2007 Draftees

[FM0226]

So you would rather have a couple of 18 year olds with potential and no gurantee of ever playing AFL football ahead of the names you mentioned. I agree I expected us to take at least one tall but given the lack of depth in this draft particularly in the KPP department I'd say it was a good idea not to. All of the above names have bah Brennan who as you say is too short and not Leo Barry the rest are all better options IMO than a majority of the KPP's in this draft from pick 25 onwards.

At this stage Barlow is being liken to Adam Goodes and Murphy to Chris Judd. At this point in time, I don't see them being able to become top level KP players (though I would love to try Barlow at FF and see how he goes).

Yes, the 18 year old prospects may not ever get to play a game at senior level, but that's a risk that we have to take to take (and all other clubs except us seem to be willing to take). The draft is a lottery, but we have to take a risk before being able to get anything in return.

If anything, because we got Bird with our apprenticeship and a quality (he better be!) midfielder prospect with our first pick, we could have gone crazy with our #26. (It's our last live pick in the draft) I have have gladly taken a punt with someone like Scott Simpson or Gourdis.

No there's no guarrantee that they can make it at AFL level. But nor is there any guarrantee that Meredith is going to be better than Thornton or Brabazon either.

And we probably would not be involved in this conversion if we had picked up Mitch Brown at #15 or Westhoff at #65 or if we drafted Warnock instead of getting Torture - yes this is all hindsight, but the fact is that because of this recruiting strategy that we are presisting with (and I haven't seen any particular outstanding results in the past 4 years), we are never in a position to allow these possibilities to happen.

 

[Bloods boy from the Bush]

Before I go on let me just say I too was disappointed in the lack of KPP drafting in the past two years I was merely pointing out to the previous poster that the name he mentioned are just as good as second round and beyond KPP prosects that doesn't mean I didn't want us to draft any.

 

[rancidpants13]

We can't rely on poaching player's for ever. We poached Lockett. We poached Hall. We poached Williams. We poached Davis and son on. I would like to see the club create their own superstars and the only way to do that is at the draft table.

two words....jesse white
wait and see, i believe he will prove the real deal (i HATE that expression)
i am also very confident dan currie and dan o'keefe will prove very good drafts from 06, but white is going to be a star
reports also suggest brendan murphy is going to be good, and i think we all agree barlow is on his way

 

[scottwade]

So you would rather have a couple of 18 year olds with potential and no gurantee of ever playing AFL football ahead of the names you mentioned. I agree I expected us to take at least one tall but given the lack of depth in this draft particularly in the KPP department I'd say it was a good idea not to. All of the above names have bah Brennan who as you say is too short and not Leo Barry the rest are all better options IMO than a majority of the KPP's in this draft from pick 25 onwards.

The guys Roos mentioned were already on our books.
Having those players on our list (primary/rookie) in no way precluded us selecting a KPP/Ruck @ pick 26.

My main point was that Roos saw Barry, Everitt, Hall & O'Loughlin eventually being replaced by Faulks, Orreal, Murphy, Playfair, Barlow & Brennan.

It seems to me that Roos has unrealistic expectations of some players. For example, Murphy is obviously a fine athlete and good Gaelic footballer, but he has NEVER played a game of Aussie Rules. To suggest that he is a replacement for, say, Hall is nonsense. None of the players Roos has mentioned deserve, at this stage, to be mentioned in the same breath as the 4 guys, all who could be retiring at the end of next season.

It would be terrific if White & Currie (both of whom Roos overlooked), Barlow, Murphy & Orreal were stars in a couple of year's time, but it is simply impossible to justify such hopes at this point of time.

To predict/assume that champion players, with nearly 1000 AFL games experience, could be replaced by his nominated players is, as I have said, bizarre.

Since the 2001 draft we have never selected a KPP/Ruckman prior to selection #47. That is 6 consecutive drafts.

Not every year will have KPP/Ruckmen that are more worthy of early picks than midfielders, but I find it inconceivable that can be the case for 6 consecutive drafts.

We have traded away 1st & 2nd rd picks for Jolly, Richards, Everitt and pick #35 for Chambers. The policy to date has been relatively successful, but we are the exception to the rule. The other successful clubs in recent years (Brisbane, Port, WCE) have collectively, since 2004, traded away only two 1st Rd picks.

