Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

2012 Draft Discussion

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

What happened to Piers Flanagan? Was a 17 year old concession for GCS. Had a hip injury that may have stalled his development and was likened to Goddard. Could develope into an inside/outside mid, bu geez GCS didn't do well at all with their concessions, I mean you can't be a gun 17 year old then a spud in 2 years? Also liked the run and carry of Sam Illes thought he had too much expectation put on him by GCS. Obviously didn't have the class to carry their midfield with Ablett. Might do better as the 5-6 mid in a team rotating through the f50. Both would be great PSD pickups.
 
The Flying Belgian said:
I want us to draft whichever player I just read about on afl.com.au or on Chris25/Knightmare's draft.
Click to expand...

Every 2 days or so, I am going to state a preference for a different player... Then when we draft one of the 30 players I named, I can bump the old post and say "Yes!!! we drafted my boy (insert player name)".
 
SizeMatters said:
What happened to Piers Flanagan? Was a 17 year old concession for GCS. Had a hip injury that may have stalled his development and was likened to Goddard. Could develope into an inside/outside mid, bu geez GCS didn't do well at all with their concessions, I mean you can't be a gun 17 year old then a spud in 2 years? Also liked the run and carry of Sam Illes thought he had too much expectation put on him by GCS. Obviously didn't have the class to carry their midfield with Ablett. Might do better as the 5-6 mid in a team rotating through the f50. Both would be great PSD pickups.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have called all of their 17 year olds guns, if you go through and look at the draft (pre 2009 when 17 year olds born between Jan and Apr could be taken) and players who were taken then you will find that only about 5 or so are first round picks and the rest are second and third rounders. Not all of them were junior guns but they did have some impressive junior talent in Josh Toy (top 3 pick), Trent McKenzie (top 10 pick), Maverick Weller (top 10 pick), Brandon Matera (first rounder imo). None of these players have really come on and looked like developing into guns, although Matera and McKenzie look pretty likely types. Gold Coast missed out on Alex Keath to cricket, and was probably as talented as Jeremy Cameron so that is pretty lucky for us :p. GWS have obviously really lucked out and got Jeremy Cameron, Dylan Shiel and Adam Treloar who look like they could all be A grade players, with Cameron imo one of the best young forwards going around. Not all the 17 year olds were "guns" but obviously they all had talent.

Piers Flanagan was imo about an early second round pick, he is a good outside player who has been delisted due to issues over list size. He was always going to take a while, and as he has had 2 injury interrupted years this is even more exaggerated. I would not take him in the ND with the picks we have, I would however definitely pick him up with our first rookie pick.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Offsider said:
Piers Flanagan was imo about an early second round pick, he is a good outside player who has been delisted due to issues over list size. He was always going to take a while, and as he has had 2 injury interrupted years this is even more exaggerated. I would not take him in the ND with the picks we have, I would however definitely pick him up with our first rookie pick.
Click to expand...

I noticed something the other day, on the Lions official site, it only lists us with Clarke, Michael, Newell and Wrigley...For some reason Crisp and McKeever are both sitting in the seniors list. Wrigs was elevated halfway through the year and I think McKeever was up for the LTI from Staker and Crips for Luens LTI...

So with the new rules of the Rookie system, we can only have 4, not 6 rookies. Pretty confident Clarke and Michael wont be dropped anytime soon, and at least one is going to be promoted, still leaving us with 5 Rookies.
 
can someone tell me the knocks on bourke, on why geelong and gold coast didn't bother selecting him when they did have the chance, my theory was geelong and gold coast had enough developing kpp options to not bother with anymore newbies but then why let go of quality

all the writeups on him seem to make him out to be pretty top class, pace agility, good marking and decent set shot can even have a run through the midfield, but obviously these need to be taken with a grain of salt
 
captainrich said:
can someone tell me the knocks on bourke, on why geelong and gold coast didn't bother selecting him when they did have the chance, my theory was geelong and gold coast had enough developing kpp options to not bother with anymore newbies but then why let go of quality

all the writeups on him seem to make him out to be pretty top class, pace agility, good marking and decent set shot can even have a run through the midfield, but obviously these need to be taken with a grain of salt
Click to expand...

Firstly I should say that I rate Bourke quite highly, especially in comparison to some others around here. I think the reasons that Geelong and Gold Coast didn't take him are 1) they have young KPP, 2) they rate their KPP more highly, and 3) they didn't have the list space. Clubs seem more weary of taking a middle of the range father-son prospect these days as they like to have the ability to trade their second and third round picks, Geelong probably also wanted to retain the ability to trade these picks so didn't pick him up. Look at James Stewart this year (probably more a third round onwards talent), and Tom Curran this year (went second round overlooked by the Hawks), clubs seem to no longer automatically pick up talented father-sons who are not first round quality.

I do rate Bourke highly, as a late second rounder, he has good athleticism for a forward, he is a pretty good mark both on the lead and in contested situations, he is smart knows where to lead, he can play decently down back (probably not in the midfield), he also has a good skill set. The downsides are that he has average hands below his knees for mine, nothing special can fumble, he has no real defensive side to his game as a forward, he is quite skinny so long term project who may not make it, he hasn't really dominated much, but had a decent game at the champs, also his endurance needs improving as does his workrate imo. Still there is a lot to work with, I would take him with any pick we have after 33 (not 333, 14 or 8) or more likely in the rookie draft.
 
