Preview 2011 National Draft

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Will rowe get gametime In 2012

Only at the expense of Hammer and Mitchell or if Warnock or Kreuzer go down.

Can see some trades occurring next year. Some serious height on our list. I wonder though if they see Rowe as a possible CHF to replace Setanta. Anybody know how quick he is?

 

[blue gunslinger]

190cm is not tall anymore

 

[blue gunslinger]

goodluck carlos

 

[Silvagnis]

Loved the Cats drafting the 29 year old Orren Stephenson.

 

[Sublime]

[YOUTUBE]0V9ZTnGK0M[/YOUTUBE]

A very nice goal at about 1:30. J Brown esque

[YOUTUBE]6fFiibTJvVM[/YOUTUBE]

Browny again?

[YOUTUBE]r5zk16TkHM[/YOUTUBE]

To be honest these few clips don't show much, but seems to have some neat skills. Moves well.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Absolutely Harks. We have to remember too that we have a lot of depth at present but will start picking up project players here and there to phase in a few years down the track potentially.

We're not just relying on our senior players to show consistency, we're finding replacements in case they don't.

 

[reg_lower91]

Just quietly, that was one to most poorly run production i have ever seen on TV. TO think i pay Foxtel to watch that tripe.

 

[Silvagnis]

[YOUTUBE]_AjOqTbpfVI[/YOUTUBE]

Fev isn't as mature as Buckley.

 

[DIG]

We clearly didn't rate this draft from the start. Bootsma was a late draft "bolter" who could be anything, Rowe looks like a younger replacement for setanta, who knows how much better he'll be - receiving the crispest delivery in the league, did kick 60 goals the last 2 years i just heard. Remember Quentin Lynch looked a million bucks the year the Eagles won the flag. Plus Buckley was a bargain.

It's a largely irrelevant draft for us but we've used our picks well given we're where at I reckon.

 

[LemmingMaster]

We may have made a mistake in my eyes having a predetermined plan with pick 44 and not considering Murdoch with that selection. I hope this does not come back to hurt us in years to come.

 

[Blueboys7]

Just got home and I am pretty disappointed TBH.

Overlooking Murdoch is pretty strange considering he was rumoured to be on our radar at 22.

I don't particularly like the look of Bootsma either, doesn't seem to fit our needs in the slightest.

 

[Silvagnis]

1 GWS Giants Jonathon Patton
2 GWS Giants Stephen Coniglio
3 GWS Giants Dom Tyson
4 GWS Giants William Hoskin-Elliott
5 GWS Giants Matthew Buntine
7 GWS Giants Nick Haynes
9 GWS Giants Adam Tomlinson
10 GWS Giants Liam Sumner
11 GWS Giants Toby Greene
13 GWS Giants Taylor Adams
14 GWS Giants Devon Smith
56 GWS Giants Tom Downie
79 GWS Giants Setanta O'Hailpin
87 GWS Giants James McDonald

Plus Scully, Ward, Reid, Davis, Palmer, Power, Cornes, Brogan and their 17 year olds.

You have to laugh at a new club picking up so many quality prospects and senior players.

 

[zeeCFC]

Folau scoring tries! They'll dominate!

 

[Silvagnis]

Collingwood picked a ruckman by the name of Corey Gault.

I guess Ceglar, Keeffe and Witts aren't all going to be stars.

 

[mediumsizered]

Collingwood picked a ruckman by the name of Corey Gault.

I guess Ceglar, Keeffe and Witts aren't all going to be stars.

Makes you wonder where this leaves Cameron Wood. Despite the protests of many Collingwood supporters, it would seem the club don't see Wood as a long term ruck prospect to replace Jolly.

 

[Salaryman]

Just got home and I am pretty disappointed TBH.

Overlooking Murdoch is pretty strange considering he was rumoured to be on our radar at 22.

I don't particularly like the look of Bootsma either, doesn't seem to fit our needs in the slightest.

What's not to like? Give me competitive beasts like clay smith and bootsma any day. Blokes that will stand up in finals footy.

I am a little disappointed we overlooked Murdoch too. The ready made talls were a bit thin on the ground this year though

 

[Blueboys7]

What's not to like? Give me competitive beasts like clay smith and bootsma any day. Blokes that will stand up in finals footy.

I am a little disappointed we overlooked Murdoch too. The ready made talls were a bit thin on the ground this year though

I'm warming to Bootsma, hadn't seen any of him and didn't read thy much about him. He seems like a likely type with nice attributes but is a fair way away from contributing.

Clay Smith, as you say, would have been nice but it was not to be.

This is my issue:

We knew that we were going to select Sam and we were pretty convinced that he wasn't been seriously considered by many other clubs.

We also knew that we would use our last pick on Buckley.

Why didn't we look at trimming our list just a little more and allow for another pick?