In truth this year Veszpremi/Meredith may well have been the best players available, but that certainly can not have been the case for the previous 5 years.

In particular, last year, in arguably the strongest ever 'tall' draft pool we passed on players such as Mitch Brown & Chris Dawes and selected an outside midfielder.

We are consequently left in the ridiculous position that 2 of the players that our coach nominates to replace 4 champions are guys who have played a total of 3 games of Aussie Rules in their lifetime.

Bizarre.

 

[FM0226]

The guys Roos mentioned were already on our books.
Having those players on our list (primary/rookie) in no way precluded us selecting a KPP/Ruck @ pick 26.

My main point was that Roos saw Barry, Everitt, Hall & O'Loughlin eventually being replaced by Faulks, Orreal, Murphy, Playfair, Barlow & Brennan.

It seems to me that Roos has unrealistic expectations of some players. For example, Murphy is obviously a fine athlete and good Gaelic footballer, but he has NEVER played a game of Aussie Rules. To suggest that he is a replacement for, say, Hall is nonsense. None of the players Roos has mentioned deserve, at this stage, to be mentioned in the same breath as the 4 guys, all who could be retiring at the end of next season.

It would be terrific if White & Currie (both of whom Roos overlooked), Barlow, Murphy & Orreal were stars in a couple of year's time, but it is simply impossible to justify such hopes at this point of time.

To predict/assume that champion players, with nearly 1000 AFL games experience, could be replaced by his nominated players is, as I have said, bizarre.

In particular, last year, in arguably the strongest ever 'tall' draft pool we passed on players such as Mitch Brown & Chris Dawes and selected an outside midfielder.

We are consequently left in the ridiculous position that 2 of the players that our coach nominates to replace 4 champions are guys who have played a total of 3 games of Aussie Rules in their lifetime.

Bizarre.

Can't agree more, absolutely spot on.
KP players/Rucks are extremely hard to develop and to put all our eggs into a small basket, expecting everyone to cut it at AFL level - not only that, but to replace someone who is a top CHF for a large chunk of our successful years is purely bizarre.

In Murphy, from what we have seen and heard, is a skillful, quick type of player. But he's only been kicking the sherrin for a couple of months and we have absolutely no idea how strong or durable his body is going to be. In my opinion, even if he makes it in the AFL, there's probably more chance of him turning into a good tall-midfielder than a KPP. Height alone does not make a prospect into a KPP - just look at K.Bradley. And even our own Adam Goodes wasn't particularly effective when he tried the KP positions.

I like the look of Jesse White, but that's mainly from the NAB cup last year, but that hardly guarrantees him to be a star - Grundy looked good in his few senior games, now he's fighting for his future in the AFL.

Orreal is essentially a volley-ball kid - we don't have an precedent in actually making skinny kids work - is he even going to be as good as Erikksen? In my view, if we get 50 games out of this kid, it's a success.

Barlow's the tricky one, I have high hopes for him, but are they going to throw him into the key positions or is he going to nutured into a goodes/O'Keefe type of tall, running midfielder/flanker?

And injures plays a huge part. Fitzgerald (of the big brother variety) actually looked really good in the beginning - if I remember correctly, he kicked 4 goals on debut and showed very good hands and looked to be at least a 100 gamer. Than injuries ruined him, ditto Heath James and Doyle.

And that's why we can't expect our current depth (or the lack of it) to cover for the inevitable retirements coming up. In my opinion, the quality of KPPs that we are able to recycle is going to worse in three years time. Polak is the best 'recycled' KPP in the last few years and on paper, Playfair is already the best recycled KPP this year with K.Bradley coming second.

And that's the kind of quality we should be expecting in three year's time - not Hall or Lockett.

 

[bloods01]

Can't agree more, absolutely spot on.
KP players/Rucks are extremely hard to develop and to put all our eggs into a small basket, expecting everyone to cut it at AFL level - not only that, but to replace someone who is a top CHF for a large chunk of our successful years is purely bizarre.

In Murphy, from what we have seen and heard, is a skillful, quick type of player. But he's only been kicking the sherrin for a couple of months and we have absolutely no idea how strong or durable his body is going to be. In my opinion, even if he makes it in the AFL, there's probably more chance of him turning into a good tall-midfielder than a KPP. Height alone does not make a prospect into a KPP - just look at K.Bradley. And even our own Adam Goodes wasn't particularly effective when he tried the KP positions.

