List Mgmt. 2016 Potential Draft Picks

[Jason K]

Anything happening on the GWS penaly yet? Would love to be able to get Sproule at 30/31 leaving 14, 17 and 30/31 for best mid.

 

[mic59]

No. We would have had one 1st round (#9) and two 2nd rounds (#19 & #30).

I realised my post was incorrect and deleted it but you had already answered. Looking back on that, my opinion at the time of the Sydney trade was who is in charge here? Increasing pick 49 to 31 may be 18 places and 19 to 17 is 2 first round places, but 5 back in the first round can be equal to more than both of them. It's not just about the numbers.

 

[Lagooner]

If Brodie slides to 9 we've either just missed out on the next Ollie Wines (conversion) or dodged the next Ben Jacobs (desertion).

 

[Macca19]

I'm not sure why getting Brodie was the key thing in this draft. There is no guarantee with any player and Brodie falls into that category as much as anyone else. If he was a 100% guaranteed future star he wouldn't have fallen in draft talks from 50/50 #1 pick in August to potentially falling to 9 or even further a couple months later.

In any case, I still don't think he'll fall to 9.

 

[Brian McGee]

Hi everyone,

I have been following this board for a long time but haven't felt the need to post yet. Just wanted to put my 2 cents in though.

For me Brodie would be a perfect get at 14. Unlikely he is there though. I would be happy with any of the highly rated mids at this point. Berry, simpkin, Hayward and to a lesser extent Powell pepper and venebles. I think if Marshall is there at 17 we should pick him. Too much potential.

At our two picks in the 30's I like a contested mid like scharenberg, Clarke, graham, atley, then hoping that Brennan cox is still there.

 

[Arsene Wenger]

I have heard the bloke we were confident would be there at 14 as well as 9 is Gallucci. He is who we want.

 

[DaTBird187]

There is no doubt that Brodie being picked by the crows at 13 would really hurt. The point is that our trade needed to account for dozens of possibilities.

I can't guarantee our club actually did the math of course.

 

[Chrizzt]

I have heard the bloke we were confident would be there at 14 as well as 9 is Gallucci. He is who we want.

Yeah I can see why we'd like him, but I don't love him. No way he was going top 10 and wouldn't be a reach at 14 so does fit the bill in that regard.

 

[PatientMental]

Well he does fit what we need.

"Gallucci brings some zip to the draft class. He can dash past opponents and get on the move in tight spots, and he enjoys taking a bounce and tucking the ball under his arm. A professional and dedicated prospect, the midfielder was Vic Metro's co-captain for the under-18 championships. Showed his mix of outside speed and inside grunt with 36 disposals, three goals, 11 clearances and 12 inside-50s for the Eastern Ranges earlier this year. He set a record for the standing vertical jump at the NAB AFL Draft Combine, recording 89cm, and also excelled in the beep test, repeat sprint test and running vertical jump."

 

[Chrizzt]

Well he does fit what we need.

"Gallucci brings some zip to the draft class. He can dash past opponents and get on the move in tight spots, and he enjoys taking a bounce and tucking the ball under his arm. A professional and dedicated prospect, the midfielder was Vic Metro's co-captain for the under-18 championships. Showed his mix of outside speed and inside grunt with 36 disposals, three goals, 11 clearances and 12 inside-50s for the Eastern Ranges earlier this year. He set a record for the standing vertical jump at the NAB AFL Draft Combine, recording 89cm, and also excelled in the beep test, repeat sprint test and running vertical jump."

Contested possession isn't a strong point for him, and I'm not sure it's something he could develop - although admittedly he's not someone I've watched too much of. A little bit worried just how well he can bring his game up to AFL level where he will have far less time and space to execute, and will also need to know how to find the footy against bigger bodies.

 

[wilbur_15]

I'm not sure why getting Brodie was the key thing in this draft. There is no guarantee with any player and Brodie falls into that category as much as anyone else. If he was a 100% guaranteed future star he wouldn't have fallen in draft talks from 50/50 #1 pick in August to potentially falling to 9 or even further a couple months later.

In any case, I still don't think he'll fall to 9.

Who said it was? If it were the key thing in this draft for the club, they would've been trying to trade up the order from 9, not down.

I'm worried that it's another example of amateur level operations within the club, particularly the list management dept. Did they do any sort of analysis on the likelihood of one of their really top rated kids being available at 9 or was it all just "gut feel"? Smells a bit like Primus coaching era organisation to me. In fact, did you not get a shock when KT said on the podcast we're still sticking to the core list management plan set out in the Primus regime? That was alarm bells for me.

