Overall Draft Thoughts?

[Crusty Demon]

I missed the draft last night due to a date with Metallica! So woke up this morning to find out who the new draftees are.

Firstly, I'm not going to question our draftees ability. We haven't seen them play as men against men in the AFL format. So for anyone to have a swipe at any of the draftees, is rediculous.

However, i feel we missed an opportunity last night. Atley sliding to 17 was a massive surprise to me. And personally, i feel we should have selected him with pick 12. I know we have a number of great prospects in the midfield, but this kid can play and would have added further depth to what could be an amazing midfield in a few years time.

This might have meant we missed out on Cook, but Mitchell would have been available with our second pick(maybe Cook as well), and he fits in with what we need. By all reports, he won't take years of bulking up like Cook, and could be ready to go sometime next year! It was also a surprise to see Howe's name called so early. As exciting as he looks, I'm sure he would have been available at our 3rd pick. Which meant we could have drafted Davis with our last.

What's people's thoughts? Very surprised we went with 4 talls. Even more surprised we(along with many others) let Atley slide. Cook looks like a good long term prospect, but i feel the Atley/Mitchell combo with Howe/Davis would have had me more excited. Seemed we pulled the trigger a little early on our first two picks....

 

[The Dr]

I missed the draft last night due to a date with Metallica! So woke up this morning to find out who the new draftees are.

Firstly, I'm not going to question our draftees ability. We haven't seen them play as men against men in the AFL format. So for anyone to have a swipe at any of the draftees, is rediculous.

However, i feel we missed an opportunity last night. Atley sliding to 17 was a massive surprise to me. And personally, i feel we should have selected him with pick 12. I know we have a number of great prospects in the midfield, but this kid can play and would have added further depth to what could be an amazing midfield in a few years time.

This might have meant we missed out on Cook, but Mitchell would have been available with our second pick(maybe Cook as well), and he fits in with what we need. By all reports, he won't take years of bulking up like Cook, and could be ready to go sometime next year! It was also a surprise to see Howe's name called so early. As exciting as he looks, I'm sure he would have been available at our 3rd pick. Which meant we could have drafted Davis with our last.

What's people's thoughts? Very surprised we went with 4 talls. Even more surprised we(along with many others) let Atley slide. Cook looks like a good long term prospect, but i feel the Atley/Mitchell combo with Howe/Davis would have had me more excited. Seemed we pulled the trigger a little early on our first two picks....

Must admit I agree with most of your thoughts. I seriously can't believe Atley lasted until then. I've seen him play multiple times in the flesh and all I can say is he is a certified gun in the making, and a great kid too. I think the Age's Emma Quayle rated him her no.4 or 5 best in the draft.

But I can see the footy dept being torn when it came to our pick with him still available. We've loaded up with mids in last year's draft, and we've got young Viney coming in the next one, so maybe they went for a calculated gamble with this draft and went tall.

Maybe a fair gamble, but I'll shed a tear when Atley starts dominating in future years.

Howe's the other interesting one. Can't wait to see how he goes, but he's only a mid sized forward and I think that's one area we've already got a lot of options. Still, I'm sure the footy dept knows much, much more than the rest of us.

 

[New Order]

I tend to agree as well. Cook looks very skinny and is only 196. Seem he can take a grab though. Howe is 192. 6'3" in the old money. A pretty handy size for someone with his leap. He looks pretty vigorous too and certainly knows where the goals are. His highlight reel is very impressive. Very Royce Hart like, that grab he takes with his stops in his opponent's chest. The other two are an unknown quantity. Here's hoping the FD know what they're on about.

 

[RandB]

I've had similar thoughts, this draft seems to be not very satisfying but I tell myself that perhaps this is the draft we had to have and drafts are not there for the satisfaction of footy supporters.

Cook @ 12 perhaps is a bit early but if the club didn't see him available at the next pick and saw him as a crucial acquisition then I'll take a little kick to get the job done.

We obviously went tall and I take BP's comments of best available with a grain of salt but really we have achieved a certain level of redundancy with these picks and it remains to be seen how Bailey will use them. 190cm+ forwards and defenders who may be used as utilities with good speed sounds promising to me - think of the forward defensive zones we could set up with some of these guys.

I think it pays to be philosophical here and say this is a sign of progress - to see it the other way is a little off putting. We've had the good drafts of flashy big names, now comes the consolidation.

One thing for sure is that the players we have drafted won't be added to a queue but will be given a great opportunity to develop. Our FD can only develop so many mids at 1 time or it becomes less than optimal. Mahoney now has his hands full which is a good thing and with Davis (who I think could be a great get) our defence has some much needed versatility. We could have continued our mid depth like North did but I think we showed a bit of common sense here, they have their eggs in one basket IMO and a massive job of developing them all together. We have taken a breather with the current batch and can reload next year once we have more insight on the progress of the current batch.

