Ports Draft Picks

[Macca19]

No. 15 - Troy Chaplin
(North Ballarat Rebels) 23 February 1986, 193.6cm, 89kg

Chaplin is regarded as one of the best young key position players in this year’s National AFL Draft and is firmly under the Kangaroos’ microscope. Equally adept down back or up forward, Chaplin won the Ron Barassi Medal for the player of the series against Ireland in the under 17 series earlier in 2003. He was also named All-Australian in the National AFL under 18 championships during the year. A good reader of play, who is composed under pressure, Chaplin has attracted plenty of interest and could be a smoky for Geelong at No.7 or with an order change could slip to Sydney at No.16, as the Swans are reported to be very keen on the versatile tall.

No. 30 - Port Adelaide – Brad Symes
(Central District) 7 May 1985, 185cm, 75kg

A versatile defender/midfielder, Symes had an outstanding season in 2003, which included All-Australian selection at the National AFL under 18 championships, while he was named South Australia’s most valuable player of the carnival. He was also a member of the Central District reserves premiership side to cap off a great year. A member of the AIS/AFL academy in 2002, Symes is a skillful player, who has attracted the interest of both his home town clubs, particularly Port Adelaide, who rate him highly. Essendon is also believed to have sounded out Symes at No.28. He has been touted by many as a top 25 selection and is likely to be a second to early third round choice.

No. 34 - Luke Peel
(Sandringham Dragons) 26 June 1986, 187.1cm, 83.7kg

The 2003 AIS/AFL academy representative is a balanced mover with clean hands, who is not afraid to back his judgment in marking situations or when running the lines. Peel, who was in the top 10 per cent for the shuttle run at the recent National AFL Draft camp, has come under the notice of several clubs including the Brisbane Lions, Geelong and the Kangaroos. He is likely to be a second round choice.

No. 39 - Rob Forster Knight
(Essendon) 6th April 1982, 186cm 86kg

A defender that can go into the midfield.

No. 46 - Michael Pettigrew
(West Perth) 16 March 1985, 192m, 80kg

Despite having interest from several AFL clubs last year, Pettigrew didn’t nominate for the draft and was therefore unable to be selected. However, he is firming as a genuine prospect this season, with Adelaide one club monitoring his progress closely. The Crows are looking to add as many talls as they can to their structure and are right in the hunt for him with their second pick. The Brisbane Lions and the Western Bulldogs are also believed to be keen on Pettigrew, but he would have to be taken earlier by the Lions or slip through to No.33, which is their next pick. The Bulldogs are a real outside chance to snare him at No.49. A tall defender/forward, Pettigrew was a member of the AIS/AFL academy squad in 2002, while he had a fine 2003 National AFL Draft Camp, where he recorded the fastest times in each sprint test. He was also among the top 10 per cent for the agility run and standing vertical jump.

[Groove]

looking pretty good.
forster knight is an interesting one.

[Eddie Woloschek]

RFK has played league footy. None of the others have. I'd say he starts in pole position at Alberton next week. If you are looking for a positive out of this, think of Nathan Steinberner, Stephen Daniels, Ian Downsborough . . .

[Porthos]

What exactly is the positive there, Eddie?

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Eddie Woloschek
RFK has played league footy. None of the others have. I'd say he starts in pole position at Alberton next week. If you are looking for a positive out of this, think of Nathan Steinberner, Stephen Daniels, Ian Downsborough . . .

I see him as a positive. Many thought Cochrane wouldnt play much of a part this year yet he was largely a success and played in pretty much every game and was one of the match winners on one or two occasions.

I see Forster Knight as another Cochrane. Someone who wont have much expectation and so can just play football. Half back flank role for him i would think.

[Ford Fairlane]

very pleased with the outcome. Snared a couple of promising (one very highly rated) talls and three midfield/flankers who are over 180cm for a change.

[Porthos]

We just traded Brent Guerra for Robert Forster-Knight. I know I would've laughed at that a month or so ago.

Would've liked to see an attacking midfielder in that lot.

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Porthos
Would've liked to see an attacking midfielder in that lot.

Thats where Salopek/Ebert/Hall step up

[Eddie Woloschek]

Originally posted by Porthos
What exactly is the positive there, Eddie?

OK Porthos, the bottom line positive is that we spent a pick on a bloke who is not from Loserville. Surprisingly, even the Crows appear to have learned that lesson.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by Eddie Woloschek
OK Porthos, the bottom line positive is that we spent a pick on a bloke who is not from Loserville. Surprisingly, even the Crows appear to have learned that lesson. Hmm, thats true. The fact that he's on a two year contract I find disappointing though. Did anyone from Woodville Eagles get picked this year?

