Draft Crystal Ball

[macca69]

Thornbury Indoor Centre, on Mansfield street!

I used to play indoor soccer there

Why's he staying with you guys?

 

[Dr Ralph Dagg]

The second point I agree with to a point. Yes their spots on the main list can be filled 18 year-olds who might prove better value at this stage. Why the need to see it as a slight against the delisted (soon to be re-rookied) players. Isn't it just another wise list management decision???

I didn't see it as either/or. I'm assuming that being delisted (after just one year) in favour of some new kids has left Dunn, Collard and Mourish with the sense that they need to get their a*se into gear.

On a slightly different tack, Harvey did say they had one month to show they have what it takes to be at an AFL club. There is no guarantee they they will even be rookie listed, and they may just be paid out.

 

[Roundhouse]

In regards to Collard - he is not your ususal case scenario. Only 1 season in the system and by all accounts not dropped as he lacked talent but because of a tood adjustment.

I am guessing (and I acknowledge it is only a guess) that a club like Essendon who has his cousin Jetta may be interested in taking a mid range draft pick with another year under his belt - hoping the dropping 2nd chance thing will wake him up. Most rookies are not judged this early...he was considered good enough to be drafted (some say he slipped even) - the ink on those drafting reports is not even dry, I think someone will roll the die if we don't get the chance too.

On Dunn - he is quite a reasonable footy player when on the field ....I am sure if his medical reports show he is fit that a club would again take a chance in listing him. Again he is not your stock standard delisting - basically a top 10 pick who has not ahd a chance to show what he can do.

We may get them, I think though other clubs may see these guys as super cheap rookie listings. I just don't think these two guys are your stock standard delisting of a young guy who is not cutting it at league level, and they both have potentially big upsides.

Again you a presupposing an attitude problem based on "accounts" given by those not in the know who themselves are inferring an attitude problem based on the delistings themselves.

As I've said the delistings make sense from a list management perspective, without having to rely on the attitude problems as the only justification for them.

You're wrong about these delistings being out of the ordinary. Two young guys with injury/form problems who have talent but as yet no impact at AFL level sounnds like a likely description for 90% of players delisted from AFL clubs over the last decade.

The only unusual thing is that they have been delisted while still contracted, but this makes sense given that they have done little to attract the eye of other clubs and they can quite easily be re-rookied. Their delisting means that the club can target other mature delisted players (such as Bradley, Johnson, Sampi) while still keeping these guys around on the rookie list to see if they can make it.

I'm starting to think that people are adamantly defending the rumour of poor attitude playing the major role in these delistings because they are unwilling to accept the possibility that they were delisted to allow us to pick a few rejects from other clubs.

Unfortunatley, this is a definite possibility.

 

[stylor]

I used to play indoor soccer there

Why's he staying with you guys?

He's a good friend of my younger brothers and spent a couple of nights at my family's house!

Don't think they do the indoor soccer any more, haven't seen any games! Good location but not that great a complex!

 

[Moo]

Again you a presupposing an attitude problem based on "accounts" given by those not in the know who themselves are inferring an attitude problem based on the delistings themselves.

As I've said the delistings make sense from a list management perspective, without having to rely on the attitude problems as the only justification for them.

You're wrong about these delistings being out of the ordinary. Two young guys with injury/form problems who have talent but as yet no impact at AFL level sounnds like a likely description for 90% of players delisted from AFL clubs over the last decade.

The only unusual thing is that they have been delisted while still contracted, but this makes sense given that they have done little to attract the eye of other clubs and they can quite easily be re-rookied. Their delisting means that the club can target other mature delisted players (such as Bradley, Johnson, Sampi) while still keeping these guys around on the rookie list to see if they can make it.

I'm starting to think that people are adamantly defending the rumour of poor attitude playing the major role in these delistings because they are unwilling to accept the possibility that they were delisted to allow us to pick a few rejects from other clubs.

Unfortunatley, this is a definite possibility.