The way we have gone about this (for me) mimics a premierleague team. We have depth or interchangeable components all across the ground now. Going forward with the sub rule it isn't just going to be about in game tactics but also week to week management of the list. Footy from now on will be flat chat all over the ground so redundancy will be very important.

If it gets to the point where we could almost play 2 different sides of a competent standard across the board then that holds us in good stead. Obviously put these players together and we still have a lot of cream to chose from for best 22 (or 21 + sub or whatever...).

There's still the rookie draft to come where we may snare a promising mid or 2 for the long term.

 

[cannons]

To be honest, Cook wasn't really the forward I wanted at 12, but when I consider how he and Howe will fit into out forward line, I think it was a good move.

Bailey seems to be attempting to build a forward line characterised by a combination of height, athleticism and dynamism, so in that sense, I think both of our first two selections will be very suitable and worthy additions. When I think of how guys like Petterd, Howe, Cook, Watts, Aussie, Jurrah, Tapscott, Sylvia etc. will gel together in the one forward line, we should become exceedingly difficult to match up in the future. Moreover, considering that we are trying to implement a fast moving gameplan involving plenty of quick ball movement and run/carry, a highly athletic forward line seems to be the right direction to take.

Also, on the 'we should've taken Atley' talk, I'm not really going to comment because I'm not really in the strongest position to do so. I mean, the FD knows a lot more than I do, and there's likely to be a reason as to why Atley ended up sliding.

 

[bing181]

Just re Howe, he was starting to pop up on various boards here, and he'd apparently been invited up to train with Collingwood. Seems to have been a bit of (late) interest from a few clubs, in which case, doubtful he would have lasted till 50.

Overall, it also appears that in drafting players with good endurance, the club has done their homework re the new interchange rules, which shift the goalposts re "best available" somewhat.

Having had a day to get used to it, I'm happy with the direction we took. Welcome to the Dees guys!

 

[DemonBlood]

One way to think of it is this maybe..
HF Pettard Watts(Tall and Agile) Howe(Tall, Agile, big leap)
F Wonnaemirri(Crumber) Cook(Tall and has dukes) Jurrah(X Factor)

This is potent. How hard is it for teams to find a matchup for Jurrah?
If Howe comes along he is pretty much again like Jurrah so more pressure added. Also Cook 196 can have height and reach advantage. Watts plays traditional Centre Half Forward where he leads up field, creats space and controls the centre. Good move by Melbourne, we could of picked Mitchell or Darling but Cook has more upside. Obviously Sylvia will be moved in the midfield/wing area. Green most likely take a spot on the bench and rotate or he starts and rotates via Pettard or Howe..

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Some good posts in here guys. Don't have anything to add myself, just liking the discussion and agreeing with the last three or four posts whole-heartedly.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Regards DemonBlood's hypothetical fwd line, I start to worry about Dunn and Green, but maybe Green will be a less important part of our fwd line by the time Cook is up and about.

I think Dunn's forward pressure and (recent) ability to kick big goals from 50+ is not trivial.

 

[Rudeurrection]

To be perfectly honest, very disappointed.

Cook - Sure he is a tall forward but we need a guy who is big and strong. Looking at his frame i find it almost impossible that he will develop into the type of forward we really need. I'm not even sure he will even become a regular player for us in the future. (Gold Coast choosing Lynch at 11 really killed us). We took Cook way way way too early IMO. I would have rathered us taken the best player available here, Jacobs (to release Grimes into the midfield) Atley (you can never have enough quality mids) Smedts, Smith or even Lamb. Hell, i would have even rather have taken a risk with Darling here as he is much more the type of forward (strong/aggressive) we need. To me it seems Prendagast was so set on our needs that we lacked any sort of flexibility on the night.

I'm happy with the risk we took on Howe with our second rounder, he is a mature age recruit who has come on in the past few years (albeit at an inferior level). Nothing to lose really, he's a full forward and that's what we need.

Davis, McDonald - meh. If one of them turns into a 100 gamer ill be very happy. They may have upside but I'm not expecting much.

