Hot Topic 2016 DRAFT

[LemmingMaster]

I totally get that I'm not across every aspect of player analysis by virtue of not being able to speak to all of these guys and have a full year's tape & analysis (or 3-4, as it is in many cases), but I'd be properly stunned if we took Hayward at 5, and am content in the belief that any such rumour is a smokescreen.

Well I would not be shocked seeing Hayward being selected in the top 10, so come draft day, you may actually riot.

 

[mediumsizered]

I reckon Kerr has 'slider' all over him. Too many question marks and too little production value to consider with a Top 40 Pick.

He has AFL traits, but he'll need to work pretty hard on his deficiencies.

I expect Kerr to slide & be available at our pick 48, but not because he has deficiencies to work on, but because he didn't progress as much as expected this season, after finishing 2015 in good form as an under age player.

He has Luke Mitchell like traits.

Kerr is certainly far more mobile than what Mitchell was.

 

[Matty411]

Thanks for those who pointed out I missed Lions pick.

Would need a miracle for Clug to get past ESS, Giants and Lions but stranger things have happened.

 

[therubbernub]

Atley is someone I don't mind the look of at all. Predominantly an inside mid but does look to have traits which could see him develop into a hybrid at AFL level.

Not sure he'll be considered at our second pick but consensus seems to have him going somewhere between our second and third picks.

Could well be an option at our 3rd pick.

Has a bit of Treloar about him

 

[therubbernub]

I don't know why you would say that. In the past we did that, but last year SOS played the draft beautifully and took McKay ahead of Adelaide's pick as they were after him and then took Curnow, who several recruiters (according to Quayle) rated in the top 3. That was clearly a strategy to get "best available" with all selections.

You could maybe make a case for Cuningham, but clearly SOS rated him with his speed and skill. I think if someone like Gresham had've slid I'm sure he would have taken whoever was higher on the list.

Its interesting to consider Cuningham and his role in our selections this year.
Firstly it is clear that we need and will be selecting one of the plethora of mids available in this years first round.
Secondly , many here have developed a mesiah complex over SOS.

That said if we assume that cuningham represents SOS's expertise at its finest, then we should be expecting that he plays most games this year. That leaves a midfield of

Murphy- Ideally outside mid
Gibbs- ideally outside mid
Cripps- inside mid
E. Curnow - Inside?
kerridge- Outside, link up mid ideally
Cuningham- breakaway mid
#5--???

If we assume that Cuningham plays that breakaway mid role for us - does this change our thinking about the best selection for us. With curnow and kerridge being able to run all day and play that link up overlap role , are we still a pure inside mid short?
With Gibbs and Murphy hopefully being cut free from the stoppages to be their creative best, do we need to draft another creative goal kicking mid ahead of another inside mid to support Cripps. I feel that the way our midfield rotation sets up, a player such as taranto may be less useful than a pure inside mid.

 

[SABlue]

People with more knowledge might be able to clarify this for me?
If GWS lose pick 15 and 37 and someone bids on Setterfield around that 4-5 mark to me it means that will have too use all their remaining picks to have enough points just for him. That's assuming they take McGrath with pick 2. From what I can see our 3rd pick moves up about 4 spots and our picks 63, 66 & 70 move up 10 spots. Leaving us picks 5, 24, 44, 53, 56 and 60. Is this the case?

 

[Jimmae]

People with more knowledge might be able to clarify this for me?
If GWS lose pick 15 and 37 and someone bids on Setterfield around that 4-5 mark to me it means that will have too use all their remaining picks to have enough points just for him. That's assuming they take McGrath with pick 2. From what I can see our 3rd pick moves up about 4 spots and our picks 63, 66 & 70 move up 10 spots. Leaving us picks 5, 24, 44, 53, 56 and 60. Is this the case?

Right now, they have about 3500 points after #2 at the start of the draft (plus a little over 2000 deficit points from next year that they can use), and without 15 & 37 they have about 1900.

So no, a bid at 4 or 5 will not wipe out their draft entirely, but it will clear a lot of this year's picks.

An top 20 bid for Perryman would then put them into deficit, but they'd probably still be OK with that. They'd have to cop another 2 top 30 bids for their players to dissuade them from matching in that scenario.

Well I would not be shocked seeing Hayward being selected in the top 10, so come draft day, you may actually riot.

