Michael Hurley - FWIW

[scooter600x]

For whatever you think this is worth ...

I was speaking to a member of the Northern Knights coaching staff who told me that he would normally see someone from Port maybe 5 or 6 times a year and Mark Williams himself once perhaps.

This year Port have had someone at Knights games nearly every week and he says Williams would have been there "half a dozen" times at least.

 

[PJ Power]

I've seen buggerall of Hurley, but the concept of us picking up a key position player with pick 4 is one that I favour strongly.

Sure go for the best available, but if there's a bee's dick between Hurley, Vickery and Ziebell in ability, I know which way I'd be leaning.

 

[240volt]

Big Body, 192 cm 92kg can play forward or back....that's hard to pass up unless there is another Judd in the draft.

 

[eathb]

I'm hoping for Tyrone.

 

[240volt]

I'm hoping for Tyrone.

Its a bit like Willy Wonker's chocolate Factory.....It all looks good

 

[Worm4]

For whatever you think this is worth ...

I was speaking to a member of the Northern Knights coaching staff who told me that he would normally see someone from Port maybe 5 or 6 times a year and Mark Williams himself once perhaps.

This year Port have had someone at Knights games nearly every week and he says Williams would have been there "half a dozen" times at least.

This is true. He has been told by Port staff that if they still have pick 4 by the end of the week, and if Mick Hurley is still available, that his name will be read out.

 

[FishingRick04]

This is true. He has been told by Port staff that if they still have pick 4 by the end of the week, and if Mick Hurley is still available, that his name will be read out.

Salter is 191cm? I remember it being said he isn't tall enough for a KPP in our forward line and Hurley's height is 192?

Assuming that is right where would Hurley play if 192 isn't big enough on those terms to be a KPP and supposably he isn't fast enough to play on a flank eg Pettigrew is 193 but fast?

Personally I don't know enough but just trying to draw correlations that's all.

This is one confusing draft?

 

[eathb]

did anyone see channel 9 sports news?

something mentioning that the Power will pickup Tyrone Vickery with #4?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Yeah that was pretty much it. They don't see any of the ruckmen being waved around - McIntosh, Seaby, Taylor, Warnock - heading to Port, so the draft pick will be kept and spent on Tyrone was 9's call.

 

[Power King]

**** getting a midfielder.

Get a KP forward or a ruckman and set up our future please.

 

[PAFC_1]

No, you get the best damn player you can get 1st round.

If Rich fell, and we overlooked him, Port would have hell to pay from me.

 

[Power King]

^Say rich was at #4, and watts at #6 (hypothetically speaking).

Who would you get?

 

[TheFridge]

^Say rich was at #4, and watts at #6 (hypothetically speaking).

Who would you get?

The one I thought was better and more likely to make it at AFL level...

To be fair, I personally haven't seen anywhere near as much of either player to make that judgement. However, based on all reportd, if somehow both Rich and Watts slipped to pick 4, I'd be stoked!

 

[Peninsula Boy]

**** getting a midfielder.

Get a KP forward or a ruckman and set up our future please.

Im with you, man.

We need a KPP forward/backman so badly like most of the comp.

 

[Power King]

The one I thought was better and more likely to make it at AFL level...

To be fair, I personally haven't seen anywhere near as much of either player to make that judgement. However, based on all reportd, if somehow both Rich and Watts slipped to pick 4, I'd be stoked!

My point is that if we had to choose between a gun midfielder and a gun key forward, at similar ranks in the draft, TAKE THE GUN KEY FORWARD!

It's simple really.

Think of the number of gun midfielders in the comp, and think about how many of them haven't been first round draft picks. Quite a few.

Now think about the number of gun key forwards in the comp. Far lower. Far, far lower. Now think of the number of gun key forwards who weren't first round draft picks...

 

[Black 18]

My point is that if we had to choose between a gun midfielder and a gun key forward, at similar ranks in the draft, TAKE THE GUN KEY FORWARD!

It's simple really.