Tell me how is this different to you presupposing that they have simply been dropped for list management purposes? Unless you know something I don’t, the fact you think it makes sense from a list management viewpoint does not make your post any less of a guess than mine. In fact we are all just posting best guess scenarios here aren’t we?…hence my ‘by all accounts’ rather than ‘I know’ statement….I don’t know but if I am guessing – Collard has non-football issues (attitude), Mourish looks like he may not be at the standard required of a listed player and Dunn is a big injury ?.

Dutchy called the Collard delisting ahead of time citing that both Souths and Freo had concerns about Collard in a non-footballing sense. He copped a fair bit from people saying he is only in his first year and what happened – bang on the money. This does not prove it but it was a very good call from someone who I respect as a long time poster.

Also Collard has been given a month to shape up or ship out – that is hardly the directive given to someone who we are happy with but is just not developing fast enough. There is certainly enough circumstantial evidence to question if the delisting was attitude based.

If you start a statement with You're wrong about these delistings being out of the ordinary …....normally you wouldn't follow the next sentence with the only unusual thing is... these 2 statements don’t match, I am getting the feeling you just like to disagree. I mean if it is ususal business tell me how many times that 2 draftees from the previous year were dropped the following year by their club?

At the end of the day the club had its reasons …if we get to rookie list them well and good. I don’t know why the club would tell them they had a month to prove themselves if it was just purely list management type stuff (cos lets face it everything we do is list management - you think it is just strategic, I think it is more for Collard/Caleb a kick in the bum strategic decision)?

 

[Roundhouse]

If you start a statement with You're wrong about these delistings being out of the ordinary …....normally you wouldn't follow the next sentence with the only unusual thing is... these 2 statements don’t match, I am getting the feeling you just like to disagree.

Nice selective quoting their Moo. The second clause of that sentence shows how it is not unusual.

The only unusual thing is that they have been delisted while still contracted, but this makes sense given that they have done little to attract the eye of other clubs and they can quite easily be re-rookied. Their delisting means that the club can target other mature delisted players (such as Bradley, Johnson, Sampi) while still keeping these guys around on the rookie list to see if they can make it.

Perhaps I should have said "The only thing that could be seen as unusual...", but then again I did go on show how it is not as unusual as it seems. Perhaps you do know what I meant and only selectively quoted that part because you are the one being obtuse here.

As for the rest, sorry but you lost me when you used the words "Dutchey" and "respect" in the same sentence.

You admit that you don't "know", and that you are guessing about these players, yet you seem to be pretty convinced on the attitude excuse.

Like I said...

I'm starting to think that people are adamantly defending the rumour of poor attitude playing the major role in these delistings because they are unwilling to accept the possibility that they were delisted to allow us to pick a few rejects from other clubs.

Unfortunatley, this is a definite possibility.

 

[Moo]

The only unusual thing is that they have been delisted while still contracted, but this makes sense given that they have done little to attract the eye of other clubs and they can quite easily be re-rookied. Their delisting means that the club can target other mature delisted players (such as Bradley, Johnson, Sampi) while still keeping these guys around on the rookie list to see if they can make it....

Wasn't selective quoting - you said it mate I just limited my quote to the bits that don't match (as you do to others here when it suits). Just because you added a justification as to why it makes sense does not change the fact that it is unusual now does it?

As for the rest, sorry but you lost me when you used the words "Dutchey" and "respect" in the same sentence. ...

Hey he put his statement up before the delisting happened - basically he called it - more power to him.

You admit that you don't "know", and that you are guessing about these players, yet you seem to be pretty convinced on the attitude excuse.

At least I admit I don't know ....do you know? or are you also putting up a theory too?

Why were they put on notice for the month - if it was list management?

I mean if it is ususal business tell me how many times that 2 draftees from the previous year were dropped the following year by their club?

Also did you miss this bit of the post ...if it is not uncommon - fire away with the numerous examples that exist.

 

[Roundhouse]

Wasn't selective quoting - you said it mate I just limited my quote to the bits that don't match (as you do to others here when it suits). Just because you added a justification as to why it makes sense does not change the fact that it is unusual now does it?