I like the look of Jesse White, but that's mainly from the NAB cup last year, but that hardly guarrantees him to be a star - Grundy looked good in his few senior games, now he's fighting for his future in the AFL.

Orreal is essentially a volley-ball kid - we don't have an precedent in actually making skinny kids work - is he even going to be as good as Erikksen? In my view, if we get 50 games out of this kid, it's a success.

Barlow's the tricky one, I have high hopes for him, but are they going to throw him into the key positions or is he going to nutured into a goodes/O'Keefe type of tall, running midfielder/flanker?

And injures plays a huge part. Fitzgerald (of the big brother variety) actually looked really good in the beginning - if I remember correctly, he kicked 4 goals on debut and showed very good hands and looked to be at least a 100 gamer. Than injuries ruined him, ditto Heath James and Doyle.

And that's why we can't expect our current depth (or the lack of it) to cover for the inevitable retirements coming up. In my opinion, the quality of KPPs that we are able to recycle is going to worse in three years time. Polak is the best 'recycled' KPP in the last few years and on paper, Playfair is already the best recycled KPP this year with K.Bradley coming second.

And that's the kind of quality we should be expecting in three year's time - not Hall or Lockett.

I could not have said it better myself. People seem to be deluded and think that another Hall or Lockett is just going to bob up. Unless we take a punt and develop our own, what are the chances that a Pavlich will be on the market? Lets not kid oursleves and expect playe's such as White, Orreal and Murphy to burst onto the scene and be absoulte stars. The chances of that happening are slim at best. All three player's come from different sporting backgrounds and are basically novices in the game. Lets pick a young KPP and give the kid a chance to develop and grow. It's the only way to go.

 

[Corpuscles]

Interesting posts ScottWade & others

I think I have shared similar concerns, but we shouldn't forget that:-

we got a flag not by the best players but by a clever relatively unique game plan and a culture of all in together and committment!!!. (Look at our 2005 & 2006 lists compared to E-girls... we love'swannies but bloody good opposition that ought shade us ON PAPER!)

As someone else said better in the thread earlier Roosey never tells the truth (even vaguely like) to media and this is not Bizzare it is BS!

SW has outlined clearly why it is, but poster Bollox who doesn't post on this board but replied on mainboard to a question I raised re KPP depth at Swans ( he knows footy it is obvious) that this draft was NOT a KP draft I dunno but maybe that was the general feeling and mail they got?

They really did show that a champion team can beat a team of champs ( drilled into me since a kid ) and never saw it happen until MCG last day Sept 2005!

Roosey did not mention Grundy or Laidlaw who I think are KP's if they get their sh it together! I know Platfairs background NSW Captain and could be turned around but is a long shot

Bloody hell I never liked the Spida deal even though he did super over the odds ie well first year and always worry about how long Leo (ustar!) can carry Dunkleys mantle he clearly struggled last year as did Hall so KIRK IS CAPTAIN!!!!

I do trust them... but Roosey owes the team & club to leave it in good shape....when and if he goes/... maybe same time as Kirk Hall Barry MickyO Matthews Crouch and Spida.... with others not far off

I reckon with some of the northern concessions salary cap gone they are atm struggling with the cap and have to wait another year for seniors to retire (or be retired) till they can cope with major recruits or first yearers who have chance of playing many games 1st year


Train hard boys!

 

[liz]

People say we haven't drafted a ruck with an early pick for 6 years, but we have. We used pick 16 (or thereabouts) to acquire Jolly. We used second round picks for Everitt and Chambers. Everitt should maybe be left out of the equation since he was always a short term option, but in terms of value for money, Jolly was an excellent use of a pick 16. We knew he probably wasn't going to be a superstar and he was ready to go straight away and was a big competitive body. Which is essentially what you really need in a ruck. Only Cox of the current rucks really has claim to being much more than that. He was moderate return but also very low risk compared to drafting an 18yo with that pick.

