News 2019 Rumour File - discuss rumours here! (Part 2)

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Just went and looked at the HT and WT for DS, DM and JK.
All are 183cms. tall. DM weighed 73kgs when drafted now 78. JK weighs 82kgs. DS weighs 74 kgs now.

So all the same height and DS will end up around 80 kgs. Speed wise they're are all around the same mark.

What this all means is they're similar in build.
 
Not really, both are skinny as hell. Both are reasonably fast. Dmac has played over 200 games, some say he was lucky. Let's call it 150 games then over many years. Would you be happy if pick 6* was only equal to that standard? I want more than that from an outside mid.
Yes Stephens will bulk up a little but like Dmac will never be a brute.

Dmac isn’t fast, that’s a myth. He’s looked fast when he receives at full pace from a stoppage type situ and everyone else is largely stationary. He never runs anyone down and never bursts away from a chaser. The fast myth was busted at the same time as the elite run and carry and elite disposal fabrications were put to bed.
 
Dmac isn’t fast, that’s a myth. He’s looked fast when he receives at full pace from a stoppage type situ and everyone else is largely stationary. He never runs anyone down and never bursts away from a chaser. The fast myth was busted at the same time as the elite run and carry and elite disposal fabrications were put to bed.

Compared to me he's fast.
 
Not really, both are skinny as hell. Both are reasonably fast. Dmac has played over 200 games, some say he was lucky. Let's call it 150 games then over many years. Would you be happy if pick 6* was only equal to that standard? I want more than that from an outside mid.
Yes Stephens will bulk up a little but like Dmac will never be a brute.

Mackays issues are all upstairs, not body.

The classic 100% athlete, and 0% footballer.

By virtue of Stevens having the pedigree of a first round pick, you can almost be guaranteed he won't face the same issues. He wouldn't even be in the conversation if so.
 
If we get one of Flanders, McAsey, Young or Kemp at 6 I'll be very happy...until I realise we missed out on the other 3
 
Drafting for needs in the 1st round is a fools game.

Not really. Your needs dictate the path a pick will take, and there are times where the best available isn't the best choice. Take KPFs right now, it's a mess with 2 forwards who are all but guaranteed 22 games in Tex/Lynch, Fogarty who should get 22 games and Himmelberg/Frampton who would also quite likely need to force their way into that mess just to have a second ruck. That doesn't clear up for a few years yet, so adding a KPF right now would just be a poor use of resources, even if the best player available is one.

You don't draft specifically for needs, but you don't ignore needs. There must always be that easy path.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Not really. Your needs dictate the path a pick will take, and there are times where the best available isn't the best choice. Take KPFs right now, it's a mess with 2 forwards who are all but guaranteed 22 games in Tex/Lynch, Fogarty who should get 22 games and Himmelberg/Frampton who would also quite likely need to force their way into that mess just to have a second ruck. That doesn't clear up for a few years yet, so adding a KPF right now would just be a poor use of resources, even if the best player available is one.

You don't draft specifically for needs, but you don't ignore needs. There must always be that easy path.

That’s not drafting into areas of abundance though. I agree with that, I’d go 1 down to not add to an area where the kid would need multiple injuries to get a crack in the next couple of seasons. A good club would have traded Lynch after signing Jenkins, only 1 pressureless, downhill skier can play alongside Tex when things aren’t going our way.
 
If we get one of Flanders, McAsey, Young or Kemp at 6 I'll be very happy...until I realise we missed out on the other 3
Hey, we have 6 picks...
 
Not really. Your needs dictate the path a pick will take, and there are times where the best available isn't the best choice. Take KPFs right now, it's a mess with 2 forwards who are all but guaranteed 22 games in Tex/Lynch, Fogarty who should get 22 games and Himmelberg/Frampton who would also quite likely need to force their way into that mess just to have a second ruck. That doesn't clear up for a few years yet, so adding a KPF right now would just be a poor use of resources, even if the best player available is one.

You don't draft specifically for needs, but you don't ignore needs. There must always be that easy path.
So you are in the "Sorry Jack, I know you want to come back to the Crows from GC, but our forward line is full right now" camp
 
Regardless of what you think of him.... he's played 200 more AFL games than anyone in here.

And probably had more impact than anyone on here would have in about 5 of them.

I'm sure he's a lovely bloke and the bestest trainer ever but its an indictment on the AFC and its selection policies that he made it past 50.
 
Not really. Your needs dictate the path a pick will take, and there are times where the best available isn't the best choice. Take KPFs right now, it's a mess with 2 forwards who are all but guaranteed 22 games in Tex/Lynch, Fogarty who should get 22 games and Himmelberg/Frampton who would also quite likely need to force their way into that mess just to have a second ruck. That doesn't clear up for a few years yet, so adding a KPF right now would just be a poor use of resources, even if the best player available is one.

You don't draft specifically for needs, but you don't ignore needs. There must always be that easy path.
I wouldn't say KPF's are not a need for us atm. Tex and Lynch are getting towards the back end of their careers and there are no guarantees any of Fogarty, Himmelberg or Frampton make it. My gut feel is that Fog will eventually but I'm pretty doubtful about Berg and Frampton.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top