List Mgmt. 2013 Draft Discussion

[Kelvin31]

Probably because McCartney and our recruiters went to Adelaide, so the journo's just put to and two together and said Aish and Scharenberg are the favourites.

Macca went to Canberra with Graeme Lowe (Justin Cordy?) to present at a sports conference, but Jmac and Dalrymple went to SA for interviews this week.

.

 

[House_of_Dahl]

Time to put your bets down on who we are getting, before this information comes in. One pick only.

I'll go with Scharenberg.

depends on who is available at our pick.

I'll go with this order: Aish -> Scharenberg -> Bontempelli

 

[paul scholes]

I'd prefer Aish, but have a feeling we will swing towards Scharenberg. Our defense is far from settled, as we still need a solid shut down defender who can play small and tall when Morris. As well as a Murphy type to rebound out of Defense. Not sure how Scharenberg goes with shutting down players, and he probably isn't as agile as Murphy. But I think he will be used in a bit of a free roaming role like Lake was when he wasn't lining up on someone directly. Using his ability to read the ball well, take intercept marks, then get that deep kick downfield.

The last time we looked at filling a hole or a replacement ....
We picked Tim Walsh( not comparing Scharenberg to him) but no filling a need at 4

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

The last time we looked at filling a hole or a replacement ....
We picked Tim Walsh( not comparing Scharenberg to him) but no filling a need at 4

To be fair, every single one of the players worth pick 4 fills a need. We're lucky in that regard.

 

[_M_16_]

The last time we looked at filling a hole or a replacement ....
We picked Tim Walsh( not comparing Scharenberg to him) but no filling a need at 4

That's true. But I am just saying IF we picked him, then why we may do so.
Essentially both players would be technically filling a hole anyways. Just as much as the fact that both players could also be rated in the best available players category. It's all a matter of varying opinions anyway. If we picked Scharenberg doesn't mean we went for a fill a hole approach, as he has been considered as one of the top five players in the draft for awhile.

We will go for the best available player, but outside of Boyd, any of 4-5 players could end up being the next best in the draft. But a club has to look at a need as well. If you have two players as good as each other, and one fills in a need, and the other you already have good players and depth at, then obviously you'd pick the one that fills a need as well. The only thing you don't do with a first round pick, is go purely JUST for a hole ahead of talent, eg. Howard

 

[fronkalicious]

To be fair, every single one of the players worth pick 4 fills a need. We're lucky in that regard.

Does billings?? Very similar to hunter isn't he?

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Does billings?? Very similar to hunter isn't he?

Nah, very different. Regardless, we need skill through the midfield and more dangerous scorers - Billings can at least do the latter; potentially the former as he's one of the best kicks in the draft.

 

[Zgope1]

I reckon Billings and Hunter are pretty bloody similar. Not identical obviously but very similar

 

[Igloo]

I will be a sad panda if we pass on Aish.

 

[fronkalicious]

Nah, very different. Regardless, we need skill through the midfield and more dangerous scorers - Billings can at least do the latter; potentially the former as he's one of the best kicks in the draft.

Cool. I'm just asking the questions. You're the man with the answers.

In what ways do you think the 2 are different? Billings does look an absolute natural from the very very limited footage I've seen.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Cool. I'm just asking the questions. You're the man with the answers.

In what ways do you think the 2 are different? Billings does look an absolute natural from the very very limited footage I've seen.

Billings is stronger through the body, better overhead and probably a bit quicker. His kicking is absolutely elite and while I rate Hunter's disposal it's not really close to Billings'. Billings is also a more natural, crumbing forward. On the flip side, Hunter's much more of a natural midfielder, wins more of his own ball and is more damaging under pressure. He's also better defensively.

In summary, Hunter's probably more of an 'all-rounded midfielder', while Billings is a dangerous offensive weapon who's yet to completely transition to the midfield. They're not completely dissimilar and are quite alike in some regards, but they play pretty differently imo.

 

[murphy's twin]

Billings is stronger through the body, better overhead and probably a bit quicker. His kicking is absolutely elite and while I rate Hunter's disposal it's not really close to Billings'. Billings is also a more natural, crumbing forward. On the flip side, Hunter's much more of a natural midfielder, wins more of his own ball and is more damaging under pressure. He's also better defensively.