I wouldn't be shocked to see him go at GC's 3 or 4th, or at Sydney's pick, and there's rumours of Freo. GC & Sydney make perfect sense, but him jumping up to #5 is ridiculous, and can only be seen as a ploy by us to get GC to blink at #4 if the pick is active.

 

[gotheJUDD]

 

[ferrisb]

I reckon this is the best 'smile' you could manage once you find out you are likely headed to Essendon*...

 

[Blue__Balls]

Its interesting to consider Cuningham and his role in our selections this year.
Firstly it is clear that we need and will be selecting one of the plethora of mids available in this years first round.
Secondly , many here have developed a mesiah complex over SOS.

That said if we assume that cuningham represents SOS's expertise at its finest, then we should be expecting that he plays most games this year. That leaves a midfield of

Murphy- Ideally outside mid
Gibbs- ideally outside mid
Cripps- inside mid
E. Curnow - Inside?
kerridge- Outside, link up mid ideally
Cuningham- breakaway mid
#5--???

If we assume that Cuningham plays that breakaway mid role for us - does this change our thinking about the best selection for us. With curnow and kerridge being able to run all day and play that link up overlap role , are we still a pure inside mid short?
With Gibbs and Murphy hopefully being cut free from the stoppages to be their creative best, do we need to draft another creative goal kicking mid ahead of another inside mid to support Cripps. I feel that the way our midfield rotation sets up, a player such as taranto may be less useful than a pure inside mid.

Not at all.

The kid we take at 5 isn't going to be determined by getting the best balance in 2017 - it'll be getting the best talent and balance for 2017-2025.

Murphy has taken a fair beating over time, and will probably transition to a Kieren Jack type supporting role in the coming years.
Gibbs, as much as we would like to think he's committed now, could still request a trade to Adelaide next year.
Curnow has come along in leaps and bounds in the last few years, unclear how long he'll be able to maintain his peak output.
Kerridge is limited, love his work ethic but his skills leave a bit to be desired.

I'd be aiming to have Cuningham take Murph's midfield role (contested mid who excels on the burst).
Cripps will be an inside beast for a decade, just needs another guy who can (effectively) give him a chop out.
Curnow does what Kerridge does, but cleaner. If Kerridge could clean up his kicking he'd still be handy as a bench rotation.

For me, we need a Gibbs replacement, a Kerridge upgrade and a supporting inside mid. Then continual development and turnover of depth players to improve our second string options.

Taranto or SPS gives us our Gibbs replacement, with time to develop before they're "needed".
Charlie Curnow hopefully moves into the guts and replaces Kerridge as the hard running link up player who can go inside.
Should get a supporting inside mid with 25 or one of our later picks (Drew/Clarke?).

Future starting midfield: Phillips, Cripps, SPS, Curnow, Cuningham, Drew.
Rotations: Pickett, Sumner, Older Murphy, Older Gibbs, Older Curnow, Smedts, Kerridge, Palmer, Wright, Boekhorst (all pending contract status and selection).

 

[1981]

Yes Charlie is an interesting one whether he can go into midfield LT

If he can we might take Battle at 26

 

[BlackGoanna]

Its interesting to consider Cuningham and his role in our selections this year.
Firstly it is clear that we need and will be selecting one of the plethora of mids available in this years first round.
Secondly , many here have developed a mesiah complex over SOS.

That said if we assume that cuningham represents SOS's expertise at its finest, then we should be expecting that he plays most games this year. That leaves a midfield of

Murphy- Ideally outside mid
Gibbs- ideally outside mid
Cripps- inside mid
E. Curnow - Inside?
kerridge- Outside, link up mid ideally
Cuningham- breakaway mid
#5--???

If we assume that Cuningham plays that breakaway mid role for us - does this change our thinking about the best selection for us. With curnow and kerridge being able to run all day and play that link up overlap role , are we still a pure inside mid short?
With Gibbs and Murphy hopefully being cut free from the stoppages to be their creative best, do we need to draft another creative goal kicking mid ahead of another inside mid to support Cripps. I feel that the way our midfield rotation sets up, a player such as taranto may be less useful than a pure inside mid.