Macca, I really hope they all do. We have an immediate need for one of them to.

[Kid Dynamite!]

Originally posted by Porthos
Hmm, thats true. The fact that he's on a two year contract I find disappointing though. Did anyone from Woodville Eagles get picked this year?


Iszac Thompson which was a big surprise.

[Macca19]

Heres some more info on our draftees from Bigfootys GOALden Hawk:

Michael Pettigrew

Details:
Club: Whitford/West Perth
DOB: 16 Mar 85 Hgt: 192cm Wgt: 80kg
Position: Tall Defender
Natural foot: Right

Honours:
AIS/AFL Academy
Western Australia 2002, 2003
Centre Half Back in WAFL Colts Team of the Year
National Draft Camp Invitee 2002, 2003

Profile:
Pettigrew looks very much to me like an athlete playing football. He does have some footy smarts, but I'm not totally convinced he can make the next step.

Michael represented WA for the last two years and was invited to draft camp two years running. He seemed to save his best performances for draft camp - some truly outstanding results given he is 6'4. Was 2nd in the sprint last year and won it altogether this year, in the top half-dozen of all time. Pettigrew also ranked in the top 10 for vertical leap two years running as well as agility this year.

Clearly he has the right body to make it at AFL, but can he play? I'm not sure. He spent most of the carnival as a tall defender, and was far from convincing at times. He certainly covered a lot of ground and almost seemed to be a midfielder at times. He has pretty clean hands and works hard.

However, some of his decision-making and disposal seemed very dodgy to me - prone to turning the footy over far too often. He was thrashed by Watts in the final match and had to be moved into the forward line and even the ruck. I'm sure clubs will consider him late and hope they can teach him, but athletes make me nervous.


Troy Chaplin

Details:
Club: Maryborough Rovers
DOB: 23 Feb 86 Hgt: 193cm Wgt: 85kg
Position: Centre Half Back/Centre Half Forward
Natural foot: Left

Honours:
AIS/AFL Academy
Ron Barassi Medal for best player in International Rules Series 2003
Victoria Country 2003
All Australian 2003
National Draft Camp Invitee 2003

TAC Stats:
2002: 7 games, 2 goals, 17.1 PPG.
2003: 14 games, 6 goals, 15.5 PPG.

Profile:
Mentioned as a player to watch by John Turnbull last year, Chaplin is looking a likely top 10 selection and one of the best talls in the draft along with Kepler Bradley. I have a couple of concerns, but he looks promising.

Chaplin spends most of his time in defence at centre half back, but showed his versatility by going forward in the carnival and kicking 4 goals for Vic Country against Vic Metro. He was apparently superb in defence and attack for Australia in Ireland, winning the best player of the series.

Chaplin was also a very good basketballer, playing at state level in the under 16s and under 18s. He is very athletic and still has to fill out a little, I think he will be a perfect size to play key position in a few years. He has very long arms that enable to take marks others couldn't.

Troy is usually very composed when he has the football, even under pressure, and is quite prepared to offload by hand rather than just blasting long out of defence. He will work hard and is a good tackler. Ball handling is excellent, especially below knee level - I've seen him do one hand pick ups at pace, pretty incredible for a kid his size.

The marking ability of this kid is very good, can take a lot of grabs in a hurry. Has a pretty good left foot, although his right can be questionable. He is very good at reading the play and mopping up the play, just drifting across the backline taking marks ala Rawlings.

He tends to back his judgement rather than playing man-on-man. He is a bit of a moth in that he is instantly attracted to the ball. This concerns me a little at times, he perhaps needs to learn to man up a bit more at times. He also faded badly late in the season.

The other thing I have to say is he doesn't play an overly physical style of play. I wouldn't call him soft by any means, just that he doesn't spend time laying body on his opponent and trying to outbody them. He is also a bit handball happy at times, especially in defence where he can sell his teammates into trouble. However, his handballing can be extremely creative at times.

Troy trained at Hawthorn during the pre-season last year, so we were obviously interested, and pick 10 is probably around the mark for him. Of course we won't get him now, but someone should pick him in the 1st round.


Luke Peel

Details:
Club: Brighton Grammar
DOB: 26 Jun 86 Hgt: 187cm Wgt: 84kg
Position: Defender
Natural foot: Right

Honours:
AIS/AFL Academy
Victoria Metro 2003
National Draft Camp Invitee 2003

TAC Stats:
2003: 5 games, 0 goals, 19.2 PPG.