Yes it does Moo. Something that seems unusual can be shown to quite commonplace when coupled with an "unless" or "but" clause.

Example 1. It's unusual for a man to walk around with an umbrella unless it is raining.

Example 2. It's unusual for children to roam the streets dressed in scary costumes but today is Halloween.

Example 3. The only unusual thing is that they have been delisted while still contracted, but this makes sense given that they have done little to attract the eye of other clubs and they can quite easily be re-rookied.

I had you pegged as quite cluey and capable of recognising this, but perhaps I was wrong. Maybe you weren't being obtuse, you just didn't realise what the clause implied.

I do select certain parts of posts to reply to for brevity sake I admit. I also take care to avoid selecting only part of a sentence and to not omit clauses relevent to the meaning.

Hey he put his statement up before the delisting happened - basically he called it - more power to him.



At least I admit I don't know ....do you know? or are you also putting up a theory too?

Why were they put on notice for the month - if it was list management?

I mean if it is ususal business tell me how many times that 2 draftees from the previous year were dropped the following year by their club?

Also did you miss this bit of the post ...if it is not uncommon - fire away with the numerous examples that exist.

I don't know how many times this has been done before but, like I have said, what may seem peculiar list management can often be explained when you look at the big picture.

The club seems intent on talking a full complement of young hopefuls in the National Draft, PLUS they have indicated that they are looking at a number of older players who have been delisted by other clubs.

If delisting players after one year is seen as a genuine rarity (you tell me if it is, I don't follow what other clubs do with their fringe players as a leisure pursuit) then showing the level of interest in other clubs rejects that Freo have recently could be seen as a genuine rarity too. The latter could go a long way to accounting for the former without it being necessary to bring poor attitude into the equation.

 

[Moo]

Yes it does Moo. Something that seems unusual can be shown to quite commonplace when coupled with an "unless" or "but" clause.

Example 1. It's unusual for a man to walk around with an umbrella unless it is raining.

Example 2. It's unusual for children to roam the streets dressed in scary costumes but today is Halloween.

Example 3. The only unusual thing is that they have been delisted while still contracted, but this makes sense given that they have done little to attract the eye of other clubs and they can quite easily be re-rookied.

I had you pegged as quite cluey and capable of recognising this, but perhaps I was wrong. Maybe you weren't being obtuse, you just didn't realise what the clause implied.

I do select certain parts of posts to reply to for brevity sake I admit. I also take care to avoid selecting only part of a sentence and to not omit clauses relevent to the meaning.



I don't know how many times this has been done before but, like I have said, what may seem peculiar list management can often be explained when you look at the big picture.

The club seems intent on talking a full complement of young hopefuls in the National Draft, PLUS they have indicated that they are looking at a number of older players who have been delisted by other clubs.

If delisting players after one year is seen as a genuine rarity (you tell me if it is, I don't follow what other clubs do with their fringe players as a leisure pursuit) then showing the level of interest in other clubs rejects that Freo have recently could be seen as a genuine rarity too. The latter could go a long way to accounting for the former without it being necessary to bring poor attitude into the equation.

Its not raining though.

 

[Tundrawolf]

ImperialPurple[/B];9373931
You can include either a what you think or what you hope (or both), and let's see who gets closest...

I'll have a go:

7. Chris Masten / Rhys Palmer / David Myers (in that order)
24. Harry Taylor (EF) or Patrick Dangerfield (Geelong Falcons)
40. Might have a crack at a ruckman in the hope they can unearth another Warnock in the 40s - maybe Andrew Renton (Eastern Rangers 202cm/94kg) or James Mulligan (Southport 201/96) or Dawson Simpson (Murray Bushrangers 206/97) or Will Sullivan (Western Jets 202/95)
56. Jarrhan Jacky (180cm/70kg small forward from Subi)
63. Kepler
66. Redraft Ryley Dunn

