Burgans tips for Pies

[Pedro]

8- Jack Riewoldt
10 - Shaun Hampson
28- Colin Garland
44- James Hawksley
63 - Chris Dawes.


Thoughts? I'd be gutted if thats how it went, but I'm only basing that on what I've read. Those who have seen more of the kids might be better placed to comment?

BTW, we bypassed Thorp for Riewoldt.

 

[TheClokes]

complete ********

Joke selections
God help us

 

[FIGJAM]

As vinnie said on the other board, he's got a pretty good radar, but I reckon these selections will be shown up to be a fair way off, at least at the pointy end.

And a Riewoldt / Medhurst trade for a Tarrant / Caracella loss seriously solves none of our issues and puts us in the red if anything.

Panicking with Pick 10 for a ruck will also land us in trouble unless we rate a bloke that highly.

FWIW, he did OK last year with the comments in the other selections. He got none of our actually correct, but did say Thomas was a shot at 2 and Pendles was a chance at 5.

Read the whole article, but take the actual picks with a grain of salt.

 

[Coin_Toss]

Shocker. We need to draft a natural mid with Picks 8 or 10. I'm happy that he's not the recruiting manager.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Don't judge the quality of the kids - The fact is, most people were fuming because they thought Thomas and Pendlebury weren't good enough to be Top 5 selections last year, when in retrospect, they were.

The thing to get upset about is the fact that he has us taking not a single midfielder, which would be a complete and utter disgrace for us to do.

I mean, if we come out of this draft having picked up 3 key forwards, a ruckman and a very outside flanker, that will be a poor result, given the strong position we were in to address our needs.

 

[FIGJAM]

Would I be correct in stating that the only selection of ours he's ever got correct is Sean Rusling?

We had first live pick last year and he couldn't even get that, but his inside goss within other selections is worth the read IMO.

 

[MarkT]

Personally I don’t see any point. He wouldn’t know what we want any more than most of us here would assess from watching games and speculating on deficiencies. Even so, if Vinnie is right he got it wrong because we sure as hell would want a midfielder or two. As for the names that will firstly be available at our pick and secondly be taken by us, his guesses are meaningless. I don’t doubt he knows a lot more than most of us about the actual players where does that get anyone? So long as our crew have a pretty well ordered list of names going as far as the last pick the intend to use and they read out the next available name every time then I’m happy. When the names are read they become Collingwood players but I still won’t have any idea whether they will be any good.

Speculate by all means but please don’t read anything into phantom drafts. They are worth the paper they aren’t printed on.

 

[ACM_PIE]

It is too big a risk to select a project ruckman that early in the draft, even if the recruiting staff have a hard on. Pick 28 at the absolute earliest, but even then I'd be hesitant. I agree the Pies need one tall amongst the first three picks, but surely there will be better credentialed talls than Riewoldt. Brown or McKenzie in the least to cover defensive deficiencies (which are more critical), or a possible slider.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

We go through this every year. Some people get brainwashed by the 1001 phantom drafts they read, most of which are regurgitations of a handful of drafts by knowledgeable posters. Just by the power of sheer repetition a consensus forms that Player X is a certain top-five pick and Player Y is second round at best.

Meanwhile, the recruiting managers who've seen a sh*tload more of these kids than anyone on BF might have a completely different -- and much more informed -- take on Players X and Y. Yet when draft day comes and the RMs deviate from BF 'conventional wisdom' there's great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Burgan's chances of picking which players go to which clubs are very small. It's difficult enough to pick the first half-dozen in the correct order -- what chance is there that he'll get pick #37 or pick #49 right? By that stage, there are an enormous number of variables to take into account. On draft day, rather than get too focussed with how many times Burgan is on the money, a more relevant guide is what was the average deviation between his picks and the actual picks. If he picks Player X to go at #31 and he goes at #35, then it's more of a success than a failure on his part.

I do agree, however, that the 'mix' of players Burgan's draft has us taking seems highly unlikely. I'm an advocate for Collingwood replenishing our tall stocks, but I'd be staggered if we walked away from the draft without a single bonafide mid.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Would I be correct in stating that the only selection of ours he's ever got correct is Sean Rusling?

We had first live pick last year and he couldn't even get that, but his inside goss within other selections is worth the read IMO.

Yeah, that'd be about right - Makes me feel better about the whole thing.

FWIW, going by the players AVAILABLE, that he mentions us as being interested in, it could ALSO look something like this:

#8: Mitch Thorp
#10: David Armitage
#28: Todd Goldstein
#44: Brock O'Brien
#63: Chris Dawes

That would be like sitting on a white sandy beach with a margarita under an umbrella compared to the prediction he's given us, which would make me feel like I was lying face down on a BBQ with my genitals hanging into a jar of broken glass, rusty razor blades and filled to the top with dettol.

