Remove this Banner Ad

2011 Draft Discussion Part 3

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
POBT

POBT

Brownlow Medallist
Veteran 10k Posts Ex-Moderator Brisbane Lions - Nick Robertson Player Sponsor 2014 Brisbane Lions - Simon Black 2012 Player Sponsor
Mar 10, 2004
24,491
34,420
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
brisbane3.png





2000 posts and counting.
 
Quigley said:
Phelan saying on AFL.com that the Lions will take Longer or Tomlinson if they are there at 8. I think the Lions might have started to put it out there that they will take Longer to scare GWS away from Tomlinson. I think it works and we end up going with Tomlinson at 8 who seems like out number 1 target.
Click to expand...

I agree. GWS want both Longer and Tomlinson and will look to minimise the risk that Brisbane will take one. However, if it happens that they can only have one and not the other, you'd think that Longer is more important - for no other reason than that the pick 9-30 bracket has several KPP options but few/no ruck options. You'd have to think that the gap between Longer to Next Best Ruck is larger than Tomlinson to Next Best KPP.

The way for GWS to get both Longer and Tomlinson is to take Longer at #5 and Tomlinson at #7. While that would ordinarily play into our hands by enabling someone to slide, if we are set on Greene as our midfielder, then it might not matter hugely that a Buntine/WHE type slides.

Despite all the talk of Wingard to Port I am just no seeing it.
Click to expand...

The Wingard slide is either the classic example of groupthink or it is legitimate. To be honest, I am tending towards the latter for no other reason than all of the main media players are saying it too. It has so much momentum, even though I concede that is is counter to what Sheeds/Choco have said and done in the past with like players.

The cynic in me suggests that Hampton allows GWS to cover off any accusations that it has ignored indigenous players. The conspiracy theorist in me has Sheeds allowing the recruiters to pass over on Wingard on the condition that they pick up Manson at #14!
 
You would hope with all the ducks and drakes going on, that the Lions would have ensured they interviewed Longer recently, particularly if Tomlinson is the target.

GWS and the Lions do appear to be second guessing each other a bit, as to how to strategically set up the draft.

In an ideal world, Tomlinson would be selected at 8, and I think there will be a very good midfielder available at 12. However, it would still not surprise me to see the Lions take a midfielder at 8 if Tomlinson is gone, and then take either another midfielder or small defender at 12 as it appears the KPP stocks at this time really drop to a level where we will pick up an equivalent player at 30.

I'd then assume we take a young ruck at 47, with a mature ruck and KPP in the rookie draft.

This is a scenario I would be extremely happy with, as I don't want us reaching too early for need.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I would have no problems with taking Taylor Adams at 12.

Good attitude, hard working and a proven leader.

Would be an intersting call for the club to make if both Greene and Adams are there at 12 which is a real possibility.
 
cjwalkley said:
as it appears the KPP stocks at this time really drop to a level where we will pick up an equivalent player at 30.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. If all the draft analysis tells us anything, it is that there is no consensus among the experts and amateurs on how the KPPs are rated after Patton and Tomlinson. I've seen variously Kersten, S. Frost, McInnes, Elton etc all rated on the next line but with a fair bit of disparity between different people on how highly they will go. To me, the order of the KPPs is absolute guesswork at the moment. Even on BigFooty, there is no single point of view which is unusual this close to the draft.

I am guessing that the Lions traded into the top 12 because they rated a single KPP higher than the next best. Big assumption, I know. If that is the case, then it would seem likely that Tomlinson is that KPP, with the fairly strong reports linking him to the Lions. If we miss Tomlinson, it does seem counter-intuitive that we'd just go with the next best KPP.

I suspect Voss's reference to contingency plans is working out the options if Tomlinson is off the table at pick 8.

Of course, it is also entirely possible that I've made a case out of the flimsy evidence available!!!
 
think that the above posts show that there is no firm direction on who we will take. When one of the better draft commentators throws up that many names, it shows you that who we get will almost be a lottery right up until the names get called out. Even Hadley won't really know until then due to all the possible scenarios that GWS could force via their selections.

Most wide open draft order in quite a while I would imagine.
 
POBT said:
This is a good point. If all the draft analysis tells us anything, it is that there is no consensus among the experts and amateurs on how the KPPs are rated after Patton and Tomlinson. I've seen variously Kersten, S. Frost, McInnes, Elton etc all rated on the next line but with a fair bit of disparity between different people on how highly they will go. To me, the order of the KPPs is absolute guesswork at the moment. Even on BigFooty, there is no single point of view which is unusual this close to the draft.

I am guessing that the Lions traded into the top 12 because they rated a single KPP higher than the next best. Big assumption, I know. If that is the case, then it would seem likely that Tomlinson is that KPP, with the fairly strong reports linking him to the Lions. If we miss Tomlinson, it does seem counter-intuitive that we'd just go with the next best KPP.

I suspect Voss's reference to contingency plans is working out the options if Tomlinson is off the table at pick 8.

Of course, it is also entirely possible that I've made a case out of the flimsy evidence available!!!
Click to expand...

I think we trade up just to give us more options. If you believe what you hear around the traps - we only rated two KPP in the top 20 or so - being Patton and Tomlinson. Wingard is the interesting one in the draft. He looks like he could be the big slider - how far - who knows? In relation to to EQ's mail, IIRC she had has taking Heppel last year, right up until draft day - even though it was widely accepted that we had overlooked him in favour of Polec. She does a great job but I'm not sure how good her contacts are at Brisbane. Interesting few days ahead. Would love Tyson or Buntine to be this years Rich - can't see it happening though.
 