Back to the topic at hand, assuming pick 17 or 19 are much of a muchness, it's pick 9+49 or 14+31. Also assuming true midfielders are why we're into this draft so heavily here are the scenarios. You know the draft better than me so feel free to put a more suitable player in at each pick to compare:

Brodie/Poholke at 9/49
Galucci/Scharenberg at 14/31

Which is the better combo?

Maybe another way to put it is how much worse a prospect (would love if you take a stab at some examples) would we get at 49 compared to 31?

Lastly if the club thought there was a 50/50 chance Brodie or SPS could slide to 9, I'd say don't trade that pick. What odds would you have been comfortable with before trading it away?

 

[Nemisis]

i personally would prefer 9 19 and 49 to what we have now. but thats me

Agree - but of course it will be "five years until we know right..."

 

[shewho]

I'm not sure why getting Brodie was the key thing in this draft. There is no guarantee with any player and Brodie falls into that category as much as anyone else. If he was a 100% guaranteed future star he wouldn't have fallen in draft talks from 50/50 #1 pick in August to potentially falling to 9 or even further a couple months later.

In any case, I still don't think he'll fall to 9.

It is very rare for clubs to trade higher picks for two later picks. When it is done it is bound to be scrutinised. When you have a perceived A-Grader fall to the original pick but not the new one, it is bound to be criticised. We all know how hard it is to score these perceived A-Graders. If we miss out on one because of that late decision on deadline day, heads may roll.

It's true that Brodie may be a "bust" rather than a "boom". But he is a potential "franchise player" as the yanks like to call them. You just don't give away the chance of one to get 2 "very good" players, who are more likely, in fact, to be "busts".

What if....we had traded pick 6 (Wingard) for picks 11 (Greene) and 15 (B.Ellis). Or pick 7 (Wines) for picks 12 (Jaksch) and 16 (Thurlow)? Now, I chose those numbers as roughly equivalent BEFORE I checked who went there. But it proves my point perfectly. It is so hard to get players from the top rung, you simply don't give that away unless you are certain that an A-Grader won't fall to #9.

One "very good" prospect for two "good to very good" prospects= ok. One "excellent" prospect for a "very good" prospect and a "good" prospect= disaster.

 

[Nemisis]

I have heard the bloke we were confident would be there at 14 as well as 9 is Gallucci. He is who we want.

Whhaaaattt?!! Not doubting you but Gallucci ... that's a real stretch.

 

[PatientMental]

Contested possession isn't a strong point for him, and I'm not sure it's something he could develop - although admittedly he's not someone I've watched too much of. A little bit worried just how well he can bring his game up to AFL level where he will have far less time and space to execute, and will also need to know how to find the footy against bigger bodies.

This screams that we want outside mids more than inside ones.

 

[mightypowerrrr]

Brodie is from Vic Country so there is no go home factor.
This trade reeks of stupidity. If we miss Brodie, these blokes need their jobs reviewed. Every single year there is a 'slider,' why this year did we think differently?
I'm hearing we love Witherden and Gallucci as well, one if not both would be there at 19, so whats with this trade.
Brodie is the next Ollie Wines/Josh Kennedy and he'll play at least 200 games.
Anyone who thinks the trade down to 14 was a good move obviously hasn't followed this year's draft prospects.
Also, Brodie will be a good player and add to any midfield come round 1 2017, and since Ken wanted 'ready to go,' players, this trade shows Ken and Co aren't thinking with their heads.

 

[Jack Grange]

I think i've settled on my best case scenario draft:

14: SPP
17: Marshall
30: Atley
31: Poholke
85: Dundon

Rookie:
1st: Bedford
2nd: Shaw

Macca19 read quite a bit on SPP, Marshall, can you provide further (brief) info on;
30: Atley
31: Poholke
85: Dundon

Rookie:
1st: Bedford
2nd: Shaw[/QUOTE]
thanks

 

[SureBuddy]

I would actually really like Galucci. He has polish, his skills are great. He is quick and his leap is unreal. He crushed the standing vertical jump record at the combine.

 

[Nemisis]

I would actually really like Galucci. He has polish, his skills are great. He is quick and his leap is unreal. He crushed the standing vertical jump record at the combine.

He looks ok but what is he going to do with his vertical jump? - He's a short arse not a tall back or forward. Anyway if we pick him up I will love him to bits.

 

[David Puddy]

Please God let Brodie be gone within the top 5 to stop the melts on this board.

 

[Chrizzt]

BRODIE WILL ABSOLUTELY BE THE BEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME!!!11!! RAAARGH!
He's so good that all other clubs are scared to pick him and that's why he's talked about sliding outside the top 10! Poorts are so stupid there are literally no other players to draft outside brodie.