I don't actually have anything against any particular one of the players he's picked for us, but if we picked all of them together, I'd be pretty disappointed.

Riewoldt at #8 is reasonable, as he's rated around that mark, and he is a strong contested mark, is able to play at both ends, has a great pedigree, and is a big Collingwood fan and mates with Sam Iles.

Hampson at #10 I could see myself warming to, in that he is the kind of athletic talent with a huge upside that inevitably ends up rising through the ranks, ala Scott Pendlebury or Sean Rusling.

Colin Garland at #28, assuming that we have already picked up a midfielder or two, is a reasonable pick, as he moves well and is a good set shot on goal.

Hawksley at #44 is actually a pretty good pick, as although he's not a true midfielder, he is a very classy player, intelligent player.

Chris Dawes at #63 is a reasonable flyer to take on a talented kid, but not if we had already drafted two key forwards.

 

[Magik]

Its imperetive that we get Joel Selwood at pick 8. And I think he may slide to 8 considering..

Carlton - Gibbs (Already committed)
Ess - Hanson/Gumbleton/Leunberger (Desperate for KPP/Ruck)
Nth - Hanson/Gumbleton (Dont need ruck but desp for KPP)
Bris - Will take the left-over from the 4 above
Port - KPP
Haw - May go Ruck/KPP. Don't really need a mid due to Hodge, Mitchell etc but really needs a defender.
Geel -Jetta (Desperate for pacy Medium sized player)
Coll - Selwood (Gun Mid and future captain)

Ofcourse Ess could take Selwood and screw everything up but I reckon the other teams may pass on him. I could be worng ofcourse but thats what I think may happen.

WE'll ALL FIND OUT SAT WON'T WE? CAN NOT WAIT

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I dont want a key position player with 8 or 10. Picking Riewoldt just to spite StKilda makes no sense.

I want at either two midfielders, or one midfielder and a ruckman.

KPP's are a lower priority for us, imo.

 

[MarkT]

I agree with Timmy subject to relative abilities. If the KPP is clearly a better player (eg everyone went mids and took all the goodies) then by all means take the KPP. Overall best player is the best option but one way or another we need a ruckman and we need a couple of midfielders. With our trading history we can only hope we get them in the draft.

 

[Dundalis]

So have people really gone off Proud, or is that just the opinion of the writer? Don't see how someone rated as one of the top 3 or 4 mids in the draft could drop to a pick in the mid 30's.

 

[Jabso]

I don't like the picks but then again I didn't like the thought of us taking Thomas, let alone Pendlebury.
I reckon we may pick Hampson with 28. Burgan gets a few picks where he picks a player to go to a team earlier because of the interest in them, yet they go to the same team later in the draft.

I think he may have rushed our picks a bit and tried to get a bit too cute by saying who we have interest in rather than looking at the bigger picture.

If we can get someone the ilk of Proud, Houli, Connors or Collard at 28 we'll be laughing. They have all been tipped to slide past our pick. If our recruiters believe one of them will be availble at 28, we may very well pick a ruckman at 10. However we are a club who recently have picked who we wanted rather than play games. We picked Rusling instead of risking him going past our 2nd round pick. Thomas and Pendlebury are other examples that we pick who we want rather than who will be availble if you know what I mean.

 

[schmendy]

What Burgan's tips suggest is what we all know - that at some stage we will be looking for a kpp and a ruck.

He indicates that we are interested in Hampson, but also in Renouf, Tippet and Goldstein.

He suggests We are interested in Thorp, Reiwolt, Garland and Dawes.


He is probably right that we will take 1 of the best available of each but not necessarily at pick 8 and 10.

For example, if we pick Armitage or Jetta at 8 and Saints pick Thorp at 9, there is every chance that Reiwolt could then slip to 28.

In that case, given that that our next live pick is either 10 or 44, we would on this scenario probably go with Hampson.

Alternatively it could go
8. Armitage/Selwood/Jetta
9. Reiwolt
10. Thorp

28. Hampson/Renouf/Tippet/Goldstein

It is not entirely out of the question on Burgan's reasoning that Leunberger could fall to us at 8.

eg.
1 Gibbs
2.Gumbleton.
3. Hanson.
4 Selwood all as per Burgan's choices.
5. Jetta to port (very interested)
6. Thorp to Hawks (very interested)
7. Boak to Geelong (very interested)
8. Leunberger to Magpies
9. Reiwolt to Stkilda.
10. Armitage to Collingwood.

In such a scenario, our interest in Reid and Garland makes sense. We prefer Reiwolt at 28, but we also have to have other options.

The interesting part, is that none of the kpp's suggested are specialist backmen (eg McKenzie) but rather specialist forwards. If true, that seems to suggest we are happy with Anthony, Cox and O'brien as our potential key kpp's.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The interesting part, is that none of the kpp's suggested are specialist backmen (eg McKenzie) but rather specialist forwards. If true, that seems to suggest we are happy with Anthony, Cox and O'brien as our potential key kpp's.

