Hot Topic 2016 DRAFT

[GapInIkonPark]

Keeping myself occupied researching the draft, relative to the required pieces of the rebuild, I have had a good look at the available ruckmen.

There are 15-16 ruck prospects profiled in the Inside Football draft issue. They range from undersized athletes like Olango to developing
VFL "mature" types like Casey's McInerney. Includes Tim English who will be beyond our reach, and the burly Geelong boy Darcy, slightly
undersized Filipovic, a lauded underaged leader. Julian Patterson is a little fascinating, skinny underdeveloped kid under 80kg from a basketball athletic background with an Olympic high jumper for a sister and some of her traits.

WA's Jeremy Goddard was the next big thing as an underager, but lost ground this year, similarly SA boys Peter Ladhams (with who we had a rumoured link), Jordon Sweet, and overager Andre Parella, another late starter have all been highly regarded, but have some questions. Late
SA bolter Sam Draper attracted some attention late in the year, having got the better of the highly rated SA boys one-on one. Draper's first
full year of footy (soccer background) had him start in defence, move forward/pinch hitting, before thaking the no. 1 ruck mantle.

WA boy Darcy Cameron has been on the radar for 4 years. Highly regarded in his draft year, his intensity and work ethic was in question. He has been playing state league for Claremont and split his time between ruck and forward. Approaching 40 goals, as well as being highly rated for his
tap work. He has pretty much dispelled the questions over his attitude with some consistent performances. Same club as young Goddard, and
supposedly more mobile. [Interesting aside is that both play at Petrevski-Seton's club, so would have a relationship]

Our ruck stocks, at best are adequate Kreuzer continues to be dogged by the effects of injuries, Phillips has been prone to soft tissue injuries
through his career, although a big pre season may see a quantum leap in performance. Cat B rookie Korcheck has some developing to do.
Levi, Rowie and Gorringe are pinch hitters, so we need a developing ruck.

Have liked both Goddard and Sweet for a while, Ladhams has "claims" but I must admit "research" leads me to a preference for either Sam Draper or the mature Darcy Cameron. Given our list position and the fact that there are some higher rated young rucks among next year's
draft class, Cameron is a standout candidate.

Levi probably on the outer next year, with Jones and Gorringe probably in the same boat, lends us to needing a more mature young ruck.
Still whispers of MK being a "victim" of free agency next year. Cameron can hit the scoreboard as a second ruck, yet seemingly has the ability and maturity to take on the no. 1 if necessary. He is a couple of years ahead of most of his "opposition". If there are serious thoughts of "cashing in" Kreuzer, then my opinion would be to take Cameron with a late pick and Draper as a rookie, if we end up with too many, a decent young ruck becomes decent trade bait.

Sick of the repetitive to and fro at the top end of the draft so looking at later options for discussion.

We absolutely need a young ruckman.

 

[Blue and Silver]

Draft seems so deep:

Pick 5

Mids: SPS, Brodie, Taranto

KPP: -

Pick 25

Mids: Clarke, Gallucci, Florent, Drew, Graham, Witherden, Simpkin, Venables, Powell-Pepper, C. Cox, Scheer, Munch, Scharenberg, Ridley

KPP: Kerr, Marshall, Battle, Rotham, Maibaum, Logue

Pick 48

Mids: Baker, Atley, Lipinski, Guelfi, Brayshaw, Parfitt, Junker, Poholke, Ryan, Williams, Fisher, Walker

KPP: Sproule, Duman, Himmelburg, Garthwaite, Ratugolea

 

[bmaurizio]

I'd be estatic with following selections :-
Pick 5 : SPS/Taranto
Pick 22/25 (AFL PenaltiesGWS & Biding.): Witherden/Scheer
Pick 43/45 AFL PenaltiesGWS & Biding.): Sproule

 

[HARKER]

Safe to say, we'll take mids with our first two picks, if not the first three.

If we're going to take a chance on any 'project' talls, we do it with our Rookie selections.

Late ND picks may be Kerbatieh, possibly a slider or a State League player that fits a need.

 

[La Dispute]

Does Setterfield become an auto-selection for us if GWS is stripped of that second first rounder?

Make it an even GWS 4 again.

 

[HARKER]

Does Setterfield become an auto-selection for us if GWS is stripped of that second first rounder?

Make it an even GWS 4 again.

GWS won't be stripped of that pick, as trading was involved. The #15 may be in jeopardy though.

I'd take Setterfield over SPS, Brodie and even Taranto.

 

[La Dispute]

GWS won't be stripped of that pick, as trading was involved. The #15 may be in jeopardy though.

I'd take Setterfield over SPS, Brodie and even Taranto.

Isn't that the pick they need for Setterfield though? If we bid with our Pick 5 and that Pick 15 is unavailable, they'd be unwise to match as that'd take most of their remaining selections.

 

[HARKER]

Isn't that the pick they need for Setterfield though? If we bid with our Pick 5 and that Pick 15 is unavailable, they'd be unwise to match as that'd take most of their remaining selections.

They'll take Setterfield I feel, even if it means missing on McGrath.

Maybe they won't, but I can't see them not taking up any bid for him.............but you're right in that an interesting dilemma may well present for them.

Very interesting on reflection. Have to give this some more thought.

 

[HARKER]

Grundogs Phantom.

He has us taking Brodie and Bolton.

 

[Arr0w]

Isn't that the pick they need for Setterfield though? If we bid with our Pick 5 and that Pick 15 is unavailable, they'd be unwise to match as that'd take most of their remaining selections.

If they lose picks in this draft, there is talk that they would be satisfied to go into deficit next year, to ensure they pick up top end talent in this draft. The benefit may come later in the draft, with bids not being matched on the likes of Mutch, Sproule etc

 

[Jimmae]

GWS won't be stripped of that pick, as trading was involved. The #15 may be in jeopardy though.

