List Mgmt. 2016 Potential Draft Picks

[OneGreatClub]

Oh boy, on and on and on and on...

 

[Chachi]

Based on Quigleys analysis I'm not sure we are interested in Battle, Marshall and English along with Witherden are noteworthy as not rated as highly as views elsewhere. Venables likewise.

Yeh it's interesting. Quigley is on a very different tangent. Then there's the actual clubs opinion that will differ as well.
His assessment of Scrimshaw is the one I found most interesting. FWIW I agree 100% with it.
The more I look at highlights, watch u18 games and read reviews the more unsure I get about who I like. The only constant I've had is Berry,

 

[Coobk001]

Well under Hinkley we don't generally trade players out considering he's done it once, trading David Rodan in 2012.

#destinationclub

 

[Interstater]

You know that not everyone has the exact same position on this, right?

Some are cool with it and that's fine. All I ask is that people tell it how it is, and not conveniently forget the main reason we have these additional picks is because we bought them with the credit card.

Worry about the bill later hey!

I wish I had more 0% interest credit cards in my life.

Its not like we have to give away a rookie pick each month to service the debt.

 

[Lagooner]

I wish I had more 0% interest credit cards in my life.

Its not like we have to give away a rookie pick each month to service the debt.

Just because there's no interest doesn't mean that you haven't got a bill to pay.

 

[Matchu]

What if we draft Ben Jarman...

 

[missionpossible]

What if we draft Ben Jarman...

We know Parker has a sence of humour.

Andrew Jarman having to support Port would be so funny.

 

[mic59]

We know Parker has a sence of humour.
Andrew Jarman having to support Port would be so funny.

Nah, it'd just be like Cornes and his sons. We'd just have to listen to another wrinklie bitter that his nearest and dearest had gone to the dark side.

 

[Portia]

I'd reckon he'd be stoked at the increased perceived relevance his views on Port would have

 

[Matchu]

We know Parker has a sence of humour.

Andrew Jarman having to support Port would be so funny.

Anything is possible...

 

[n4nirvana]

can u imagine how dynamic our midfield becomes with Galluci and Powell-Pepper bursting away from contests, being fed by inside grunts like Drew/Clarke


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PortMacPower]

can u imagine how dynamic our midfield becomes with Galluci and Powell-Pepper bursting away from contests, being fed by inside grunts like Drew/Clarke


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes! This is my exact hope / vision of this draft. Could set our core midfield up for the next generation.

 

[OneGreatClub]

So, where's that fella that posted the 'whiteboard' on thurs nights? Where's the drafting whiteboard?

 

[PJ Power]

can u imagine how dynamic our midfield becomes with Galluci and Powell-Pepper bursting away from contests, being fed by inside grunts like Drew/Clarke


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm liking this too. I think we should pull the trigger on Powell-Pepper and unless Brodie or English are on the table, I'd take him at pick 14.

Then it's possibly a choice between Marshall, Gallucci, Venables, Berry and Hayward at pick 17. Although the smallest of that group, Gallucci looks like the most well-rounded performer. He kicks goals, finds the footy, and has athletic attributes including pace. We can afford to take him there with confidence that we're getting a solid to very good player who complements SPP, and whose size is adequate knowing we will have a crack at Drew and/or Clarke with our third pick.

Portia's podcast comments have directed me away from Berry, while Venables is a bit too inconsistent and not prolific enough. If we've already taken the bull with x-factor in SPP, then I wouldn't feel so strongly in taking Venables as well. I like Hayward, but I'd prefer we get midfielders who kick goals rather than goal kickers who wander in the centre square periodically at this stage of their careers. Marshall is too raw for me - with our list already having deficiencies and unfulfilled potential types, I want to be confident that picks 14 and 17 are going to impact and do so relatively soon. I'd address tall forward in the rookie draft with state league players who can work around Dixon or take a punt on Battle at 31 if still there. It would be a different story if Gallucci was going to drop to the 30s.

 

[Visenfest]

So, where's that fella that posted the 'whiteboard' on thurs nights? Where's the drafting whiteboard?

Think he usually popped his head up on a Thursday morning or afternoon. Hopefully he has a draft special for us

 

[ClickBOOM1870]

I'm liking this too. I think we should pull the trigger on Powell-Pepper and unless Brodie or English are on the table, I'd take him at pick 14.

Then it's possibly a choice between Marshall, Gallucci, Venables, Berry and Hayward at pick 17. Although the smallest of that group, Gallucci looks like the most well-rounded performer. He kicks goals, finds the footy, and has athletic attributes including pace. We can afford to take him there with confidence that we're getting a solid to very good player who complements SPP, and whose size is adequate knowing we will have a crack at Drew and/or Clarke with our third pick.

Portia's podcast comments have directed me away from Berry, while Venables is a bit too inconsistent and not prolific enough. If we've already taken the bull with x-factor in SPP, then I wouldn't feel so strongly in taking Venables as well. I like Hayward, but I'd prefer we get midfielders who kick goals rather than goal kickers who wander in the centre square periodically at this stage of their careers. Marshall is too raw for me - with our list already having deficiencies and unfulfilled potential types, I want to be confident that picks 14 and 17 are going to impact and do so relatively soon. I'd address tall forward in the rookie draft with state league players who can work around Dixon or take a punt on Battle at 31 if still there. It would be a different story if Gallucci was going to drop to the 30s.