Think of the number of gun midfielders in the comp, and think about how many of them haven't been first round draft picks. Quite a few.

Now think about the number of gun key forwards in the comp. Far lower. Far, far lower. Now think of the number of gun key forwards who weren't first round draft picks...

Who are the "gun" key forwards in this years draft?

 

[PAFC_1]

^Say rich was at #4, and watts at #6 (hypothetically speaking).

Who would you get?

Well clearly that won't happen so its irrelevant.

The top 3 are obviously considered standouts, 1 of which is a midfielder.

If he slipped to 4, I guarantee you Choco would be licking his lips.

 

[TheFridge]

My point is that if we had to choose between a gun midfielder and a gun key forward, at similar ranks in the draft, TAKE THE GUN KEY FORWARD!

It's simple really.

Think of the number of gun midfielders in the comp, and think about how many of them haven't been first round draft picks. Quite a few.

Now think about the number of gun key forwards in the comp. Far lower. Far, far lower. Now think of the number of gun key forwards who weren't first round draft picks...

Good logic train, PK! It is a fairly persuasive argument.

Of course, gun KPPs have a habit of being much rarer beasts than gun midfielders... Interestingly, Mike Sheahan lists only 9 in his top 50 for 2008 - Franklin, Fevola, Richardson, Pavlich, Riewoldt, Brown, Bradshaw, Petrie and Roughhead.

Of those - 4 were drafted with first round picks, 3 were drafted from outside the first round and two were father/son picks....

The other aspect to consider is the strike rate with young KPP draftees vs young midfield draftees. A subjective and quick review of the top 10s from the 2001 - 2004 drafts (post 2005 is too soon for judgements on the KPPs taken IMO) suggests only 3 of the 7 (43%) KPP prospects taken with top 10 picks have "made it", whereas 17 of the 28 (61%) of midfield prospects taken have "made it".

Definitely if we are truly desperate for a KPP forward and are prepared to roll the dice with the pick then there are advantages with taking a KPP prospect.

However, I think it highly optimistic to assume that if we use pick 4 on a KPP then we will automatically gain a true future Tredrea replacement.

Personally, I think we have some prospects in train for a functioning forward line post Tredrea, such as Westhoff Mks 1 & 2 and Lobbe along with Chad, so our position is not as dire as some would make it out to be. Rather, I would rather we select the guy we believe most likely to become a 200 game star, irrespective of the position they play.

Perhaps the analogy that suits my position is that of the West Coast Eagles in 2001. They definitely needed a KPP forward and had with pick three the choice of Graham Polak or Chris Judd.... Who should they have taken?

 

[TheFridge]

Well clearly that won't happen so its irrelevant.

The top 3 are obviously considered standouts, 1 of which is a midfielder.

If he slipped to 4, I guarantee you Choco would be licking his lips.

It is interesting to ponder though what might happen should Melbourne go against conventional wisdom and not select Jack Watts with pick 1....

 

[Peninsula Boy]

Good logic train, PK! It is a fairly persuasive argument.

Of course, gun KPPs have a habit of being much rarer beasts than gun midfielders... Interestingly, Mike Sheahan lists only 9 in his top 50 for 2008 - Franklin, Fevola, Richardson, Pavlich, Riewoldt, Brown, Bradshaw, Petrie and Roughhead.

Of those - 4 were drafted with first round picks, 3 were drafted from outside the first round and two were father/son picks....

The other aspect to consider is the strike rate with young KPP draftees vs young midfield draftees. A subjective and quick review of the top 10s from the 2001 - 2004 drafts (post 2005 is too soon for judgements on the KPPs taken IMO) suggests only 3 of the 7 (43%) KPP prospects taken with top 10 picks have "made it", whereas 17 of the 28 (61%) of midfield prospects taken have "made it".

Definitely if we are truly desperate for a KPP forward and are prepared to roll the dice with the pick then there are advantages with taking a KPP prospect.

However, I think it highly optimistic to assume that if we use pick 4 on a KPP then we will automatically gain a true future Tredrea replacement.

