Opinion 2016 DRAFT POLL - #5

[BluesRule]

If Brodie is there at #5 we should take him IMO. Not keen on Ainsworth or SPS as we need to build a stronger engine room.

However, if Brodie is gone along with McC and McG then next best for me is Setterfield. We should bid and if we got him (GWS say no) then adds that taller X factor for me.

If Giants match then go for Taranto at #6. Hope Bowes is bid early as really want Brodie.

 

[Jimmae]

Arent those attributes of all round ok, the same criticisms of Gresham before the draft. In fact in many ways there are a lot of parallels between Gresham and Fisher. Two players that do nothing really outstanding yet do everything pretty well.

I think your being far too dismissive of Fisher. One of the best players of the championships who wins his own ball, has good skills and very good decision making and knows how to read the play. Once again much like Gresham.

If he has got very good endurance and good agility l think he could be a smart smaller midfielder/half forward who is clean with the ball and makes excellent decisions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Gresham had more pace and kicking skills about him (was also more outside).

Fisher has furious leg movements and leans into his runs, but he doesn't get very far very fast. Smart footballer though, but lacks the athleticism and skill to pull it off. He's a VFL/WAFL/SANFL player in my estimation.

 

[ray8182]

To be honest I don't care what type of player they are. Was responding to a post, that stated we should take a player at pick 5 that plays next year, without having to be elite

Depends how much risk you want to take. Clubs generally use high draft picks on safer bets that they think are a sure thing to be very good 200 game players. Those guys are the ones who have proven themselves in under 18's. The clubs pretty much know what they can do and know that they do it well.

If you chase players with big upside that haven't really put it together you are just gambling.

It's very hard to pick elite players because usually a lot of there development occurs after the draft and this is quite often not easy to predict.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BluesRule]

This perception that our first priority, pick 5, should be someone to help Cripps. I take it, that you are all happy with the forward line/outside run/line breakers/elite disposal players we have?

I am sure WC have played in the finals in the last 2 years, with a squad that has more talent than us on every line, yet they only had one dedicated inside mid in Priddis. Shuey/Sheed play inside/outside, similar to Gibbs/Murphy.

How about we just take the best long term elite footballer at pick 5, as I am sure every area need more work

Do not agree.
We picked forwards last year in SOS, C.Curnow and McKay. How about we give them a go?
Outside runners we have in abundance (Gibbs, Murphy, BB, Thomas, Cuningham, Kerridge, Army, Curnow, Wright, Smedts, Pickett, etc.) but they are not much use if we cannot get the ball out, forcing them to play more inside game.

Do not want another Sauce situation where we get too many in one spot.

How about we grab a quality inside bull when we have the chance, as there are a few in this draft.

 

[Arr0w]

Depends how much risk you want to take. Clubs generally use high draft picks on safer bets that they think are a sure thing to be very good 200 game players. Those guys are the ones who have proven themselves in under 18's. The clubs pretty much know what they can do and know that they do it well.

If you chase players with big upside that haven't really put it together you are just gambling.

It's very hard to pick elite players because usually a lot of there development occurs after the draft and this is quite often not easy to predict.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ray, you need to go back to my original response to the post. Someone suggested we should get a player that plays next year, happy if he is a b grader. That is a defeatist mentality, with a view to a short term fix.

Enough of these short term fixes, whether we finish 17th or 14th makes no difference. Plan for the medium to long term, so our great club, returns to the powerhouse it should be

 

[ray8182]

Gresham had more pace and kicking skills about him (was also more outside).

Fisher has furious leg movements and leans into his runs, but he doesn't get very far very fast. Smart footballer though, but lacks the athleticism and skill to pull it off. He's a VFL/WAFL/SANFL player in my estimation.

Gresham was a pretty straight forward kick. He was criticised for being very conservative with his kicking, only taking easy targets and not having any penetration.

Fisher has furious leg movements-l think your getting carried away here. Has a very typical left footers style and lm pretty sure he hits his targets.

As for speed l would have to see test results. It's the speed agility endurance combination that would be important. Wasn't Caleb Daniel criticised for lack of speed because it was assumed that being short he had to be super quick.









Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Arr0w]

Do not agree.
We picked forwards last year in SOS, C.Curnow and McKay. How about we give them a go?
Outside runners we have in abundance (Gibbs, Murphy, BB, Thomas, Cuningham, Kerridge, Army, Curnow, Wright, Smedts, Pickett, etc.) but they are not much use if we cannot get the ball out, forcing them to play more inside game.

