Preview National Draft discussion (Picks 14, 35, 43, 58)

[lunacy]

Given the amount of high profile draft experts and whatnot harping on about the even-ness of this draft and the amount of prospects that are all considered relatively equal, I'm willing to back our clubs/Walsh's decisions that we made on trade day.

So many people around BF seem to be viewing it very much on a numerical basis, 10>14 therefore our trade was stupid....

As stated, we have performed well in the drafting/trading department previously and from what I'm reading from the real experts about this years draft, I am more than happy to go in with 14 and 35 rather than 10 and 47.

Exactly. In Noble's interview on 5aa he explained that each draft is very different. He said in 2007 they never would have dropped 4 places in the first round because in their eyes the player they could get at 10 was much better than 14 (in the end it was Dangerfield 10, Grimes 14). So each draft is different. This year dropping 4 places is minimal compared to the difference in quality between 35-47. Not rocket science.

 

[Thunderstruck]

Went with Goddard in the bigfooty phantom, feel he is a solid get at 14 and the clear best of the KPD left. Can probably address pace with 35.

 

[baldandbroke]

Went with Goddard in the bigfooty phantom, feel he is a solid get at 14 and the clear best of the KPD left. Can probably address pace with 35.

So lets see who was off the table ...

1 St Kilda - Christian Petracca
2 Melbourne - Angus Brayshaw
3 Melbourne - Jake Lever
4 GWS - Patrick McCartin
5 Collingwood - Reece McKenzie
6 GWS - Jarrod Pickett
7 GWS - Jayden Laverde
8 Gold Coast - Lachie Weller
9 Collingwood - Darcy Moore (Father / Son Selection_
10 Geelong - Peter Wright
11 WCE - Paul Ahern
12 Richmond - Jorden De Goey
13 Freo - Sam Durdin

Did you have a hard look at maybe picking Cockatoo - or was he not fitting into the "needs" mould ?

Who were your backups if Goddard was gone?

 

[1990crow]

I think Goddard/Durdin would be a good pickup and is probably the way we are going.
However I really like the look of Reece McKenzie, could be anything. Dominant full forwards don't grow on trees and we could still get Oscar McDonald at 35. And address pace in the third round and in the years to come. Key position takes time and we might be better off in 5 years with those two and pacy mids in the next three drafts.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Exactly. In Noble's interview on 5aa he explained that each draft is very different. He said in 2007 they never would have dropped 4 places in the first round because in their eyes the player they could get at 10 was much better than 14 (in the end it was Dangerfield 10, Grimes 14). So each draft is different. This year dropping 4 places is minimal compared to the difference in quality between 35-47. Not rocket science.

That's fine but we're back to the We're smarter than Geelong thinking.

Last time we were here posters 'set me straight' by pointing out the good trades Rendell did as reasons why I should have faith now. See, the thing about that is...

 

[Gets!]

If it was between Durdin and Goddard...and we are after a KPD...surely we would go for Durdin?

Can the bloke defend?

 

[baldandbroke]

I think Goddard/Durdin would be a good pickup and is probably the way we are going.
However I really like the look of Reece McKenzie, could be anything. Dominant full forwards don't grow on trees and we could still get Oscar McDonald at 35. And address pace in the third round and in the years to come. Key position takes time and we might be better off in 5 years with those two and pacy mids in the next three drafts.

I see Knightmare picked McKenzie at pick 5 for Collingwood on the BF Phantom Draft - that seems high to me.

 

[baldandbroke]

If it was between Durdin and Goddard...and we are after a KPD...surely we would go for Durdin?

Can the bloke defend?

Durdin was gone at the pick before ...

 

[1990crow]

I see Knightmare picked McKenzie at pick 5 for Collingwood on the BF Phantom Draft - that seems high to me.

Yeah I know, but 14 might not be too much of a stretch.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Exactly. In Noble's interview on 5aa he explained that each draft is very different. He said in 2007 they never would have dropped 4 places in the first round because in their eyes the player they could get at 10 was much better than 14 (in the end it was Dangerfield 10, Grimes 14). So each draft is different. This year dropping 4 places is minimal compared to the difference in quality between 35-47. Not rocket science.

Yes & I also suspect it depends on the club priorities - not only your club, but others - & what types of players are available in the draft.

They will weigh all these things up.

 

[Danoz]

Went with Goddard in the bigfooty phantom, feel he is a solid get at 14 and the clear best of the KPD left. Can probably address pace with 35.

Interesting that KM took Reece McKenzie at #5, given our "alleged" interest in taking him at 14. Would you have taken him if available?

 

[Mattrox]

That's fine but we're back to the We're smarter than Geelong thinking.

No, you are saying that, but it's not true and you are twisting words.

Each club has different needs. We think we have different needs than Geelong. So the person/people we think are best available at 10 are different than those Geelong think are best. We don't think we are smarter. We just rate people differently to them.

Please don't go on about their father-sons when you say they have drafted well in the past. This is old territory now.

Then with pick 35, we think we can do significantly better than pick 47.

So if we reckon we can break even on pick 14, but do significantly better with 35, that puts us in a better position overall.

Are arguing that there is no way will get the same quality at 14 and at the same time the upgrade from 47 to 35 is insignificant?

 

[boffo]

That's fine but we're back to the We're smarter than Geelong thinking.