Profile:
Peel is an extremely promising defender who is only eligible for the draft by 4 days, he won't be 18 until halfway through next year. Hopefully by then he will have grown another inch to get to 190cm, because that might be all that is stopping him from going first round.

Basically Peel is a rebounding defender who is a magnificent kick and loves to break lines. He plays taller than his height, but that is often the case at this level. He is one of those players that always look balanced and composed on a footy field, he has clean hands as well.

His kicking is brilliant, long and precise, even under intense heat. Can struggle on taller opponents such as Chaplin, but you would hope he wouldn't be used in that role normally.

Luke's marking is fantastic, can take some great saving marks with the flight. Reads the play well and has all the skills you need in a good defender. Is also very athletic, as shown by his 6th finish in the shuttle run at draft camp.

I think this kid has some serious talent. My only concern is his hardness at the footy, can pull out occasionally. But there is a lot to like and he should go in the top half of the draft.

[Macca19]

The stats for Luke Peel look alright. In his 5 games he averaged almost 20 disposals and was named in the top 5 players for Sandringham in all of those games.

Chaplins stats look alright as well. Averaged around 5 marks a game, reguarly picked up over 16 disposals and was named in the best players in 4 or 5 matches.

Im collecting the stats for Pettigrew at the moment.

[Eago77]

The youngsters all sound promising (as they all do at this time of year) but what's with getting Robert F-K? I don't like his name for starters, and nothing he has done on the footy field has stood out to me.

Anyone got anything good to say about him?

[Kid Dynamite!]

Um. He...has cool hair?

[Porthos]

Adam Kingsley has a new Gold Pass competitor?

[Zombie]

I'm pretty stoked, Chaplin is the exact player we needed but no one expected him to go anywhere less than top 10. Symes is the local midfielder we were after and Peel and Pettigrew are two other players who were rated higher than we took them for.

Pettigrew is an interesting one, 192 cms and the quickest guy in the draft with a fiar leap on him, future full back?

RFK is a strange one though, i thought we might have been going for S.Motlop as our recycled player, hope he is this years Cochrane.

Alot better job than i thought would be possible with the picks we had. It was interesting that Adelaide picked Watts over Chaplin.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by Zombie
I'm pretty stoked, Chaplin is the exact player we needed but no one expected him to go anywhere less than top 10. Yep.

Symes is the local midfielder we were after and Peel and Pettigrew are two other players who were rated higher than we took them for.Reading GOALdenHawk's profiles, it seems the blokes we took are all not particularly physical players, so that could explain the drop. Not soft, just not physical.

Pettigrew is an interesting one, 192 cms and the quickest guy in the draft with a fiar leap on him, future full back?Sounds good. Apparently he's an `athlete', so the focus of full back should be good.

RFK is a strange one though, i thought we might have been going for S.Motlop as our recycled player, hope he is this years Cochrane.This would be pretty much a clincher that Kane Cornes won't be tagging this year, if thats what Choco is thinking with this pick.

Alot better job than i thought would be possible with the picks we had. It was interesting that Adelaide picked Watts over Chaplin. Watts is more of a wildcard - Chaplin should be a good solid player, but Watts could be a great player (or not good enough), and is a definite forward which is what they want.

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Porthos

Sounds good. Apparently he's an `athlete', so the focus of full back should be good.

We might actually have an attacking defender for a stage instead of the dour stoppers in Mead/Packo/Wakelin.

This would be pretty much a clincher that Kane Cornes won't be tagging this year, if thats what Choco is thinking with this pick.

Well theres your attacking midfielder Porthos!

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by Porthos
Watts is more of a wildcard - Chaplin should be a good solid player, but Watts could be a great player (or not good enough), and is a definite forward which is what they want.

Of course the funny thing about that is, by the time the camries work out which, their midfield guns (the two that are left) will be retired and there'll be no one left to deliver the ball to him.

[mic59]

I doubt if Troy Chaplin was much in anyones expectations when the Port camp went off to the draft. Touted as a top 10 pick, winner of the Barassi medal, you would have expected him to go relatively early. Maybe not top 5 but certainly not still available at 15. I wonder who was our realistic 1st pick? Llane Spaanderman who went at 18 or maybe Harry Miller who went at 25?
Can't say I'm too pleased with Rob Forster-Knight, though. Particularly the unseemly haste with which Port picked him. I wouldn't want us to go for a recycled player, especially someone whose main skills are another tagger, until our last pick. I get the sickening feeling that RFK will move straight into the team and slow down another young stars' development.
The positive is that the selection committee have addressed the question of our aging defence in this draft. Hardwick, Monty, Gav and even Wilbur are getting on. Even Hardwick probably still has 2 years in him, but there is not much use in taking green recruits when everyone retires. These young blokes can't just be shoved into a team and told to sink or swim, they have to serve their apprenticeship with experienced defenders around them. Other than Troy Chaplin there's none of the young draftees I can see playing this year, but I'd hope they get significant time in 2005.

