2007 BigFooty Phantom Draft - November 2nd Kick Off.

[Meanman]

OK. No DeBoer.

Pick 35: Western Bulldogs select Jackson Hall 187cm 76kg Gippsland Power

Tall, quick, bottom-aged, won the B&F in a good side this year. His kicking does worry me on occasion - not because he is a poor kick, but just that it seems to be either sublime or abysmal...He is a good mark, a terrific runner - a 6 foot 2 inch midfielder who I guess is the prototypical modern footballer.

As a few people have posted, he seems to have a fair bit of 'footy character' as well. Playing with Vic Country, he was a pretty good contributor across the three matches, and had a real dip when Gippsland where falling away late in the season.

I had hoped/expected to get Hall at pick 43, but with DeBoer unavailable was simply not prepared to run the chance of missing out on Hall as well.

Good selection! One problem, Jackson Hall is top age!!

 

[dominguez]

Looking forward to pick 40.

I'm hoping that we take mids at 7 and 24 then a ruckman at 40 on November 24.

 

[sinepari]

It's a tough decision though mate. If you want a key back too (like freo fans im talking to), then 40 is the only option unless you want a Harry Taylor or Josh Smith with your last selection. I think a ruckman will still be available at 56- one of Sullivan, Putt, Renton, Simpson (unlikely), Smouha, Mulligan will be there. Just depends how you rate the ruckmen.

I'm still yet to decide.

 

[TOA.]

Good selection! One problem, Jackson Hall is top age!!

Dont think so.

To be top aged you were old enough to draft last year, Jackson wasnt IIRC.

Technically he's 'mid-aged'. But nobody uses that term.

 

[Pykie]

Dont think so.

To be top aged you were old enough to draft last year, Jackson wasnt IIRC.

Technically he's 'mid-aged'. But nobody uses that term.

More like top age is used to describe anyone that isn't able to play another season of TAC Cup (diregarding the mature age rule), u/18 Champs etc. Meaning their last year in the "drafting" process, before VFL football etc.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

More like top age is used to describe anyone that isn't able to play another season of TAC Cup (diregarding the mature age rule), u/18 Champs etc. Meaning their last year in the "drafting" process, before VFL football etc.

Yep - That's always how I've defined it, personally.

Basically, if they're old enough to be rookie-listed, then they're top age.

 

[Silvagnis]

Still happy to take Farmer at #36 ahead of Reid.
Have a think about the rankings from the UCRT meeting on the weekend.

I'm sure he can play, but he is a bit small and would have to be a run with player if he's going at 36 in this year's draft.

Is Farmer the type of player Wayne Hughes would pick?

I think Blackwell, Murphy and Betts are the only smalls Hughes has picked in three drafts.

Pencil in Luke Stanton for pick 36 or 46.

And since it is you picking, then that is all that matters.

Have you met Pafloyul?

 

[TOA.]

Yep - That's always how I've defined it, personally.

Basically, if they're old enough to be rookie-listed, then they're top age.

Suppose its personal preference, but I like my method more

So how do you differentiate players who were eligible the previous year to guys who werent?

Thats a big one for me. If a guy was eligible the year prior and didnt go then questions are normally are asked. And they often slide on draft day.

 

[TGR]

Pencil in Luke Stanton for pick 36 or 46.

No thanks.

 

[windows]

I like this kid as well, but essentially ur paying pick 36# for an 180cm back pocket, very top aged player. Looks lost when moved into the midfield. So really should only be able to cut his teeth in the AFL as a small defender. Coaches will immediately try to mismatch him with a tall forward. Dont get me wrong, i really like Farmer and the things he brings, his right foot and intensity are 1st class. I just cant see an AFL club spending to of a high pick on Farmer myself.

Far far easier said than done I reckon. That would mean the forward pocket would need to be taken from the ground to allow the mis-match.

Farmer could follow them straight off if that were the case. Jeff Farmer. Chapman/Byrnes. Davis. Jetta/A. Davey. Davey. Campbell. Buchanan. Milne. Pearce. Tambling.

Off the top of my head. There would be others I've missed. And that doesn't cover mids resting forward. There is more than enough requirement for a specialist back pocket IMO. A need the Blues desperately have. And a need too often overlooked IMO by recruiters looking for 'flexibility' at all costs.

 

[windows]

Yeah, another short midfielder isn't exactly what Carlton need at pick 36.

I'm hoping for another Joe Anderson or someone marginally shorter like Reid or Whitecross at pick 36.

HBF has a huge fetish for short footballers.

Damn!