I was going to raise this point in a thread of its own but i may as well do it here. The AFL really need to consider draft night trades ala in the NBA and NFL. For our club to take Cook at 12 was insane. While watching the coverage, it was pretty obvious to me that all the clubs knew what they were doing in the first round as the picks were read out instantaneous.
If we had an NBA type structure in the AFL:

1)Melbourne want Cook but don't think he is worth pick 12.
2)Melbourne discuss a possible trade/downgrade of picks with other clubs
3)Melbourne agree to a trade, lets just say it was Sydney in last nights draft. Sydney swap their first rounder and a second rounder for our first rounder. Paper work is lodge with the AFL before the draft stating this is the deal. (Future picks should also be able to be offered)
4)Melbourne select the player Sydney want at pick 12.
5)Sydney select the player (Cook) Melbourne want at pick 21.
6)Sydney select a player under Melbourne's instructions in round 2.
7)At the end of the night trade deals are announced.

Seems ridiculous in modern day footy that we haven't got something like this in place. Down grading and upgrading picks allows recruiters (if they have done their homework correctly) to cash in big time.

Maybe i will be proven wrong about Cook, but if a structure such as above was in place i know we could have used it and got what i consider true value for pick 12.

 

[Dez!]

People seem to be forgetting that people can add muscle and even the scrawniest bodies at 18 can be man-children at 21.

Frawley was almost a rake when we got him from what I remember and now look at him.

 

[Rudeurrection]

People seem to be forgetting that people can add muscle and even the scrawniest bodies at 18 can be man-children at 21.

Frawley was almost a rake when we got him from what I remember and now look at him.

Have to disagree Dez.

Frawley always had the wide shoulders, his body was always going to put the muscle on.

Cook is in the Watts, maybe even Morton mould sadly.

 

[KickLongTackleHard]

Rude, in your draft day trading hypothetical, what happens if Cook is taken before Sydneys pick at 21? How does it work in the NBA?

 

[Rudeurrection]

Rude, in your draft day trading hypothetical, what happens if Cook is taken before Sydneys pick at 21? How does it work in the NBA?

The recruiters from the NBA ask around before agreeing to a trade. They pretty much know exactly what players a team is looking at and where the player they want will get through too.

Lets just say North were interested in Cook as reported at pick 17. We know there is a chance Cook will be gone by pick 17 so we try and deal with North first. If we cant come to an agreement with North we then try and deal with Port at pick 16 and so on.

In the NBA the deal doesnt have to be done before the picks take place (although it usually is) you can draft the best player available, even if you have plenty in that particular position. Infact, lets just say we drafted Atley at 12, teams would recognise that we have plenty of young talented mid's therefor increasing their interest in Atley (as we cant fit all of them in one team). We may have 5 clubs come to us and offer a deal for Atley, we can then choose the best one.

On the flip side we could have tried upgrading for Lynch at pick 11 with the GC. In the NBA, players and draft picks can be involved in draft night trades. We could have offered GC our pick 12 and a player on our list to secure Lynch.

It adds to the intrigue of the night, heaps more strategy involved and better viewing.

 

[RandB]

In the NBA the deal doesnt have to be done before the picks take place (although it usually is) you can draft the best player available, even if you have plenty in that particular position. Infact, lets just say we drafted Atley at 12, teams would recognise that we have plenty of young talented mid's therefor increasing their interest in Atley (as we cant fit all of them in one team). We may have 5 clubs come to us and offer a deal for Atley, we can then choose the best one.

What if nobody comes to the table as a deliberate tactic to leave us landed with a player we didn't necessarily want (apart from flogging off to the highest bidder) or the best offer is inadequate?

On the flip side we could have tried upgrading for Lynch at pick 11 with the GC. In the NBA, players and draft picks can be involved in draft night trades. We could have offered GC our pick 12 and a player on our list to secure Lynch.

It would be nice to have Lynch but I can't help but think this system really favours the teams with better picks to work with leaving teams with their first pick in the 20s at a disadvantage.

I think the idea of trading picks before the draft isn't so bad Rude but not players after the draft, the yanks can keep that idea - against the spirit of the draft IMO.

 

[Rudeurrection]

What if nobody comes to the table as a deliberate tactic to leave us landed with a player we didn't necessarily want (apart from flogging off to the highest bidder) or the best offer is inadequate?

Yea, probably wouldnt work so well here. In the NBA the draft is before their trade period.

That's another thing we should change!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sylvia Saint]

My first thoughts are a bit "meh"...

But if Lucas Cook can become a permanent fixture in the forward line, and the other 3 become good depth players minimum, then we've done well.

I wasn't overly excited about drafting Frawley, Grimes, Gysberts, Dunn and Bennell in recent times, and was creaming my dacks over drafting Maric in 07. BigFooty hype doesn't equate to much, generally speaking.

 

[Demon 16]

Overall, it also appears that in drafting players with good endurance, the club has done their homework re the new interchange rules, which shift the goalposts re "best available" somewhat.

