Unofficial Preview 2020 Draft Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't know which thread i posted it in but I predicted that the Swans would play after us in round 18!
Got to love the Corruption that is the AFL!
My view & hopefully the club is "rest/manage" as many players as we can. Give games to players most likely to be delisted eg. Ross etc.
Farewell games to Stratts/Poppy/Brooksby etc.
even go as far to give games to Jeka etc even though they not be ready.
1 loss will not affect our culture & the benefits far out weigh the negatives here.
F**k Sydney! you're telling me that you can be 7 goals up & then shut the tap..... Pleaseeeeeee

Would have been nice going into the game knowing we could win without it affecting our ladder position.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Has to go down as the greatest masterstroke in draft history IMO. With the Tigers taking Delideo pick 1 we knew they were hoping Roughie would slide to their pick 4. Taking Roughie pick 2 really through them off as they took the bait and took Tambling obviously not doing their homework on Buddy who still pretty green.

What was the thoughts on Griffin going into that draft? If Tambling and Buddy got picked up by the Dogs / Tigers then Griffin would've been our pick at 5. Wonder if we still take Lewis at pick 7 if that's the ay it played out. Just another reason why you always go for BPA especially higher up in the draft order.
What you just described was us not going bpa though, roughy was rated a little lower than that, Franklin also had a “poor” championships by his standards. We drafted for position in that draft with our two earliest picks, then Lewis was the best available mid at that point. To be fair to Richmond tambling was an absolute Jet and seen as the better prospect at the time. But obviously hindsight shows differently
 
From all I've read, Hollands is the best talent. Hands down. The ACL will worry them though. Clearly they take both if they get 2 for Crouch.
Holland was the best talent, a year ago.
a lot can change in a year. There’s no exposed form this year, he mostly played fwd last year so people are only projecting his midfield talent off a small sample (against other 17yo’s) and now has injury history. I would be surprised is he went 1. Could easily slide further too.
 
Holland was the best talent, a year ago.
a lot can change in a year. There’s no exposed form this year, he mostly played fwd last year so people are only projecting his midfield talent off a small sample (against other 17yo’s) and now has injury history. I would be surprised is he went 1. Could easily slide further too.
Anyone know the highest a player has ever gone in a draft after an ACL? I know Max King was considered the best prospect before he did his and then slid to 4. But that was a very strong draft. Anyone gone higher than 4?
 
What you just described was us not going bpa though, roughy was rated a little lower than that, Franklin also had a “poor” championships by his standards. We drafted for position in that draft with our two earliest picks, then Lewis was the best available mid at that point. To be fair to Richmond tambling was an absolute Jet and seen as the better prospect at the time. But obviously hindsight shows differently

How it was explained to me at the time was Hawthorn's 1st choice was Deledio. However, Richmond took him first, so the Hawks decided to aim for two talls. It was well known that Western Bulldogs wanted Griffin so they weren't a threat to this plan. The only problem was Richmond taking one of the talls at 4. They knew Roughie was in Richmond's sights (as stated by Roughie himself in his book), so they knew they had to select Roughie at 2, and hope Buddy was still on the table at 5.

The other factor I rarely hear mentioned is Hawthorn had lost a number of players, Allan, Jarman, etc, who returned to their home states. Buddy was from WA, a worry that he may play for a few years and then head home, whereas Roughie was a Victorian boy. So this made the option of selecting Roughie first doubly attractive. Ironic in view of events in 2013.

As you say, back at the time I heard a lot of rave reviews about Tambling, less about Buddy, so I wasn't surprised Richmond took him at 4. There was a lot of thought Deledio ad Tambling would go 1,2 in the draft. The belief was Wallace was aiming for a dominant midfield and it worked out well for us. I guess seeing the purported #2 pick still on the table at 4 would have seemed like a bargain. I don't believe Griffin was ever an option for us because, as I said, it was believed he would be gone at 3.
 
KM is saying Phillips is the best mid in the draft. Was mixing it with Rowell at Oakleigh last year in the finals. More explosive than Serong and a better all round midfielder.
Phillips is a safe bet. Hollands has more upside. A lot taller and better overhead, more penetration and better foot skills on both sides. Phillips is a bull in tight with great hands. I liken Hollands to Noah Anderson and Phillips being a slightly smaller version of Rowell. Obviously Holland’s has a doubt hanging over his head with the ACL injury. McDonald has great hands but don’t like the way he moves, nowhere near as athletic as JUH. Would prefer Grainger-Barras than McDonald. A backline of DGB, Sicily, Scrimshaw, Day, Hardwick, Impey, Frost and hopefully Kosi would be an exciting set up for many years to come.
 
I hope Crows do go a tall first up but always fraught with danger for club and player, as they normally take longer to develop and media love comparisons with early mids that are taken. Lots of recent examples that I don’t need to repeat here.
 