In truth I'm not overly rapt with this draft. Starting at 15 we were lucky with what we got and there is always going to be the chance a late pick will be a future star. Raised the question of the father/son rule again and its' slant towards Victorian teams. I refer to Brian Peakes' son, who was picked up by Fremantle. Brian Peake played over 300 games in WA to qualify Fremantle for father/son. But Geelong were also qualified because he played over 50 games for them. And earlier Sydney took Heath James because Max played 51 games for them. He played plenty more for Port but we couldn't take him. Sounds fair? It's even possible Collingwood could have got our Warren under this rule.

[Russian]

Originally posted by mic59
I get the sickening feeling that RFK will move straight into the team and slow down another young stars' development. You're not the only one :rolleyes:

[DaveW]

Overall I think Port have done reasonably well. All four youngsters are highly rated and were regularly among those listed in phantom drafts...

I just don't understand what they see in Forster-Knight. :confused:

[_espoir]

Originally posted by DaveW
I just don't understand what they see in Forster-Knight. :confused:

*shrugs* maybe to annoy essendon a bit more..... soon we'll get the rest of the players and not have a power side but a second essendon side.



But yeah the young ones look good, needs buff up a bit. They are gonna look so small against Matty and Lade and Tredders. Good luck to them.

[Macca19]

Originally posted by mic59
Can't say I'm too pleased with Rob Forster-Knight, though. Particularly the unseemly haste with which Port picked him. I wouldn't want us to go for a recycled player, especially someone whose main skills are another tagger, until our last pick. I get the sickening feeling that RFK will move straight into the team and slow down another young stars' development.

After Guerra left, exactly what young defenders do we have on our list? Great big ZERO!! Hardwick, Monty, Kingsley and Wanganeen will be gone in 2 years time, and by then Poulton and Wilbur will be 29 and 30 and near the end. Then what? Who is gonna take over? There is noone there.

So when you say "RFK will halt another young stars development" then excuse me if I say "What young stars?"

And if he does end up in the midfield as a tagger, that just means we can use him and Cochrane as our taggers and release Cornes Carr and Cassisi to full time attacking roles - something that every Port supporter on here said they wanted to see. So again...if he ends up as a tagger...what development is he stopping? Some other attacking player being turned into a tagger and wasted?


The positive is that the selection committee have addressed the question of our aging defence in this draft. Hardwick, Monty, Gav and even Wilbur are getting on. Even Hardwick probably still has 2 years in him, but there is not much use in taking green recruits when everyone retires.

Which is why we got RFK as he will be 24 once everyone retires and reaching his prime as a footballer. Understand why we got him yet?

These young blokes can't just be shoved into a team and told to sink or swim, they have to serve their apprenticeship with experienced defenders around them. Other than Troy Chaplin there's none of the young draftees I can see playing this year, but I'd hope they get significant time in 2005.

I see Peel playing more games than Chaplin. I can see Peel having a K Cornes like first year. As for our tall recruits and Gilham...as long as Williams doesnt turn them into Thurstans and Morgan and have to wait 4 years to see them play.

[mic59]

Originally posted by Macca19
After Guerra left, exactly what young defenders do we have on our list? Great big ZERO!! Hardwick, Monty, Kingsley and Wanganeen will be gone in 2 years time, and by then Poulton and Wilbur will be 29 and 30 and near the end. Then what? Who is gonna take over? There is noone there.


What about Thurstans, Chaplin, Pettigrew, Gilham. All potential defenders.

So when you say "RFK will halt another young stars development" then excuse me if I say "What young stars?"

We'll never know if they're not given a chance. John Cahill was never conservative in who he played and look what he did for Port. I just don't want to see young players go onto the shelf because Mark Williams thinks better of a recycled player.


Which is why we got RFK as he will be 24 once everyone retires and reaching his prime as a footballer. Understand why we got him yet?

I understand the thinking. Just that I hope RFK is forced to earn his place like the others.



I see Peel playing more games than Chaplin. I can see Peel having a K Cornes like first year. As for our tall recruits and Gilham...as long as Williams doesnt turn them into Thurstans and Morgan and have to wait 4 years to see them play.