In summary, Hunter's probably more of an 'all-rounded midfielder', while Billings is a dangerous offensive weapon who's yet to completely transition to the midfield. They're not completely dissimilar and are quite alike in some regards, but they play pretty differently imo.

Basically what your saying though is that billings is a more advanced version of hunter. With the right coaching hunter and billings could well be very similar in 5 years time.

 

[Chris Grant]

Macca went to Canberra with Graeme Lowe (Justin Cordy?) to present at a sports conference, but Jmac and Dalrymple went to SA for interviews this week.

Yep... that's what I meant.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Basically what your saying though is that billings is a more advanced version of hunter. With the right coaching hunter and billings could well be very similar in 5 years time.

Not really, no...Billings is a forward trying to work his way into the midfield. Hunter is a midfielder trying to build the tank to play there more permanently who needs to work on his forward work.

 

[murphy's twin]

Not really, no...Billings is a forward trying to work his way into the midfield. Hunter is a midfielder trying to build the tank to play there more permanently who needs to work on his forward work.

They both need to work on there tank to work into the midfield, and they both have elite vision and composure. The diference in my mind is that Billings is more advanced with his disposals, in which hunter can catch up to him with the right coaching.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

They both need to work on there tank to work into the midfield, and they both have elite vision and composure. The diference in my mind is that Billings is more advanced with his disposals, in which hunter can catch up to him with the right coaching.

That's not what I said though (or at least not what I was intending to say). Tank isn't the only thing stopping Billings from transitioning to the midfield. If Dickson got more of a tank, would you play him as a midfielder? No, because he plays like - and is - a forward. That's my concern with Billings. He is a forward first and foremost. Hunter on the other hand is a midfielder who plays like a midfielder who doesn't yet have the tank to play there at AFL level. Thus he plays in the forward line. Complete opposites in that regard.

If it was as easy as you say to make someone kick like Billings then poor skills would never, ever be a factor in who you draft. Billings will always be the better kick imo.

 

[fronkalicious]

Damn hunter is a talent. Such a steal that late in the draft. The fact that he's even in the same conversation as a top 3/4 pick says a lot.

Where do we think hunter would go if the 2013 draft was re-done tomorrow? Top 20???

 

[Dale4captain]

I enjoyed this. A few of you will, too. My favourite was next pick after Richmond. hahahhahha

http://the-flack.com/2013/11/afldraft/

 

[BIG_BONTS]

Based on form last year Hunter would be around Pick 15 I'd think. That's still a great improvement!

 

[Dale4captain]

Damn hunter is a talent. Such a steal that late in the draft. The fact that he's even in the same conversation as a top 3/4 pick says a lot.

Where do we think hunter would go if the 2013 draft was re-done tomorrow? Top 20???

Certainly. I'd take him in the top 15 tbh. Showed amazing improvement considering where he came from experience wise.

 

[timtamWB]

Hunter top 15 based on this year. But then you would take Palmer top 5 the year after he was drafted, these days you wouldn't touch him. There's still a long way to go, but I like Hunter's prospects

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Can't re-evaluate so soon afterwards, personally; he showed more than both Toumpas and Stringer, for example, but I'd probably still take them ahead of him as I think they'll be better players. It's hard to judge until you see a few years of each. Definitely goes before 50 though. Makes you wonder if he's always been this good and we got in his ear or if he was a bit of a late bloomer.

 

[fronkalicious]

Hunter was the second youngest dude on an afl list last year. Still a young young man. So much upside

 

[timtamWB]

I enjoyed this. A few of you will, too. My favourite was next pick after Richmond. hahahhahha

http://the-flack.com/2013/11/afldraft/

A couple of my favourites:

Prototype player: Could be a once-in-a-generation player. Dear God, don’t let Melbourne draft him.

Late developing: Weighs 30kg dripping wet. We’re going to feed him Hungry Jacks for three years and see where we get.

Power forward: His parents took out a second mortgage just to feed him. Aptitude testing is unclear on whether he is smarter than a labrador or not.


My personal favourite, because it reminds me of the Dogs:

Project player: Look, we drafted him because he’s tall. So uncoordinated, he can’t even ride a bike.

 

[TBOW]

Time to put your bets down on who we are getting, before this information comes in. One pick only.

I'll go with Scharenberg.

I reckon Dalrymple & BMac would be all over Scharenberg where as JMac might be leaning toward Aish.
As for who we get, I also reckon it'll be the Burger.