Hot Topic 2016 DRAFT

[Coops93]

Bolts said this week he sees JW as a swing man, which to me means we need another key defender. Outside of JW there's only LP and JGM if we are talking of young defenders. I am not sold in Foster.

On that swingman comment, I didn't like it. Swingmen are highly overrated in my book.

They end up being handy at either end, but not dominant at either. I can't think of one off the top of my head who was truly dominant at one or both ends. SOS would be the exception to the rule I'd suggest. 200 goals as full back of the century. Although that is a truly special player right there and wouldn't be considered a swingman by many.

Ideally I'd like to see up use him as Harry Taylor was a few years ago. I remember he was back 97% of the time. The 3% was when he'd just drift forward out the back on his own, or would be thrown forward for 10 minutes to see if he could sneak a goal or two, then go back.

Either way, forward or back, we need to get him set somewhere. Don't want to see Weitering end up being an inbetweener.

 

[1981]

On that swingman comment, I didn't like it. Swingmen are highly overrated in my book.

They end up being handy at either end, but not dominant at either. I can't think of one off the top of my head who was truly dominant at one or both ends. SOS would be the exception to the rule I'd suggest. 200 goals as full back of the century. Although that is a truly special player right there and wouldn't be considered a swingman by many.

Ideally I'd like to see up use him as Harry Taylor was a few years ago. I remember he was back 97% of the time. The 3% was when he'd just drift forward out the back on his own, or would be thrown forward for 10 minutes to see if he could sneak a goal or two, then go back.

Either way, forward or back, we need to get him set somewhere. Don't want to see Weitering end up being an inbetweener.

Understand what you are saying, only thing I would say though is Bolts does seem BIG on versatility, he has been on record preaching that since day one really, and, arguably he is right - arguably the game is moving in a direction where versatility is needed ore and more than ever before.

My personal view is Weitering is too good a player to be just left down back. I can see days where he blankets his man but doesn't get much ball, and/or the opposition purposefully drag him away from the play because he is too smart and damaging when he gets the ball. This would be a bad thing. The guy is a star prospect. He would be wasted if he gets 10 touches a game.

SO, my view is I don't mind the swingman element.

Maybe he still ends up playing the majority of his footy down back. But can and does go forward when needed.

Waite was a good swingman, but never reach his potential for various reasons.
I see Weitering as a better prospect.
Funnily enough they have the same initials.

Kouta had that versatility.
Played CHB really well for a while, but was often thrown forward to kick goals because nobody else could kick goals.
Ironically though wing and RR were his best positions.

 

[HARKER]

You're never going to get every player to be capable of playing multiple positions on the field, but having 25% may serve you very well.
Tuohy isn't going to play forward........Docherty isn't going to go into the mid-field etc.....but Weitering is capable of going forward when required.

If we can have a couple of smart KPP's capable of swapping ends when things aren't going their way, then that's terrific.
We do need the mids that can go back or forward when required. That's where our hole is right now and where Sydney have the likes of Hannebery, Parker, Jack and then Heeney and Mills, capable of playing midfield along with being defenders or goal-kickers when required.

 

[Broadside]

On that swingman comment, I didn't like it. Swingmen are highly overrated in my book.

They end up being handy at either end, but not dominant at either. I can't think of one off the top of my head who was truly dominant at one or both ends. SOS would be the exception to the rule I'd suggest. 200 goals as full back of the century. Although that is a truly special player right there and wouldn't be considered a swingman by many.

Ideally I'd like to see up use him as Harry Taylor was a few years ago. I remember he was back 97% of the time. The 3% was when he'd just drift forward out the back on his own, or would be thrown forward for 10 minutes to see if he could sneak a goal or two, then go back.

Either way, forward or back, we need to get him set somewhere. Don't want to see Weitering end up being an inbetweener.

Bradshaw at the Lions was great at both ends. Generally I agree, a swingman tends to end up a jack of all trades, master of none.

 

[thylacine60]

On that swingman comment, I didn't like it. Swingmen are highly overrated in my book.

They end up being handy at either end, but not dominant at either. I can't think of one off the top of my head who was truly dominant at one or both ends. SOS would be the exception to the rule I'd suggest. 200 goals as full back of the century. Although that is a truly special player right there and wouldn't be considered a swingman by many.

