2012 Draft Discussion

[cotter101]

I'd have no problems taking Hrovat at 8, won't happen though. But I suspect he will go between picks 12-20.

 

[Bert Man]

I'd have no problems taking Hrovat at 8, won't happen though. But I suspect he will go between picks 12-20.

I wouldn't oppose to that either. If Hrovat isn't available at pick 23 Nick Graham or Nathan Wright are our men.

 

[spotthedog1]

IMO:

Of the guys with the weird names: Vlastuin > Hrovat
Of the KPPS: Daniher > Plowman > Jacksch > Clurey > Tanner Smith and Mason Shaw (about the same) > O'Brien.

Would be willing to take Smith, Shaw or O'Brien. Only with our second pick. If someone thinks we "need" a KPP at 8 (despite KPPs being very hit and miss, even early, and 8 being very valuable), why not Plowman or Jacksch? Both would be reasonableish value there. Shaw at 8 would be a ludicrous waste of a high pick. I don't have confidence that Shaw will make it at an AFL level. He may, but I don't see it anywhere near a guarantee. Regardless, I would be surprised if all of those 6 recruitable KPPs were gone by our pick 24.

 

[Bert Man]

Am I the only one who wouldn't be upset if we drafted Ben Kennedy with pick 8? Also Vlaudstin would be ok as we'll

 

[mpal6]

Am I the only one who wouldn't be upset if we drafted Ben Kennedy with pick 8? Also Vlaudstin would be ok as we'll

Stringer. Want.
If leg injury has healed well, please grab him Lions.

 

[Bert Man]

Stringer. Want.
If leg injury has healed well, please grab him Lions.

I like the idea of Zorko, Green and Kennedy in one team.

 

[jjami15]

Mosquito fleet!

 

[Quigley]

My guess at the top 10 as it stands atm:

1. Whitfield
2. Grundy
3. Plowman (purely needs)
4. Wines
5. Toumpas
6. Stringer
7. Mayes
8. O'Rourke (although I don't rate him and would be a bit disappointed to get him. I just think he is the faller and we usually pick off those types)
9. Macrae
10. Daniher

I am confident that I have nailed 1 and 10

 

[Bucking Beads]

I like Stringer but Macrae would also be a superb option at pick 8.

 

[JasRulz63]

Quigley, would you take Plowman if he falls? Do you think he'll end up as a KPD taking the best forward, third defender or even as a midfielder?

 

[Offsider]

My guess at the top 10 as it stands atm:

1. Whitfield
2. Grundy
3. Plowman (purely needs)
4. Wines
5. Toumpas
6. Stringer
7. Mayes
8. O'Rourke (although I don't rate him and would be a bit disappointed to get him. I just think he is the faller and we usually pick off those types)
9. Macrae
10. Daniher

I am confident that I have nailed 1 and 10

What are your thoughts on GWS overlooking Grundy for some insane reason? I personally rate him very highly and the second best player available, and on talent ahead of Daniher but there is a school of thought that GWS might try and trade for an established ruckman in 3 years.

 

[crispy creme]

With the way the trade period has transpired to date, I would imagine that a KPP is still our main priority at 8. IMO the only option now is Jaksch, as I don't think Plowman is viewed as a genuine KPP. Possibly paying overs for him but it is an investment in the future. Of course, Tippett may still change everything.

 

[Quigley]

What are your thoughts on GWS overlooking Grundy for some insane reason? I personally rate him very highly and the second best player available, and on talent ahead of Daniher but there is a school of thought that GWS might try and trade for an established ruckman in 3 years.

Yeah I have heard similar rumours. I just don't see the sense in it. They have a swag of picks and talent and an obvious hole in the young ruck division. Grundy is the most complete ruck prospect I have seen and not to take him would be just stupid. If they pass him by they might get a reasonable talent in a couple of years but we are moving into a period of great young ruckman and they might have to settle for a ruck that gets towelled up most weeks. And for what? They get to add another midfielder that is probably only marginally if at all better than 5 or 6 guys they are already struggling to give game time too. The only reason I thought they passed on Longer last year was because I assumed that had their eye on Grundy. To fail to address the ruck division again would not make sense. Giles is good around the grounds but probably below average in the ruck contest itself. Grundy will be elite in the ruck and he and Giles should complement each other well.

On Plowman I personally have him outside the top 10. Guys his height struggle to play as KPDers nowerdays and even the likes Glass is now taking the second or third target and zoning off mostly. It is the 195cm defenders who are the elite FBs in the league. We are seeing more and more 198cm plus FFs. Daniher and Shaw are two coming in this year and Boyd looks the goods for next year as well. At 191 I just don't see Plowman being able to cut it and hence him needing to play as a third tall. I think he will be a fine third tall defender but I don't pay a top 10 pick for someone playing that role.