Do not want another Sauce situation where we get too many in one spot.

How about we grab a quality inside bull when we have the chance, as there are a few in this draft.

How many/who of the above have elite disposal as midfielders? How many/who in that list of forwards, will kick 50 + goals every year for the next 5 years? How many/who are established line breakers?

We have a long way to go, if we are doing this the right way.

Ok, maybe I should put it this way:

If SOS believes that there is an inside bull, that is an A grader, available at pick 5, please select him

 

[Jimmae]

Gresham was a pretty straight forward kick. He was criticised for being very conservative with his kicking, only taking easy targets and not having any penetration.

Fisher has furious leg movements-l think your getting carried away here. Has a very typical left footers style and lm pretty sure he hits his targets.

As for speed l would have to see test results. It's the speed agility endurance combination that would be important. Wasn't Caleb Daniel criticised for lack of speed because it was assumed that being short he had to be super quick.









Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Daniel was pretty quick though.

If they're using testing alone as a guide for speed, which is done in runners (possibly on a hard surface?), they should resign.

 

[BobP]

If Setterfield was a better mover across the ground, I'd have suggested we bid for him at 5.

I voted for Scrimshaw in the poll, why?

Tall, clean and dangerous kick of the ball, strong awareness, good reader of the play, chooses the right option when he's in possession of the ball, good mark overhead whilst being good with handling the ball below the knees, navigates through congested areas superbly and is a good mover across the ground.

He's only got question marks over his strength + build, and his ability as a defender, both of which are not so bad as he'll inevitably put some size on and we wouldn't be drafting him as a key defender.

This guy could be a damaging inside+outside midfielder.

Could be a bit of a 'reach' at 5 though.

 

[ray8182]

Daniel was pretty quick though.

If they're using testing alone as a guide for speed, which is done in runners (possibly on a hard surface?), they should resign.

From memory Daniel was three seconds for 20m, not particularly quick. I think he's probably about average speed for AFL. it's just that he does everything else so well he has more time and makes space.

As l said before fishers speed endurance agility combo will have a big bearing on his selection, not outright speed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ray8182]

From memory Daniel was three seconds for 20m, not particularly quick. I think he's probably about average speed for AFL. it's just that he does everything else so well he has more time and makes space.

As l said before fishers speed endurance agility combo will have a big bearing on his selection, not outright speed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Caleb Daniel did have elite endurance which maybe makes up for not being super quick. Just keeps on running. I think Gresham had good endurance. Small guys who aren't overly quick but can keep going at a decent speed throughout the whole game. If fisher has similar speed will need very good endurance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Blue__Balls]

Daniel was pretty quick though.

If they're using testing alone as a guide for speed, which is done in runners (possibly on a hard surface?), they should resign.

As opposed to your "Can he keep up with the camera as it pans" method?

You're right - that's a much more effective measure of a player's speed.

 

[BluesRule]

How many/who of the above have elite disposal as midfielders? How many/who in that list of forwards, will kick 50 + goals every year for the next 5 years? How many/who are established line breakers?

We have a long way to go, if we are doing this the right way.

Ok, maybe I should put it this way:

If SOS believes that there is an inside bull, that is an A grader, available at pick 5, please select him

Agree on bold.

The standout talls this year are Marshall, Battle, Kerr and English. The midfielders look far better for mine, so CFC have to find our Full Forward elsewhere, or have a game plan that does not rely on one (like Dogs).

 

[BluesRule]

Interesting that someone nominated English at #5. We do really need a quality Ruck but is he a reach at that point?

 

[Arr0w]

Agree on bold.

The standout talls this year are Marshall, Battle, Kerr and English. The midfielders look far better for mine, so CFC have to find our Full Forward elsewhere, or have a game plan that does not rely on one (like Dogs).

Think you missed a couple of talls, if you are talking standouts, Cox & Sproule, bonus with these guys, the play both ends. Logue another great option down back that could release Marchbank as a permanent forward

 

[gandaal]

Interesting that someone nominated English at #5. We do really need a quality Ruck but is he a reach at that point?

The Kruezer rule.

Do not take a ruckman in the top 10. Ever.

Also known as a Fraser rule, or the Leuenberger rule up north. Ruckman are far too unpredictable in their development.

 

[Jimmae]

As opposed to your "Can he keep up with the camera as it pans" method?

You're right - that's a much more effective measure of a player's speed.