PSD - won't participate

Rookie:
I think they'll be happy to let Collard and Mourish slide here - pick them if they're there, but not use the early picks on them.
6. best available kid -
22. Mature aged WAFL ruckman - Griffiths perhaps?
38. Collard
54. Mourish.[/quote]



I'd be absolutely rapt if we were to get players along the following lines:

7. Palmer ( I think WC will pick Masten up if Richmond grab Cotchin)
24. Dangerfield (second choice Selwood and then McGinnity) Preference would be Ward or Vespremi but i think they will go a few places before pick 24.
40. Travis Dulic - we are crying out for a big defender and this guy could be it. Thumping left footer and a good size 192 cm 90 kgs
56. Dawson Simpson at 207cm and 100 kgs would nicely fit the back up ruckman position should Warnock go next year.
72. Jarrhan Jacky - lightning quick, good leap and a natural goalkicker.

Rookie Draft

6. Dunn
22. Collard
38. Callum Wilson 191cm 90 kgs - This guys fills a couple of catagories. Can play full back, has pace, good overhead, good one on one, and is versatile. Kicked 5 goals playing as a forward on debut. If Dulic is unavailable Wilson should be looked at very closely.
54. Harry Taylor 195cm 88kgs - as i've mentioned before a rover in a ruckmans body.

 

[ImperialPurple]

The Phantom Draft on the D&T board has us getting:

7. Chris Masten
24. Levi Greenwood

(Selwood went at 17, Dangerfield went at 23, and McGinnity hasn't been picked up as yet and I think they're up to #25.)


Would be rapt with these selections... although I'd be tempted to take McGinnity before Greenwood... but if we got these two guys on 24 Nov it would be all round!

 

[dominguez]

You love phantom drafts almost as much as Paul Hasleby loves pork chops.

 

[Reveler]

our phantom draft picks are bieng selected by a WCE supporter.

 

[ImperialPurple]

You love phantom drafts almost as much as G.J. loves John Howard.

I'm blushing. Not sure if it's from embarrassment on being called out on my little obsession... or having been compared to GJ.


Keeps me going till the real thing comes along dom. Gotta talk about something.

 

[theGav56]

Example 2. It's unusual for children to roam the streets dressed in scary costumes but today is an Eagles home game

Not that unusual regrettably.

 

[sarbear]

Im not sure if this has been mentioned, because honestly i couldnt be bothered reading 6 pages but

mourish nearly broke his ankle this season and sat a good few weeks out and only played one wafl game before this season, i think it was optimistic from the start to put him on the main squad as opposed to the rookie list from the beginning.

can people be demoted to the rookie list or do you have to delist and redraft?

 

[ImperialPurple]

Im not sure if this has been mentioned, because honestly i couldnt be bothered reading 6 pages but

mourish nearly broke his ankle this season and sat a good few weeks out and only played one wafl game before this season, i think it was optimistic from the start to put him on the main squad as opposed to the rookie list from the beginning.

can people be demoted to the rookie list or do you have to delist and redraft?

Yes - delist and redraft.

 

[Warrior 89]

I hope we take Rance with pick 7. We need a young KP Back and they are hard to come by (Melbourne couldn't find one the whole time Daniher was there). Also with us hopefully having more success over the next few years this might be the last time we have a top 10 pick in a while and quality KP players get snapped up quickly. You can build your defence around one big defender like Glass or Rutten.
With our other picks I would target 3 young midfielders and a small forward. Our last pick and the only mature player we should pick is a ruckman. A specialist ruckman (not Bradley) who has improvement left in him but can also have an impact in senior football. Someone in the mold of Hudson who Adelaide picked up a few years ago.

 

[kp junior]

I'm going with..

7 Chris Masten - midfield gun
24 Callan Ward - midfield gun
40 Tom Collier - key defender
56 Dawson Simpson - ruck
72 Kepler - Sandover medallist

as my wish list

 

[Ysaye]

hmmm... well the AFL Christmas is within a week now so I think it is time for me to decide on a NAB wishlist (with reasoning)....

