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

[Hank93]

Anyone have info on the TV coverage?

Hopefully we can press red button to hear all the selections. I hate it how they are interviewing the top 10 picks etc whilst the draft is going on. It is bloody ridiculous. You have all year/after the draft to interview these kids, and they feel awkward talking whilst names are being called out.

Red button has been used for a while. Can't see that changing.

Last year was the return of starting at pick 1, instead of counting down from pick 10 and then restarting at 11. Which was ridiculous because they tried to build the suspense on pick 1, when every man and his dog already knew the top 3 or 4 selections.

 

[Hank93]

Anyone have info on the TV coverage?

Hopefully we can press red button to hear all the selections. I hate it how they are interviewing the top 10 picks etc whilst the draft is going on. It is bloody ridiculous. You have all year/after the draft to interview these kids, and they feel awkward talking whilst names are being called out.

Especially awkward is when Kevin Sheehan is desperately trying to hear who's been picked and where, but is forced to sit on the desk for the coverage. You can tell he doesn't want to be there.

 

[Hank93]

Anyone have info on the TV coverage?

Hopefully we can press red button to hear all the selections. I hate it how they are interviewing the top 10 picks etc whilst the draft is going on. It is bloody ridiculous. You have all year/after the draft to interview these kids, and they feel awkward talking whilst names are being called out.

Especially awkward is when Kevin Sheehan is desperately trying to hear who's been picked and where, but is forced to sit on the desk for the coverage. You can tell he doesn't want to be there.

 

[Elite Crow]

Michelango planting the seeds of complaints about our downgrade from Pick 10 to 14.

He questions the point of upgrading '8 picks' from 47 to 35...

Fair enough question I would have thought

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Last year was the return of starting at pick 1, instead of counting down from pick 10 and then restarting at 11. Which was ridiculous because they tried to build the suspense on pick 1, when every man and his dog already knew the top 3 or 4 selections.

That idea was ok but they didn't execute it.

The top 5 this year is wide open and a few smokies could jump out.

 

[Red mist]

Fair enough question I would have thought

Yes and a question that will be answered come draft day. When doesn't Rooch have a fiddle?

 

[hendo8888]

It is a fair question.
Which 4 teams will be passing between 35 and 47 to make it only 8 picks?

 

[jackster83]

Basically, we upgraded our #43 to #35 and our #47 to #43.

 

[Pugsley]

Rucci reminds me of the guy in the old Casino ad with a fixation for barcodes.

 

[pjcrows]

Michelango planting the seeds of complaints about our downgrade from Pick 10 to 14.

He questions the point of upgrading '8 picks' from 47 to 35...

I'm critical of Rucci but what's wrong with him.questioning that?

I've questioned it.

 

[hendo8888]

I'm critical of Rucci but what's wrong with him.questioning that?

I've questioned it.

47-35=12
47-35=/=8

 

[Johnny Rutten]

The issue here is the Geelong trade of 10/47 for 14/35. Now, I'm no mathematician, but 14/35 gives you an average pick of 24.5, compared to 28.5. Logically, we have a better chance of nailing 2 good players with 14/35 than 10/47. I think everyone is jumping up and down because it is a top 10 pick we swapped and the associated glamour that goes with that. Standing on stage at the draft, etc. If we had swapped 15 for 11, there wouldn't be anywhere near as much negative banter. Last year, I'm pretty sure, West Coast swapped their pick 6 to Collingwood for pick 11 (and further swaps down the order that in turn benefitted West Coast). That was a far more brazen swap of picks than ours, and I don't recall the same backlash towards it.

 

[Draft Bored]

must listen .......Page Cardona one of the most credible Draft posters

Podcast bolters & sliders in this years draft

Can anyone who has listened to this please summarise it?

I don't have 45 minutes to listen to Paige. I unfollowed her on twitter because she tweets random rubbish way too often.

I'm sure she's credible though WW. I just don't have 45 mins

 

[mickfaxis]

I'm critical of Rucci but what's wrong with him.questioning that?

I've questioned it.

I really can't see why so many on this board try to justify it as a good move. As soon as this draft is done, everyone will muse about the players at pick 10, 11, 12 and 13 we 'missed'. And that will be the tone for the rest of those players' careers. Personally, 47 to 35 is no big deal. If, however, we moved into the top 25 then it's a win. History says theres not a lot of gold found at pick 35.

