Game Day 2017 National Draft

[DraftBalta]

With rule changes to rookies, we don't need to elevate him to play him. All rookies can play seniors. Can't see why we'd elevate him.

I can't see the point of a rookie list

 

[Matt_352]

 

[CaptainMurphy]

Hey all, can I ask what the thinking on this board is about your pick 6, and whether you should go for best available (Coffield, Cerra, Brayshaw) or try and reach for a KPP (Brander, Naughton, Balta) which seems to me to be a big position of need (please correct me if I'm wrong). The only one who kind of fits both is Fogarty but let's say for the sake of argument he's taken by Fremantle at 5. I'm sure there's a multitude of views but is there any level of consensus?

If this is unwelcome feel free to tell me to leave and I will.

 

[Pedro]

Hey all, can I ask what the thinking on this board is about your pick 6, and whether you should go for best available (Coffield, Cerra, Brayshaw) or try and reach for a KPP (Brander, Naughton, Balta) which seems to me to be a big position of need (please correct me if I'm wrong). The only one who kind of fits both is Fogarty but let's say for the sake of argument he's taken by Fremantle at 5. I'm sure there's a multitude of views but is there any level of consensus?

If this is unwelcome feel free to tell me to leave and I will.

Personally its best available, regardless of position. I don't want to reach for a KPP at pick 6 unless they are rated there by the club

 

[Matt_352]

Hey all, can I ask what the thinking on this board is about your pick 6, and whether you should go for best available (Coffield, Cerra, Brayshaw) or try and reach for a KPP (Brander, Naughton, Balta) which seems to me to be a big position of need (please correct me if I'm wrong). The only one who kind of fits both is Fogarty but let's say for the sake of argument he's taken by Fremantle at 5. I'm sure there's a multitude of views but is there any level of consensus?

If this is unwelcome feel free to tell me to leave and I will.

If Fog is gone id probably go best available.

 

[Apex36]

Thomas suspended 2 years 2015 & 2016.
Back playing 2017 on rookie list (upgraded during season).
2 + 1 = 3 y

He was on the senior list and delisted for the first year of his suspension. Has only been a rookie for 2 years. Given that rookies don’t have to be elevated anymore to play senior footy I can’t think of a good reason why they wouldn’t keep him as a rookie in 2018, which means he’ll probably be elevated because sensible list management is beyond Collingwood.

 

[MagpieBat]

He was on the senior list and delisted for the first year of his suspension. Has only been a rookie for 2 years. Given that rookies don’t have to be elevated anymore to play senior footy I can’t think of a good reason why they wouldn’t keep him as a rookie in 2018, which means he’ll probably be elevated because sensible list management is beyond Collingwood.

You would hope it's one of the first decisions of the Ned Guy regime, but as Thomas was re-signed towards the end of the Hine tenure, it would be of no surprise to learn that the one year extension is a senior list contract instead of a rookie one and that it is locked in.

Should learn more very soon, either later today or some time tomorrow, when first lists are turned in...

 

[Kilmo]

We’ve been known to draft players not in phantom draft order. Pendlebury was out of phantom drafts top 20 and Sier wasn’t in any.

I'm expecting -

Pick 6: Someone we've never heard of
Pick 38: Tyler Brown
Pick 60 or whatever it is: Someone like Phillips/Wills/Crocker

and that's it

 

[Darkyprotector]

With Sinkers and Ramsay gone it's a good risk, we don't look like a modern team with no speed out of defence

So far so good
Great recruit Sam Murray
Quick quick quick

 

[sr36]

I can't see the point of a rookie list

With these new changes, there isn't really a point. I suspect that Category A rookies are on the way out. From this year, it has simply become a tool whereby clubs can draft guys on one yer contracts rather than the mandatory two in the national draft. Clubs may be keen to keep it for this reason.

 

[Darkyprotector]

Those so called experts were talking about pick 40 in this years draft whereas we traded out a likely pick in the 20s in the stronger 2018 draft, so I don't have a lot of faith in their assessment.

