Hot Topic 2016 DRAFT

[Pafloyul]

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.

Exactly, which we have to be prepared for. One thing that bugged me with the Hughes/Rogers era was that our immediate needs tended to dictate how we rated the players (IMO). Because our draft picks run that deep then it's particularly imperative that there needs to be a plan on how to use them. I fully expect that at least two of our first three picks will be drafted with the midfield in mind but I worry if it is deemed 'safe' that this happens. It will be fortuitous rather than us having a strict plan to draft three midfielders. I'm of the opinion that what you lose on the swings, you gain on the roundabout. In other words, if plan 'A' is not working out the way you hoped, you go to plan 'B'; you don't stubbornly stick with the first plan thinking you are invulnerable.

 

[Jimmae]

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.

They've got a very strong batch this year, at which point I think the AFL will go "oh, maybe we should scale this back a bit" and next year won't matter.

 

[ParapMarkets]

Exactly, which we have to be prepared for. One thing that bugged me with the Hughes/Rogers era was that our immediate needs tended to dictate how we rated the players (IMO). Because our draft picks run that deep then it's particularly imperative that there needs to be a plan on how to use them. I fully expect that at least two of our first three picks will be drafted with the midfield in mind but I worry if it is deemed 'safe' that this happens. It will be fortuitous rather than us having a strict plan to draft three midfielders. I'm of the opinion that what you lose on the swings, you gain on the roundabout. In other words, if plan 'A' is not working out the way you hoped, you go to plan 'B'; you don't stubbornly stick with the first plan thinking you are invulnerable.

I agree with you, although Hughes and Rogers didn't even really pick on needs either. Hughes in particular kept picking hbf's and was never prepared to go after KPP's. Then, after years of going after hbf's and mids they realised the dire situation of our talls and totally screwed the 2010 draft after desperately going after talls.

 

[Arr0w]

Always, always take best available in a draft

 

[GoBlues!]

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.

Agree. Given the depth of midfield talent in this draft and our dire need to build a stronger midfield squad I would have thought taking mids with our first two picks is the way to go. After Cripps, Murphy (30 next year) and Gibbs the quality of our midfield drops off, no disrespect to Ed, Kerridge, Palmer or Smedts.

Premiership teams are built around strong midfields. Can't remember the last premiership won by dominant key forwards - but I'm sure someone with a better memory will remind me.

 

[HARKER]

Always, always take best available in a draft

So if 'best available' happened to be a ruck-men 5 selections in a row, we just keep taking the ruck-man.

How do you think we actually find our order of this 'best available'? On talent alone....On characteristics we like in an individual (coachable, team-player, determined to win at all cost) or just who performed best in the championships and rate them accordingly?

When a club does select a player, they'll tell you it's best available because it often will be....but best available on that clubs criteria...and not just Cal Twomeys phantom draft.

 

[Arr0w]

So if 'best available' happened to be a ruck-men 5 selections in a row, we just keep taking the ruck-man.

How do you think we actually find our order of this 'best available'? On talent alone....On characteristics we like in an individual (coachable, team-player, determined to win at all cost) or just who performed best in the championships and rate them accordingly?

When a club does select a player, they'll tell you it's best available because it often will be....but best available on that clubs criteria...and not just Cal Twomeys phantom draft.

Think you are taking it too literally

I agree we need quality + genuine midfielders, so pick 5 seems the perfect fit

If that "quality + genuine midfielder" is gone by our 2nd rounder, don't try and manufactor or guess if a kid could turn out to be a quality midfilder, if there is a "quality + genuine" KPP, Ruckman or forward, take the next best available

The best clubs when it comes to drafting follow that mantra, they then address needs via trade/FA

 

[F_therest]

Always, always take best available in a draft

Yeah nah...that is clearly flawed logic.

 

[blue_trinity]

Agree. Given the depth of midfield talent in this draft and our dire need to build a stronger midfield squad I would have thought taking mids with our first two picks is the way to go. After Cripps, Murphy (30 next year) and Gibbs the quality of our midfield drops off, no disrespect to Ed, Kerridge, Palmer or Smedts.

Premiership teams are built around strong midfields. Can't remember the last premiership won by dominant key forwards - but I'm sure someone with a better memory will remind me.

Hawthorn?

 

[FairKouta]

If the scum bid on setterfield and gws do not match it. Gws then pick up Mcgrath. Brisbane bids on bowes GC matches. Brisbabe then picks up Ainsworth. We take Mcluggage. .
Reckon this is how it will go down.

 

[Arr0w]

Yeah nah...that is clearly flawed logic.

Clearly flawed, why would we want to select the best talent in the land with each pick

 

[Sector 7G]

Clearly flawed, why would we want to select the best talent in the land with each pick

Because it is very difficult to compare players that play in different positions. Also the further you go down the draft order the small difference separating players and each recruiter would have a different list so it is not clear cut is is just subjective.