[Guardian Hawk]

To put it simply, you guys have done the best recruiting of any team considering your picks. I was looking at KPP's for Hawthorn and Chaplin, Peel and Pettigrew all looked good. Well done!

[Zombie]

Don't we have a fairly tall side now though?

Lade
Brogan
Primus
Ackland
Tredrea
Chaplin
Pettigrew
Gilham
C.Cornes
Wakelin
White
Bishop
Champion
Thurstans
Patfull

Makes 15 'talls', i'd say that was a fair few, we would also have a considerably younger side aswell.

[Russian]

Originally posted by Zombie
Don't we have a fairly tall side now though? My ideal setup would be 14 smalls and 8 talls. We have 23 smalls and 15 talls. 9 backup smalls should be enough, most of them if not all are ready for AFL football now. Champion, Patfull and Pettigrew at least aren't ready yet. I reckon we're ok

[Macca19]

Originally posted by mic59
What about Thurstans, Chaplin, Pettigrew, Gilham. All potential defenders.


All potential KEY defenders.

Rob Forster-Knight is 186cm. He isnt tall enough to play a key position.

Thurstans is 195, Chaplin 194, Pettigrew 193, Gilham 190. As you can see, they are all key defenders. The only positions RFK will be taking is off Hardwick, Monty and Gavin. So again i ask, what other small defender options do we have considering our youngest key defender turns 27 during the year?

We'll never know if they're not given a chance. John Cahill was never conservative in who he played and look what he did for Port. I just don't want to see young players go onto the shelf because Mark Williams thinks better of a recycled player.

But there are no young players to take a position away from.

RFK can be two things for us:

1) A back flanker/back pocket looking after mid sized forwards. The only positions he will be taking here are guys that are 30 years old and have 2 years max left in them.

2) A midfield tagger in the same way that Cochrane was this year. This allows Cornes, Cassisi, Carr to become attacking footballers. This I would have thought would have been a big plus.

RFK isnt a key defender and he isnt going to be taking any midfield spot of any of our key midfielders.

I cant see one player that RFK can halt the progress of by being given gametime next year, especially in defence.

Most people on here wanted Hardwick gone this year. If he did go, who would take his spot? Noone. Now we have someone that can.

I understand the thinking. Just that I hope RFK is forced to earn his place like the others

Id hope every player on our list has to earn their position. Are you saying Cochrane shouldnt have been in the side at the start of this year and should have had to have played in the SANFL first and performed at that level before being given AFL games? Id say RFK is in the same position Cochrane was in.

I must be the only person in Australia that thinks weve picked up someone that has no expectations and could thrive on that and could become a solid player for us over the next 5 years.

[PAfolwr]

I don't quite know what to make of us getting Foster-Knight, but I'm quite prepared to wait and see.

He is fro the same draft year as Koula, and Guerra.
If anything he is more a replacement for the Koula we never got to see, than Guerra as a player.

When I first saw him, I was impressed enough to think that he had a potentially great future at Essendon. Tall reasonably athletic, seemed to stick to game plan, but not exactly a "tough" type player. Not soft by any means, but not with that extra grunt that some players have.
Obviously he hasn't quite developed that far, but not having seen that many Essendon games, I have absolutely no idea why. That means I'll have to wait and see.

As far as replacing our players, I see him as a competitor to Kingsley, Poulton Cochrane Hardwick, Wilson and co (basically what some others have already said) more than the players we have been screaming to get game time.
We have a number of young talls, and also a large number of midfielders that need to be given a chance. MUST be given a chance.
We have Stevens gone now but Francou will be back so the situation hasn't really changed. Let's just hope that Choco's attitude has.

Ps I am also happy we didn't draft any so called "flashy" forwards.

[Porthos]

Macca, I only have a couple of gripes about Forster-Knight.

1. He was drafted with the pick we got for Guerra. This hurts all by itself.

2. I don't reckon we needed another mid-sized back/midfielder right now, especially if we have decided to retain Kingsley.

3. We could've got Spencer instead of Pettigrew if we'd left Forster-Knight to #46, who is probably rated ahead in development terms. Even if the Roos had gone for F-K before then, mid-sized backs were still prevalent in the draft pool.

I agree that he may turn out OK, but gee.

[Darealrath]

He's a good, solid, reliable player is RFK. He was making good progress in 2002 but then all of a sudden he was on the bench until 3 quarter for most games then back to the vfl. I have no idea why as he never seemed to make any noticeable mistakes. Just did his job. I liked the way he always looked composed.