Personally, I think we have some prospects in train for a functioning forward line post Tredrea, such as Westhoff Mks 1 & 2 and Lobbe along with Chad, so our position is not as dire as some would make it out to be. Rather, I would rather we select the guy we believe most likely to become a 200 game star, irrespective of the position they play.

Perhaps the analogy that suits my position is that of the West Coast Eagles in 2001. They definitely needed a KPP forward and had with pick three the choice of Graham Polak or Chris Judd.... Who should they have taken?

Of course but one could site the Delideo/Tambling versus Roughhead/Franklin. YOu even throw in Griffin and you'd still take the tall forwards any day of the week.

Its a gamble but taking a KPP, if you get it right, really reaps the big rewards.

 

[TheFridge]

Of course but one could site the Delideo/Tambling versus Roughhead/Franklin. YOu even throw in Griffin and you'd still take the tall forwards any day of the week.

Its a gamble but taking a KPP, if you get it right, really reaps the big rewards.

Totally agree. Although, I'd be happy enough with Deledio or Griffen, and Tambling may yet prove his detractors wrong. I cited the 01 example based on the perceptions of available players at the time - most considered Judd to be a better prospect than Polak, but Polak was a KPP. The 04 draft prospects were a bit different, with the top five quite unclear coming into the draft although most agreed with the top two being Deledio and Roughead.

The bit I can't work out this year is who are the Roughhead or Franklin equivalents - both were highly regarded KPP forwards coming into the draft. This years draft seems to be tall but unstructured tall with no clear standout KPP forwards.

Watts is obviously the most highly rated of the lot and I've heard him likened to a Riewoldt type player, but the rest seem to be a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Hurley and Vickery might be forwards, but might not... Of this years draft, based only on second hand reports it would seem that Rich is the most likely star of the lot, and Watts is the most likely KPP forward (albeit with a few more reservations about him than Rich). Naitanui is more of the x factor who could be anything.

My concern/hope is that whoever we get with our first pick, they will be good, very good. This outcome to me is more important than there position on the ground. Of course, if there is a chance to fit the need with a likely star then that is the ideal.

 

[HBF]

Big Body, 192 cm 92kg can play forward or back....that's hard to pass up unless there is another Judd in the draft.

Which there's not.
Seen quite a bit of Hurley, and boy can he play. Mainly plays at CHB for the Knighs, but I reckon the best game I have seen him play was at CHF, when he kicked 8. Reads the ball well, and his attack on the contest is just ferocious. I'm really hoping he slips to 6.

 

[Portmanteau]

Change thread title to Michael Hurley - FTW.

 

[morell]

Which there's not.
Seen quite a bit of Hurley, and boy can he play. Mainly plays at CHB for the Knighs, but I reckon the best game I have seen him play was at CHF, when he kicked 8. Reads the ball well, and his attack on the contest is just ferocious. I'm really hoping he slips to 6.

 

[Power King]

^LOL

good posts fridge


black18... obviously none of them can be conisdered guns as of yet, however the key forward prospects have been well documented...

I still have my doubts over our forward line.

Once tredrea is gone, the structure will momentarily crumble in my opinion.

Chad can play down there as a key forward and has good marking abilities, but his set shots are probably the only weakness in his game, and not only this, but I think it's just a reality that choco won't be playing chad as a key forward as part of any permanent game plan. JW doesn't look like being visible from side-on for maybe 3 more years. Same goes for Matt Westhoff, regardless of his abilities (haven't seen enough of him, but key forwards need a physical base to lay the foundation for being dominant). Salter, needs blooding, we'll see how it goes. Lobbe is a really interesting one. I have no idea if the club is looking at him to develop into a ruckman, or into a key forward. We should try and look at drafting whatever the club -doesnt- believe he will develop into. I just hope that lobbe doesn't turn into someone like kozi from the saints, who is a half good ruckman, and a half good forward, but not a gun at either position. Would rather someone either be a gun ruckman, OR a gun forward.