 

[Golumless]

I really can't see why so many on this board try to justify it as a good move. As soon as this draft is done, everyone will muse about the players at pick 10, 11, 12 and 13 we 'missed'. And that will be the tone for the rest of those players' careers. Personally, 47 to 35 is no big deal. If, however, we moved into the top 25 then it's a win. History says theres not a lot of gold found at pick 35.

It's gotten players for less of a cost and the argument who we missed at 10-13 is quite irrelevant because for all we know, we were going to pick the same dude at 10.

I'm curious about that pick 35, there has to be someone we really rate around that pick, or it's a pick for list profile.

 

[Johnny Rutten]

I really can't see why so many on this board try to justify it as a good move. As soon as this draft is done, everyone will muse about the players at pick 10, 11, 12 and 13 we 'missed'. And that will be the tone for the rest of those players' careers. Personally, 47 to 35 is no big deal. If, however, we moved into the top 25 then it's a win. History says theres not a lot of gold found at pick 35.

History has also shown that pick 14 has generated more AFL games than pick 10. So, what's in a number?

 

[Apsaalooke]

I really can't see why so many on this board try to justify it as a good move. As soon as this draft is done, everyone will muse about the players at pick 10, 11, 12 and 13 we 'missed'. And that will be the tone for the rest of those players' careers. Personally, 47 to 35 is no big deal. If, however, we moved into the top 25 then it's a win. History says theres not a lot of gold found at pick 35.

Rhett Biglands, Chris Bond, Jonathan Hay, Adam Kingsley, Sam Mitchell, Scott Thompson (NM), G Horlin-Smith, Mark Lecras, Zac Clarke, Steven Motlop, Sam Reid were all pick 35-37

 

[mickfaxis]

History has also shown that pick 14 has generated more AFL games than pick 10. So, what's in a number?

In it's most pure and simple form, 10 comes before 14. Anyone would rather that, and nobody will ever know (expect for half a dozen people at the club) whether the guy they thought would be at 14 before that trade is the guy we got.

It all comes down to who we get at 35. He's the one we obviously think we needed to get higher up in the order to make sure of getting.

 

[mickfaxis]

Rhett Biglands, Chris Bond, Jonathan Hay, Adam Kingsley, Sam Mitchell, Scott Thompson (NM), G Horlin-Smith, Mark Lecras, Zac Clarke, Steven Motlop, Sam Reid were all pick 35-37

11 players over 15 years that were any good. Who were those that weren't?

 

[Doombs]

Thank you hendo8888 for helping to explain my joke in my absence.

 

[baldandbroke]

Surely they would have consulted with the recruiters and received their absolute blessing before making that trade?

I deliberately said "some of our recruiters" - no doubt the decision was made as a team, but as always there would have been differing opinions in the group.

 

[GROTTO]

The issue here is the Geelong trade of 10/47 for 14/35. Now, I'm no mathematician, but 14/35 gives you an average pick of 24.5, compared to 28.5. Logically, we have a better chance of nailing 2 good players with 14/35 than 10/47. .

You could use the same argument that hypothetically pick 20 and pick 21 is better than pick 1 and pick 41, which definitely is never the case.

 

[baldandbroke]

must listen .......Page Cardona one of the most credible Draft posters

Podcast bolters & sliders in this years draft

I'm only a few minutes in - but she is talking about Cockatoo as being off everyone's radar until one game he played brought him up the list.

Surely this is an example of why the phantom drafts never align with the real thing.

If the guy is a genuine prospect - as I believe him to be - he would have been on all of the actual recruiting team radars, only those who live off here say and rumours and media releases react to a single event to change a guy's rating from in the 30s to somewhere top 10. You can bet, if he does go early, it won't be because of his one-off star match at the end of 2014.

 

[Crowfoot]

Under estimate Dean Gore at your own peril, whilst he may not be a 'jet', he is not slow, very good evasive skills, big bodied, a very solid all round footballer and unlike the majority of the supposed 'jets' in this years draft he is AFL ready to go in year 1, no 2 - 3 years development project with him!
I personally wouldn't use our 1st pick on him but I wouldn't have a problem taking him with any of the other picks after that.

Would love to pick up Dean Gore in the draft as I have been a big fan, but then I was a big fan of James Battersby last year and we all know how that turned out.

 

[Apsaalooke]

11 players over 15 years that were any good. Who were those that weren't?

Not good enough? OK I'll add a few more - Leigh Montagna, Todd Goldstein, Cameron Ling, Mitch Hahn. And that's not including those who went after pick 37 who also could have been picked up with 35.
All I'm saying is there's a reasonable chance of nabbing quality if we've done our homework.