Hot Topic 2016 DRAFT

[HBF]

We're taking SPS with our first.

close thread

What if he's gone before we get our first pick?

 

[HalAlaric]

What if he's gone before we get our first pick?

Then we're screwed.

nope if that was the case we would just nab ainsworth and if he's gone... then mugsy or brode will be available.

i only think we have two possible wins left in us and like i have said earlier i see at least one of gc or freo moving up with the games they have left.

 

[1981]

He is a beautiful mover is PS

 

[Azul]

I disagree Azul, we could use it to upgrade C. Byrne from the rookie list.

Well in that case, we could easily do that with pick 100.

I thought we were talking about 'live' picks here. There ain't no sense in trading for a pick in the 4th round only to use it on a rookie upgrade.

 

[BluStreak]

If you are not going to use it then it is the same as pick 100

 

[Blue and Silver]

Some strong reactions against my proposal. But would anyone care to explain why getting a top 5 player is that much better than getting 3 top 30 players.

If you want to improve the quality of the list faster its better to get more overall quality players in the door now surely?

 

[Blue and Silver]

On pick 59:

It's fairly common practice for clubs to pick up extra picks late as a sort of balancing act.

The meat of the trade does not require the pick, but it makes the trade more even points wise. In many ways its about not being screwed and being respected at the table.

 

[HBF]

Then we're screwed.

nope if that was the case we would just nab ainsworth and if he's gone... then mugsy or brode will be available.

i only think we have two possible wins left in us and like i have said earlier i see at least one of gc or freo moving up with the games they have left.

The other issue is if you have a look at Collingwoods draw, they may not win another game for the year. So we could potentially move about them as well.
I do think Gold Coast will finish above us, they have quite a few winable games for the rest of the year.

 

[HalAlaric]

The other issue is if you have a look at Collingwoods draw, they may not win another game for the year. So we could potentially move about them as well.
I do think Gold Coast will finish above us, they have quite a few winable games for the rest of the year.

I agree although I just have this gut feeling we will finish the year with either pick 3 or 4 leaving us with the option of one of those four guys. All of which I would be happy with btw.

 

[LordLucifer]

Just about every player has a drawback. Weitering is arguably the only player in last year's pool who was seen as the complete package. Maybe throw in Shache.

I think it is important when dealing with 17/18 year old men, to try and be more positive than negative. People try to do this generally in life, right?

But everyone involved in drafting, be it the Sheehans or the Silvagnis, are aware of X players' deficiencies.

But that doesn't mean there aren't 20 or 30 or 40 good prospects in any given year. It is subjective, in so far as here are 40 kids who we think are pretty darn good prospects (and they are clearly different to the other 60 odd). Yes, most of them have some drawbacks, some we think can be overcome with teaching and hard work etc, but maybe some such as a lack of pace the club will just have to live with, but the kid has various other strengths which make him a good prospect.

If 40 is the number this year, then to give your club the best shot you want as many picks as possible in that range. Nothing is certain in drafting. But you give yourself the best chance by placing your club in the range where the best group of kids are.

Fully understand your premise here and don't necessarily disagree with most of it either.

However, I'd prefer to improve the potential hit-rate by not aiming at top 40, instead scoping the picks we have down into say .............. the top 25.

I have no doubt that SOS & Co will be drawing up a hit-list of preferred draftees but the later the picks, the less chance of snaffling the higher ranked ones we would have.

Keep the first rounder we have and then try to trade out the players we have who have some/any currency in return for whatever picks we can get. We then implement the 'Malifice Theory' and upsell those picks with the expansion clubs for better picks (eg. 2 second rounders for one first rounder but with the same accrued points value).

 

[Azul]

In many ways its about not being screwed and being respected at the table.

We sold Jeff Garlett for pick 61. Ultimately, swapping pick 83 for Melbourne's pick 79 was worthless.

 

[1981]

Fully understand your premise here and don't necessarily disagree with most of it either.

However, I'd prefer to improve the potential hit-rate by not aiming at top 40, instead scoping the picks we have down into say .............. the top 25.

I have no doubt that SOS & Co will be drawing up a hit-list of preferred draftees but the later the picks, the less chance of snaffling the higher ranked ones we would have.

Keep the first rounder we have and then try to trade out the players we have who have some/any currency in return for whatever picks we can get. We then implement the 'Malifice Theory' and upsell those picks with the expansion clubs for better picks (eg. 2 second rounders for one first rounder but with the same accrued points value).

Yes that is the way to go, and I would be selling Kreuzer, Tuohy, Everitt, Buckley and Casboult if there are takers.

 

[Blue and Silver]

We sold Jeff Garlett for pick 61. Ultimately, swapping pick 83 for Melbourne's pick 79 was worthless.

Ok?

I am not proposing we trade a player for picks that low.

It is the last pick in a bundle deal

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[bad setanta]

Don't read too much into stats especially when looking at Venables. He was played forward and had managed game time for much of the championships. I do like Bunker and Taranto but as a second rounder and late first rounder respectively.