Mate
Re Murray
Works out pick 47 or so next year
2018 we have 2 academy and 1 f/son
At least 2 will be bid on, maybe all 3 as we don't get favours
We have 24 0ut of contract next year
You don't think we're gonna be super super active? Maybe we have a plan
So who cares we gave away a second round and got a 3 rd back
If Sam plays could win rising stAr
That's how influential he's gonna be
Lets back the club

 

[unplugged]

Lachie O'Brien is more a winger from what I've seen, but can anyone tell me if he has played any footy in the back half?

We're desperate for some athletes who can also kick coming out of the back line. Surely he fits the bill, at least to start his career.

Still gunning for us to jump the gun on him with 6

 

[loki04]

Great post
You're right we get plenty of it but waste a lot
Very disjointed but with familiarity we can expect a better outcome
Think we're gonna explode and be surprising
Sam murrays as quick as ROWAN

Hopefully he can emulate at AFL level what he did at times in the NEAFL on a more consistent basis. We definitely lack a consistent damaging line breaker, he will need to work on getting consistency both in his kicking and his game though from what I have read.

 

[loki04]

With the chopping of the backs you think Coffield would be firm in our sites. Hopefully Freo don’t take him.

I wouldn't be disappointed with Coffield, but I would be disappointed we didn't get the Fog. Haha.

Nah but I do think Coffield is a safe bet to become a classy player as well.

 

[loki04]

I dunno who this Figarty person is, seems like a roughie

Dunno but the last player we had that was called Fig(jam) was one of (if not the) the best I've seen.

 

[jackcass]

No there are quite a few including Coffield before him, we needed our 2nd round pick... I hope we didn't give that away for an underperforming trade

WHE

 

[loki04]

Watch a well drilled team like the hawks around a stoppage. They get the ball & look to release it defensive side of the stoppage almost every single time.
Even when the inside mid has won the ball & is facing his own goal he will turn around to defensive side to release, knowing their guys will be lined up there waiting for it.
We never replicated that nor cottoned on to it when we play them. They always have numbers on the defensive side of a stoppage & usually exit easily.

Teams can't guess where the ball will be released, they have to have a plan to get it out & move it on. I'm not sure if we had one & if we did it wasn't particularly successful. We need to be better drilled in this area.

Great post and something that has infuriated me for years not just vs Hawks either there are a few teams who have exploited us in that area.

 

[jackcass]

Those so called experts were talking about pick 40 in this years draft whereas we traded out a likely pick in the 20s in the stronger 2018 draft, so I don't have a lot of faith in their assessment.

It works out to a pick somewhere mid 30's to somewhere mid 40's based purely on points value and projected 2018 finishing positions.

 

[sr36]

Every draft year is a dud and the next one is a superdraft and their reasoning makes sense if they really are blowing it on AC/FS kids

With Hines talk about the ac/FS kids, I think he was trying to say that there are a lot of academy kids league wide and thus it's very likely that a fair few of the picks between our second and Sydney's third are likely to disappear in the matching of bids. Thus, he thinks it won't be as big a downgrade as it appears. There is no way that he could possibly be confident that a bid for one of our academy kids will come after our first and before our second.

 

[barrackers]

Every draft year is a dud and the next one is a superdraft and their reasoning makes sense if they really are blowing it on AC/FS kids

Mate
Re Murray
Works out pick 47 or so next year
2018 we have 2 academy and 1 f/son
At least 2 will be bid on, maybe all 3 as we don't get favours
We have 24 0ut of contract next year
You don't think we're gonna be super super active? Maybe we have a plan
So who cares we gave away a second round and got a 3 rd back
If Sam plays could win rising stAr
That's how influential he's gonna be
Lets back the club

The Murray trade and possible bidding is yet to fully play out, but I'm happy to revisit it in 12 months. What's more certain is the Witts trade where we accepted picks 44 + 62 instead of one of GC plethora of picks in the 20s again under the guise of needing points. The common trend with both deals is other clubs valuing early picks (that in itself should say something), but which hand is best?

