Burgans Phantom Draft - Pies

[Dave The Man]

Hine also uses a form of value assessment

He won't necessarily go for the best player but the one with most upside

Very True just have to look at the Ben Reid pick 8 on 2006

 

[Dave The Man]

Interesting Post about Beams Here:

http://theouter.yuku.com/topic/3128/t/Dayne-Beams.html

 

[maxwellbomb]

You left out Ben Cousins

 

[Kirby]

Beams certainly has enough to work with that whilst it would be unexpected on bigfooty I'd be excited if we took him at 11. He has heaps to work with and would fill a need and could be the type of player which really helps our midfield take the next step. If we got say Beams and Hanneberry in this years draft I'd be pretty confident with the shape of our midfield going foward. That said if it where Swift and Beams or Hanneberry I'd be equally confident.

There my three boys, right there. I'm not greedy, i just one two of them.

 

[itwdandy]

Re: Burgans Phantom Draft about Pies

Does anyone know of an in and under player (scotty west type player) between picks 29-73? just so i know what to get excited about come draft day.... (or more to the point, disappointed if we dontpick one)

 

[Dave The Man]

Re: Burgans Phantom Draft about Pies

Does anyone know of an in and under player (scotty west type player) between picks 29-73? just so i know what to get excited about come draft day.... (or more to the point, disappointed if we dontpick one)

Matthew Do Boer

 

[Kirby]

Interesting Post about Beams Here:

http://theouter.yuku.com/topic/3128/t/Dayne-Beams.html

It is interesting and I can fully accept that the club may have told him they will definately draft him but I cannot believe they would tell the kid that they will use their first pick on him. It seems a very unlikely scenario to me, especially 6 weeks or so out from the draft when that story was posted..

 

[mdc]

Re: Burgans Phantom Draft about Pies

I think we'll take Beams with 11.

Here's a hypothetical.

Suppose at 11, Hine's list of best-available, in order, reads something like;

Beams
Hill
Swift

Now, if speculation is to be believed (and it is!), the latter 2 are no chance to slide to 29, whereas Beams is a chance to get there.

The hypothetical is;
- Do you take the 2nd-best guy on your board and, say, a 50% chance that your best guy will be there at 29?
- Or do you take your best guy, and swallow the chance at a double dip, so to speak?

Personally, I think it's a mistake to go with the second approach, unless Beams is clearly the best available. If it's close (b/w him and someone else who def. won't get to 29), it makes sense for us to gamble.

[disclaimer]Of course, this whole argument is predicated on Beams being a chance to get to 29, which could be BS[/disclaimer]

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Re: Burgans Phantom Draft about Pies

Personally, I'd be inclined to take the gamble, but I don't think Hine would.

As for Shane Savage, I know far too little about him to make a qualified comment, so I'll just STFU.

As for Burgan's other selections, I'd be taking Hill on trust because I'm not a fan, Beams at 29 would be a good get but I'd still prefer Hannebery, Gillies is a good selection as a quick KPD, and Sam Wright... I'm a bit whelmed but if Hine liked him I'd be happy enough.

 

[didaka]

I guess it depends on what you were looking at with 29.

We may not want Beams with our second selection and have it allocated for another player.

I guess this is where it comes down to individual ratings instead of general consensus.

Personally I would like to see us take the risk and try to snag him with 29.

I really want Beams at our football club and think he will be and at 11, but it would be nice to get one of these highly rated youngsters, and then add Beams at 29.

It makes our list look a lot better from draft day as we all know by now Beams is under consideration at 11.

It would be like getting 2 number 11 picks if it paid off.

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: Burgans Phantom Draft about Pies

There is no doubt in my mind that Hine would take the second approach. No doubt at all.

On him mock draft, I find it interesting that Swift has slid to the priority picks. If his medical reports are all fine, I can't see a team like Geelong or Hawthorn taking him, as they can afford the risk. I'd like to hope we'd take the risk personally.

Rhys O'Keefe has slid a fair way in Burgatron's mock draft...

After reading this mock draft and also talking to someone working at an AFL club, I think Shoenmakers is considered a better prospect than bigfooty gives him credit for.

If we take Wright at pick 46 I'll be shaking my head. If we're truly selecting on needs, then we wont even consider him. Warren Benjamin, Matt DeBoer, Hannebery, Sibosado or someone like that should be considered over Wright.

I hope we don't take Hill personally.

 

[mdc]

Yeah, I'm not terribly keen on Hill either.

Most of all because he seems like he'd be a bit of a project, and we need to replace guys like O'Bree and Lockyer asap if we're going to be challenging in September.

 

[itwdandy]

Re: Burgans Phantom Draft about Pies

Id be really happy with this outcome.

11 - Swift/Hill

29 - Shuey (seen abit of him on youtube looks VERY impressive, id be happy if we took him at 11 even. I really think he is what we need. )

45 - Wright

46 - DEBOER

Am i close to what you guys think is realistic?

 

[smiddaz123]

Freo are full of shit. I reckon they're bluffing personally.

11 - Swift/Sidebottom/Trengove/Beams in that order of preference (I'd be willing to risk Beams sliding)

Rockliffe is very very low in Bergatrons draft. Surprising.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Re: Burgans Phantom Draft about Pies

That's all the gamble of the draft, and it's largely dependent on how big the gap between them is that has caused you to rank one ahead of the others, and how reliably you have heard that the guy/s might drop.