Compare what a couple of other non-basket cases have done re drafting young rucks. Brisbane used 18 on Wood and then traded him without getting more than a handful of games from him. Although it wasn't an exact swap, in terms of what they got for him it was equivalent to their trade for Johnston. So for that pick 18 they got someone taking up a spot on their list for two relatively unproductive years and then swapped him for a flaky, soft (albeit highly skilled), injury prone, work-ethic challenged medium midfielder from whom they may get two or three years good service.

Meanwhile Adelaide used a top 10 pick on Meeson and then lost him for a 3rd round pick (or was it a 4th?)

Port used pick 15 to draft Barry Brooks a few years ago. The next year St Kilda were daft (or desperate) enough to trade a top 10 pick for him. He's now on the scrap heap.

Richmond used around pick 20 on Pattison. He looks a long way off being a decent AFL ruck to me.

North used two top 10 picks in consecutive years on Hale and McIntosh. McIntosh had a break out year in 2007 but there weren't many signs of it happening before this year. Hale is very much a so-so ruckman.

Essendon used a top 10 pick on Laycock - he has some talent but he's taking an awfully long time to put things together.

Meanwhile some of the better, more consistent rucks in the competition are Cox, Sandilands, Brogan, our own Jolly, Campbell, Simmonds and Ben Hudson.

Hudson was a 4th round pick. Simmonds a pre-season draft pick originally and all the rest were originally rookie elevations.

Gardiner, White, Fraser and Leuenberger are examples of very high picks that have become (or look like becoming) at least half decent rucks. But they were exceedingly high picks - of the type Sydney hasn't had access to for a decade.

The two highly competent rucks I have left out of my comments - Everitt and Lade - are both too old to be assessed within the current draft structure.

The facts very much support Sydney's strategy towards acquiring rucks.

I reckon you could do a pretty similar analysis in respect of KPPs too with almost the same conclusion. Sure there are the Franklins, Pavlichs and Riewoldts of this world (very very high picks.) But for every Riewoldt there is a Fitzgerald, a Watts, an Angwin, a Tim Walsh. And then there's a Brendan Fevola (3rd round pick), Nathan Thompson (7th round pick), Hentschell (pre-season pick), Bradshaw (4th round pick), a Lynch (rookie pick), an O'Loughlin. Look through a list of the even competent key forwards currently playing and you'll find very few taken originally with picks in the teens to 30s. Barry Hall is probably around the only one (though admittedly father son / concession picks for Brown, Ablett, Hawkins, Lloyd) skew things a bit.

On the other hand, my gut feel is that a correlation between quality and draft pick for midfielders will show something approaching a positive correlation - though of course there are multiple 'outliers' at both ends of the draft.

 

[mj23]

I could not have said it better myself. People seem to be deluded and think that another Hall or Lockett is just going to bob up. Unless we take a punt and develop our own, what are the chances that a Pavlich will be on the market? Lets not kid oursleves and expect playe's such as White, Orreal and Murphy to burst onto the scene and be absoulte stars. The chances of that happening are slim at best. All three player's come from different sporting backgrounds and are basically novices in the game. Lets pick a young KPP and give the kid a chance to develop and grow. It's the only way to go.

I think we are taking the punt with J White and Grundy. Teams like hawthorn have alot of options up forward and may look to offload one cause in the next few years they might have salary cap troubles with the likes of Buddy Hodge Mitchell. They have Buddy Roughhead Boyle so someone like a Mitch Thorp might be looking for better oppurtunities. By the way I didn't say we should jus poach players for key position I said thats what they might be thinking

 

[FM0226]

People say we haven't drafted a ruck with an early pick for 6 years, but we have. We used pick 16 (or thereabouts) to acquire Jolly. We used second round picks for Everitt and Chambers. Everitt should maybe be left out of the equation since he was always a short term option, but in terms of value for money, Jolly was an excellent use of a pick 16. We knew he probably wasn't going to be a superstar and he was ready to go straight away and was a big competitive body. Which is essentially what you really need in a ruck. Only Cox of the current rucks really has claim to being much more than that. He was moderate return but also very low risk compared to drafting an 18yo with that pick....

Liz, I agree with you regarding ruckmen, especially pure ruckman prospects and therefore I think there's a trend to draft 'tweeners (prospects that can be developed into KPPs but can ruck a bit) over pure ruckman types. But for every Jolly, there's also a Paul Chambers, so they are a lottery, even after they have developed physically. If Jolly or Everitt break down next year, I will not be surprised if Playfair becomes our second ruckman and I will not be surprised if he does a good job (or fail miserably), you just can't tell. Melbourne has picked up both Jamar and Jolly from the rookie list, same as Cox and Sandilands - but we have had much less success with our young rucks off the rookie list.