What see accepted for Witts (44, 62)||(30) McLarty|(35) Brown

(matched using 44 - Witts trade )
|(50) Kirby|(57) Daicos

(pick from Witts trade) |(59) pass|(RD7) McCarthy|(RD24) Schade|(RD40) Mackie |(RD51) Lynch
\Getting a pick in the 20s for Witts|(20s) Cox/Long/Parfitt/
Fisher/Lipinski/Bolton

Maybe we reached for Sean Darcy given he'd trained with our VFL team possibly switching picks with McLarty?|(30) McLarty|(35) Brown

(matched using 50, plus 52 point deficit meaning 59 slides back to 64 )
|(61) Would Kirby still be here or would Richmond have passed over Jack Graham to select him?
|(72) Daicos

(We could have matched any bid after 57 with this pick) ||(RD7) McCarthy|(RD24) Schade||(RD40) Lynch

(I'm assuming we still took a ruck)
\Letting Witts walk if we couldn't get a 20s pick||(30) McLarty|(35) Brown

(matched using 50, plus 52 point deficit meaning 59 slides back to 64 )
|(61) Would Kirby still be here?
|(72) Daicos||(RD7) McCarthy|(RD24) Schade|(RD40) Mackie|(RD51) Lynch

 

[DraftBalta]

With Hines talk about the ac/FS kids, I think he was trying to say that there are a lot of academy kids league wide and thus it's very likely that a fair few of the picks between our second and Sydney's third are likely to disappear in the matching of bids. Thus, he thinks it won't be as big a downgrade as it appears. There is no way that he could possibly be confident that a bid for one of our academy kids will come after our first and before our second.

Well we pay him to be confident about things like that and back himself so here's hoping he's got it right

 

[Dynamics]

Hey all, can I ask what the thinking on this board is about your pick 6, and whether you should go for best available (Coffield, Cerra, Brayshaw) or try and reach for a KPP (Brander, Naughton, Balta) which seems to me to be a big position of need (please correct me if I'm wrong). The only one who kind of fits both is Fogarty but let's say for the sake of argument he's taken by Fremantle at 5. I'm sure there's a multitude of views but is there any level of consensus?

If this is unwelcome feel free to tell me to leave and I will.

Oppo posters who aren't here for a troll are always welcome, mate.

The feeling for quite a while was that we must go tall as we have shed so much of our KPP depth over the last 2 seasons.

While we do need to address that need ASAP I think many of us (and I'm one of them) have swung more towards best available.

Partly because there's no real standout tall that MUST be picked at 6. Brander and Fogarty could end up being very useful talls, but do they demand to be picked at 6? I'm not entirely convinced. Balta could be anything but he could fizzle. And there have been one or two questions on his personality that may or may not be legit. Naughton has a big knock on his kicking and we don't need more poor kicks.

Personally I'm keen on Coffield. But if one of those top 3 or 4 somehow fall to us I think we should snatch them.

The club is putting on a pretty good poker face (as all clubs do) so we can only guess what they really have in mind.

 

[DraftBalta]

The Murray trade and possible bidding is yet to fully play out, but I'm happy to revisit it in 12 months. What's more certain is the Witts trade where we accepted picks 44 + 62 instead of one of GC plethora of picks in the 20s again under the guise of needing points. The common trend with both deals is other clubs valuing early picks (that in itself should say something), but which hand is best?

Witts might have been worth a pick in the 20's based on potential but in reality he wasn't worth it at that stage and even now averages a dozen possessions and 2 marks in a crap team

 

[barrackers]

Witts might have been worth a pick in the 20's based on potential but in reality he wasn't worth it at that stage and even now averages a dozen possessions and 2 marks in a crap team

I'm guessing you didn't watch much VFL in 2016? Based on his improvement and also the history of other ruck trades Witts was worth every bit of a pick in the 20s at the time. A lot on here were saying as much before the trade was done, which is only reinforced by Witts establishing himself as GCs #1 ruck. Further 20s picks were largely redundant to GC; GC traded 25 for 35 + 43 with WB almost straight after obtaining Witts.

 

[Apex36]

Witts might have been worth a pick in the 20's based on potential but in reality he wasn't worth it at that stage and even now averages a dozen possessions and 2 marks in a crap team

As well as being top 5 for hitouts per game league wide and 1st for hitouts to advantage (at least he was in August when ch 7 put up the stats at the time) if he’s not top in that category he’s top 3 minimum. Easy to neglect that stuff to suit your agenda though.

Face it, we gave up a ruckman capable of giving mids absolute silver service for a pittance. Posters were, and still are, right to be angry about giving him up for so little. Anyone with half a brain who’d watched him in the VFL last year could see that he was primed for a breakout year.