List Mgmt. 2016 Potential Draft Picks

[TheFVK]

So if GWS lose picks 15 and 37 it bumps us up to at least Picks 14, 16, 29 and 30; an improvement of 4 places within the top 30. I say at least as losing the draft currency in these picks may mean they miss out on a couple academy prospects (Setterfield and Perryman) which would have bumped us down the order. Very handy.

Makes the trades this year: 9 + ~8-12 (2017) for 14, 16, 29 and 30.

 

[Revan11]

So if GWS lose picks 15 and 37 it bumps us up to at least Picks 14, 16, 29 and 30; an improvement of 4 places within the top 30. I say at least as losing the draft currency in these picks may mean they miss out on a couple academy prospects (Setterfield and Perryman) which would have bumped us down the order. Very handy.

Makes the trades this year: 9 + ~8-12 (2017) for 14, 16, 29 and 30.

Gws still might be able to match a bid on one of Setterfield or perryman by going into points deficit next year.

 

[Tor Eckman]

Extending the numbers of picks in the first round does not make those later picks magically better than they used to be.

Picking a player with a late first rounder today is the same as picking a player early in the second round when it used to be a 16 team competition. Which one is rated higher? they're exactly the same pick.

Flawed logic. You are talking about the depth of the draft, in which case a player that gets picked at 20 this year could've been a top 12-15 in a less even draft year. Has nothing to do with which Round they are.

 

[Popielnicki]

Scharenberg is a no from me now i think 30,31 is to early in this draft similar to Snelling in my eyes

 

[shewho]

GWS won't be punished this year. They will move heaven and hell to have a verdict delayed until after the draft.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Extending the numbers of picks in the first round does not make those later picks magically better than they used to be.

Picking a player with a late first rounder today is the same as picking a player early in the second round when it used to be a 16 team competition. Which one is rated higher? they're exactly the same pick.

Growth in the population of 18yo kids eligible for selection?

Inclusion of more first round quality candidates with northern academies introducing kids who otherwise would not have played AFL?

It's not a static world. In 1990 there were 14 teams. In 1991 15. So why is 16 the magic first round number?

 

[MALTSY]

Growth in the population of 18yo kids eligible for selection?

Inclusion of more first round quality candidates with northern academies introducing kids who otherwise would not have played AFL?

It's not a static world. In 1990 there were 14 teams. In 1991 15. So why is 16 the magic first round number?

...and here I was thinking that the number 42 was the magic number that gives meaning to all.

 

[OneGreatClub]

GWS won't be punished this year. They will move heaven and hell to have a verdict delayed until after the draft.

Bummer for us then when we gave away next years first pick.

 

[Rankor]

Bummer for us then when we gave away next years first pick.

Moving from pick 18 to 17 would not make much difference anyway. club made the right call.

 

[Jonts]

Extending the numbers of picks in the first round does not make those later picks magically better than they used to be.

Picking a player with a late first rounder today is the same as picking a player early in the second round when it used to be a 16 team competition. Which one is rated higher? they're exactly the same pick.

They're still first rounders
You just have to understand the quality goes down. Not calling them true first rounders due to them being outside the top 16 is dumb.
You'd also argue that more talent is coming through now with the academies set up too

 

[philthy05]

Extending the numbers of picks in the first round does not make those later picks magically better than they used to be.

Picking a player with a late first rounder today is the same as picking a player early in the second round when it used to be a 16 team competition. Which one is rated higher? they're exactly the same pick.

Crap.

Yes the first round has extended a few picks but with other factors like the growing professionalism not just of afl teams recruiting departments but junior and state team pathways the back end of the first round I feel is much safer than what is was when there was less teams.


However I do feel that second round picks have been pushed back with the extra teams, all the priority picks, expan teams being given extra picks in their start up and so on.

For the past 5-8 years many clubs have had their second round pick around pick 30-40, when in the past that was comparable to a third rounder at least number wise and would say a growth in professionalism has closed the gap somewhat but not that much.


This is a reason why I had a discussion with someone here (might have been Portia?) that as much as you want to have a huge cull and list turnover it's kind of not the same landscape that allowed teams like hawthorn , Collingwood and Geelong to go into a draft with multiple early picks without selling Diddly squat.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Am I the only one who has zero interest in Battle or Kerr, even at 30/31? I can't see either of them translating their games to AFL level, and there's still going to be some interesting midfield prospects available at those picks.

I want Marshall, and if GWS lose picks I wouldn't mind a crack at Sproule, but other than those two I'd rather not get a KPF at all than waste an early pick on a dud just for the sake of filling a need.

 

[Chachi]

Am I the only one who has zero interest in Battle or Kerr, even at 30/31? I can't see either of them making it at AFL level, and there's still going to be some interesting midfield prospects available at those picks.

I want Marshall, and if GWS lose picks I wouldn't mind a crack at Sproule, but other than those two I'd rather not get a KPF at all than waste an early pick on a dud just for the sake of filling a need.

Yep definitely agree re Battle, a little less anti on Kerr but don't want us to draft him in any case.
What are your thoughts on Logue? With the likes of Hayward firing up the order he may be around at out first pick. My favourite is still Berry at 14.

 

[DaTBird187]

Am I the only one who has zero interest in Battle or Kerr, even at 30/31? I can't see either of them making it at AFL level, and there's still going to be some interesting midfield prospects available at those picks.