Draft in the old days is a total lottery in any position - Thompson belongs in the same era as Hird and Buckley so I probably will disregard him in the discussion. My take on it that the draft is indeed a total lottery after #10, but you're not going to get anything in return if you're not prepare to invest - and we haven't done a lot of investment in terms of KP prospects recently.

And I probably will be fine with the strategy if we are actually good at evaluting midfield talent - My big concern is that for all the recent small/medium types we have drafted with high picks, none of which have turned into an AA level players - McVeigh, Fosdike, J.Bolton, Crouch are top 10 picks - all servicable/role players, but none of which will qualify as our top 5 players at any time (Bolton is probably the only one that came close in 2005).

With all their talk of evaluating small/mediums is easier: Willougby was a failure while Adcock is looking to be an absolute star. Even with all his injuries, most people would still rate Prismall over Moore. If it is indeed a lottery, why don't we invest in more equal proportions in small/mediums vs talls, instead of the direction we seem to have stubborn taken without any outstanding results for as long as I remember.

And in my view, and there are a lot more small/medium gems hidden in the later parts of the draft (and the rookie list) than KP prospects - Cameron Bruce is pick 64, Ben Johnson is pick 62, Bateman, Enright and Gilbee are all 40+, Johncock is #62, Daniel cross is #56, Chris Newman is #55, Adam Selwood is #53 while Simpson is #45 in 2002. Raines is #76, Rischitelli is #61 and a bunch of very good players like Davey, Carrazzo (who I rate quite highly), Lockyer all came off the rookie list.

And I'm not surprised that there could be a lot of hidden small/mediums all plying their trade in the secondary leagues that could have done a very good job if they were given a chance at AFL (which the Davey brothers have taken with both hands).

 

[liz]

And in my view, and there are a lot more small/medium gems hidden in the later parts of the draft (and the rookie list) than KP prospects - Cameron Bruce is pick 64, Ben Johnson is pick 62, Bateman, Enright and Gilbee are all 40+, Johncock is #62, Daniel cross is #56, Chris Newman is #55, Adam Selwood is #53 while Simpson is #45 in 2002. Raines is #76, Rischitelli is #61 and a bunch of very good players like Davey, Carrazzo (who I rate quite highly), Lockyer all came off the rookie list.

But doesn't that just reflect the relative numbers of tall vs medium / small players in the game. In most teams' best 22 you'd have two rucks, a maximum of four true KPPs and maybe a very tall mid / utility. So that is about 7 players out of 22. If lists reflect the make-up of the best 22, that means most clubs will have around twice as many smaller players as talls. And so on sheer numbers, you're going to get more small hits from low down in the draft.

I still reckon though that, despite the outliers, the correlation is stronger for smaller players than taller ones, especially for the absolute best of them.

 

[rancidpants13]

I think we are taking the punt with J White and Grundy. Teams like hawthorn have alot of options up forward and may look to offload one cause in the next few years they might have salary cap troubles with the likes of Buddy Hodge Mitchell. They have Buddy Roughhead Boyle so someone like a Mitch Thorp might be looking for better oppurtunities. By the way I didn't say we should jus poach players for key position I said thats what they might be thinking

i can assure you thorp will not be leaving hawthorn soon, unless he kills someone or proves a bust on the field, which seems unlikely
boyle, m williams and roughhead will be moved on before the hawks entertain thoughts of trading thorp, he's regarded among their best
boyle was on the table in trade week, and there were offers for williams and roughhead, i think, but not taken (obviously)

as many including myself have said, we need to give as many of our own young blokes a go so we know where they are in terms of ability and progress, otherwise what's the point having them?

 

[rancidpants13]

But doesn't that just reflect the relative numbers of tall vs medium / small players in the game. In most teams' best 22 you'd have two rucks, a maximum of four true KPPs and maybe a very tall mid / utility. So that is about 7 players out of 22. If lists reflect the make-up of the best 22, that means most clubs will have around twice as many smaller players as talls. And so on sheer numbers, you're going to get more small hits from low down in the draft.