 

[Zakk Wylde]

I have heard the bloke we were confident would be there at 14 as well as 9 is Gallucci. He is who we want.

I like the look of him.

In isolation he won't be popular, but I feel we'll judge this group of draftees as a combination, not individually.

Eg. He'll look a lot better alongside Berry, Marshall or SPP etc.

 

[Coobk001]

I have heard the bloke we were confident would be there at 14 as well as 9 is Gallucci. He is who we want.

This is what I've been saying! lol

Looking through the highlights tapes (and only the highlights tapes, I'm definitely not an expert), Gallucci is exactly the type that would scream out to us. The first time I watched the tapes I said it and I'll stick with it.

From Callum Twomey:
The former volleyballer is a damaging, ball-carrying midfielder who can break the lines with his pace. Gallucci kicked five goals in a game late in the year for the Eastern Ranges and has regularly been a presence across half-forward when not ripping the ball out of clearances. Gallucci starred at the combine last month when he broke the all-time record for the standing vertical jump and won the repeat sprints test.


Personally I still want a midfield bigger bodied mid from our first 2 picks, but I 100% see why we would target him.

So we're talking extreme fitness, top line pace and incredible agility. Plus his video shows a kid with a future elite kick off both legs, uncanny goal sense, and an ability to burst out of clearances with sheer pace. There's a lot to like there, and I think he's a lot better on that evidence than a lot of the other players bandied around.

 

[Macca19]

Who said it was?

The last 5 pages is full of people pre-melting that we might have missed out on Brodie.

I'm worried that it's another example of amateur level operations within the club, particularly the list management dept. Did they do any sort of analysis on the likelihood of one of their really top rated kids being available at 9 or was it all just "gut feel"? Smells a bit like Primus coaching era organisation to me. In fact, did you not get a shock when KT said on the podcast we're still sticking to the core list management plan set out in the Primus regime? That was alarm bells for me.

Everyone has a different list. We may not have rated Brodie. Brodie may not fall. There is nothing written anywhere outside of one line in an article that suggests he might fall, and the opinion of an amateur draft watcher. Thats neither here nor there.

Remember how everyone here and on the Crows board were blowing loads over Butcher and Sellar dropping to our picks? How both those players were originally potential #1 picks who fell down the draft. They played about 4 decent games between them.

Back to the topic at hand, assuming pick 17 or 19 are much of a muchness, it's pick 9+49 or 14+31. Also assuming true midfielders are why we're into this draft so heavily here are the scenarios. You know the draft better than me so feel free to put a more suitable player in at each pick to compare:

Brodie/Poholke at 9/49
Galucci/Scharenberg at 14/31

Which is the better combo?

The gap between 9 and 14 isn't overly big imo. The gap between 31 and 49 in this draft is reasonably significant.

I'm not concerned because I don't think the gap between Brodie and your Witherden/Berry/SPP/Hayward pick 14 types is all that big.

If Brodie goes at 9 and we pick Battle with 14 then i'll probably start melting. But, I still don't see Brodie dropping that far.

 

[shewho]

The last 5 pages is full of people pre-melting that we might have missed out on Brodie.



Everyone has a different list. We may not have rated Brodie. Brodie may not fall. There is nothing written anywhere outside of one line in an article that suggests he might fall, and the opinion of an amateur draft watcher. Thats neither here nor there.

Remember how everyone here and on the Crows board were blowing loads over Butcher and Sellar dropping to our picks? How both those players were originally potential #1 picks who fell down the draft. They played about 4 decent games between them.




The gap between 9 and 14 isn't overly big imo. The gap between 31 and 49 in this draft is reasonably significant.

I'm not concerned because I don't think the gap between Brodie and your Witherden/Berry/SPP/Hayward pick 14 types is all that big.

If Brodie goes at 9 and we pick Battle with 14 then i'll probably start melting. But, I still don't see Brodie dropping that far.

Isn't the debate whether it was good or dumb to do the trade with Sydney on deadline day? As it gets closer to draft day, the gravity of what we did starts to take hold. What people are saying is if we knew there was a chance Brodie would fall to #9, we should never have done the trade. I am with them.

I'm not sure whether you should judge this trade only in retrospect, when the picks are all in. In my view, a slider to 9 from the top rung was always on and the trade was dumb, dumb, dumb. If it turns out there is no slider, maybe our guys knew the game, maybe they were lucky with their gamble.

But if there is that slider, and we are not there to add to our recent list of midfield sliders (Wingard, Wines) then the shit should hit the fan.