2013 Draft Discussion

[cotter101]

What are the ages of Patfull, Adcock, Maguire and Merrett? They must all be relatively close in age I'd imagine? Maguire is getting on, Staker too. Leaves the cupboard quite bare down back. Seems the club has exclusively recruited a lot of offensive players the last couple years (aside from Michael/Bourke/Close - all of whom could become kpd's). Does that mean the club will likely start hunting defenders from now on? Or will it still be best available come draft day?

Merrett is currently 29, same with Patful and Maguire.

 

[Malibu#27]

If Karnezis or Polec fail to slot back into the playing group this year or god forbid make ruminations about leaving, perhaps one of them could be packaged along with our high draft pick (#5?) for pick 1 or 2...putting us in the running for Boyd?

The word across the Adelaide board (in particular), but both SA club trade boards is that Polec won't sign an extension and is not enjoying life in Brisbane in general. I'll let you go and look if you want rather than rehashing rumours, but Faith on the Adelaide board seems certain he will be back in SA next year, and thinks Adelaide could land him.

 

[POBT]

The word across the Adelaide board (in particular), but both SA club trade boards is that Polec won't sign an extension and is not enjoying life in Brisbane in general. I'll let you go and look if you want rather than rehashing rumours, but Faith on the Adelaide board seems certain he will be back in SA next year, and thinks Adelaide could land him.

Probably not a great surprise that those rumours are circulating. It is almost the perfect storm. High draft pick from interstate, at a struggling club, injured or not getting a regular game. In fact, the surprise would be if there weren't rumours on the two SA club boards about this.

 

[Triple R]

The word across the Adelaide board (in particular), but both SA club trade boards is that Polec won't sign an extension and is not enjoying life in Brisbane in general. I'll let you go and look if you want rather than rehashing rumours, but Faith on the Adelaide board seems certain he will be back in SA next year, and thinks Adelaide could land him.

What would Adelaide have to trade?

 

[Hollow Knight]

What would Adelaide have to trade?

Exactly. They can't get it done without giving up something.

No PSD fantasies please.

 

[Malibu#27]

What would Adelaide have to trade?

Hopefully nothing

As for Port, I really don't know, and to be honest, since he was drafted have seen very little of him, so don't know that he's even someone we would be after, in terms of what role he plays etc.

 

[cotter101]

Polec won't be back from injury until round 13. Hoping to see him have a few good games in the two's and finishing off the year in the seniors. Haven't watched any of the reserves games apart from the streamed ones. What role has he been playing?

 

[Scubaveg]

The word across the Adelaide board (in particular), but both SA club trade boards is that Polec won't sign an extension and is not enjoying life in Brisbane in general. I'll let you go and look if you want rather than rehashing rumours, but Faith on the Adelaide board seems certain he will be back in SA next year, and thinks Adelaide could land him.

Crows have nothing to offer.

 

[Triple R]

Hopefully nothing

As for Port, I really don't know, and to be honest, since he was drafted have seen very little of him, so don't know that he's even someone we would be after, in terms of what role he plays etc.

Port would be the only Adelaide based side that could offer (at least draft picks) something of value to us. Adelaide have nothing in the bag at all.

In saying this, I'm not convinced he wants out, he does need time away from injury and time in the seniors for which he's been unable to have. It tends to feel like if there is a potentially good player not playing there will be a trade rumour. Not having a go at you at all, just stating what I believe. I have no inside word at all.

 

[sonofabeams]

Has Jon butcher just signed a new contract with port.......if not some deal between lions and port to get polec back home and key foward we need to replace browny

 

[cotter101]

Has Jon butcher just signed a new contract with port.......if not some deal between lions and port to get polec back home and key foward we need to replace browny

I think he signed a 3 or 5 year deal with them back in 2011.

 

[cotter101]

A couple of VFL blokes that interest me.

Michael Lourey - KPF - (193cm/95kg)
Club: Frankston

So far he has kicked 18 goals from 5 games, including a haul of 8 against Collingwood's VFL side. Averaging 14.6 disposals and 7.8 marks a game. 90% of his marks would be uncontested though .Also puts pressure on the opposition defender.