I still reckon though that, despite the outliers, the correlation is stronger for smaller players than taller ones, especially for the absolute best of them.

it'd be a reflection of society generally...there's more people of average height than in the skyscraper category

on your previous post on rucks, liz, i feel sorry for jason laycock coz he seems in a similar situation to the luckless stephen doyle....laycock can obviously play, is a good ruck and very classy marking forward but he can't get on the field long enough

by all reports, dan currie is one we can get excited about....he's apparently very skilled, very athletic and maybe still growing, but at 200cm he's surely a genuine ruck prospect
when do you think we're likely to see him in seniors? preseason competition?

 

[FM0226]

But doesn't that just reflect the relative numbers of tall vs medium / small players in the game. In most teams' best 22 you'd have two rucks, a maximum of four true KPPs and maybe a very tall mid / utility. So that is about 7 players out of 22. If lists reflect the make-up of the best 22, that means most clubs will have around twice as many smaller players as talls. And so on sheer numbers, you're going to get more small hits from low down in the draft.

I still reckon though that, despite the outliers, the correlation is stronger for smaller players than taller ones, especially for the absolute best of them.

True. But that also means that there would be a lot more small/midfield prospects (if not more as a ratio) at junior level and therefore, there sh(c)ould be a lot of handy/decent small/medium talent at the later parts of the draft and on the rookie list (as oppose to KP prospects).

What I'm trying to say is that the draft is really a lottery, for both talls and smalls, but not the spin about "It's easier to evaluate small/mediums" that they are selling - because there is no clear evidence that they really evaluate small/medium better than the talls.

As I said before, I would not have much complaints if we simply changed the order of priorities last year (or if Faulks actually looks like a KP prospect which he clearly is not at this stage) or the years before. What I'm worried about is that the recruiters/management thinks that they have seemingly beat the system (lottery) when our decent/good list, in my view, is constructed via a big chunk of luck rather than great
management/recruitment. I believe the fact that the better players we have on our list right now that recruited in the national draft are mostly later picks suggests that is the case rather than the opposite.

We have been lazy - we didn't want to go through the painful process of picking absolutely duds or waiting 5/6 years to get an return on our KP investment. Instead we have relied heavily on 'out-sourcing' our key positions and that might come back to haunt us.

We got extremely lucky with Hall and Bolton. But in my views, chances of being able to recruit similar quality of players in two/three years' time are very slim. I believe we have a good list, but it's also an ageing list when niggling and on-going injuries is going to have a bigger impact on our team.

We might still be alright next year, but things looks a tad scarier the year beyond that and the year beyond that.

 

[The natural]

Liz, I agree with you regarding ruckmen, especially pure ruckman prospects and therefore I think there's a trend to draft 'tweeners (prospects that can be developed into KPPs but can ruck a bit) over pure ruckman types. But for every Jolly, there's also a Paul Chambers, so they are a lottery, even after they have developed physically. If Jolly or Everitt break down next year, I will not be surprised if Playfair becomes our second ruckman and I will not be surprised if he does a good job (or fail miserably), you just can't tell. Melbourne has picked up both Jamar and Jolly from the rookie list, same as Cox and Sandilands - but we have had much less success with our young rucks off the rookie list.

Draft in the old days is a total lottery in any position - Thompson belongs in the same era as Hird and Buckley so I probably will disregard him in the discussion. My take on it that the draft is indeed a total lottery after #10, but you're not going to get anything in return if you're not prepare to invest - and we haven't done a lot of investment in terms of KP prospects recently.

And I probably will be fine with the strategy if we are actually good at evaluting midfield talent - My big concern is that for all the recent small/medium types we have drafted with high picks, none of which have turned into an AA level players - McVeigh, Fosdike, J.Bolton, Crouch are top 10 picks - all servicable/role players, but none of which will qualify as our top 5 players at any time (Bolton is probably the only one that came close in 2005).

With all their talk of evaluating small/mediums is easier: Willougby was a failure while Adcock is looking to be an absolute star. Even with all his injuries, most people would still rate Prismall over Moore. If it is indeed a lottery, why don't we invest in more equal proportions in small/mediums vs talls, instead of the direction we seem to have stubborn taken without any outstanding results for as long as I remember.