I doubt he'll let you down, but pick 39 seems quite high for what is basically an unproven recycled player.

[PJ Power]

Originally posted by Porthos
Macca, I only have a couple of gripes about Forster-Knight.

1. He was drafted with the pick we got for Guerra. This hurts all by itself.

2. I don't reckon we needed another mid-sized back/midfielder right now, especially if we have decided to retain Kingsley.

3. We could've got Spencer instead of Pettigrew if we'd left Forster-Knight to #46, who is probably rated ahead in development terms. Even if the Roos had gone for F-K before then, mid-sized backs were still prevalent in the draft pool.

I agree that he may turn out OK, but gee.

Porthos has articulated this very well.

We are all feeling more than a bit confused about this pick-up.

Personally I see RFK as a "Cassisi-like" scenario. 4 years at a club; lots of time on the bench for an average of 7-8 games a year. Honest efforts without establishing that star quality to his game. Dom so far in three years at our club is treading a similar line, and with the potential of impressive years from Ebert and Salopek who do appear to have star quality about them, could fall further back in our standings at the end of 2004, than at the end of this year.
RFK would be serviceable at a side like Carlton, needing depth of even talent while they bide their time to create a stronger list from talented youngsters. Our time would seem to be now and we really do need to inject that Premiership-quality player to our list to give us that edge.

In defence of our recruiters, we did need a reinjection of depth following our delistings, but I would have been inclined to look for a KPP (tall defender) who could back up Wakes, Bishop and Thurstans next year, while Gilham, Chaplin and Pettigrew take time to develop; serious injury to one of the first three and we could be stuffed! Hopefully, Ackland or Brogan may be groomed as a back-up CHB over the preseason, while a strong showing by the "Great White Hope" might allow Cornesy to help down back should the need arise.

Lastly, let's not forget that Choco has done well with previously average players: Monty, Kingers, Schoey and Bishop all examples of this. Maybe his plan for RFK is more subtle than just as a back-up tagger or HBF.

Ultimately, we should give the kid a chance and if he doesn't perform, then he would not be different to so many other youngsters taken at draft-day, who despite all the potential in the world don't have what it takes.

[rubberman]

RFK sounds like a ready replacement for Guerra if he spends 3/4 on the bench and then back to the sanfl.:confused:

Not many in the AFL get a second chance after being let go. I hope that RFK realises the chance he has got and makes the most of it. May even surprise.

[Porthos]

I really wouldn't be at all surprised if Chaplin played games next year - it seems like his natural style fits Choco's `Square peg, square hole' method perfectly as a tall defender.

[PJ Power]

Given the strength of the side the last three years, we have been fairly reluctant to throw first year kids into the deep-end first up. Even a talent like Salopek was very much inched into the side in 2003, despite us starting the year with so many darn injuries.
I think of all the teams bar Brisbane, we would be the hardest side to break into for a young kid: partly because of our strong list and also because of other idiosyncrasies of our selection panel (gold-passes, easy-does-it mentality....)
It seems a catch-22. We all want young kids to get a go because it is so exciting seeing raw talent unleashed for the first time and hoping for some surprise brilliance. Paradoxically, it is the weaker teams who get to blood their youngsters first and in turn they get the best shot at proving themselves at AFL.

Of all the stuff I've read about our draftees so far, the one I'm most excited about is Luke Peel. Being "underrated" has its benefits and we have lacked a rebounding defender able to kick long distances and play with that medium-tall build (187cm).

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by PJ Power

Of all the stuff I've read about our draftees so far, the one I'm most excited about is Luke Peel. Being "underrated" has its benefits and we have lacked a rebounding defender able to kick long distances and play with that medium-tall build (187cm).

If you get a a chance to read Wisbey's profile on him you might get unexcited real fast! There's a link in the Wisbey on Chaplin thread and he's profiled all Port's recruits (bar RFK) in response to a request from Porthos. Apart from Symes, not very encouraging reading (wonder if that's a Collingwood thing ;) ). But at the end of the day it's one guy's opinion and we have to see for ourselves ... after all, last year I got excited about his description of Wade Champion as a first round young David Neitz. So far all I've seen is a tall Wade Chapman ... :(

[Eddie Woloschek]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
If you get a a chance to read Wisbey's profile on him you might get unexcited real fast! There's a link in the Wisbey on Chaplin thread and he's profiled all Port's recruits :(

Can someone pls copy these across? i can't access the hotrod board? cheers.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by Eddie Woloschek
Can someone pls copy these across? i can't access the hotrod board? cheers. Done.