That is a solid paraphrasing of what I said. Cheers.

 

[GordonBlue]

The Kruezer rule.

Do not take a ruckman in the top 10. Ever.

Also known as a Fraser rule, or the Leuenberger rule up north. Ruckman are far too unpredictable in their development.

Vickery as well (was Ruck when recruited). And McEvoy. And Longer. Hence what Broadie went at 18 when he was touted as top 5 pick.

But then you have NicNat.

 

[COBALT BLUE]

Oh yes I can see it now

" CFC are proud to announce our pick 5 selection "XYZ". He will play immediately, but sorry he won't be elite"

It is thinking like this, that was clearly the mantra of our past recruitment department. I don't care if the player SOS selects at pick 5, plays next year or not, but he MUST be viewed as a player that could/will be a 10 year elite footballer.

Let's be patient, recruit for the medium to long term

Oh yes I can see it now

" CFC are proud to announce our pick 5 selection "XYZ". He will play immediately, but sorry he won't be elite"

It is thinking like this, that was clearly the mantra of our past recruitment department. I don't care if the player SOS selects at pick 5, plays next year or not, but he MUST be viewed as a player that could/will be a 10 year elite footballer.

Let's be patient, recruit for the medium to long term

Elite is a word that gets thrown around a lot.there is no real line,what is elite...at pick 5 we would want a quality player,consistent ,no significant signs of injury...an inside mid which are rare and would be cruicial for us to get one..we could expect 20 possessions per match minimum with good disposal,a player we can structure around,set up clearance patterns like the Hawks have done and begin to control the tempo and play patterns.Brodie may be elite down the track,is Cripps elite yet?....would be good for Brodie to be mentored by Cripps,get stronger,faster,more confident and improve his knowledge..if Brodie not possible we take closest inside mid with strength and ability.Brodie,Taranto,
.we need someone who thrives on the contest...with Gibbs on the move we need them blooded round 1.
10 year player...why not? naturally a 10 year player

 

[JuddgementDay]

Hopefully we' ll keep our cards close to our chest & not to show via DFAs

 

[Cringle]

Get a gun young inside midfielder now to start building chemistry with Cripps... Murphy won't be around forever... and Bryce may leave next year.

If Brodie can make an impact within the first 2 years then he'd be my selection.

 

[Toddski]

I've watched a fair bit of Taranto lately.

Pretty good at a lot of things but not elite in much. I feel he is a final piece type player.

Despite brodie's poor kick, I feel he is the best player available. Cripps and Brodie. Let that sink in.

 

[Pafloyul]

Ray, you need to go back to my original response to the post. Someone suggested we should get a player that plays next year, happy if he is a b grader. That is a defeatist mentality, with a view to a short term fix.

Enough of these short term fixes, whether we finish 17th or 14th makes no difference. Plan for the medium to long term, so our great club, returns to the powerhouse it should be

Agreed, and we've been through this argument plenty of times in the past. I don't know if it's fans of every AFL club or just us but you often hear Blues fans positively pleading for the club to take the 'safe' option with their draft selections. I don't know what we are expecting other clubs to do and what exactly the point of difference for us that tactic is intended to make. I know I keep mentioning them but are Collingwood and the Western Bulldogs going to backtrack and say the drafting of Pendlebury and Bontempelli was poor tactics because neither were the safe bet at their respective picks?

If whoever is in charge of recruiting is not going to back themselves in, then we may as well recruit by computer.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The safe option may be different for everyone.

Yarran and Menzel were not the safe option.

This year, if you are looking at risk vs reward it is probably Scrimshaw, Ainsworth and Venables.

 

[El Topo]

Agreed, and we've been through this argument plenty of times in the past. I don't know if it's fans of every AFL club or just us but you often hear Blues fans positively pleading for the club to take the 'safe' option with their draft selections. I don't know what we are expecting other clubs to do and what exactly the point of difference for us that tactic is intended to make. I know I keep mentioning them but are Collingwood and the Western Bulldogs going to backtrack and say the drafting of Pendlebury and Bontempelli was poor tactics because neither were the safe bet at their respective picks?

If whoever is in charge of recruiting is not going to back themselves in, then we may as well recruit by computer.

WB picked Bontempelli in their final year at the top end of the draft, and Collingwood had the luxury of having two early picks in Pendlebury's year. There's an argument to be made for targeting different types at different stages in the rebuild, especially for not taking risks when our young midfield is nonexistent and we only have one shot at a premium player.