What you don't want to do is ending up like Carlton in 2010 where we recruited 4 KPP due to our lack of depth in talls. It took us 3 years to then realise these players were busts. Setting us back at square 1

 

[Jimmae]

If the scum bid on setterfield and gws do not match it. Gws then pick up Mcgrath. Brisbane bids on bowes GC matches. Brisbabe then picks up Ainsworth. We take Mcluggage. .
Reckon this is how it will go down.

Well then come draft night, I look forward to seeing 3 tables with cartoon birdies flying above them on the coverage.

 

[djw1952]

So if 'best available' happened to be a ruck-men 5 selections in a row, we just keep taking the ruck-man.

How do you think we actually find our order of this 'best available'? On talent alone....On characteristics we like in an individual (coachable, team-player, determined to win at all cost) or just who performed best in the championships and rate them accordingly?

When a club does select a player, they'll tell you it's best available because it often will be....but best available on that clubs criteria...and not just Cal Twomeys phantom draft.

should be "best available" for what you "NEED" first and foremost.............

 

[KohPhi]

Well then come draft night, I look forward to seeing 3 tables with cartoon birdies flying above them on the coverage.

I'm sure there is a snapchat app for that!

 

[HARKER]

Clearly flawed, why would we want to select the best talent in the land with each pick

Of course one wants the best player that will offer most to the team but that means different things to different clubs. There's rarely a best player and especially so deeper into the draft

 

[Lace_Out]

I have been torn between Brodie initially and Taranto of late.

I have to say I am excited about what taranto what might be able to do in an AFL environment after what he has been able to produce in a limited football lifetime. Especially with just one pre season under his belt, could be anything! Just a quality driven kid who you just know will get the most out of himself too.

Brodie is also a tantalizing prospect who will also work his backside off and deliver. He is a better kick and a pure footballer.

I'll be happy with either to be honest, like splitting hairs..

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Arr0w]

Because it is very difficult to compare players that play in different positions. Also the further you go down the draft order the small difference separating players and each recruiter would have a different list so it is not clear cut is is just subjective.

What you don't want to do is ending up like Carlton in 2010 where we recruited 4 KPP due to our lack of depth in talls. It took us 3 years to then realise these players were busts. Setting us back at square 1

I really think people have taken my statement too literally. Of course if you rate 2 players at a similar level and you have a shortage in midfielders, the decision to take that mid is sound. I agree, hard to identify talent, especially comparing a KPP to a mid.

The argument sits well with the decisions of our 2010 draft. We were so concerned with the lack of KPP on our list, that our first 3 picks were talls, while ignoring the best talent strategy.

As another example, West Coast won the 2006 premiership, with a very strong list of KPP. Rather than spreading the load in terms of draft that little bit of everything, 3 of their first 4 selections were KPP.

There are no "guatantees" with any footballer, injuries, lack of improvement, can derail any of the best laid plans.

Our list, needs improved quality on every line, just recruit the best talent, worry about your deficiencies, once that talent starts to emerge or not.

 

[Arr0w]

Of course one wants the best player that will offer most to the team but that means different things to different clubs. There's rarely a best player and especially so deeper into the draft

Sounds like we all want the same thing then, the best talent

 

[HARKER]

Smart and well balanced drafting is required and unfortunately the trick is to project, not just who may currently be seen to be the best player, but who will be the better quality of player for the club, and in the future.

Get this right more often than not and you won't be seeing too many top ten picks in the future... Which is what we all want.

 

[Old navy]

Think there is a significant difference between best available player, and best available player for Carlton
Many would say McCluggage is the best player in this years draft, but would he be the best player for Carlton ?
Essendon would be thinking the same thing, McCluggage is a gun and the highest rated player this year, but is he really what Essendon need ? Do they take the best player or the best player for the club ?

 

[HARKER]

GWS aren't interested as to who may be the best player in this draft........they just want McGrath, and as he's the missing link they need.

 

[Arr0w]

Think we are stating to clutch at straws here.

Give you another perspective, how many Gary Ablett Jnr's would you knock back? Or what about WC McGovern?

I agree, it is about great list management to obtain a balanced squad, sure we added 3 onballers and a KPP in the trade period.

IMHO, I believe SOS will draft best available with the first 3 picks at least, if that is 3 onballers, great, if it is 2 and a KPP, just as happy



On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Arr0w]

GWS aren't interested as to who may be the best player in this draft........they just want McGrath, and as he's the missing link they need.

Perfect example, a team full of great talent, and their first 3 selections look like being mids, best available?


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Old navy]

GWS aren't interested as to who may be the best player in this draft........they just want McGrath, and as he's the missing link they need.

Think what really appeals to them is he is a elite talent in a position which they will need to fill in the near future and is also said to be of very good character with leadership qualities.
I'd also say he would be keen on moving up there too, they wouldn't have gone after him so hard if he wasn't.