Ideally I'd like to see up use him as Harry Taylor was a few years ago. I remember he was back 97% of the time. The 3% was when he'd just drift forward out the back on his own, or would be thrown forward for 10 minutes to see if he could sneak a goal or two, then go back.

Either way, forward or back, we need to get him set somewhere. Don't want to see Weitering end up being an inbetweener.

Spot on like currants on a bowl of milky rice.

 

[1981]

We need to recruit 1 key defender. We need to recruit 6 or 7 gun midfielders.

There's the difference.

Don’t forget about Cuningham and Boek.

I think both are likely sorts, and if they come on we only need 3-4 other good mids. (not 7).

Also, mids can be picked up with later picks, say 2nd round picks, and this year’s draft is said to be strong down to 40, so could well get a good mid prospect with 3rd rounder.

Good talls however often need to be taken early. Granted there is more risk there.

Not easy is it !

In any event, I stand by the theory you take best available in first round most of the time,.

 

[1981]

Bradshaw at the Lions was great at both ends. Generally I agree, a swingman tends to end up a jack of all trades, master of none.

I might be partly to blame for this.

I don’t think BB said Swingman per se, did he?

I think he talked of versatility, but not necessarily 'swingman' as a full time role.

Surely we can’t deny versatility is important.

Maybe JW plays back 80% of the time, and forward 20% of the time, when needed.

Again I get back to the fact he is just so talented a player.

There’s a bit of a saying that defenders were players who couldn’t excel up forward. DO we really think JW is limited?

 

[Broadside]

Spot on like currants on a bowl of milky rice.

such players have good currantcy if you want to trade them though.




I'll show myself out....

 

[Azul]

I agree we need a lot more mids, but, I also think there is a high likelihood Cuningham and Boekhorst will end up good mids for us.
Boek has genuine pace, has shown he can win his own ball, will get stronger, and is a superb long, accurate kick.
Cuningham we haven't seen in the seniors yet but SOS rates him very highly.
IF those two come on, that goes a way to filling some of the midfield holes. Certainly I wouldn't say we need 7 more mids on top of them. NO way. More like 3-4.

But we are splitting hairs.

Splitting hairs we may well be. But although I expect Sam Rowe to retire in 14 months, I just see a lack of midfield depth as more urgent.

I'm not discounting Cuningham and Boekhorst but along with Cripps they're our only hope.

Really suffering from departures of Robinson, Judd, Carrazzo and Bell. Murphy, Armfield, Curnow, Gibbs are all the wrong side of 26. Tutt and Whiley are gone, Graham is hanging in there by a thread.

Wright, Kerridge and Lamb provide some support but they're extras to the main cast.

 

[thylacine60]

Right like Orville & Wilbur.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

I might be partly to blame for this.

I don’t think BB said Swingman per se, did he?

I think he talked of versatility, but not necessarily 'swingman' as a full time role.

Surely we can’t deny versatility is important.

Maybe JW plays back 80% of the time, and forward 20% of the time, when needed.

Again I get back to the fact he is just so talented a player.

There’s a bit of a saying that defenders were players who couldn’t excel up forward. DO we really think JW is limited?

Could be the new SOS

 

[F_therest]

Um not that simple.
Depends how good they are.
And we need a key defender too.
Bolts said this week he sees JW as a swing man, which to me means we need another key defender. Outside of JW there's only LP and JGM if we are talking of young defenders. I am not sold in Foster.
I have known a few scouts over the journey and they all say in the first round as long as it is a strong draft you tend to go best available.

Of course it's not that simple but i think you are wrong in saying you should always go 'best available' no matter the circumstances.

You say 'depends how good they are'...so what if a key defender or small defender was the best available at our first pick, but the next best player was an inside mid and only very very marginally worse? Then no, we should go for the midfielder not technically the best available.

And also scouts over the journey have got i wrong before...like my example previous, Brisbane drafting Longer when they already had Leunberger was a big mistake.

Hawthorn have been the benchmark and go for best available mixed with needs basis...even before they were dominant.
Eg Go way back to 2004....Roughead and Franklin weren't expected to go as high as Hawthorn picked them, but they identified they wanted the key tall forwards early in the draft and that proved to the correct tactic...key forwards need to be taken in the first round or two.

TBH i dont know how anyone can argue against my point.