There's no reason to think they wont be excellent key defenders, along with Toovey as a tallish option, and T Cloke and even perhaps Rusling as potential swingmen into defence as well. I think key defence is the least of our worries, with a few years yet left in Presti and Clement.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

So have people really gone off Proud, or is that just the opinion of the writer? Don't see how someone rated as one of the top 3 or 4 mids in the draft could drop to a pick in the mid 30's.

He's no longer rated that highly - He's been injured all year with OP, he turned up to DC overweight and out of shape, and he apparently interviewed poorly as well.

 

[Sublime]

Personally I don’t see any point. He wouldn’t know what we want any more than most of us here would assess from watching games and speculating on deficiencies. Even so, if Vinnie is right he got it wrong because we sure as hell would want a midfielder or two. As for the names that will firstly be available at our pick and secondly be taken by us, his guesses are meaningless. I don’t doubt he knows a lot more than most of us about the actual players where does that get anyone? So long as our crew have a pretty well ordered list of names going as far as the last pick the intend to use and they read out the next available name every time then I’m happy. When the names are read they become Collingwood players but I still won’t have any idea whether they will be any good.

Speculate by all means but please don’t read anything into phantom drafts. They are worth the paper they aren’t printed on.

I think that when he does his selections he goes on the whispers he hears from the clubs. Don't take his selections too seriously as he doesn't always necessarily take needs into account, but i think its proven that over time he can be pretty accurate. Jack Riewoldt i could see happening, but really don't think you'd take a ruckman with pick 10, you wouldn't pass up Thorp i don't think.

 

[daics cousin]

This bloke's an idiot.He is just having a left of centre swing at all the picks.Do you think the pies are that ill informed to go close to this mock draft.Me thinks not.Hey burgertron back to flipping burgers mate.I want one with the lot and throw in a laptop while your at it..

 

[The Majestic]

I'd expect Thorp to be gone by Pick 8.

Garland is a surprise selection there if we were to pick him in the actual draft, I'd expect him to be a rookie listing for a club, him and Sam Fielding.

Serious question but who is Shaun Hampson? And is he any good?

 

[ant22]

This bloke's an idiot.He is just having a left of centre swing at all the picks.Do you think the pies are that ill informed to go close to this mock draft.Me thinks not.Hey burgertron back to flipping burgers mate.I want one with the lot and throw in a laptop while your at it..

He is an idiot is he?? He has drawn a response from over 100 people on this site alone today. He has constantly had people on this site waiting for his list to come out and his phantoms drafts would be the only one most people take remotely seriously. You just have to read the responses to see how seriously people take his draft. Whats more he gets paid to do it. His draft is no more than a matter of opinion and I would be fairly confident he knows alot more about whats going on than you do. Fairly smart to be able to get paid for doing a mock draft I reckon.

Tell me daics cousin since you are so well informed and judging on the kids you have obviously seen several times, who in your humble opinion should the club pick. Or like most of the people on this site are you simply following the crowd and basing your comments on heresay????

 

[Dazman]

Dawes at 63 would be alright. The rest are poo. Hampson will be there at 28 if we wanted him. He's probably the 4th best ruckman in the draft.

 

[magpies42]

We go through this every year. Some people get brainwashed by the 1001 phantom drafts they read, most of which are regurgitations of a handful of drafts by knowledgeable posters. Just by the power of sheer repetition a consensus forms that Player X is a certain top-five pick and Player Y is second round at best.

Meanwhile, the recruiting managers who've seen a sh*tload more of these kids than anyone on BF might have a completely different -- and much more informed -- take on Players X and Y. Yet when draft day comes and the RMs deviate from BF 'conventional wisdom' there's great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Burgan's chances of picking which players go to which clubs are very small. It's difficult enough to pick the first half-dozen in the correct order -- what chance is there that he'll get pick #37 or pick #49 right? By that stage, there are an enormous number of variables to take into account. On draft day, rather than get too focussed with how many times Burgan is on the money, a more relevant guide is what was the average deviation between his picks and the actual picks. If he picks Player X to go at #31 and he goes at #35, then it's more of a success than a failure on his part.

I do agree, however, that the 'mix' of players Burgan's draft has us taking seems highly unlikely. I'm an advocate for Collingwood replenishing our tall stocks, but I'd be staggered if we walked away from the draft without a single bonafide mid.

exactly! as i posted in another thread we know sweet FA!

 

[L84AD8]

I dont think Burgan has factored the three tall-ish rookies we elevated a couple of weeks ago....if we pick what he suggests and accounting the rookies we elevated, we will be very tall and our midfield prob will still look a lil neglected. rest assured this paluka is nowhere near it...