Fatcat08 said:
think that the above posts show that there is no firm direction on who we will take.
Click to expand...

I reckon we have our direction and order of preference pretty well decided. That we are linked to so many names is probably more a sign that our recruiters are disseminating a bit of misinformation to confuse the GWS recruitment machine.
 
IIRC it was only about a week out last year we even heard Reece Conca's name linked to Richmond - and even later than that anyone bar Heppell was linked to your pick.

They're probably still shaking down the market, sorting out what you can still get at the 2nd, 3rd etc picks.
 
Does anyone rate Bolger? I think he's great mind you highlights aren't the best thing to go by. I'd go as far as saying he'll turnout better than longer, anyone want to bet?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I will bet $25.

at the end of their careers I expect my money:p
Click to expand...

Whoever loses, the guy who wins gets to change the losers signature for a year, lets say whoever has a better 2012 season?
 
POBT said:
GWS want both Longer and Tomlinson and will look to minimise the risk that Brisbane will take one. However, if it happens that they can only have one and not the other, you'd think that Longer is more important - for no other reason than that the pick 9-30 bracket has several KPP options but few/no ruck options. You'd have to think that the gap between Longer to Next Best Ruck is larger than Tomlinson to Next Best KPP.

The way for GWS to get both Longer and Tomlinson is to take Longer at #5 and Tomlinson at #7. While that would ordinarily play into our hands by enabling someone to slide, if we are set on Greene as our midfielder, then it might not matter hugely that a Buntine/WHE type slides.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
I think GWS have basically locked WHE & Buntine into their top 5. So it will be one of Longer or Tomlinson at 8. I believe that if the opportunity to draft Longer comes up. Hadley would take it, he is a blue chip ruck prospect and our ruck stocks are low. While it is probably our preference to draft a mature age ruck later in the draft, Longer is too good to let slide as he would fill a need in our list. GWS's list indicates that they do need a ruckman, so it will be a tough choice for GWS about which one they will miss out on, and the above post points out they are a better chance of getting a decent KPP than a ruckman in this draft so the way I see it....
Pick 8 - Tomlinson
Pick 12 - Greene
 
cmt26 said:
Spot on.
I think GWS have basically locked WHE & Buntine into their top 5. So it will be one of Longer or Tomlinson at 8. I believe that if the opportunity to draft Longer comes up. Hadley would take it, he is a blue chip ruck prospect and our ruck stocks are low. While it is probably our preference to draft a mature age ruck later in the draft, Longer is too good to let slide as he would fill a need in our list. GWS's list indicates that they do need a ruckman, so it will be a tough choice for GWS about which one they will miss out on, and the above post points out they are a better chance of getting a decent KPP than a ruckman in this draft so the way I see it....
Pick 8 - Tomlinson
Pick 12 - Greene
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if WHE and Buntine went top 5, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. I know that their stocks on BigFooty have soared from 10-15 to 5-10 to top5, but GWS recruiters likely don't listen to the hyping up - focus on what they know, and with a solid midfield already, what will work well with that midfield. If they take Tomlinson (a big if IMO) or their recruiters prefer a different midfielder, they have to let one of WHE, Buntine, Longer or Wingard slide - just a matter of who.

I think there's going to be a couple of top 14 sliders, and a couple of bolters that we won't expect... will be very interesting come Thursday.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Frothing over the ruck duo of Luey and longer if we do pick him up. Also longer is a good 5 years younger than Luey so when Luey retires, hopefully not before another 7 years, we will still be set for a main ruckman . This is quite long term thinking though and relies on longer not asking for a trade due to a lack of opportunities :/
 
BlairForceOne said:
Frothing over the ruck duo of Luey and longer if we do pick him up. Also longer is a good 5 years younger than Luey so when Luey retires, hopefully not before another 7 years, we will still be set for a main ruckman . This is quite long term thinking though and relies on longer not asking for a trade due to a lack of opportunities :/
Click to expand...

I think if Gubby gets his way on some of the players drafted, Longer available at 8 and Tomlinson will go at 7. He's so arrogant that he will be certain we won't take Longer. As much as I'd love to see us stuff around GWS' plans a bit, much rather a ruck at 30 or 47 considering how Wood, Spanderman and Clark have turned out.
 
The Longer debate remains unresolved!

I can see the logic in drafting Longer if he will be a genuine tall forward option and 2nd ruck.

But if he's a 1st string ruck and an occasional forward only, then I don't see the logic in getting him. If footy cycles back to having 2 genuine rucks in the side, then maybe (even then, I think it is overkill). But sides can very rarely carry 2 ruckmen in their side.
 
POBT said:
The Longer debate remains unresolved!

I can see the logic in drafting Longer if he will be a genuine tall forward option and 2nd ruck.

But if he's a 1st string ruck and an occasional forward only, then I don't see the logic in getting him. If footy cycles back to having 2 genuine rucks in the side, then maybe (even then, I think it is overkill). But sides can very rarely carry 2 ruckmen in their side.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I made in the other thread. He goes alright up forward, but he is still a #1 ruck. I don't think we could get the most out of him splitting time with bergs. We need a forward that can ruck, not a ruck that can play forward. I'd rather us go after mids if our KPP option is gone. I still think we have 1 player targeted, and if we don't get them we go after best available, not next best KPP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top