And in my view, and there are a lot more small/medium gems hidden in the later parts of the draft (and the rookie list) than KP prospects - Cameron Bruce is pick 64, Ben Johnson is pick 62, Bateman, Enright and Gilbee are all 40+, Johncock is #62, Daniel cross is #56, Chris Newman is #55, Adam Selwood is #53 while Simpson is #45 in 2002. Raines is #76, Rischitelli is #61 and a bunch of very good players like Davey, Carrazzo (who I rate quite highly), Lockyer all came off the rookie list.

And I'm not surprised that there could be a lot of hidden small/mediums all plying their trade in the secondary leagues that could have done a very good job if they were given a chance at AFL (which the Davey brothers have taken with both hands).

Agree whole heartedly with what you have said,but your observation of Prismall being rated superior to Moore has been made based upon Prismall actually being given opportunity to play senior footy where Moore clearly has not.Yes he has had some injury problems but every time he got a senior opportunity he had limited ground time and didnt do much wrong only to see himself omitted.Its been typical of Roos approach to some of the developing players over the last couple of seasons.Schmidt was hard done by a couple of times this year and was made the scapegoat after a loss when other mids namely McVeigh or even Bolton during some stages of the season could have easily been dropped.Roos mantra of sticking with the tried and true has really worn thin with alot of people and for mine the jokes up.I say let some of this young talent off the leash this year and see how they fare.If their development program continues in the same vein over the next couple of years things will get as bleak as some people on here are predicting.Start blooding a few and dont bloody die wondering.

 

[mj23]

i can assure you thorp will not be leaving hawthorn soon, unless he kills someone or proves a bust on the field, which seems unlikely
boyle, m williams and roughhead will be moved on before the hawks entertain thoughts of trading thorp, he's regarded among their best
boyle was on the table in trade week, and there were offers for williams and roughhead, i think, but not taken (obviously)

as many including myself have said, we need to give as many of our own young blokes a go so we know where they are in terms of ability and progress, otherwise what's the point having them?

I was using Thorp for an example but Hawks will have salary cap pressure in the next couple years one of there key forwards may want to leave because of lack of opportunities. don't bite my head off because we won't have enough time to train a key forward up before Hall retires.

 

[Bloods boy from the Bush]

Will people stop talking about Hawthorn who yes have a number of young KPP's they also have had about 250 early draft choices in the last couple of drafts where as the Swans usually only use the minimum three picks and most of them late in the Draft.

I too like everyone else on this board wished we had been able to take at least KPP in this draft but if anyone can name 3 options who were availble at pick 26 that we could of taken and would have been worth that pick feel free.

 

[rancidpants13]

Will people stop talking about Hawthorn who yes have a number of young KPP's they also have had about 250 early draft choices in the last couple of drafts where as the Swans usually only use the minimum three picks and most of them late in the Draft.

I too like everyone else on this board wished we had been able to take at least KPP in this draft but if anyone can name 3 options who were availble at pick 26 that we could of taken and would have been worth that pick feel free.

don't look at me, i'm irrelevant

 

[FM0226]

Will people stop talking about Hawthorn who yes have a number of young KPP's they also have had about 250 early draft choices in the last couple of drafts where as the Swans usually only use the minimum three picks and most of them late in the Draft.

I too like everyone else on this board wished we had been able to take at least KPP in this draft but if anyone can name 3 options who were availble at pick 26 that we could of taken and would have been worth that pick feel free.

I would have taken Scott Simpson, Gourdis, Gaertner - even prospects like Mulligan, Smouha and maybe even Dawson Simpson. They are unproven, but in my view Meredith is every bit as unproven as they are (in terms of succeeding in AFL level). Especially if he's not going to be a major upgrade on the likes of Thornton or Brabazon or Jack (or even Nick Smith) which are already on our books.

With Bird safely in our pockets and a good small/medium prospect in the first round - it was the perfect year to take a punt - something our recruiters are too afraid to do. It's our last 'live' pick and using it on a #30 prospect or #50 prospect is no different - and given that we seem to get better players in our later picks than our earlier picks, maybe it will actually work out.

 

[Bloods boy from the Bush]

I would have taken Scott Simpson, Gourdis, Gaertner - even prospects like Mulligan, Smouha and maybe even Dawson Simpson. They are unproven, but in my view Meredith is every bit as unproven as they are (in terms of succeeding in AFL level). Especially if he's not going to be a major upgrade on the likes of Thornton or Brabazon or Jack (or even Nick Smith) which are already on our books.