 

[Offsider]

With the way the trade period has transpired to date, I would imagine that a KPP is still our main priority at 8. IMO the only option now is Jaksch, as I don't think Plowman is viewed as a genuine KPP. Possibly paying overs for him but it is an investment in the future. Of course, Tippett may still change everything.

I think Tippett will go into the PSD and we could still be an option for him there. Plowman is a KPD imo he measured in at 192cm at Draft Camp so he has the height, he plays tall and although he does have midfield potential he has also Key Position potential. I also think he has a fair bit of potential as a CHF.

 

[whatboutbob]

I've been musing on GWS overlooking Grundy. I think there may be something to it.

I recall reading an article about their prolonged stand-off with Giles saying their intention was to trade in an A-grade ruck when the time was right. Seems to be the way some clubs are going - rather than 'wasting' a spot on a developing ruckman for years on end. Seems they'll be the perfect free agent targets.

 

[Offsider]

Yeah I have heard similar rumours. I just don't see the sense in it. They have a swag of picks and talent and an obvious hole in the young ruck division. Grundy is the most complete ruck prospect I have seen and not to take him would be just stupid. If they pass him by they might get a reasonable talent in a couple of years but we are moving into a period of great young ruckman and they might have to settle for a ruck that gets towelled up most weeks. And for what? They get to add another midfielder that is probably only marginally if at all better than 5 or 6 guys they are already struggling to give game time too. The only reason I thought they passed on Longer last year was because I assumed that had their eye on Grundy. To fail to address the ruck division again would not make sense. Giles is good around the grounds but probably below average in the ruck contest itself. Grundy will be elite in the ruck and he and Giles should complement each other well.

Totally agree on Grundy he is the best ruck prospect to come along in years, since Natanui. He has elite potential and if I was GWS I would be taking him ahead of anyone in this years draft including Daniher if available. They have a couple of positions of need, and the ruck is definitely one. I rate Giles as average, although he is a decent mark and Grundy can come in immediately and take over the main ruck position by the end of the year. If GWS do the unthinkable and pass on him then I think Melbourne will take him.

 

[Ironmonger]

With the way the trade period has transpired to date, I would imagine that a KPP is still our main priority at 8. IMO the only option now is Jaksch, as I don't think Plowman is viewed as a genuine KPP. Possibly paying overs for him but it is an investment in the future. Of course, Tippett may still change everything.

My impression of our drafting over the last few years is that we tend to go with best available rather than trading for need.

 

[whatboutbob]

My impression of our drafting over the last few years is that we tend to go with best available rather than trading for need.

Mmmm...yes and no. I think need is still taken into some account. Kerr said Polec was a better fit than Heppell for our needs, which got him over the line.

ETA sauce:

Link

Kerr said the Lions recruiting team had made a relatively late call to take Polec after taking a good hard look at their future needs.

"It was a real toss up between Dyson and Jared," Kerr told afl.com.au.

"When we had a hard look at our list and looked at what we needed the most, Jared was probably the best fit of the group in terms of the players that were going to be available.

"Dyson is a terrific player and will have a fantastic career. We just thought from a pure list management perspective that Jared fitted our needs just a little better.

 

[Pavdawn]

People are going to disagree, but we should take Shaw at pick 8. With that we can take our midfielder at pick 24 in Hrovat and Towers at 33. This will let us worry less about LIFE AFTER BIG BROWNY. If Hrovat isn't there at pick 24 which could become 23 again if Adelaide are excluded from the draft we can take Nick Graham or Nathan Wright Borg those players are very good midfielders. I for one would love Towers at pick 24 or 33 (23 or 32 depends on Adelaide) Will Hams at 91 would also be good.

I doubt whether Mason will go first round.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I doubt whether Mason will go first round.

Yes, Freo would love people to believe that, wouldn't they.

 

[Pavdawn]

Yes, Freo would love people to believe that, wouldn't they.

I personally don't want him. He just doesn't have a role outside of playing as a deep forward and he's not exceptional at this role either, he's good, but good enough to play soley as a deep forward at the next level. Im not so sure.

 

[Bert Man]

I doubt whether Mason will go first round.

I agree with you but if Brisbane are serious about getting a 10-15 year forward Shaw is way to go

 

[Hollow Knight]

I agree with you but if Brisbane are serious about getting a 10-15 year forward Shaw is way to go

Plenty of question marks around Shaw. I don't think passing him up means we aren't "serious" about getting a 10-15 year forward.

 

[Bert Man]

Plenty of question marks around Shaw. I don't think passing him up means we aren't "serious" about getting a 10-15 year forward.

I believe he can have the same impact as Darling and has great potential to explode into a great player.

 

[Lions1024]

I believe he can have the same impact as Darling and has great potential to explode into a great player.

Shaw is the polar opposite of Darling.

I would just settle down a bit on the hyperbole.