Offsider said:
Firstly I should say that I rate Bourke quite highly, especially in comparison to some others around here. I think the reasons that Geelong and Gold Coast didn't take him are 1) they have young KPP, 2) they rate their KPP more highly, and 3) they didn't have the list space. Clubs seem more weary of taking a middle of the range father-son prospect these days as they like to have the ability to trade their second and third round picks, Geelong probably also wanted to retain the ability to trade these picks so didn't pick him up. Look at James Stewart this year (probably more a third round onwards talent), and Tom Curran this year (went second round overlooked by the Hawks), clubs seem to no longer automatically pick up talented father-sons who are not first round quality.

I do rate Bourke highly, as a late second rounder, he has good athleticism for a forward, he is a pretty good mark both on the lead and in contested situations, he is smart knows where to lead, he can play decently down back (probably not in the midfield), he also has a good skill set. The downsides are that he has average hands below his knees for mine, nothing special can fumble, he has no real defensive side to his game as a forward, he is quite skinny so long term project who may not make it, he hasn't really dominated much, but had a decent game at the champs, also his endurance needs improving as does his workrate imo. Still there is a lot to work with, I would take him with any pick we have after 33 (not 333, 14 or 8) or more likely in the rookie draft.
Click to expand...


cheers for that offsider would have been nice if we had pick 53 he would have been a decent option, but obviously stefan martin is more of a sure thing, would be nice if he hung around till the rookie draft though we do already have alot of developing talls and we will most likely take one with our first 3 picks too so he will probably be surplus to our needs you reckon?
 
So hypothetically, if GWS were to take Tippett with one of their first three picks and Melbourne were to be stripped of pick 4 for tanking, we'd effectively have pick 6 in the draft. Pretty hard to complain about that. Will definitely be some good talent at that point.

I've seen no more than the AFL website videos and the state champs earlier in the year, but am right on the Stringer bandwagon. It's unlikely he'll still be around though, so it's more of a fantasy than anything else.

Also, with us now having no picks later than 33 and unlikely to take a rookie pick with the smaller rookie lists from next season, I reckon any chance of picking up Clouston has probably gone.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

jjami15 said:
and just to add Jaeksch at 8 isn't a very smart move. Not best player and more in the 10-20 range.
Click to expand...

This is the bit that I fail to understand, the whole 'bit of a reach' concept. If we have 8 & someone that fits a clear need is ranked at 10, isn't it better that you consider taking the need (that is still ranked highly in himself) rather than the best available? Even more so when the best available may replicate those already on the list.

Sooner or later the KPP depth needs to be addressed. As I said previously this year it is likely that at 8 we will have the pick of the whole KPP pool, select the right one & we are away. I would have thought this would be our ideal starting point in addressing the KPP deficiencies.

Just throwing it out there?
 
Bobby Beecroft said:
This is the bit that I fail to understand, the whole 'bit of a reach' concept. If we have 8 & someone that fits a clear need is ranked at 10, isn't it better that you consider taking the need (that is still ranked highly in himself) rather than the best available? Even more so when the best available may replicate those already on the list.

Sooner or later the KPP depth needs to be addressed. As I said previously this year it is likely that at 8 we will have the pick of the whole KPP pool, select the right one & we are away. I would have thought this would be our ideal starting point in addressing the KPP deficiencies.

Just throwing it out there?
Click to expand...

I agree in general and disagree in specifics. :D

It's a matter of degrees. I suspect that when a club is doing its internal rankings of players, needs are always taken into account to some extent. Therefore while the general populace may have Jaksch at 15 (hypothetically), internally we may very well have him at eight or earlier because we rate him higher than comparable talents due to him fitting our needs. That's even ignoring the natural differences in opinions between different recruiting departments. Even when a club says it will take "best available", it's rarely that clear cut. You might have three or four available that could be considered best available, but needs or a particular preference for a type of player may push one above the others.

Basically what I'm saying is that I doubt the club will reach for a player it doesn't rate, but it may rate players differently to the consensus view resulting in (from the outside) what looks to be a reach. In Jaksch's case, the consensus might be pick 12 but if we consider him better than that and rank him in our top 6 we're not really reaching for him - instead we're happy he "slid". However others will probably pop up and decry the reach (cf: Redden, IIRC).
 
What are peoples thoughts on taking Dean Towers at pick 24 or 33 I would happily take him at 24 or 33 he would add quite a bit of dash
 
Bert Man said:
What are peoples thoughts on taking Dean Towers at pick 24 or 33 I would happily take him at 24 or 33 he would add quite a bit of dash
Click to expand...

Heh. You're starting to sound like a broken record.

Bert Man said:
If we go tall at pick we should take Dean Towers at either pick 24 or 33. Isaac Smith 2.0?
Click to expand...

Bert Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bert Man said:
Their are great midfield options at 24,33 ie. Towers
Click to expand...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

010203
Non Lions Discussion 2026
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
Elixuh
Elixuh
briztoon
List Mgmt. Back2Back Rorts Baby (aka 2026 draft thread)
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
150
Views
10K
Miller1971
M
____
2026 fixture wishlist/discussion
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
380
Views
15K
MSB ROYS
MSB ROYS
P
List Mgmt. 2026 List Management Discussion
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
9K
MSB ROYS
MSB ROYS

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom