2012 Draft wish list

[strobe00]

The little bits of clurey I saw in the vids, he didn't look particularly quick or agile. Not hopeless or anything, but not a real feature. I had seen his height posted as 192, so I don't know what to believe.

I reckon the endurance thing is over rated for young guys. Unless they have a genetic weakness with endurance, it can be wiped out as a major disadvantage with training on an afl list. Would rather a kpp with the height and athletic skills that needed to work on his endurance, than a ready made endurance machine that lacked those extra tools.

If we did grab him, then it wouldn't be a problem. He just seemed a bit shorter than I was hoping we'd go. Corr sounds a bit closer to what I was hoping.

In the end, my preferences don't mean squat. But taking another average paced slightly undersized kpd option would be a bummer.

 

[free at last]

Yeah how good with that be if Simpson fell to #40.

Jaksch and Shaw both being available at 1st selection would make the brain-cells tap-dance as well you would think.

Or Garlett.Would love to see Garlett and Walters running around in the purple next year.

 

[E Shed]

And yet there were blow jobs on demand when he used his forensic skills to provide the board with an in-depth player write-up.

Well yeah because that's informative, constructive posting.
Been thinking about the whole skinny hb/HFF thing. & thing is if Joel Houghton & Hayden Crozier were on the table I know which I'd take.

 

[pavsbootlace]

Well yeah because that's informative, constructive posting.
Been thinking about the whole skinny hb/HFF thing. & thing is if Joel Houghton & Hayden Crozier were on the table I know which I'd take.

Yep. And Nat Fyfe was a skinny flanker when we drafted him too.

 

[blue shark]

Houghton had elite endurance, and used his height, fitness, 194cm against smaller opponents, he was never a contested marking player, or huge pack mark. Fyfe has always been a freak in the air, Crozier can take pack marks. Houghton was considered a third round draft pick, and even his u18 championship games, he did okay, nothing amazing.
The Talls who are considered worthy of a first round pick are there for a reason, every team requires quality key positions filled.

 

[theGav56]

The Talls who are considered worthy of a first round pick are there for a reason, every team requires quality key positions filled.

Exactly. And you also don't need a heap of good quality KPP's. Really we only have 2 and are close to being good enough with a ute load of semi-decent KPP's in different roles to make up the rest of the needs.

 

[Ysaye]

I personally don't think we should give up on the thought that Stringer might make it to our first pick. The reality is that he is sub-optimal height for a KPP, and as midfielders go there are a lot of other options with more potential going around. I know BF posters are talking his chances of going in the Top 10 up (particularly with Bulldogs picks), but I am expecting him to slide to picks 10 - 20.

 

[Undertaker]

I would be happy if we chose either Spencer White or Tanner Smith with our 2nd / 3rd picks. If either Jaksch, Stringer or Shaw are available at 17 I would take them.

 

[Scham]

The options seem to be opening up for us with now O'Brien being written up on AFL.com as a likely late first round pick. So with a slim hope of Jacksch and Shaw and now O'Brien being almost certainly available, we'll have some options for a young KP Forward.

Also, Tanner Smith is being touted as possibly being available in the late 30's, so with him and Corr and Leinert we'll have good options for a McPharlin replacement too.

Just imagine if it worked out as;

17. Jacksch KPF
37. Smith KPD
then we could go a small with 40 and hopefully Carter will be available. We'd also consider Nelson here in this scenario I reckon.

 

[Freo Dr]

The options seem to be opening up for us with now O'Brien being written up on AFL.com as a likely late first round pick. So with a slim hope of Jacksch and Shaw and now O'Brien being almost certainly available, we'll have some options for a young KP Forward.

Also, Tanner Smith is being touted as possibly being available in the late 30's, so with him and Corr and Leinert we'll have good options for a McPharlin replacement too.

Just imagine if it worked out as;

17. Jacksch KPF
37. Smith KPD
then we could go a small with 40 and hopefully Carter will be available. We'd also consider Nelson here in this scenario I reckon.

Agree although still not sure Jaksch will fall to 17. If he does like others above I would be very conflicted between him and the good Freo supporting WA lad Shaw. Be interested to hear Chris's thoughts on O'Brien - does seem to need some considerable bulk on his frame though.

 

[Undertaker]

Agree although still not sure Jaksch will fall to 17. If he does like others above I would be very conflicted between him and the good Freo supporting WA lad Shaw. Be interested to hear Chris's thoughts on O'Brien - does seem to need some considerable bulk on his frame though.

IMHO if we were to take a risk with our 2nd / 3rd pick Spencer White is the one with the X factor.