Last time we were here posters 'set me straight' by pointing out the good trades Rendell did as reasons why I should have faith now. See, the thing about that is...

To me, this is the really interesting thing about this draft, Geelong (desperate to move up) assess the talent pool the opposite to us (10 or 14, doesn't matter).

And everyone on the Geelong Board thinks they are looking for a KPD or a quick outside mid, the same as us. But they also think Wells is highly unpredictable and unconventional.

 

[Golumless]

To me, this is the really interesting thing about this draft, Geelong (desperate to move up) assess the talent pool the opposite to us (10 or 14, doesn't matter).

I'd say they are looking at a player we have no interest in... Pickett perhaps, which fits considering the two WA teams below us and one of them (West Coast) is known for snapping up local talent.

You'd think if our first realistic choice was going to be touch and go at 10, we wouldn't have even entertained the idea of this trade which also signifies the kid we rate is expected to go around 15-20 mark.

 

[Archie87]

I'd hazard a guess that there would be a degree of nudge, nudge, wink, wink "we'll give you pick 10 if you don't pick player X" going on with us and Geelong. It would happen all the time and likely happened with Collingwood/West Coast last year too.

 

[dplggr47]

I'd hazard a guess that there would be a degree of nudge, nudge, wink, wink "we'll give you pick 10 if you don't pick player X" going on with us and Geelong. It would happen all the time and likely happened with Collingwood/West Coast last year too.

Geelong were most likely not going to pick up the player we want, otherwise what's the point in them trading up. It was said that they were after a WA player and therefore wanted a pick before WCE/Freo. Whoever Geelong were interested in, Crows weren't and vice versa. Therefore beneficial for both clubs.

 

[baldandbroke]

Geelong were most likely not going to pick up the player we want, otherwise what's the point in them trading up. It was said that they were after a WA player and therefore wanted a pick before WCE/Freo. Whoever Geelong were interested in, Crows weren't and vice versa. Therefore beneficial for both clubs.

Imagine the sh!tfest if Geelong reneged on a deal like that and took the player that AFC were after ... how cut-throat is the AFL as a business coz I can tell you there is no way I would take someone's word for something as important as this in the business world. I'd be called naive.

 

[BrissyCrow]

DyerTribe?

Doug Thomas?


Yeah, but Pittard or Tals? Hmm.

Maybe Dick Tracey

 

[Bicks]

Imagine the sh!tfest if Geelong reneged on a deal like that and took the player that AFC were after ... how cut-throat is the AFL as a business coz I can tell you there is no way I would take someone's word for something as important as this in the business world. I'd be called naive.

I would think such a deal would at least be run past the AFL Admin and most probably signed off on.

 

[baldandbroke]

I would think such a deal would at least be run past the AFL Admin and most probably signed off on.

They have to approve all the trades don't they ... they have to have commercial value? Is that right?

 

[boffo]

I'd say they are looking at a player we have no interest in... Pickett perhaps, which fits considering the two WA teams below us and one of them (West Coast) is known for snapping up local talent.

You'd think if our first realistic choice was going to be touch and go at 10, we wouldn't have even entertained the idea of this trade which also signifies the kid we rate is expected to go around 15-20 mark.

You could be right, but I'll just add a couple of points:
- Geelong asked approx 6 clubs about a pick swap, they wanted to move up but maybe not particularly to #10, we were the only club that would do the deal so they happened to land at #10.
- we might rate a group of players around the 10-20 mark and are confident we'll get one of them, and may not think there is much difference between them. I'm not assuming we have one particular must have to take with our first pick. Noble and Co have assessed the top 20 talent pool is pretty even, unlike some years.

 

[StonesThrow]

People read way too much into this imo. At the end of the day who knows what the recruiting team are up to and what their plan is for the draft?! They have a decent strike rate as of late so I'm gonna trust that they know what they're doing more than what i can speculate.

 

[Draft Bored]

People read way too much into this imo. At the end of the day who knows what the recruiting team are up to and what their plan is for the draft?! They have a decent strike rate as of late so I'm gonna trust that they know what they're doing more than what i can speculate.

Agreed. #backourboys

Wait... that's already being used.

 

[Tex200]

This kid seems to be everyone's booby prize - thought it was worth having a look

 

[Mismatched]

To me, this is the really interesting thing about this draft, Geelong (desperate to move up) assess the talent pool the opposite to us (10 or 14, doesn't matter).

And everyone on the Geelong Board thinks they are looking for a KPD or a quick outside mid, the same as us. But they also think Wells is highly unpredictable and unconventional.

That's exactly the thing with Wells, he doesn't necessarily go by the book. His last truly good 1st round picks were Selwood and Taylor in 06/07, both being a little risky/out of the box. Selwood was rated very highly, but had massive injury concerns, Taylor was a relative mature age recruit at 21 years old. It's rare that anyone goes in the first round that isn't in their 1st draft eligible year. Both paid off, but since then there's been a good few that haven't too.

Personally, I'm comfortable enough that if our recruiting staff think it's valid to trade 10 and 47, for 14 and 35, then I'm happy to back them. I'd certainly hate to see us second guessing ourselves because Wells has chosen to go the other way. He's made some great calls, but he's made some shockers too of late.

Certainly sounds like it will be an interesting draft to see unfold and then look back on in 3-5 years time.