IMO we have more than enough of the 6ft2/6ft3 running guys with questionable skills and decision making. Some of them will make it and some won't. But we are in no way in short supply of them.

I'd prefer a genuine (not risky) KPP but we just won't get one at 36. As such, a real footballer (first and foremost) is exactly what we need.

 

[-VC-]

Suppose its personal preference, but I like my method more

So how do you differentiate players who were eligible the previous year to guys who werent?

Thats a big one for me. If a guy was eligible the year prior and didnt go then questions are normally are asked. And they often slide on draft day.

Top aged and bottom aged doesn't refer to draft eligibility. It refers to the players eligibility to play U/18 football.

I refer to players that are draftable as 'draftable' and players not draftable as 'not draftable'.

I get your point about players who were overlooked in the previous year, but I just don't think there's a proper term for that. Let's call them earlybirds coz they were born early in the year.

 

[Sherminator.]

Pick 37 - Kangaroo's - Sam Reid - 7 November 1989, 185cm 75kg. Queensland/Zillmere

Bully, he was supposed to go at 41.

 

[TOA.]

Top aged and bottom aged doesn't refer to draft eligibility. It refers to the players eligibility to play U/18 football.

I think thats the difference between the 2 methods. Your method is to do with TAC eligibility. Mine is to do with draft eligibility. Being in WA, I dont really care about TAC eligibility

Obviously the age limit for colts isnt as strict so its not really at issue in WA so I havent really questioned it.

The method I was told about is:
- Below age: kid who is not eligble to be drafted this year (ie born after 1 May 1990).
- Bottom age: kid born between 01 Jan and 29 April 1990 (using this years draft as an eg).
- Top age: kid born between 01 Jan and 29 April 1989 (ie he was eligible but overlooked last year)
- Mid-age: 01 May to 31 Dec 1989 (this is not used often, just implied if other terms not used)
- Over-age: Born in 1988.

I've met a number of scouts who use this method, so I just adopted it.

Not a big deal, we are just discussing semantics really. I suppose its personal preference.

 

[-VC-]

Yeah, fair enough mate. That does make sense but it's not really a method I've heard used much over in the East.

For the record, I wasn't referring to TAC Cup football, but National Championships.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

So how do you differentiate players who were eligible the previous year to guys who werent?

Thats a big one for me. If a guy was eligible the year prior and didnt go then questions are normally are asked. And they often slide on draft day.

Well, that just has nothing to do with being bottom age or top-age

You're right that players in their second draft often slide though, which is why I'm somewhat dubious of Tom Collier's chances of going 1st round.

 

[Reg Hickey]

You're right that players in their second draft often slide though, which is why I'm somewhat dubious of Tom Collier's chances of going 1st round.

Same with Gourdis - pretty sure he was eligible last year.

Then again, sometimes they don't slide - Pavlich a perfect example.

 

[dominguez]

It's a tough decision though mate. If you want a key back too (like freo fans im talking to), then 40 is the only option unless you want a Harry Taylor or Josh Smith with your last selection. I think a ruckman will still be available at 56- one of Sullivan, Putt, Renton, Simpson (unlikely), Smouha, Mulligan will be there. Just depends how you rate the ruckmen.

I'm still yet to decide.

Yeah that's fair enough. My personal view is that we need a developing ruckman much more than a key back, but I look forward to your selection either way.

 

[micky_11]

Same with Gourdis - pretty sure he was eligible last year.

Then again, sometimes they don't slide - Pavlich a perfect example.

i thought gourdis was born late in the year, making him ineligible for the 06 draft.

 

[sinepari]

I'm fairly certain he was available. I was considering for my PD. He may not have nominated though.

 

[sinepari]

Yeah that's fair enough. My personal view is that we need a developing ruckman much more than a key back, but I look forward to your selection either way.

My theory is that you can get both, assuming the cards are played right.

 

[sinepari]

Well I won't be able to take the pick tonight even if it does come up.

You'll have to be patient tomorrow, as I'll be at work. I can check it, just not that regularly.

 

[Quigley]

Goudis was born 14 March 89 and given that Collier was 25 March 89 you have to figure he was eligible last year.

 

[Salaryman]

Well I won't be able to take the pick tonight even if it does come up.

You'll have to be patient tomorrow, as I'll be at work. I can check it, just not that regularly.

PM me your two preferences if you like

 

[smiddaz123]

Same with Gourdis - pretty sure he was eligible last year.

Then again, sometimes they don't slide - Pavlich a perfect example.

Was pavlich overlooked for a year before he was drafted?