I'd take Setterfield over SPS, Brodie and even Taranto.

Isn't that the pick they need for Setterfield though? If we bid with our Pick 5 and that Pick 15 is unavailable, they'd be unwise to match as that'd take most of their remaining selections.

Keep in mind GWS have 2005 deficit points to play with in addition to the 3497 points they have after pick 2.

 

[Pafloyul]

Safe to say, we'll take mids with our first two picks, if not the first three.

If we're going to take a chance on any 'project' talls, we do it with our Rookie selections.

Late ND picks may be Kerbatieh, possibly a slider or a State League player that fits a need.

Why is it "safe to say"? We should be taking the best available player with each pick if Silvagni is fair dinkum and "best available" should mean we do all the hard work to try and work out who that may be. I'd rather draft a few players that some may call a 'project' than some 'booby prize' type leftovers that nobody else wants with those late picks. The club has to get creative and get real.

 

[bmaurizio]

Does Setterfield become an auto-selection for us if GWS is stripped of that second first rounder?

Make it an even GWS 4 again.

GWS will be stripped of Picks 15 and 37 , so Caroline says and I feeling she's spot on .

 

[ParapMarkets]

Keep in mind GWS have 2005 deficit points to play with in addition to the 3497 points they have after pick 2.

Is that true? Damn, if they have over 2,000 points, in addition to their picks this year, to play with they will definitely be matching a bid on Setterfield.

I was getting excited about possibly getting Setterfield, boy oh boy does he look a great talent.

How does that work Jim? Do those points get used up first and then the draft picks?

 

[HARKER]

Why is it "safe to say"? We should be taking the best available player with each pick if Silvagni is fair dinkum and "best available" should mean we do all the hard work to try and work out who that may be. I'd rather draft a few players that some may call a 'project' than some 'booby prize'type leftover5 that nobody else whats with those late picks. The club has to get creative and get real.

No we shouldn't. No club uses this method and especially deeper in the draft. They may well say they do.....but they don't.
When the preference lists are assembled they do factor into account, needs/potential/character etc.

You have to remember also that there isn't some sort of incremental scale of quality, from one pick to the next......and if two equally capable players show up and one fits a need and the other is another HBF'er, which way should we go? It's obvious, isn't it?

 

[ParapMarkets]

Why is it "safe to say"? We should be taking the best available player with each pick if Silvagni is fair dinkum and "best available" should mean we do all the hard work to try and work out who that may be. I'd rather draft a few players that some may call a 'project' than some 'booby prize' type leftovers that nobody else wants with those late picks. The club has to get creative and get real.

It is just a draft packed with midfielders that runs pretty deep, it seems very unlikely to me we won't be grabbing mids with our first 2 picks. If we don't grab a mid with our second pick then I think the draft picks won't have fallen our way.

 

[bmaurizio]

They'll take Setterfield I feel, even if it means missing on McGrath.

Maybe they won't, but I can't see them not taking up any bid for him.............but you're right in that an interesting dilemma may well present for them.

Very interesting on reflection. Have to give this some more thought.

Agree Harker if Setterfield were to be available it would be almost impossible to pass on selecting him.A prototype moder 190 cm plus midfielder with good skills.
A better version of Brodie but a little slower.

 

[Jimmae]

Is that true? Damn, if they have over 2,000 points, in addition to their picks this year, to play with they will definitely be matching a bid on Setterfield.

I was getting excited about possibly getting Setterfield, boy oh boy does he look a great talent.

How does that work Jim? Do those points get used up first and then the draft picks?

The AFL brought it in a little after the initial proposal, and essentially you get a deficit equivalent to the team that finishes first (ie. picks 18,36, etc) which is 1700 and change. I factored in their future picks after trades (again, they have to be counted with the same fixed values), and it's 2005.

So even if 15 and 37 disappear, that's 3907 points after pick 2. They come into play after all 2016 picks/points are consumed, and start at the round of the bid, continuing downwards.

Any left over deficit after that needs to be accounted for by the end of the trade period.

 

[ParapMarkets]

The AFL brought it in a little after the initial proposal, and essentially you get a deficit equivalent to the team that finishes first (ie. picks 18,36, etc) which is 1700 and change. I factored in their future picks after trades (again, they have to be counted with the same fixed values), and it's 2005.

So even if 15 and 37 disappear, that's 3907 points after pick 2. They come into play after all 2016 picks/points are consumed, and start at the round of the bid, continuing downwards.

Any left over deficit after that needs to be accounted for by the end of the trade period.

Oh, I see. I mis-read your post and thought you meant they were carrying points over from last year.

 

[Jimmae]

Oh, I see. I mis-read your post and thought you meant they were carrying points over from last year.

Oh no, that needs to be resolved before the end of the trade period.

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

Have you guys heard the rumour you may take SA's Hayward at pick 5 ?
Would be a massive shock ?

 

[Jimmae]

Have you guys heard the rumour you may take SA's Hayward at pick 5 ?
Would be a massive shock ?

We have, and it would.

 

[HARKER]

Have you guys heard the rumour you may take SA's Hayward at pick 5 ?
Would be a massive shock ?

Has been alluded to. What have you heard?

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

Has been alluded to. What have you heard?

I was speaking to a player manager who mentioned it as a bit of gossip.

 

[ParapMarkets]

Oh no, that needs to be resolved before the end of the trade period.

So, as it stands at the moment. GWS have their first pick and have trade away their 2nd and 3rd round picks, and they have Collingwood and St Klida's second round picks. If they go into deficit, those second round picks get used up first?

I guess they are probably counting on getting more picks next year as they inevitably lose some more players, but they haven't exactly got an abundance of picks next year to get another batch of academy players.