 

[Coops93]

My personal view is Weitering is too good a player to be just left down back. I can see days where he blankets his man but doesn't get much ball, and/or the opposition purposefully drag him away from the play because he is too smart and damaging when he gets the ball. This would be a bad thing. The guy is a star prospect. He would be wasted if he gets 10 touches a game.

SO, my view is I don't mind the swingman element.

Maybe he still ends up playing the majority of his footy down back. But can and does go forward when needed.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think Weiters is the type we would want blanket 1v1 roles. I see him being more of a Josh Gibson, Harry taylor type. He's much better at reading the play and intercepting, rather than sticking to a man and taking him out of the game. In that sense I don't think it will happen often where he will get dragged away from a contest.

Also, just left down back? I hardly think a player as good as Weitering would be considered "just left in the backline". Have people forgotten the value of a truly great defender? Don't forget Josh Gibson has been B&F in 2 premiership years for the Hawks, such is his impact.

 

[1981]

I get what you're saying, but I don't think Weiters is the type we would want blanket 1v1 roles. I see him being more of a Josh Gibson, Harry taylor type. He's much better at reading the play and intercepting, rather than sticking to a man and taking him out of the game. In that sense I don't think it will happen often where he will get dragged away from a contest.

Um, it is the dangerous defenders, such as Weiters, whom opposition coaches try to drag away. Do you see opp coaches trying to drag Rowe away??

In any event, it is not 1v1 vs intercepting, it is about team defence. Bolts just said today Weiters will spend some time on Buddy, bec it is team defense, so, he will have some 1v1 moments.

Also, just left down back? I hardly think a player as good as Weitering would be considered "just left in the backline". Have people forgotten the value of a truly great defender? Don't forget Josh Gibson has been B&F in 2 premiership years for the Hawks, such is his impact.

I think you're supporting my argument, that he is too good to be left in one role.

 

[1981]

TBH i dont know how anyone can argue against my point.

Oh, because you HAVE TO BE right, yes??

 

[1981]

Of course it's not that simple but i think you are wrong in saying you should always go 'best available' no matter the circumstances.

Hang on, where did I say anything approaching 'no matter the circumstances'?
There's some posters here lately who make some pretty wild assumptions which is tantamount to putting words in other posters' mouths.

 

[1981]

You say 'depends how good they are'...so what if a key defender or small defender was the best available at our first pick, but the next best player was an inside mid and only very very marginally worse? Then no, we should go for the midfielder not technically the best available.

Well, I think a reasonable person would assume when I said 'depends how good they are' implies a level of common sense, in so far as degrees of being better. If lets say midfield is more a pressing need than key defender, only bec we need more of them, and there is a key defender we rate at 85/100 and a mid we rate at 84/100, then I would guess the club might go the mid. But if the defender was 93/100 and the mid 81/100 then even though we might need more mids than defenders I would not be surprised if the club go the defender bec he is significantly a better player.

Seriously, common sense comes into it.

 

[1981]

And also scouts over the journey have got i wrong before...like my example previous, Brisbane drafting Longer when they already had Leunberger was a big mistake.
.

Where dis I say scouts have not ever got it wrong?
Did I say that? Imply that?

You're taking this in a different direction, intentionally??

Again, a reasonable person would assume that the point I was trying to make was most recruitment managers would go best available in the first round, at least more times than not. That was my point.

Terribly sorry if you misread/misunderstood it.

 

[1981]

Hawthorn have been the benchmark and go for best available mixed with needs basis...even before they were dominant.
Eg Go way back to 2004....Roughead and Franklin weren't expected to go as high as Hawthorn picked them, but they identified they wanted the key tall forwards early in the draft and that proved to the correct tactic...key forwards need to be taken in the first round or two.
.

Where was it said JR and BF were not expected to go so high?
That is absolutely not what I recall, and I went to many of the championship games at the time, and was pretty on top of that year's draft pool.
Buddy was touted a year out as arguably the most talented player. If anything it was a surprise he didn't go top 2 or 3.
And JR was also highly rated.
Feel free to show me evidence that Hawthorn chose the two talls bec they had a tall policy at the time...

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Im starting to feel a little worried about our draft position.

Besides McLuggage, Brodie and the Academy boys - Bowes, Perryman and Setterfield the rest of the midfielders are really even in my eyes all the way down to about 15+

We could end up going for say a Willem Drew at #4, when we might of got him at #12, or Powell-Pepper/Scharenberg when we could of got them at #15.