[Kid Dynamite!]

Ford Fairlane is right. I got unexcited rather quickly after reading Luke's profile.

But keep in mind the kid's still young (hell even I'm older than he is!) and still has time to smooth the bumps over. I've got no doubt that being in a healthy team environment with mentors such as Tredrea, Primus and Wanganeen will help him through.

[Porthos]

To be fair though, I'd be willing to bet that Brett Montgomery's profile at age 17 would've been worse, and thats who it sounds like he's the replacement for.

(would've preferred an Archer-type replacement though..)

[Kid Dynamite!]

Would be interesting if we could dig up Monty's profile and compare the two.

[sog35]

I am ambivelent in our draft selections. Brogan will be able to help Chaplin come to terms with the differences between footy and basketball.

Charlie has only played 15 months of solid junior footy. He spoke well on the tellie as well. However the comparison of Bendigo and Adelaide was an interesting one.

Anything past 30 is a bit of luck I suppose. It'll be good to have a further injection of youth in the squad.

The thing to remember about the taller and bigger kids (and I'm one myself) is that all through junior ranks they learn bad habits due to being bigger and more able to contest. They can seem to be doing it easy and this may reflect in their match day intensity.

There is much to learn in the AFL, let's hope they can stay fit and have a good start to their careers. A free trip to NZ in your first week ain't too bad.

[sog35]

There was also an article about Pettigrew in the Sunday Mail. He was at one of the other WA Draftees places for a celebratory BBQ, but didn't drink because he ahd a program set through the off-season to be ready for the NZ trip. A good reflection on his attitude, but to be fair you would hope most of the draftees would have an self-motivated off-season program.

[Porthos]

What NZ trip is this?

[Kid Dynamite!]

Originally posted by sog35
There was also an article about Pettigrew in the Sunday Mail. He was at one of the other WA Draftees places for a celebratory BBQ, but didn't drink because he ahd a program set through the off-season to be ready for the NZ trip. A good reflection on his attitude, but to be fair you would hope most of the draftees would have an self-motivated off-season program.

I quite liked that article. It reminded me of something I once read about Tredders. I cant remember what award he won, but instead of going out on le booze he went home, couldnt sleep and went out for a 4km run.

Grover's got a good head on his shoulders it seems.

[Kid Dynamite!]

Originally posted by Porthos
What NZ trip is this?

Four day training camp in New Zealand, specifically Christchurch.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by Kid Dynamite!
Four day training camp in New Zealand, specifically Christchurch. What an odd location.

[sog35]

Sounds like a bit of a boot camp. But they get a day off for sightseeing.

And to reject all rumours, it is not a Chokers Outreach program.

[Kid Dynamite!]

When I mentioned it to my Dad (who's a Kiwi) he said 'We might teach them something'.

I cant remember what I said about the All Blacks but he's gone into hiding ;)

[sog35]

Check under the sheepskin rug.

[Kid Dynamite!]

Originally posted by sog35
And to reject all rumours, it is not a Chokers Outreach program.

But we're still going to be the butt of all jokes when everyone here finds out thats where we're going.

[Kid Dynamite!]

Originally posted by sog35
Check under the sheepskin rug.

:D

[PJ Power]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
If you get a a chance to read Wisbey's profile on him you might get unexcited real fast! There's a link in the Wisbey on Chaplin thread and he's profiled all Port's recruits (bar RFK) in response to a request from Porthos. Apart from Symes, not very encouraging reading (wonder if that's a Collingwood thing ;) ). But at the end of the day it's one guy's opinion and we have to see for ourselves ... after all, last year I got excited about his description of Wade Champion as a first round young David Neitz. So far all I've seen is a tall Wade Chapman ... :(

Bugger! Just read it.

If we can get 100 games plus at CHB and 100 games plus either in the midfield or off a HBF from this draft I would be absolutely thrilled

[Macca19]

Originally posted by PJ Power
Our time would seem to be now and we really do need to inject that Premiership-quality player to our list to give us that edge.

There is not one player available at pick 39 that would be able to inject a premiership winning edge into our side. RFK could because he already knows what to expect, hes already got the fitness base, hes already physically built up enough to play AFL and he doesnt need to be developed plus if he can perform a job as Cochrane did this year which allows other players to perform their jobs much better then its only gonna be a plus.