We could have picked up someone like Murdoch at 44 and Rowe at 67. Buckley would have gone in the next round and we would have been feeling pretty positive about the draft.

Obviously we are happy with where our list is at and finding another player to delist would have been difficult, but perhaps it would have been a good move.

 

[parrot]

Pretty delighted with our selections actually. I love it when we go against the youtube/media "self appointed expert" predictions. Anyway both selections make a lot of sense. A tall talented, fast outside mid, with excellent skills on both sides and a lot of upside, and a huge power forward who's got his body right, and needs a higher standard competition to take his game to the next level. This gives some breathing space for our very young developing KPP's as well. Excellent. The rookie draft will be fun. We have an awesome track record there as well.

I really like these compromised drafts because it's a great test for list managers i.e. they need to think outside the box to do well.

 

[chipzac]

I'm warming to Bootsma, hadn't seen any of him and didn't read thy much about him. He seems like a likely type with nice attributes but is a fair way away from contributing.

Clay Smith, as you say, would have been nice but it was not to be.

This is my issue:

We knew that we were going to select Sam and we were pretty convinced that he wasn't been seriously considered by many other clubs.

We also knew that we would use our last pick on Buckley.

Why didn't we look at trimming our list just a little more and allow for another pick?

We could have picked up someone like Murdoch at 44 and Rowe at 67. Buckley would have gone in the next round and we would have been feeling pretty positive about the draft.

Obviously we are happy with where our list is at and finding another player to delist would have been difficult, but perhaps it would have been a good move.

Have to agree with this. A speedy Murdoch instead of an ultra slow McLean would have been nice.

 

[LemmingMaster]

Why didn't we look at trimming our list just a little more and allow for another pick?

You do know that list size is done before the draft?

Hence you cannot assume a player you may or may not like will drift in the draft to your appropriate pick.

This was widely considered to be a weak draft, I had no problems and still have no problems with the fact we decided to only add 3 players to our list.

Not even sure if Carlton rated Murdoch as high as some of us mug punters so even with hindsight, we may have still gone down the same path.

 

[Pafloyul]

You do know that list size is done before the draft?

Hence you cannot assume a player you may or may not like will drift in the draft to your appropriate pick.

This was widely considered to be a weak draft, I had no problems and still have no problems with the fact we decided to only add 3 players to our list.

Not even sure if Carlton rated Murdoch as high as some of us mug punters so even with hindsight, we may have still gone down the same path.

Perhaps, but personally I think delisting another player and elevating Touhy may have freed us up to take Rowe in the preseason and use him as the nominated rookie.

 

[Blueboys7]

You do know that list size is done before the draft?

Hence you cannot assume a player you may or may not like will drift in the draft to your appropriate pick.

This was widely considered to be a weak draft, I had no problems and still have no problems with the fact we decided to only add 3 players to our list.

Not even sure if Carlton rated Murdoch as high as some of us mug punters so even with hindsight, we may have still gone down the same path.

Obviously...

The thing is though, we knew that we would take Rowe and Buckley. There was always a chance of nabbing a slider at pick 44 and we were never going to get that chance after we committed to Rowe.

We could pushed back the Rowe and Buckley selections and had a chance at another talented player, even if it is deemed to be weak draft.

 

[Silvagnis]

Perhaps, but personally I think delisting another player and elevating Touhy may have freed us up to take Rowe in the preseason and use him as the nominated rookie.

Who deserved to be delisted and paid out in last year's salary cap?

That could have put us over the cap.

There was no guarantee that Rowe would have made it to the PSD. GWS pounced on a similar player in Setanta to fill the void whilst their teenage KPP and rucks develop. This draft is weak, yet everyone is posting like we've passed on the next Chris Grant or Hird late.

Thank God we didn't have to use pick 62 on anyone other than Buckley.

 

[LemmingMaster]

Obviously...

The thing is though, we knew that we would take Rowe and Buckley. There was always a chance of nabbing a slider at pick 44 and we were never going to get that chance after we committed to Rowe.

We could pushed back the Rowe and Buckley selections and had a chance at another talented player, even if it is deemed to be weak draft.

There are so many hypothetical statements that even with hindsight it is a little hard to predict.

1. There had to be a slide who drifted to pick 44 that we rated.
2. Rowe would have lasted to our following pick.
3. The delisted player did not affect our salary cap.

Give all those issues, I think at the time of delisting, it was an appropriate decision to go into the draft selecting 3 players.

 

[Salaryman]

I think Murdoch getting to 44 might have been a big surprise.......as HBF will attest, I almost spat my beer out when we passed , but in hindisght I can see how structurally Rowe is equally as important straight away.

I have no inside knowledge, but my viewing of this years draft pool I wouldn't be surpris if we may have only had a list of 15 or 20 we liked before Rowe was the best option structurally......the chances of one of them getting to 44 is a big call to make an extra delisting pre-draft.