Good point bing - I was thinking the same thing. We dont have that many utility types and these guys seem the type that will add depth and dimension to our list given the interchange rules (presuming they can play).

Cook - Sure he is a tall forward but we need a guy who is big and strong. Looking at his frame i find it almost impossible that he will develop into the type of forward we really need. I'm not even sure he will even become a regular player for us in the future.

Disagree sorry Rude. We had to take the best available tall forward surely? And Cook will be a very solid target for us. He's a tall, smart player with a strong set of hands and he'll be getting some pretty good service from our midfeild.

His body will start becoming a mans and he will bulk up over the next 3 years guaranteed.

I like to look of Howe but not sure where he'll fit in if Petterd and Jurrah keep up their form tbh. Need to see more of him.

 

[LITTLE STINGA]

Maybe a fair gamble, but I'll shed a tear when Atley starts dominating in future years.

I can't believe we didn't go for him. A line breaking half back\wingman is a bigger piece to our puzzle than a skinny tall with questionable speed.

If we had a HB line of Grimes, Frawley\Garland and Atley add our wingers in Davey and Scully and forward flankers who create pressure in Bennell, Wonaeamirri and Bail and every team is gonna be under pressure because of our pace. Then add Green, Dunn, Jurrah and Petterd who are all proven multiple goal kickers plus the hopeful improvement of Watts then I really can't see why the media should continually jump up and down about getting a key tall.

I want a half back line like Collingwood's. When Harry O and Shaw get it you just know that they are going to break lines. Grimes can do it even though he can turn it over a bit, Bail maybe able to do it but seems better at negating as does Bennell and Bartram, Morton has to have a question mark over him being a jack of all trades master of none for some time now, he seems to stuff around with it too often as well and may not have the pace for it. I don't see MacDonald as a great line breaker either, I see him as our tough nut backman who's gonna show courage and go in hard for the ball.

I thought not having 2 very good line breaking half backs cost us plenty of times this year and I think it could very well cost us again next year.

 

[Demon 16]

LS not suggesting we couldnt use another half back line breaker - youre spot on. Atley will be a gun.

But another tall forward target was definately more important.

Blease, Bennell, Grimes, Davey and Morton (to an extent) - these guys could all take that role. Gysberts and Strauss are a chance too if they come good. And when we draft Jack Viney one of them will probably be pushed back there perminantly.

We wont get a crack at a decent tall forward for another 3 years so this was the best bet imo.

 

[Rudeurrection]

I hope youre right D16 in regards to Cook, but i agree with LS with his thoughts about us drafting Atley at 12.

 

[Rudeurrection]

I thought not having 2 very good line breaking half backs cost us plenty of times this year and I think it could very well cost us again next year.

I'm hoping Blease can fill the need for us here. He's a beautiful kick.

 

[StingaArmstrong]

I'm very happy with the picks overall, and they all seem to fit in with our game plan/style being versatile athletic and skilled.

I like the look of Davis, reminds me a bit of Nathan Bock as a creative tall defender. If he has the speed the recruiting guys say he does then he might just be a bargain and round off our defensive structure nicely.

Howe could be anything and there's nothing like having a bit of flair and excitement in the forward. Cook looks pretty good, but will take a lot of time to build his body up.

I think our list looks nicely rounded now and patience is all that's required and we can definitely start challenging around 2013-2015.

 

[Crusty Demon]

I'm hoping Blease can fill the need for us here. He's a beautiful kick.

Blease and Strauss are really important to our future hopes IMO. We need both to become very good players. Now we have lost Bruce, Strauss has to step up and become a regular in our best 22. He's a beautiful kick and generally makes the right decisions. From what I've seen of him, he does struggle in a 1 on 1, which Bruce excelled in. So improvement in that part of his game is crucial.

Blease is a classic half back flanker/wingman. Exactly what we need right now. Gold Coast really threw him a bone, and in a way I'm a little surprised he has stayed with us. The extra money and opportunity would have been very tempting. But, he's stuck with us and i think it will pay off for both parties. He should break into the 22 next season, and should become that running linebreaker we are craving for across the wing.

Having had a couple of days to think about this draft, I still would have loved Atley, but can totally understand what the club were thinking recruiting who they did. It would have taken some balls to pass on Atley, but we have all bases covered now in regards to structure. The next 2-3 years is all about continued development and continued improvement. Well done to the FD for sticking to there plan. Let's sit back, enjoy the ride, and hope to god it all pays off in the end...

 

[Demon 16]

I hope youre right D16 in regards to Cook, but i agree with LS with his thoughts about us drafting Atley at 12.

They can't all be the same - that's the dilemma.