This draft is a little concerning. Im sure there will be great players inside the top 20, but perhaps like the 2013 draft, it may be really hit and miss after about pick #4.

I guess we just have to hope a few of the other boys bolt and make one of Brodie/McLuggage fall to us, OR it could be the draft to trade out first for a couple of later mid teens picks.

Im still really hopeful we can get Brodie, and if the club heres rumours of certain players being higher or lower on draft boards we should go for it, but if things stay as they are now, it could be the draft to go for a two-for-one.

Let's say GC end up finishing above us on the ladder, and we end up with pick #4. The current trends suggest;

1. Brisbane - McLuggage
2. Essendon - Brodie
3. Fremantle - Petrevski Seton
4. Gold Coast - Bowes (Carlton Bid)
5. GWS - Setterfield (Carlton Bid)
6. Carlton - Perryman, Ainsworth, Marshall, Drew, Gallucci, Scharenberg, Powell-Pepper, Clarke, McGrath, Venables will all be very even... i wouldnt like being in that position.

 

[1981]

Could be the new SOS

Yes, had crossed my mind.
He is too talented to play down back his whole career IMO.
Rance is a superb, in fact better than superb tall defender. Plays the intercept and counter punch role so well. Best at it right now.
But, I am not sure he has the class and ability to go forward and make an impact, like an 18 y.old , standing on one foot Weitering did last weekend.
Weiters showed he can take contested marks up forward, and reminded us again what a stunning kick he is. Those attributes are arguably wasted down back.
I think Bolts sees Weiters as not a defender per se, but as a wild card, as a once in a generation exemplary tall.
My gut feel is the club are keen to see just how good the kid can be up forward. But we might not see that straight away, as Bolts is on record that he wants the kids to settle in one spot first. So defense will be that spot initially for JW. But, lets say in 12 months Bolts starts playing JW forward for an extended run, what happens if JW kicks bags of 4+ every week, and totally dominates as a forward? Does he leave him there? Does it go from D:F 70:30 to F: D 70:30?
Remember, there's a bit of a saying that a defender is often someone who couldn't dominate as a forward. Not saying this is a cast iron rule, but I think it is fair to say that applies a lot. A club would take a 70-100 goal forward over a great full back most of the time, unless they already had a 70-100 goal FF.

 

[Coops93]

Um, it is the dangerous defenders, such as Weiters, whom opposition coaches try to drag away. Do you see opp coaches trying to drag Rowe away??

In any event, it is not 1v1 vs intercepting, it is about team defence. Bolts just said today Weiters will spend some time on Buddy, bec it is team defense, so, he will have some 1v1 moments.



I think you're supporting my argument, that he is too good to be left in one role.

How long do you think coaches have been trying to drag Gibson, Rance or Taylor away from the play? How often has it worked? Great players always find a way to get involved, no matter what the opposition tries. That's one aspect that makes them great. I don't disagree he should play forward occasionally, I just don't think it should be 50-50. Or even 70-30. It should be pinch hitting and maybe the occasional game, depending on teams etc. etc.

Hawthorn, among others, also have the mantra of team defence, but it's no coincidence that Gibson always somehow finds a way to be the 3rd man in intercepting the play, and Frawley somehow ends up the more run with player and Lake takes the big forward (in previous years, obviously ). Occasionally this changes, but even in whole team defence but you always have a #1 structure where players have roles that you try to stick with. It varies from there and you want flexibility so if your #1 isn't working or you're caught out of position players can fill in for other roles and not lose much.


I don't think I was supporting your argument though? I was saying he can be left in that role, as Gibson has and has done successfully enough to win 2 B&Fs in premiership years. Midfielders are hardly ever capable of doing that yet they're the most common recipients of individual awards like that. That shows you the impact he can have playing in defence.

 

[1981]

Im starting to feel a little worried about our draft position.

Besides McLuggage, Brodie and the Academy boys - Bowes, Perryman and Setterfield the rest of the midfielders are really even in my eyes all the way down to about 15+

We could end up going for say a Willem Drew at #4, when we might of got him at #12, or Powell-Pepper/Scharenberg when we could of got them at #15.