 

[Nickos66]

Shaw's looking more and more like a mid 20's pick. Hell, maybe by the time draft day comes around he'll look like a mid 30's pick.

 

[Chris25]

I like Tim O'Brien. At the end of last season, basically nobody outside of Glenelg knew about him. But even then, you could see he had some serious talent. My write up on him is in my mock draft thread, I have him going at #30 to Port Adelaide.

The problem I have with O'Brien, is the same problem I have with most of the KPPs - pick 17 may be a touch early, but they'll likely be gone by pick 37. It wouldn't surprise me if O'Brien, White, Smith, Corr, McIntosh and Wood were all taken between our first and second picks. So that's why I would find it difficult to pass on Mason Shaw at #17 (despite the Victorian 'experts' not rating him).

 

[theGav56]

Shaw's looking more and more like a mid 20's pick. Hell, maybe by the time draft day comes around he'll look like a mid 30's pick.

Based on media speculation? Reality is that Shaw is the standout specialist KPF in the draft. If that is what a club needs, he is the kid to select. Great height, good marking, accurate kick, good agility. If he is actually a "mid 20's pick" then he becomes a "late teens pick" for us because he fits our needs and that is where we have the potential to get him. And I reckon if a club with an earlier pick than us also wants a KPF, then he becomes an "early teens pick".

The negatives put against him are that he is a one position player, but FF is one of the few positions on the ground where a genuine specialist is not a bad option.

I also cannot see why a player with his attributes in a professional environment cannot be taught some other skills to give a bit more flexibility.

 

[blue shark]

I remember wet toast supporters laughing, we took Ballentyne and they got Swift, the one Voss rated the best 16 year old in the
country. Then they got one back with Darling, over Pitt. We needed Ballentyne, the same applies now, we need Talls developing
now.

 

[BananaOnTheRun]

I remember wet toast supporters laughing, we took Ballentyne and they got Swift, the one Voss rated the best 16 year old in the
country. Then they got one back with Darling, over Pitt. We needed Ballentyne, the same applies now, we need Talls developing
now.

we can't make our decisions framed by evening some ledger against the weagles. we need forwards simply because we need them, not because west coast drafted darling.

 

[Big Flappy]

mason shaw is sounding more and more like jack darling. great kpp prospect. been in the system a long time and people start focusing on his negatives. this time last year we were only dreaming of the chance to be able to grab him but we wouldnt have a high enough pick. id be pretty disappointed if we didnt pull the trigger.

 

[rgauci]

Shaw is the same player as Butcher at Port. Capable of kicking bags but applies little pressure and not much use outside being the focal point of an attack. Beyond Pavlich, we have no focal point, Mayne is a great forward but his best position is 3rd tall. Keplar, Griffin and Clarke are fighting for the 2nd tall/ruckman position with Griffin eventually taking first ruck off Sandilands. We've added Moller to the list which gives us great depth in the ruck and 2nd tall role. We have no-one to lead the attack.

Some clubs can make do without a focal point, Sydney the best example. They have a plethora of tall forwards but few can kick bags, their midfield is the major scoring point of the team but the talls are workhorses and play roles. Collingwood, Hawthorn, West Coast (though Kennedy missed most of the year), Richmond, Adelaide, North have a dominant key forward, and not surprisingly most sit in the top half of the ladder.

The massive question: Is Shaw capable of leading an AFL attack? Many highly rated talls have come before him and struggled with the task. It's a high risk high reward strategy picking him up. If he blossoms we have a player to lead our attack beyond Pavlich and our window suddenly opens up for another 5 years. If he goes bust, we've wasted a top 20 pick where more flexible players could improve our team overall.

Say he has a 20% chance of becoming a dominant key forward vs. 80% of another smaller player becoming a regular AFL player. Which would you choose, what if he was closer to 50%. Thats the recruiters job to figure it out.

 

[Nickos66]

Based on media speculation? Reality is that Shaw is the standout specialist KPF in the draft. If that is what a club needs, he is the kid to select. Great height, good marking, accurate kick, good agility. If he is actually a "mid 20's pick" then he becomes a "late teens pick" for us because he fits our needs and that is where we have the potential to get him. And I reckon if a club with an earlier pick than us also wants a KPF, then he becomes an "early teens pick".

The negatives put against him are that he is a one position player, but FF is one of the few positions on the ground where a genuine specialist is not a bad option.

I also cannot see why a player with his attributes in a professional environment cannot be taught some other skills to give a bit more flexibility.

Sure, based on speculation, mock drafts by numerous people and based the fact that for a 2nd year colt he didn't come on as expected and show any big improvement from his boom year last year, nor did he crack a league game.