How it was explained to me at the time was Hawthorn's 1st choice was Deledio. However, Richmond took him first, so the Hawks decided to aim for two talls. It was well known that Western Bulldogs wanted Griffin so they weren't a threat to this plan. The only problem was Richmond taking one of the talls at 4. They knew Roughie was in Richmond's sights (as stated by Roughie himself in his book), so they knew they had to select Roughie at 2, and hope Buddy was still on the table at 5.

The other factor I rarely hear mentioned is Hawthorn had lost a number of players, Allan, Jarman, etc, who returned to their home states. Buddy was from WA, a worry that he may play for a few years and then head home, whereas Roughie was a Victorian boy. So this made the option of selecting Roughie first doubly attractive. Ironic in view of events in 2013.

As you say, back at the time I heard a lot of rave reviews about Tambling, less about Buddy, so I wasn't surprised Richmond took him at 4. There was a lot of thought Deledio ad Tambling would go 1,2 in the draft. The belief was Wallace was aiming for a dominant midfield and it worked out well for us. I guess seeing the purported #2 pick still on the table at 4 would have seemed like a bargain. I don't believe Griffin was ever an option for us because, as I said, it was believed he would be gone at 3.
It's all in here. We took the safe bet in Roughie who we knew Richmond wanted and had intel that they had concerns about Buddy's professionalism to make it in the AFL. Also wasn't Tambling seen a fair bit with Buckenara leading up to the draft? Anyways it says in this article that if Richmond chose Buddy then we would've taken Tambling. Sliding doors moment either way.

 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

How it was explained to me at the time was Hawthorn's 1st choice was Deledio. However, Richmond took him first, so the Hawks decided to aim for two talls. It was well known that Western Bulldogs wanted Griffin so they weren't a threat to this plan. The only problem was Richmond taking one of the talls at 4. They knew Roughie was in Richmond's sights (as stated by Roughie himself in his book), so they knew they had to select Roughie at 2, and hope Buddy was still on the table at 5.

The other factor I rarely hear mentioned is Hawthorn had lost a number of players, Allan, Jarman, etc, who returned to their home states. Buddy was from WA, a worry that he may play for a few years and then head home, whereas Roughie was a Victorian boy. So this made the option of selecting Roughie first doubly attractive. Ironic in view of events in 2013.

As you say, back at the time I heard a lot of rave reviews about Tambling, less about Buddy, so I wasn't surprised Richmond took him at 4. There was a lot of thought Deledio ad Tambling would go 1,2 in the draft. The belief was Wallace was aiming for a dominant midfield and it worked out well for us. I guess seeing the purported #2 pick still on the table at 4 would have seemed like a bargain. I don't believe Griffin was ever an option for us because, as I said, it was believed he would be gone at 3.
Yeah that’s how the story goes. Obviously in hindsight it was a master stroke. But in terms of bpa at the time, nearly every single recruiter had deledio first then tambling and Griffen 2 or 3. We played that draft amazingly but if we went bpa rather than going tall there’s a fair chance we don’t three peat and probably zero chance we win 08
 
Yep Graham Wright said Will Day would not have even been drafted if he missed 12 months last year such was his rapid development. So will be some gems picked late this year.
Are you suggesting it is a good year to give up early pick for multiple picks late this year? From memory, we have extra picks this year because last year we did some late pick swaps as well.
 
Are you suggesting it is a good year to give up early pick for multiple picks late this year? From memory, we have extra picks this year because last year we did some late pick swaps as well.
No, especially as we have no idea where the Downie bid will come. But you could fluke a star at 60 plus and even with rookie picks.
 
I am here to tell you (and in my mind I know much more than you guys here, and this advice is not remotely self serving either) that with both Mitchell and Worpel doing your clearance work you guys really don't need Phillips

I totally agree with this statement. We don't need a Phillips type of player.
I think Phillips is a Sydney type of player.
 
I feel like this would be the year to load up on a few more late picks, try and pluck out the raw underdone kids with great potential etc. Could easily grab some uber talented kids that havn’t had a chance to show much...
While this draft likely increases the likelihood of landing a star at a late pick, all picks are probably worth less on average than in a draft where you have seen the players play and put them through testing. The likelihood of landing a lemon will be a lot higher. The early years of the draft were horrific because players were being selected with very little information at hand. I’d guess we will dry to be in and out of the draft by end of the second round if we can manage it.
 
While this draft likely increases the likelihood of landing a star at a late pick, all picks are probably worth less on average than in a draft where you have seen the players play and put them through testing. The likelihood of landing a lemon will be a lot higher. The early years of the draft were horrific because players were being selected with very little information at hand. I’d guess we will dry to be in and out of the draft by end of the second round if we can manage it.

There's an opportunity for clubs to move up the draft order this year on account of the number of NGA prospects. I'm hoping we take advantage of this, perhaps simultaneously off-loading a player/s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top