The notion of balancing the midfield is nonsense. The reality is that midfielders all need to have inside/ outside games. Even Cripps (being a clearance specialist) needs to spread and link play. If you look at Sydney, they have always had a stack of hard nosed/ blue collar, inside mids, that also can provide outside run and spread. Kennedy, Jack, Mitchell, Hannerberry, ect. Same deal with Hawks and Bulldogs. We need midfielders who can win the hard ball, attack, defend, link and run. They all need to be doing this or they become a liability. SPS, Taranto and Brodie all fit this mould and will be wrapped with either. We need to have the same philosophy with later picks for midfeilders

 

[La Dispute]

Nothing that was said following EP's Hayward revelation was too untoward. Naturally there is going to be a bit of shock and agitation.

As supporters you only get a slender amount of information coming from within and any time something does come out there's some intrigue. It's easy to take those reactions personally and feel a little aggrieved at sharing whatever information is at hand.

I don't think we should take Hayward, but by the same token, if SOS thinks he is the best player, with the most scope for improvement at Pick 5 then he will take him. It will, however, be a massive call in the context of our rebuild.

However -

1. Taking an inside mid might not be beneficial when there are scores available in later rounds
2. Hayward has undoubted talent. Whether he becomes Billings or Robbie Gray will come down to development.
3. There are few players with genuine X-factor in this draft. It's possible SPS will be gone at 4, which leaves us to choose between Taranto, Brodie and Hayward. We lack x-factor and goal-kickers and Hayward is both.

My preference is to still take Taranto (or even Scrimshaw) but we might just be surprised on draft night.

 

[Jimmae]

You've made a great argument for taking Scrimshaw

 

[KohPhi]

With the names up for grabs I'm sure we will grab a 200 gamer with pick 5. For me, how we go with our next 5 picks will determine how quickly and successful our"re-set" will happen.
That is where SOS and Co. will earn their money.
Can't wait!

 

[La Dispute]

You've made a great argument for taking Scrimshaw

Rumoured character issues but not averse to it, particularly if you look at the broader context of this draft. 5-12 is about his draft range and he's certainly got plenty of talent to work with.

 

[Pafloyul]

Rumoured character issues but not averse to it, particularly if you look at the broader context of this draft. 5-12 is about his draft range and he's certainly got plenty of talent to work with.

It wouldn't surprise me that the rumoured character issues have been blown out of proportion to scare people off. Charlie Curnow has character issues but he's a talented youngster who we are banking on to grow up a little. Not all youngsters mature at the same age.

 

[LemmingMaster]

It wouldn't surprise me that the rumoured character issues have been blown out of proportion to scare people off. Charlie Curnow has character issues but he's a talented youngster who we are banking on to grow out of it. Not all youngsters mature at the same age.

You still have to take it into consideration, especially when you're building a young list, you don't want too many character issue people on your list.

 

[thylacine60]

exactly - plenty of people seem to forget not all youngsters are the same age either

 

[La Dispute]

It wouldn't surprise me that the rumoured character issues have been blown out of proportion to scare people off. Charlie Curnow has character issues but he's a talented youngster who we are banking on to grow out of it. Not all youngsters mature at the same age.

Spot on.

Young footballers can often be pretty cocky in their Under 18 days; a combination of being the best in their school, in their team, the cumulative adulation from draft experts and list managers.

Once they get into an AFL system they're no longer the big fish in a small pond and have to adapt to the standards accordingly. They start seeing players who are as talented, and many who are more talented and that humbles them a bit. I think Bolton's pretty conscious of that and part of the trip down to Tassie was to reinforce the nature of the AFL circuit - work hard, work collaboratively and don't expect to make it on talent alone.

 

[Jimmae]

You still have to take it into consideration, especially when you're building a young list, you don't want too many character issue people on your list.

What is the point of building a culture if you can't help those with rough edges?

I say this without knowing the specifics, of course.

 

[Pafloyul]

You still have to take it into consideration, especially when you're building a young list, you don't want too many character issue people on your list.

Yes but just how much of a concern are the character issues and how many places in the draft does it mean he drops down - 2, 3, 5 or 25? It all seem a bit arbitrary to me considering he seems to be consistently considered a top 10-15 pick. He just strikes me as an average kid who has to adjust to things because he has missed a lot of football.

 

[Jimmae]

Backbrowsing through this doozy now:

Will post anything interesting

 

[Jimmae]

Any chance of berry being a blueberry (Carlton)

Who did this, show yourself

 

[DirkDiggler]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-draft-2016-clubbyclub-guide-part-one-20161116-gsqckj.html

Oops I accidentally posted this draft synopsis on Carlton by Emma on another thread. So many variables before we get to decide with our first pick.