I'm not sure Bondy & Lloyd share your views that the mid 20's pick becomes a late or early teens pick by virtue of other teams needs, it's never mattered before so why would it now? The club in recent memory has sometimes painstakingly taken the 'best available' over needs every time.

I don't doubt he can be taught more strings to his bow, but based on 'best available' he won't be taken by us in the 1st round, I feel.

There's at least a dozen KPP's names being thrown around at the moment that people from Kevin Sheehan to Chris25 & Knightmare think will go in the 20's - 50's of the draft. But every year there's at least 2 or 3 that slide to the rookie draft.. and then still get passed on. Don't be surprised when someone like that mid 2nd rounder doesn't get called out on draft day.

 

[E Shed]

Some clubs can make do without a focal point, Sydney the best example. They have a plethora of tall forwards but few can kick bags, their midfield is the major scoring point of the team but the talls are workhorses and play roles. Collingwood, Hawthorn, West Coast (though Kennedy missed most of the year), Richmond, Adelaide, North have a dominant key forward, and not surprisingly most sit in the top half of the ladder.

Sydney have Goodes (who is comparable to Pav) plus they have the swingman in LRT (who is an upgrade on a Kepler type) but then they have Reid, who while still young and green is capable of hauling in the big marks or at least crashing the pack and bringing it to ground. That's the type we are missing (someone tall with big sticky hands who goes for their marks). Mayne, Balla, Walters have the rest covered. It's possible Croz will add some X-Factor and high marking to the puzzle but he's a wee bit skinny yet and not that tall.

 

[malpaso]

I can't see us rating Shaw either, he's one-dimensional and RTB will require more.

I also think we'll draft kids with ready made physicality rather than the 2-3 year beef consumption projects.

 

[Righteo]

I can't see us rating Shaw either, he's one-dimensional and RTB will require more.

I also think we'll draft kids with ready made physicality rather than the 2-3 year beef consumption projects.

I don't see how this is a problem if the one thing he can do he does well, we need someone capable of taking contested marks and converting accurately to put it simply, Mayne/Ballantyne/Walters/Mellington can supply the forward pressure. People act like Shaw has the mobility of a lumbering ruckman, he is pretty athletic for his size.

 

[nurries]

I remember wet toast supporters laughing, we took Ballentyne and they got Swift, the one Voss rated the best 16 year old in the
country. Then they got one back with Darling, over Pitt. We needed Ballentyne, the same applies now, we need Talls developing
now.

They also took Shepherd i/o Lewis Jetta. Imagine Jetta on Subi every 2nd week.

 

[theGav56]

The massive question: Is Shaw capable of leading an AFL attack? Many highly rated talls have come before him and struggled with the task. It's a high risk high reward strategy picking him up. If he blossoms we have a player to lead our attack beyond Pavlich and our window suddenly opens up for another 5 years. If he goes bust, we've wasted a top 20 pick where more flexible players could improve our team overall.

He needs to provide a decent marking target up forward. Of course if he becomes a dominant player that would be awesome.

Re being a 1 position player, how many positions do Hawkins. Kennedy. Cloke, Brown etc play? That is the role Shaw will be recruited for by whichever club takes him. Bradley is not a 1 position player, and has a few possible roles he can play. But if he was a decent marking target up forward we would virtually never see him in the ruck again.

 

[theGav56]

I'm not sure Bondy & Lloyd share your views that the mid 20's pick becomes a late or early teens pick by virtue of other teams needs, it's never mattered before so why would it now? The club in recent memory has sometimes painstakingly taken the 'best available' over needs every time.

I don't doubt he can be taught more strings to his bow, but based on 'best available' he won't be taken by us in the 1st round, I feel.

"Best available" is always a subjective argument that leads nowhere. But I am pretty sure the consensus of opinion is that Darling was best available, not Pitt. And media speculation didn't have Ballantyne taken where we reached out and plucked him, but he met a pretty specific need for the club.

There are a heap of variables that come into deciding who is the best available, and especially in the debate about smalls vs talls. It is speculative and a cursory glance over the re-dos of drafts from years past shows that. I would be pretty sure that selecting Palmer at such an early pick over that years #17, Harry Taylor, had as much to do with our need for a hard running inside mid and the lack of need for a KPD as it did about best available.

I think there is a tipping point in drafting where the difference in "best"-ness becomes marginal when weighed against needs. It is why the draft is unpredictable after the first 10 or so selections. By pick 17 that is well and truly in the realms where picking for need comes into play when deciding between a highly rated small and a highly rated tall. We certainly won't be taking a ruckman even if they are rated best available, and I am tipping a small forward won't be on the cards regardless.