Christopher Michaliades - Forward - (175cm/71kg)
Club: Sandringham

Easily one of the best small forwards going around in the VFL. Started the season off slowly but has hit back in the last 3 weeks, kicking 7 goals, averaging 16.9 disposals and 5.6 tackles.


Both those types of players are big needs for us. From memory both are 22 or under.
Michaliades certainly interests me as be are not taking enough contested marks up forward, but yet don't really have a specialist crumber. His form of late has been very very good.

Lourey has also been in very good form.

 

[Lionator]

A couple of VFL blokes that interest me.

Michael Lourey - KPF - (193cm/95kg)
Club: Frankston

So far he has kicked 18 goals from 5 games, including a haul of 8 against Collingwood's VFL side. Averaging 14.6 disposals and 7.8 marks a game. 90% of his marks would be uncontested though .Also puts pressure on the opposition defender.


Christopher Michaliades - Forward - (175cm/71kg)
Club: Sandringham

Easily one of the best small forwards going around in the VFL. Started the season off slowly but has hit back in the last 3 weeks, kicking 7 goals, averaging 16.9 disposals and 5.6 tackles.


Both those types of players are big needs for us. From memory both are 22 or under.
Michaliades certainly interests me as be are not taking enough contested marks up forward, but yet don't really have a specialist crumber. His form of late has been very very good.

Lourey has also been in very good form.

We definitely need a specialist big man. Is 194cm big enough?

 

[chopperduck]

Unless they are a good body to body forward, then 194 isn't big enough.

 

[cotter101]

We definitely need a specialist big man. Is 194cm big enough?

Unless they are a good body to body forward, then 194 isn't big enough.

I'd say he is a bit like Lisle. Looks like he is going to take a contested mark, but just doesn't quite hang on to it.

He is the type of player who is very good at finding space and just presents himself. Also fairly decent on the ground and puts it effort defensively. I would take a punt on him.

 

[GrandBlue]

Think it might be time for your mob to give Justin Hardy a go. Big bodied, mature aged power forward who won the SANFL Equivalent of the Coleman Medal:


As for the draft, I think Cameron Conlon is the no-brainer at this stage for the Lions. You'll probably end up with a 5-10 pick and that's exactly where Conlon is touted to go. He's not really a big-marking Jono Brown replacement, but still a very talented lead-up forward, similar to Josh Kennedy at West Coast.

Think the other obvious option would be Matt Crouch. Not the quickest player, but he's a clearance machine & would add some much needed steel to your midfield. A bit similar to Olly Wines.

 

[Bert Man]

Does anyone know how Khan Haretaku is going? He is a lump of a lad and could be worth a rookie spot.

 

[Fatcat08]

interesting article in the heraldsun about John Butcher and his continued struggles this season, even so far as one of the development coaches there has written him off. A bit of timely reminder that even highly rated and high pick KPF (some are more ruckman) take a long time to fully develop. If you look at the 08-11 drafts the following top kpf picks are.

2008
1 - Jack Watts
2 - Nic Nat
5 - Michael Hurley
8 - Tyrone Vickery
13 - Tom Lynch
14 - Ayce Cordy

2009
8 - John Butcher
19 - Ben Griffiths
25 - Aaron Black
38 - Sam Reid

2010
3 - Sam Day
10 -Daniel Gorringe
11 - Thomas Lynch
12 - Lucas Cook

2011
1 - Jonathon Patton
(geez it was a massively light year for real KPF! Struggling to find anyone else in the top 30)

I would argue that none of the above players are dominant KPF at the moment that are taking the primary or even secondary role in their teams forward line. I may have missed others that have come on from later picks in the draft but the above does highlight that picking high picks for the KPF position is pretty hit and miss and even the hits take a long time to develop. Even a guy like Cameron who is showing promise still struggles as the main focus up forward and runs very hot and cold.

If we do draft a high kpf this year then I would expect it to take at least 3-4 years for them to be outputting at a level close to what we need. Unfortunately our mid term replacement options for brown are either on our list already or will have to be obtained through trades or free agency signing. Realistically we will need cover from a range of people to take up the slack rather than just one.

I'm all for drafting the right KPF with a high pick but you have to be patient with them and even if they do develop quickly then they're still only likely to be a reasonable contributor rather than a focal point when our midfield and half back options are peaking in 2-4 years time. Just a bit of food for thought.