Knightmare has his 4th of the non-Academy players now:

http://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/16690432/knightmare-afl-draft-power-rankings-july

7. Daniel Venables (VIC)
Best position: General forward
Height, weight: 186cm, 81kg
Recruited from: Western Jets
Plays like: Jack Crisp
Projected draft range: first round
Rated last month: 9
Rationale behind ranking/change of ranking: Consolidating high rating showing a diverse range of AFL-quality attributes with hardness at the ball and tackling standing out.
Strengths:
- Hard tackling
- Contested-ball winning ability
- Explosive pace and breakaway speed from stoppages
- Scoreboard impact
- Finishing ability on the move
- Excellent both forward and through the midfield
- Damaging ball user by hand and foot
- Strong mark overhead
Weaknesses:
- Can spend some time through the midfield and have an impact without looking like a full-time midfielder
- Work rate
- Lack of exposed form due to injuries

You reckon he can be a genuine high production mid? That goal he kicked was pretty special, wonder what he averages for the Jets?

 

[Burgers45]

Liking the look of Gallucci. Quick, good skills and is a genuine mid. Pick 5-6 will probably be a bit of a reach for him, but he is the sort of player we need.

His footskills are above average. Excellent pace, and usually finds a player either left or right foot on the run. Only downside for me is that he just doesn't get enough of it. But definitely worth serious consideration IMO.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Some strong reactions against my proposal. But would anyone care to explain why getting a top 5 player is that much better than getting 3 top 30 players.

If you want to improve the quality of the list faster its better to get more overall quality players in the door now surely?

Quality over quantity would be the main reason. With a top 5 pick there's much less hit and miss than 3 top 30 players. While this year's draft runs deep, the cream of the crop is in the top 10 and that's what we should be looking to do, add two top 10 mids from this year's draft.

I think we should try and offer up pick #23 + #41 + #49 to GC for pick #9. Those 3 picks have a greater points total than pick 9 alone and considering they have academy talent they want to make sure they have the points for them. I also mentioned before that I wouldn't mind if we throw Everitt in there as well considering he was wanted by them last year.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

You reckon he can be a genuine high production mid? That goal he kicked was pretty special, wonder what he averages for the Jets?

Not sure about the Jets. I just know when he does go into the centre bounces, he is a real weapon. So many attributes we are screaming for and he ticks every box except accumulating possessions.

He has only played 2 TAC games this year. Kicked 3 goals in each game, 21 disposals in one game. Averages 4 tackles and a contested mark per game.

In 6 TAC games since 2015, he has been named in their bests every game.

I don't know if he is just too good up forward so always gets played there or if he is lacking a tank due to injuries.

 

[bmaurizio]

I think will end up with a pick between 3 to 5, Lions and Bombers are the only possible wins remaining .
The Suns will move up above us the momentum is with them, team strengthening& wining again . If Freo are able to play a few of their star players soon they may surpass us too. A Pick 3 o, 4 or 5 are gold.
SPS is my favorite if we extremely lucky,
If not Brodie or Anisworth will great assests too.

 

[HBF]

I think will end up with a pick between 3 to 5, Lions and Bombers are the only possible wins remaining .
The Suns will move up above us the momentum is with them, team strengthening& wining again . If Freo are able to play a few of their star players soon they may surpass us too. A Pick 3 o, 4 or 5 are gold.
SPS is my favorite if we extremely lucky,
If not Brodie or Anisworth will great assests too.

Yeah but Collingwood might not win another game and fall below us. Reckon we'll end up with pick 5-6.

 

[thylacine60]

I'm getting a feeling a lot of posters have given up on the 2016 flag.

 

[mediumsizered]

We are still a mathematical chance, so don't book that September holiday yet.

 

[thylacine60]

I'm a mathematical chance Satty night for 6 numbers and the sup.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Not sure about the Jets. I just know when he does go into the centre bounces, he is a real weapon. So many attributes we are screaming for and he ticks every box except accumulating possessions.

He has only played 2 TAC games this year. Kicked 3 goals in each game, 21 disposals in one game. Averages 4 tackles and a contested mark per game.

In 6 TAC games since 2015, he has been named in their bests every game.

I don't know if he is just too good up forward so always gets played there or if he is lacking a tank due to injuries.

Just a thought, but it could be worthwhile having Venables, Cripps and C.Curnow rotate through the middle and play forward to rest. These tall, big bodied mids that can go forward are proving to be quite dangerous.

Just adds more strings to our bow.

 

[LordLucifer]

Some strong reactions against my proposal. But would anyone care to explain why getting a top 5 player is that much better than getting 3 top 30 players.

If you want to improve the quality of the list faster its better to get more overall quality players in the door now surely?

If you have the chance to get silk you take it without batting an eyelid.

Improving the quality of the list is the aim, you are right there but three top 30 players has the potential to end up with a couple of list-cloggers too.

Top-end talent should not be frittered away on a buy-one-get-two-free scheme.

 

[Chalky Blues]

We sold Jeff Garlett for pick 61. Ultimately, swapping pick 83 for Melbourne's pick 79 was worthless.

We gave him and Robbo away for nothing basically