This.

Wish i could like it twice!

 

[Tibbs]

....
Conveniently forgotten. But when you leave out the 2017 1st rounder it sounds like a great deal!

can u imagine how dynamic our midfield becomes with Galluci and Powell-Pepper bursting away from contests, being fed by inside grunts like Drew/Clarke

Pappa ... this is the point for me! All the pundits & many posters called our trade period a 'failure,' we were 'rudderless,' 'no balls!' etc etc. In the end we made the "everyone is up for trade" call, but couldnt deliver. After that trade-posturing failure, the "no balls" approach would have been to go for some of the deadwood names being thrown around here for delisted players.... that would have just compounded our problem!

So a rapid-fire change of tack was made. We trade away next year's pick for a much better positioning this year. It's gutsy, ballsy, high-risk, yet could yield a team-changing bonanza reward for the club, such as indicated by n4nirvana. The recruiting staff could go down as heroes if they pull this off! I am with them! I am so excited by this draft for the club ... more so than in a long time. Nail this, and an unknown pick, in an unknown '17 draft pool, becomes inconsequential IMO.

That being said, I do acknowledge the risk! Our positioning has come at a cost, and is high risk. We could end up with two or three "dusters" in this draft, and then miss out on a beauty in '17 ... that's the risk/reward! I trade the stock market though, and I have over the years learned that the big gains are made by doing good research, and then backing yourself and taking the risks. The risk/reward ratio in this case is well worth it IMO ... Even more than that, we had no other choice!

 

[coyley56]

Pappa ... this is the point for me! All the pundits & many posters called our trade period a 'failure,' we were 'rudderless,' 'no balls!' etc etc. In the end we made the "everyone is up for trade" call, but couldnt deliver. After that trade-posturing failure, the "no balls" approach would have been to go for some of the deadwood names being thrown around here for delisted players.... that would have just compounded our problem!

So a rapid-fire change of tack was made. We trade away next year's pick for a much better positioning this year. It's gutsy, ballsy, high-risk, yet could yield a team-changing bonanza reward for the club, such as indicated by n4nirvana. The recruiting staff could go down as heroes if they pull this off! I am with them! I am so excited by this draft for the club ... more so than in a long time. Nail this, and an unknown pick, in an unknown '17 draft pool, becomes inconsequential IMO.

That being said, I do acknowledge the risk! Our positioning has come at a cost, and is high risk. We could end up with two or three "dusters" in this draft, and then miss out on a beauty in '17 ... that's the risk/reward! I trade the stock market though, and I have over the years learned that the big gains are made by doing good research, and then backing yourself and taking the risks. The risk/reward ratio in this case is well worth it IMO ... Even more than that, we had no other choice!

Nicely written we have deffinalty gambled with our picks the last few years hopefully we are rewarded this year with 4 gems.

 

[Lagooner]

Pappa ... this is the point for me! All the pundits & many posters called our trade period a 'failure,' we were 'rudderless,' 'no balls!' etc etc. In the end we made the "everyone is up for trade" call, but couldnt deliver. After that trade-posturing failure, the "no balls" approach would have been to go for some of the deadwood names being thrown around here for delisted players.... that would have just compounded our problem!

So a rapid-fire change of tack was made. We trade away next year's pick for a much better positioning this year. It's gutsy, ballsy, high-risk, yet could yield a team-changing bonanza reward for the club, such as indicated by n4nirvana. The recruiting staff could go down as heroes if they pull this off! I am with them! I am so excited by this draft for the club ... more so than in a long time. Nail this, and an unknown pick, in an unknown '17 draft pool, becomes inconsequential IMO.

That being said, I do acknowledge the risk! Our positioning has come at a cost, and is high risk. We could end up with two or three "dusters" in this draft, and then miss out on a beauty in '17 ... that's the risk/reward! I trade the stock market though, and I have over the years learned that the big gains are made by doing good research, and then backing yourself and taking the risks. The risk/reward ratio in this case is well worth it IMO ... Even more than that, we had no other choice!

Jesus H am I being Ken M'd here?!

If you like our picks and acknowledge their price then great, I have no beef with you.

 

[MrPortAdelaide]

im still happy to go 4 mids, more importantly the 2 best mids with our first two picks and if Marshall or Battle (im pretty sure one of them will be there) are there at 31 then so be it.

 

[Roo Beauty]

Hey guys, sorry for the intrusion. I was wondering how many selections you guys have to make on Friday night, based on list spots, etc. I'm doing a phantom draft and need this info.

For example North has to make 4 selections because we have 4 primary list spots open. Appreciate the help!

 

[PJ Power]

We have six spots left on our main list but still may only take four in the draft. In 2016 we had one short on our main list, and may take the same strategy into 2017.

I expect us to draft 4-5 only.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

We have six spots left on our main list but still may only take four in the draft. In 2016 we had one short on our main list, and may take the same strategy into 2017.

I expect us to draft 4-5 only.

4 plus a 5th if a good prospect slips through to pick 79.

 

[Popielnicki]

Sam Landsberger article today pretty much says port are into Witherden Galluci and Battle with our 1st rd picks

 

[OneGreatClub]

We might pick up that cat B rookie from the multicultural academy too.