In defence of our recruiters, we did need a reinjection of depth following our delistings, but I would have been inclined to look for a KPP (tall defender) who could back up Wakes, Bishop and Thurstans next year, while Gilham, Chaplin and Pettigrew take time to develop;

Like who tho? There is no quality key defender that got axed by their club this year. We are looking at guys like Matthew Smith, Andrew Merrington, David Bourke. Id rather give guys like Chaplin and Pettigrew games than recruit any of these guys.

Lastly, let's not forget that Choco has done well with previously average players: Monty, Kingers, Schoey and Bishop all examples of this. Maybe his plan for RFK is more subtle than just as a back-up tagger or HBF.

Exactly. Who was Matthew Bishop when we got him in a trade? He was a struggler and hes now a solid player. If RFK can do what Bishops done then im sure everyone will be happy.

Im willing to give RFK a go and reckon he can perform a role in our side.

[sog35]

Exactly right, the last thing we want is to get all snobby about the players we select and their background. (except WWT and Richmond <--- thats for you Porthos)

Give RFK a shot, we would have been taking an equally big risk selecting an 18 year old Victorian there. I choose to ignore who we traded for that pick but.

[Vindaloo Mat]

I have no problem at all in taking RFK. Just don't understand the logic of taking him that early....should be a handy player but why not take him with our last pick...who was going to take him in the interim ?????:confused:

[sog35]

The rumour was the Roos. The point is that we would have considered whether we thought we could do any better with the pick. Obviously combined with the fact we thought the Roos were on to him as well, we took him.

I too think we may have taken him slightly early but this could have been due to the Roos and the fact some of the players we had slated for that pick never got there and the fact we must have him in mind to do a job.

[mic59]

Originally posted by sog35
..........the fact we must have him in mind to do a job.

So long as that job is to win us a flag, I won't be whining.

[Eago77]

Originally posted by Darealrath
He's a good, solid, reliable player is RFK. He was making good progress in 2002 but then all of a sudden he was on the bench until 3 quarter for most games then back to the vfl. I have no idea why as he never seemed to make any noticeable mistakes. Just did his job. I liked the way he always looked composed.

I doubt he'll let you down, but pick 39 seems quite high for what is basically an unproven recycled player.

Seems like he is a good replacement for the Guru than as he knows how to waste away on the bench:(

RFK is not a great swap for the Guru, i'm not suprised we got him, but am pretty suprised it was for 39. However, the "steals" we got in the rest of the draft make it a mute point really.

[Groove]

Originally posted by Kid Dynamite!
I quite liked that article. It reminded me of something I once read about Tredders. I cant remember what award he won, but instead of going out on le booze he went home, couldnt sleep and went out for a 4km run.

Grover's got a good head on his shoulders it seems.

it was the morning after he won the best and fairest as i remember from the port year book a couple years ago.

[Nice One]

RFK doesn't sound too bad

2002: A statistic that might surprise a few people is that Forster-Knight played 18 games in 2002. Used mainly as a link player off the bench, Forster-Knight will take confidence out of the matches he played in 2002. His work ethic was unquestionable and he was a solid contributor in every match he played. He now has 27-games under his belt and this experience will hold him in good stead for 2003.

Strengths: Forster-Knight is a player who quietly goes about his business and his work on the field can often go unnoticed. He has a tireless work ethic and is a good team player. He is always on-hand to support his teammates whether chasing, tackling or shepherding.

Position: Forster-Knight has the versatility to play in defence or in the mid-field. In the past he has been used mainly across half-back. Any move in the middle would be dictated by improvement in his disposal. This is an area Forster-Knight has been working on over the past season and has greatly improved. With the number of tall options Essendon has in defence, a mid-field tagging role could be on the agenda for Forster-Knight in 2003.

2003: 2003 presents an ideal opportunity for Forster-Knight to cement his spot in the senior line-up. He has been a link player in the past and now it is time for him to become more creative and stamp his authority in the team. If the pre-season is anything to go by, Forster-Knight has bulked up in the upper body and supporters will see a greater physical presence from him. This is a crucial season for Forster-Knight and he needs to grab hold of the opportunities that present themselves and become a consistent contributor in the senior team.







SO THEY RECKON HE HAS:
-UNQUESTIONABLE TIRELESS WORK ETHIC
-SOLID CONTRIBUTER IN EVERY MATCH (?)
-GOES QUIETLY ABOUT HIS BUSINESS
-GOOD TEAM PLAYER
-SUPPORTS TEAMMATES IN THE 1%ers
-VERSATILITY
-HAS BULKED UP (???)

[Kid Dynamite!]

Originally posted by Groove
it was the morning after he won the best and fairest as i remember from the port year book a couple years ago.

Correct. Ta for that.