With Bird safely in our pockets and a good small/medium prospect in the first round - it was the perfect year to take a punt - something our recruiters are too afraid to do. It's our last 'live' pick and using it on a #30 prospect or #50 prospect is no different - and given that we seem to get better players in our later picks than our earlier picks, maybe it will actually work out.

Scott Simpson i'll admit may have been better option purely on a need basis but Gourdis and Gaetner well I haven't seen much of Gourdis but given his Draft Camp results I'm guessing he must be a bit of a dud footballer if he didn't get drafted and Gaetner I have seen and well if you want a bloke who might win the 3k time trial he would be great but if want a player who can the footy and use it then I would touch this bloke with pick 76 let alone pick 26.

 

[mj23]

Will people stop talking about Hawthorn who yes have a number of young KPP's they also have had about 250 early draft choices in the last couple of drafts where as the Swans usually only use the minimum three picks and most of them late in the Draft.

I too like everyone else on this board wished we had been able to take at least KPP in this draft but if anyone can name 3 options who were availble at pick 26 that we could of taken and would have been worth that pick feel free.

why not bring up hawthorn who cares how many draft picks they have had they have an excess of kpp and we could try and lure one for more opportunites. our strike rate with training up kpp is shithouse!

 

[FM0226]

Scott Simpson i'll admit may have been better option purely on a need basis but Gourdis and Gaetner well I haven't seen much of Gourdis but given his Draft Camp results I'm guessing he must be a bit of a dud footballer if he didn't get drafted and Gaetner I have seen and well if you want a bloke who might win the 3k time trial he would be great but if want a player who can the footy and use it then I would touch this bloke with pick 76 let alone pick 26.

I'm more than happy to take a punt since we have had two solid small/medium prospects in the bag at that time. Travis Cloke can't kick straight to save his life but have been quite valuable to the Collingwood. Remember that since #26 is our last live pick, that's really AS good as a pick 76.

And to be honest even if Gourdis and Gaertner are duds, they probably won't be as bad as Faulks that somehow the management/recruitment thinks he has a chance of filling a KP spot.

 

[FM0226]

why not bring up hawthorn who cares how many draft picks they have had they have an excess of kpp and we could try and lure one for more opportunites. our strike rate with training up kpp is shithouse!

Who do you actually think we can get hold of off them? Dawson? Boyle? Hardly players to get excited about. We probably have a slim chance of getting Roughead - and they will probably ask for an arm and a leg for him - remember what they wanted for Hay (and I don't rate Roughead highly at all).

 

[mj23]

Who do you actually think we can get hold of off them? Dawson? Boyle? Hardly players to get excited about. We probably have a slim chance of getting Roughead - and they will probably ask for an arm and a leg for him - remember what they wanted for Hay (and I don't rate Roughead highly at all).

I was using hawthorn as an example, quality players come up for trade every year. when we get salary cap space when hall and everitt retire we make plays at big forwards that we need thats the way the swans have done it for over ten years!who said anything about Boyle or Dawson?

 

[Bloods boy from the Bush]

I'm more than happy to take a punt since we have had two solid small/medium prospects in the bag at that time. Travis Cloke can't kick straight to save his life but have been quite valuable to the Collingwood. Remember that since #26 is our last live pick, that's really AS good as a pick 76.

And to be honest even if Gourdis and Gaertner are duds, they probably won't be as bad as Faulks that somehow the management/recruitment thinks he has a chance of filling a KP spot.

I really don't understand why you keep saying that pick 26 was our last live pick that has nothing to do with the argument we took the best available player with our pick that was Brett Meredith just because we dont have anymore picks doesnt mean we just throw it away on some dud who was never going to get drafted. Pick 26 is slightly different to pick 76 in that 50 players are no longer available at pick 76.

If your theory is correct lets just say a team has two first round selections and a father son player with their last making their last live pick about pick 13 or 14 should say ah well its our last live pick we might as well pick some random dud who more than likley will never get a game.

I'm by no means saying Meredith will be gun but the chance are he has a 95% better chance than Gourdis and Gaertner at this stage.