For instance, ignoring how the players eventuated, Derek Hine ranked Sean Rusling higher than Chris Egan in the 2004 draft, but he knew that he was a certainty to be available at pick #23. In fact, the only reason he didn't leave him until #55 that year is that he'd heard a rumour that Essendon were willing to take a flyer on him based almost entirely off second-hand stories and our interest in him later in the draft. The problem with that was that our 3rd round pick (#39) was tied up for Travis Cloke, but that pick would have been perfect for Rusling.

On the other hand, you can get Geelong, who drafted Andrew Mackie at #7 overall, when he was considered to be a 30-50 range pick, because they rated him inside their Top 5. However, they had heard that there was interest in him around their next pick at #23, and so they pulled the trigger at #7, which was still justified.

So if we rate the players (hypothetically):

#1: Dayne Beams
#2: Stephen Hill
#3: Tom Swift
#4: James Strauss (just to throw up a random name that could be available at #29)

First, if there is a substantial gap between how good we think Beams will be and how good we think Hill and Swift will be, then we MUST draft Beams, because you can't miss out on drafting who you think could be a vastly better player just because you're trying to get a bargain. This is especially true if Strauss is ranked not too far behind Hill and Swift.

However, if we rate them all relatively close in value, and we haven't heard anyone else express much interest in Beams, then we can gamble and try and get him later, knowing that even if we miss out on him, someone like Strauss, who is not far off, is still a solid consolation prize if we get snake-bitten and miss out.

It's a sort of "swing for the fences" type of strategy, where the first strategy will result in us getting our #1 and #4 preferences, but the second strategy could see us getting our #1 and #2/3 preferences. However, the second strategy could also see us getting our #2/3 and #4 preferences.

 

[didaka]

vinnie couldn't have said it better.

These recruiters know what's going on.

We will know just about the exact chances of Beams moving through to 29 and who is interested.

If he is our man and won't be there at 29, then take him.

 

[mdc]

That's pretty much how I see it as well. I'm pleased to hear about the Rusling/Egan scenario, because at least that confirms that Hine won't be just reading off a list, but is actually surveying the other clubs.

If we take Beams @ 11, I'm going to go ahead and infer that Hines sees him in a tier above the others, and expectations will be raised accordingly.

 

[Chase the Ace]

There my three boys, right there. I'm not greedy, i just one two of them.

They're?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Yeah, I'm not terribly keen on Hill either.

Most of all because he seems like he'd be a bit of a project, and we need to replace guys like O'Bree and Lockyer asap if we're going to be challenging in September.

I'm not keen on him because I rate decision-making and poise very highly in a player's make-up. Hence I'm a huge Ziebell fan, and not in Hill's corner at all.

Rockliffe is very very low in Bergatrons draft. Surprising.

Medium forwards tend not to go very highly in the National Draft. Also, consider this comment from his Bushrangers coach in Inside Footy, it reads both ways;

"Tom is an interesting one. He was the leading goalkicker in the TAC Cup with 59 goals and won our best and fairest. He's not big, not quick, not athletic, he hasn't got super endurance, he's just an absolute natural footballer who tends to see things half a second before others see them. In other words, he'll take himself to the right spot just a bit quicker than what others do and that's a gift. It's a natural thing you can't coach. He's a very good one-on-one contested mark at TAC Cup level, but at AFL level that will be more of a challenge for him. The typical small forward at AFL level these days usually has blistering speed, but Tommy hasn't got that speed so that will be the challenge for him. But, Tom always seems to find a way. Whenever he's been asked to step up, he did. He badly broke his ankle at under-16 level and he hasn't really been able to do a full preseason. He kicked his three and four goals a game at the national carnival to underline his ability to rise to every challenge. He's as footy smart a boy as I've ever coached." - Phil Bunn

That, there in italics, is the reason he's not high in Burgan's phantom.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Re: Burgans Phantom Draft about Pies

After reading this mock draft and also talking to someone working at an AFL club, I think Shoenmakers is considered a better prospect than bigfooty gives him credit for.

I don't know - I think most on BigFooty consider Schoenmakers a 15-25 range pick.

 

[jimmy_clement#8]

Re: Burgans Phantom Draft about Pies

Interesting. From what I can gather, the only issue on Beams at 29 is Brisbane at 25. So its essentially a 50-50 on whether you leave him for that 2nd round or not. I'm of the opinion, that someone like a Hill Swift, Ziebell, etc. can make it to 11, therefore, the gamble on Beams will come into play.

A mid better than Beams, and then Beams at 29 is a major success. That said, for someone like me (and TRS for that matter, amongst others), there's a more than suitable Plan B if you take that gamble - Dan Hannebery.

Think we'll be ok.

That said, watch Hine pull out a proverbial rabbit.

 

[James Bond 008]

PLEASE PLEASE not Tom Hill PLEASE.

Very overated.

 

[FIGJAM]

Re: Burgans Phantom Draft about Pies

Interesting. From what I can gather, the only issue on Beams at 29 is Brisbane at 25.

Nah...there are at least 5 clubs linked to him and most will have a second pick before ours.

A player who waltzs down here and collects an average of 30+ possies at TAC level is going to attract attention. It is the BigFooty collective that are putting him under the radar, but I bet other clubs have him well honed in...or in our case; Hined in!

 

[NT.Thunder]

I'm hoping for Ziebell, Sidebottom or Swift @ 11 and Beams next........Major win i believe for us if this happens. Swift i'm nervous about, really not sure if we should risk him as i dont see us having a backup plan in the making.

From what i've read about Hill i'm not too keen, we've had our fair share of poor disposal midfielders in our time so let stay away IMO.

Excited though and know the recruiters will do the right thing!!!

 

[DoubleO7]

PLEASE PLEASE not Tom Hill PLEASE.

Very overated.

Care to explain?