This draft is a little concerning. Im sure there will be great players inside the top 20, but perhaps like the 2013 draft, it may be really hit and miss after about pick #4.

I guess we just have to hope a few of the other boys bolt and make one of Brodie/McLuggage fall to us, OR it could be the draft to trade out first for a couple of later mid teens picks.

Im still really hopeful we can get Brodie, and if the club heres rumours of certain players being higher or lower on draft boards we should go for it, but if things stay as they are now, it could be the draft to go for a two-for-one.

Let's say GC end up finishing above us on the ladder, and we end up with pick #4. The current trends suggest;

1. Brisbane - McLuggage
2. Essendon - Brodie
3. Fremantle - Petrevski Seton
4. Gold Coast - Bowes (Carlton Bid)
5. GWS - Setterfield (Carlton Bid)
6. Carlton - Perryman, Ainsworth, Marshall, Drew, Gallucci, Scharenberg, Powell-Pepper, Clarke, McGrath, Venables will all be very even... i wouldnt like being in that position.

I am not too worried.
There seems to be a bit of panic on this site of late (not saying you btw) that we have to get a stack of mids asap.
Remember, it is a 3 year build.
If Boek and Cuningham make the grade, which I think they might, then we need about 3-4 more good young mids IMO.
So we get 1 this year via the draft, maybe another via the draft next year, then we get another the year after via the draft, and maybe 1 via FA in that 3rd year. There's 4 without going overboard.
One step at a time.

Remember, some are saying this draft is good to pick 40, ie: it is deep. And it is littered with mids.
We could in theory keep our picks and go ...

4 Mid
22 Mid
40 Mid

All 3 picks are in range of the better talent, if you believe what some experts are saying.

That's just Year 1 of 3 Years.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I am not too worried.
There seems to be a bit of panic on this site of late (not saying you btw) that we have to get a stack of mids asap.
Remember, it is a 3 year build.
If Boek and Cuningham make the grade, which I think they might, then we need about 3-4 more good young mids IMO.
So we get 1 this year via the draft, maybe another via the draft next year, then we get another the year after via the draft, and maybe 1 via FA in that 3rd year. There's 4 without going overboard.
One step at a time.

Remember, some are saying this draft is good to pick 40, ie: it is deep. And it is littered with mids.
We could in theory keep our picks and go ...

4 Mid
22 Mid
40 Mid

All 3 picks are in range of the better talent, if you believe what some experts are saying.

That's just Year 1 of 3 Years.

Im not worried about getting the players, because as you said, its an even, and pretty deep draft. They'll be there.

Im just worried about value. I'm concerned we might end up with say, Ainsworth at #4 when we could of had, Drew and Powell-Pepper at #14 and #16 if we traded our first to GWS for their and Geelongs first. Something like that you know, just worried we may be at a really bad position draft wise, at the top of a choker-point.

 

[1981]

How long do you think coaches have been trying to drag Gibson, Rance or Taylor away from the play? How often has it worked? Great players always find a way to get involved, no matter what the opposition tries. That's one aspect that makes them great. I don't disagree he should play forward occasionally, I just don't think it should be 50-50. Or even 70-30. It should be pinch hitting and maybe the occasional game, depending on teams etc. etc.

Hawthorn, among others, also have the mantra of team defence, but it's no coincidence that Gibson always somehow finds a way to be the 3rd man in intercepting the play, and Frawley somehow ends up the more run with player and Lake takes the big forward (in previous years, obviously ). Occasionally this changes, but even in whole team defence but you always have a #1 structure where players have roles that you try to stick with. It varies from there and you want flexibility so if your #1 isn't working or you're caught out of position players can fill in for other roles and not lose much.


I don't think I was supporting your argument though? I was saying he can be left in that role, as Gibson has and has done successfully enough to win 2 B&Fs in premiership years. Midfielders are hardly ever capable of doing that yet they're the most common recipients of individual awards like that. That shows you the impact he can have playing in defence.

If he ends up like Rance I won't complain, bec Rance has a massive impact on games.
But I still think JW is maybe one of the most talented talls we have seen in a long, long time.
Gibson, Rance etc I think it is fair to say can't crack it as great forwards. But what is JW can?
I think time will tell. I think Bolts wants to see how JW develops.
If he can be like Rance or even better (ie: a Rance who can also kick 70 goals a year) then we will be very fortunate.