I want Marshall, and if GWS lose picks I wouldn't mind a crack at Sproule, but other than those two I'd rather not get a KPF at all than waste an early pick on a dud just for the sake of filling a need.

Agreed. In a deep draft with plenty of talent. Grab the four best we can no matter what. Positions are so interchangeable these days, get pure football talent, athleticism and quality people.

Let's unless our inner Cruyff.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Yep definitely agree re Battle, a little less anti on Kerr but don't want us to draft him in any case.
What are your thoughts on Logue? With the likes of Hayward firing up the order he may be around at out first pick. My favourite is still Berry at 14.

I like Logue as a player and I think he'd fit our gameplan really well, but I also think undersized KPD's are a very low priority for us right now. Wouldn't be jumping for joy if we picked him early but wouldn't be burning down Alberton either.

I'm not that keen on Berry. You can probably pencil him in for 200 solid Michael Doughty/Matthew Broadbent level games, but I'm not sure he has it in him to be a match winner. I'd rather take a risk on somebody with more upside.

 

[Schulzenfest]

I'm still hoping for Marshall with our first pick and one of Hayward/Simpkin with our next pick to really add something to the forward line (I wouldn't be opposed to Logue with one of the first two picks if Marshall or both Hayward/Simpkin are gone, but I wouldn't want us to take both Hayward and Simpkin if Marshall was gone), then best available mids still there from the Atley/Poholke/Drew/Clarke/Scharenberg crowd at 30 and 31.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Moving from pick 18 to 17 would not make much difference anyway. club made the right call.

Lel, optimism, I like

 

[Jonts]

Am I the only one who has zero interest in Battle or Kerr, even at 30/31? I can't see either of them translating their games to AFL level, and there's still going to be some interesting midfield prospects available at those picks.

I want Marshall, and if GWS lose picks I wouldn't mind a crack at Sproule, but other than those two I'd rather not get a KPF at all than waste an early pick on a dud just for the sake of filling a need.

If marshall doesn't come to us with 14/17 I'm all for battle.

Our kpf stocks is two actual forwards, two part time ruck and a bad knee

 

[rumoursofwinter]

There seems to be quite a vibe that Bolton is dropping because he would prefer to stay in Wa. There's no wa picks between 12 and our picks at 30. If he is there at 30 just take him. No one wants to leave port. Our indigenous program is strong. The kid is dynamic and would change the nature of our team.

I'm pretty settled on what I realistically want.

14 Marshall - we need to take the risk. He's the only tall forward with the potential to be at all elite.

17 Venables - explosive mid forward with x factor. There should be a few quality mid forwards to choose at this pick.

30 Clarke - big inside mid with elite endurance. Racks up possessions. Will kick goals when others tire. Brother plays for North. Their pick comes after 30.

31 Bolton - elite explosive crumbling forward who hits packs at speed. Campaigner. Ability to do some midfield.

Late 3 picks - Noonan, whimpress and rowan Marshall (utility ruck, forward, defender - late grower nz rugby background 3rd best for his club in vfl in first proper year of vfl as 20 year old)

 

[philthy05]

Am I the only one who has zero interest in Battle or Kerr, even at 30/31? I can't see either of them translating their games to AFL level, and there's still going to be some interesting midfield prospects available at those picks.

I want Marshall, and if GWS lose picks I wouldn't mind a crack at Sproule, but other than those two I'd rather not get a KPF at all than waste an early pick on a dud just for the sake of filling a need.

Extremely not keen on battle and Kerr

 

[Popielnicki]

14 Simpkin/Florent 17 Venables/Marshall 30 Clarke/Ridley 31 Z Fisher or best available

 

[It Just Is]

Am I the only one who has zero interest in Battle or Kerr, even at 30/31? I can't see either of them translating their games to AFL level, and there's still going to be some interesting midfield prospects available at those picks.

I want Marshall, and if GWS lose picks I wouldn't mind a crack at Sproule, but other than those two I'd rather not get a KPF at all than waste an early pick on a dud just for the sake of filling a need.

Couldn't agree more. I really hope someone else picks Battle so our recruiters can't.

Aside from Marshal and Sproule I would also be keen on Mitch McCarthy if he's still around at that pick in the 80's or in the rookie draft. Brett Eddy might be worth a spot on the rookie list but that's it for draftable key forwards in my opinion.

 

[Tor Eckman]

Couldn't agree more. I really hope someone else picks Battle so our recruiters can't.

This. 14 or 17 is reaching for Battle so I hope we aren't that silly and he should be gone by 30....

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

This. 14 or 17 is reaching for Battle so I hope we aren't that silly and he should be gone by 30....

Take him with 30/31 but not before.

 

[PJ Power]

H

I'm still hoping for Marshall with our first pick and one of Hayward/Simpkin with our next pick to really add something to the forward line (I wouldn't be opposed to Logue with one of the first two picks if Marshall or both Hayward/Simpkin are gone, but I wouldn't want us to take both Hayward and Simpkin if Marshall was gone), then best available mids still there from the Atley/Poholke/Drew/Clarke/Scharenberg crowd at 30 and 31.

I'd rather us pick up four mids, or Hayward and three mids.

Marshall, I'm very iffy on.