 

[POBT]

Because of the longer lead time on their development, I think you need to go back over a few more years to work out whether it is "hit or miss" to pick a tall early in the draft. I wouldn't call Kennedy, Ryder, Clark, Reid, Riewoldt, Leuenberger, McEvoy, Brown, Frawley etc failed selections and they were all taken with high picks in the 2005-2007 drafts.

That's not to say there haven't been a few failed picks or guys who haven't lived up to their draft potential - Thorp, Hansen, Gumbleton (although slightly unfair to include him IMO), Grant, Dowler spring to mind. But there have also been non-talls taken with early picks who haven't really worked out - Oakley-Nicholls, Everitt, Ellis, Drum, Higgins, Morton, Palmer.

It is certainly more hit and miss to take a tall but, if you need one, the evidence shows that the really good ones tend to be taken early in the draft, unless you get lucky with a draft concession or father-son type pick. Even this year, the top tall goal kickers are mainly high draft picks or at least highly rated juniors - Riewoldt x 2, Kennedy, Cloke, Franklin, Cameron, Roughead. That pattern has mostly held up for several years. You might pick up gun midfielders, rucks or defenders lower in the draft or as rookies but it is quite uncommon to get a gun key forward in the lower reaches.

Of course, you may adopt a structure that doesn't rely on a superstar key forward (eg Sydney 2012, West Coast 2005-06) but, if your structure relies on having quality tall marking options up front, then the early stages of the draft is pretty much the place to look.

 

[Fatcat08]

Agree POBT, my post was more so around the fact that there may have been a bit of thought that if we took a forward with a high draft pick then they would be looking to be a very valuable member of our side in 2-3 years time. Reality and history shows though that you should probably be looking at the 5-7 year mark for that level of consistency and domination you're looking for in a true focal point, a point at which our mids and HBF will be well and truly towards the middle/later stage of their prime and our current KPD's will be towards the end of their career. I'm still all for taking a KPF with our top pick if the player justifies it as I agree the chances of getting good mids/backs with your later picks is much higher.

However if we're talking about finals football and being competitive in finals in 2015-2018 then our main KPF is going to have to come from our current list or trades/free agency. Anyone we draft may be a second or 3rd focal point by that time but its highly unlikely that they will be the main man in attack. Of course the could prove me wrong but I'm not banking on it.

Unfortunately the loss of Clarke and Henderson has taken our players who would have been in that age bracket, both of which were high picks. Personally when I look at our drafting in recent times our preference for those 190-192 cm utility type players has me thinking that we are leaning towards a structure that doesn't rely so much on our tall timber for our goals. While it hasn't shone through yet to me it seems that as these players progress we will be looking toward obtaining more goals from these types of players who can both run through the midfield but also present a stronger marking presence up forward as well. Will be interesting to see if the eventuates or not.

The other thing I found interesting when looking at the above is that the development timetable seems to be a bit shorter for KPD than KPF in general. Not sure what to put this down to although at its basis I tend to think it can be a bit easier to follow someone else and spoil than it is to learn and master your running patterns and take contested marks.

 

[Dylan12]

A bit of timely reminder that even highly rated and high pick KPF (some are more ruckman) take a long time to fully develop.

Makes for interesting reading Fatcat08.

I reckon conducting the same exercise with ruckmen also would be equally alarming.

Just goes to show that immediate expectations on talls, particularly key position forwards and ruckmen really needs to be contained for a good 3-4 years and any immediate success regarded as a bonus not the norm.

 

[POBT]

Couldn't agree more with all of that Fatcat08

When previewing an upcoming draft, there is a tendency to look at our current 22 and say "what is missing?"
That is way too short term. Project out 4-5 years for midfielders, 5-7 for key forwards and 6-8 for ruckmen. You might score someone who makes their mark early but you don't plan on getting the lucky break.