Pick 7 - David Myers
If you had asked me at the start of the year who my favorite potential draftee was, this would be the name I would have given you. Since then I have gone through a Masten/Palmer phase, alternating between the two at different times for different reasons. And somehow, through all this confustion, I am back at Myers again (Sounds like real christmas shopping ).

Personally I don't think any of the players in this draft match are what we require - and I don't think Daniel Rich will last too much longer than the first pick next year .

Palmer matches the requirements the best of any player in the draft (he is a little shorter by about 2cm than one would hope for) but I have lingering doubts over his potency at the next level up.

Masten to me is a quality midfielder; but it is like drafting another Paul Hasleby with a bit more speed and endurance. The height worries, and (after watching him play a bit) his kicking over distances longer than about 45m is not great.

Myers is a gun footballer. In terms of physical attributes he is a Matthew Pavlich type prospect; 190cm, pace, endurance, good contested mark, top rate skills. On top of that, he has a good football brain, is a reader of the play, racks up possessions (many uncontested across HB) and is definitely a potential leader of a club. IMO he is probably going to be a wingman/HBF at AFL level, similar to the role Ryan Griffen currently is. He is definitely not a KP; there is only a small possibility of becoming a ruck rover.

I can't believe I am advocating getting a player whose position isn't certain yet after bagging people for not choosing midfielders for the last couple of years but the reality is that you are unlikely to get everything in a player. It should be noted that Rioli and Ebert didn't play much as midfielders at the champs either, and that Myers played midfield full time at WAFL Colts level. If you want a player to fill the midfield role that Pav did a few years ago, this guy is your best bet.

Pick 24 - Callan Ward
Haven't seen any of this guy, but what is being said about him is an example of what I think should be taken at this pick - IE as much skill as you can pack into a standard AFL midfielder size (IE 183cm-190cm). The guy taken here doesn't have to be super speedy (though slow is not preferrable). Patrick Dangerfield, Steven Browne would also be nice types at this pick. I would also not be adverse to picking up David Ellard at this pick, although it seems a little early.

Pick 40 - David Ellard
This guy was a midfield component of the WA U18 side. He is a really skillful and agile goal kicking player, but tiny. I have seen this guy excel in playing the annoying small forward, but ultimately this guy also has the potential to be a rover in a Brent Harvey sort of mold.

Pick 56 - Tom Bellchambers/ Dawson Simpson
Or the best available ruckman. I think ruckman needs are definitely leaning towards mobility over height, so that is the way that they should recruit.

 

[dominguez]

I can't find a link on PerthNow, but there is an interview with Myers in Today's Sunday Times. Seems like a very level headed young man and according to The Sunday Times we are very interested in him. He is dubbed a future Freo captain.

I'm just not sure about using another early pick to select someone who plays their best footy loose across halfback. We have about a dozen options at HBF/HFF.

 

[bigkev bleeds purple]

I'm just not sure about using another early pick to select someone who plays their best footy loose across halfback. We have about a dozen options at HBF/HFF.

My thoughts exactly dom. I know we have to take the best available player but I can't help but think that Rioli or Rance would fit our needs better if Masten and Palmer have been taken before we get a chance.

 

[pinkus maximus]

I can't find a link on PerthNow, but there is an interview with Myers in Today's Sunday Times. Seems like a very level headed young man and according to The Sunday Times we are very interested in him. He is dubbed a future Freo captain.

I'm just not sure about using another early pick to select someone who plays their best footy loose across halfback. We have about a dozen options at HBF/HFF.

i saw that

you have to wonder if jay clark has seen him play if he compares him to adam selwood

 

[inferno66]

you have to wonder if jay clark has seen him play if he compares him to adam selwood

I was baffled by that comment as well.

 

[The Night Shift]

So, those of you in the know, if we end up with Myers, have we got a solid little midfielder? If not in the vein of Adam Selwood, in your honest opinions, is there an AFL player this young lad playing style resembles?