnt rate the PSA comp you seem to have him going pretty high.

Why do you think we will take him at 11?

Only a guesstimate. That's all my phantoms are.

If and only if they have gone to all the trouble to hide him, with the perceived interest Burges is getting, they may not want to take a gamble and see if he lasts until pick 20.

Just my opinion.

[YAKUZA]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sera
[B]Burges played most, if not all, of the game I am led to believe. Its pretty hard to hide a player at Hale. I really doubt we have been trying to hide him, and if we have, we have done a poor job. I would love to know how the rumour started though. Yakuza politely described it as an internal error, that could mean anything.



I could elaborate sera but that would mean mentioning names and that could have other implications, anyway if I did I would expect the moderator to delete them and rightly so. It is fairly common knowledge in the recruiting circles and ,not that theyll admit it, the WCE were very ****ed off that it got out. What they didn't know was that because of the circumstances of the leak the Dockers were first to know and they have also been monitoring the lad very closely.
The fact is the boy looks a likely type and if they want him, and they do, they are now going to have to move earlier than they had planned particularly given that FFC has a pick either side of their first pick. I have already stated elsewhere that I won't be surprised to see the Dockers take him at 10.

[Black Thunder]

I'd rather us take someone else with number 11 - probably Surjan and perhaps take Burges with number 20, although even that pick may be better used on a KP Defender.

[Sera]

I'll be more than happy if we miss out on Burges but get Jacob Surjan. We really don't need both of them. What we do need is a ready-made KP defender like Michael Johnson or Brett Jones.

[dasler]

Originally posted by YAKUZA
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sera
[B]Burges played most, if not all, of the game I am led to believe. Its pretty hard to hide a player at Hale. I really doubt we have been trying to hide him, and if we have, we have done a poor job. I would love to know how the rumour started though. Yakuza politely described it as an internal error, that could mean anything.



I could elaborate sera but that would mean mentioning names and that could have other implications, anyway if I did I would expect the moderator to delete them and rightly so. It is fairly common knowledge in the recruiting circles and ,not that theyll admit it, the WCE were very ****ed off that it got out. What they didn't know was that because of the circumstances of the leak the Dockers were first to know and they have also been monitoring the lad very closely.
The fact is the boy looks a likely type and if they want him, and they do, they are now going to have to move earlier than they had planned particularly given that FFC has a pick either side of their first pick. I have already stated elsewhere that I won't be surprised to see the Dockers take him at 10.

I agree totally with you on this Yakuza, I'm just unsure if they will take him with pick 10, when there are proven players at a higher level around.

[Black Thunder]

Originally posted by Sera
I'll be more than happy if we miss out on Burges but get Jacob Surjan. We really don't need both of them. What we do need is a ready-made KP defender like Michael Johnson or Brett Jones.

i reckon i;d rather have Pettigrew

[dasler]

Originally posted by Black Thunder
i reckon i;d rather have Pettigrew

I think Johnson is better than Petters, saying that Pettigrew is a good player.

[daddy_4_eyes]

Originally posted by dasler
I agree totally with you on this Yakuza, I'm just unsure if they will take him with pick 10, when there are proven players at a higher level around.

It appears we have to go pick 11, or nothing. If WC pass on him at 11, Freo could take him as late as #19 and still get quality with #10 and #12.

Wish we traded a bit better. Would of been nice to offload Read for something.

[masai]

Originally posted by daddy_4_eyes
It appears we have to go pick 11, or nothing. If WC pass on him at 11, Freo could take him as late as #19 and still get quality with #10 and #12.

Wish we traded a bit better. Would of been nice to offload Read for something.

If you finish in the top 8 and want to obtain quality youngsters, you must trade off players to get early picks. The Eagles have been very reluctant to trade off players to gain lower picks, and this year may hurt badly.

I have had the suspicion that the Eagles power who be's, when trading they always want win / loss situations (eg. give logs for class players / draft picks), rather than settling for a win / win situation, with both parties doing a fair bit of give and take.

Hiding a player in the PSA, is a waste of time, as every one is watching.

[Sera]

Originally posted by masai
If you finish in the top 8 and want to obtain quality youngsters, you must trade off players to get early picks. The Eagles have been very reluctant to trade off players to gain lower picks, and this year may hurt badly.

I have had the suspicion that the Eagles power who be's, when trading they always want win / loss situations (eg. give logs for class players / draft picks), rather than settling for a win / win situation, with both parties doing a fair bit of give and take.

Hiding a player in the PSA, is a waste of time, as every one is watching.

You presume we haven't but thats not true. We would have traded Cox for something decent but the best we could get was Heath Black. No one wanted Read, we traded Haynes for a decent pick.. who else could we have traded? We don't really have any Croad or Koops types in our playing list. I am shocked Fremantle got a top 10 pick for Croad (well done) while pick 19 for Koops was pretty good as well. You just can't compare us to Fremantle. In saying that, its not all upside for the Dockers, you have traded away players in your key age group and have less depth than you did before (in the short term anyway).

[masai]

Fair points Sera, but I wasn't really doing a my team versus your team, it was a just a generally suspicion that the Eagles have been reluctant to trade. Probably other teams didn't come to the party by offering reasonable options.

Drafting of youngsters is a minefield and from my experience, I wouldn't have a foggy. When I left school, I said that 4 team mates of mine would do ok at WAFL level (pre AFL), well one made it and the other 3 disappeared from sight and another chap who was useless at 17, went past them all, captained a team to a WAFL premiership and played state footy. What would I know about recruiting?.

[Black Thunder]

Fremantle traded very smartly - ensuring that they got picks in each round before us, because the battle between the WA clubs was always going to be big in this draft (due to the quality of WA players), and we had the edge with picks 11 and 26 to 12 and 27.

[sabre_ac]

I dont know allot about Burges but if eagles take him, freo have ever chance of walking away this draft with Ray,Surjan and Moody.
Which in my opinion will be the best draft we have had.

[|D_J^B_J|]

Originally posted by daddy_4_eyes
It appears we have to go pick 11, or nothing. If WC pass on him at 11, Freo could take him as late as #19 and still get quality with #10 and #12.


Agree completely. If Burges is available at 19 I'm fairly certain we'll take him over Moody. WC realise this which will force them to make a decision to either select him at 11 or not at all.

[Voice of Reason]

Originally posted by masai
Fair points Sera, but I wasn't really doing a my team versus your team, it was a just a generally suspicion that the Eagles have been reluctant to trade. Probably other teams didn't come to the party by offering reasonable options.

Drafting of youngsters is a minefield and from my experience, I wouldn't have a foggy. When I left school, I said that 4 team mates of mine would do ok at WAFL level (pre AFL), well one made it and the other 3 disappeared from sight and another chap who was useless at 17, went past them all, captained a team to a WAFL premiership and played state footy. What would I know about recruiting?.

As a matter of interest, who was the rags to riches story?