At the time, there was a lot of criticism when we went really tall for several years in the mid-00s. But right now, we'd be so much better off structurally with guys like Henderson and Clark still on the list. At the time, we were crying out for more and better mids to slot straight in - but Brown and Bradshaw were papering over the long term gaps in our side up forward. While not wanting to re-hash Fevola arguments again, one of the big factors in my opposition to that trade was that it brought in a key forward of the same age as our current forwards and got rid of the bloke who, along with Clark and Leuenberger, were the key developing tall players on our list at the time. It ruined a structure that, from a long term perspective, was looking very solid in terms of KPPs and rucks.

From a needs basis, getting a ruck/forward, ruck and tall forward/defender in the period 2005-2007 was, in hindsight, a perfect strategy from a structural perspective. We have had to trade in ruck support - imagine what we'd be like without Leuey. We're clearly missing someone who can play ruck/forward effectively. And a 6th year tall marking option up forward is probably a better option than what we have now, even if his better position is in defence. In terms of long range list management, those were the right calls.

NB: I'm not talking about the individual players selected. Clark was more trouble than he was worth and plenty of clubs had question marks on Henderson, who still hasn't really developed into a consistent performer.

 

[POBT]

Makes for interesting reading Fatcat08.

I reckon conducting the same exercise with ruckmen also would be equally alarming.

Just goes to show that immediate expectations on talls, particularly key position forwards and ruckmen really needs to be contained for a good 3-4 years and any immediate success regarded as a bonus not the norm.

Yep.

However, there is an oft-stated argument that taking a ruckman early in the draft is an unnecessary risk. I disagree with that. As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a failed ruckman taken in the first round of the draft since 2004 (Cameron Wood, John Meesen etc). And there have been some absolute beauties taken in that time - Leuenberger, Kreuzer, Naitanui, McEvoy, Ryder among them. Of course, there are a few blokes still on lists with question marks on whether they will make it - Hampson, Lobbe etc and clubs tend to be more patient with rucks than with other players. But the hit rate is pretty good and, moreover, you do have a good chance of getting a gun if you use an early pick on a quality young ruck.

I guess the difference with rucks is that you can also get good ones from later in the draft - guys like Mumford, Maric, Jacobs etc aren't necessarily a big downgrade on the elite draftees. But rucks taken early don't appear to be a risky pick, just that you might pick one up of a similar standard who comes a bit cheaper.

 

[Fatcat08]

Its a good call POBT that who we are drafting now ideally should be in regards to where our list will be at within those timeframes. Unfortunately like you said we're still papering over cracks that losing those players and a few others who didn't work out have left in our list. Really if we had a balanced list right now we probably should be looking at drafting at least another 1-2 kpd and at least one more developing ruckman in the next few years as well as the usual spread of mids. However the lack of a standout to fill that key forward role may force us to look at plugging a gap out of sync with the rest of our list development. We've traded for Lisle and Martin to try to do this and while they may be role players they don't look like filling those key positions.

Our best bet is a gameplan to counter these deficiencies.

 

[Fatcat08]

Yep.

However, there is an oft-stated argument that taking a ruckman early in the draft is an unnecessary risk. I disagree with that. As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a failed ruckman taken in the first round of the draft since 2004 (Cameron Wood, John Meesen etc). And there have been some absolute beauties taken in that time - Leuenberger, Kreuzer, Naitanui, McEvoy, Ryder among them. Of course, there are a few blokes still on lists with question marks on whether they will make it - Hampson, Lobbe etc and clubs tend to be more patient with rucks than with other players. But the hit rate is pretty good and, moreover, you do have a good chance of getting a gun if you use an early pick on a quality young ruck.

I guess the difference with rucks is that you can also get good ones from later in the draft - guys like Mumford, Maric, Jacobs etc aren't necessarily a big downgrade on the elite draftees. But rucks taken early don't appear to be a risky pick, just that you might pick one up of a similar standard who comes a bit cheaper.

Going even further I'd imagine that if you did the analysis it would probably show that while you can get good ones later in the draft the hit rate would be much much lower. People have a tendency to focus on the ones that did make it and ignore the multitude that didn't (a similar problem exists when people analyse sydneys trading and hail it as a masterstroke, there's plenty of average players and fails on their trade list, but the fact they have had a number of very good successes papers over those.). Just look at the revolving door of low draft pick ruckman we've had fly through over the years. Its only now, after spending another top 10 pick on one that we look to have a bit more stable ruck list than in previous years.