Draft Discussions Recovered

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

Polak was definately not a fringe player. he was a very good player last and this year with a big body and an elite mark. he is 23-24 as well so he was about to enter his prime and i wudnt of been surprised if he became one of our top 5 players...
definately a very big loss if he cannot return to his best.

Wow such a crap post.

1. Polak was dropped twice this year. That makes him a fringe player.

2. His 2007 season seems so good because his position was loose man in defense. Polak should be expected to play key position, but has never made a key post, either forward or back, his own.

3. No big loss losing him, and yes we have lost him for good, let alone returning to his mediocre best. No coming back from that kind of trauma to the brain.

 

[_RT_]

Re: Draft Discussion

So losing a project player in Gourdis and a fringe player in Polak and all of a sudden our key forward stocks are our most pressing need. Perhaps it's time you start basing your opinions on some decent analysis in the future RT, because even with those two on the list and healthy, our key forward stocks would still be a pressing need.

If they were both still on the list, then my opinion wouldn't have changed and I would have been quite happy to add a KP forward with a late pick and maybe a couple more as rookies. But seeing as the only young KP forwards we have on our list are Hughes & Riewoldt then yes it becomes a much more pressing need than it was, as such I feel we need to add a quality tall early on in the draft and then grab another project type with a later pick.

 

[PHX]

Re: Draft Discussion

Polak could have been our answer as a key forward.

But he cant kick for goal.

And I know the Richo factor, but Polak isnt Richo. He has to take his opportunities when they come and he just doesnt.

With our strong young backline in place I'd say even without the accident he'd have a lot of work to do.

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

Indeed Risey. Very much on the fringes was Polak.

 

[mitch richmond]

Re: Draft Discussion

Polak was good for us. A key forward or back. Strong. 24 and coming in to his prime. Got in the best for the tiges quite often. I doubt he'll make it back sadly. The big 6'5", 96kg bloke we needed. Might have been dropped but returned to play well including the Port Adelaide game where he had 23 possessions, 14 marks and 5 tackles. Most likely his 2nd last game of league footy! He wasn't a fringe player!!!!!!!!! Richo and Joel have been dropped to Coburg before and I wouldn't call them fringe players!!!!!!

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Re: Draft Discussion

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you believe more people thought Cotchin should have been the number 1 pick ahead of Kruezer last year? Kruezer was clearly touted as number 1, it may have been to Cotch's loss (our win) that he was injured but it made Kruezer stand out as number 1.

Also, Carlton chose him at number one and we know through the book, "the Draft" that Hawthorn and Adelaide both had him at number 1 as well.

Kruezer was the highest rated player going into last years draft.

Where did i say more people had Cotchin at #1?Your the one that said the vast majority.I know Essendon and West Coast would have taken Cotchin at 1 but thats not the point.
Carlton were always going to take Kruezer because they needed a Ruckman.Same as Melbourne this year.Why all of a sudden has Natanui lost his title as the #1 pick that was on his head 12mnths ago? Melbourne need a CHF.Unless your going to argue that Watts is better than Rich,let alone Natanui?

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

Polak was good for us. A key forward or back. Strong. 24 and coming in to his prime. Got in the best for the tiges quite often. I doubt he'll make it back sadly. The big 6'5", 96kg bloke we needed. Might have been dropped but returned to play well including the Port Adelaide game where he had 23 possessions, 14 marks and 5 tackles. Most likely his 2nd last game of league footy! He wasn't a fringe player!!!!!!!!! Richo and Joel have been dropped to Coburg before and I wouldn't call them fringe players!!!!!!

Bowden is very much a fringe player, and Richardson has been dropped once in his entire career. Polak played key back maybe a couple of times and got smashed, and he never played more than a couple of half decent games as a goal kicking forward. Polak got dropped not once, but twice in the season, sheesh open your eyes, what do you think a fringe player is?

 

[PHX]

Re: Draft Discussion

Well who else were you suggesting should have been considered number 1 when you said Carlton drafted on needs, not best available?

People have realised Natanui has a severe lack of a football brain and is still extremely raw. That's why.

 

[PHX]

Re: Draft Discussion

Bowden is very much a fringe player, and Richardson has been dropped once in his entire career. Polak played key back maybe a couple of times and got smashed, and he never played more than a couple of half decent games as a goal kicking forward. Polak got dropped not once, but twice in the season, sheesh open your eyes, what do you think a fringe player is?

Yup, in 2007 Polak's core must have really lacked since he had the guns on show but struggled to hold his ground against even medium forwards. Was frustrating and sticking point with Polly in a one-on-one wrestle.

 

[Toadvine]

Re: Draft Discussion

Where did I say more people had Cotchin at #1?Your the one that said the vast majority.I know Essendon and West Coast would have taken Cotchin at 1 but thats not the point.

Carlton were always going to take Kruezer because they needed a Ruckman.Same as Melbourne this year.Why all of a sudden has Natanui lost his title as the #1 pick that was on his head 12mnths ago? Melbourne need a CHF.Unless your going to argue that Watts is better than Rich,let alone Natanui?

Yes he is. He dominates as a footballer and is a supreme athlete as well as a outstanding intelligent young person on all accounts.
Here is what was written in the official BF draft where he was taken at No.1

Alright, lets get this thing started. I might not be on much in the morning, so i thought i'd start it now.

Melbourne - Pick 1 - Jack Watts

What was probably the easiest pick i made in the trial (but by no means easy) has only been made easier by Watts' fantastic DC. He showed during u18 carnival what a great contested mark he is and that he's a good, long kick for goal. His DC just reinforced why Melbourne should take him at No.1, 2nd in 20m sprints & agility, which is just unbelievable for a kid who's over 195cm. I usually think that DC is more important for the players who aren't at the top of the draft, but Watts' performance at DC made me more confident Melbourne should take him.

Watts' agility was a real stand out for me in the games i've seen him play, he steps around players like a midfielder and is not afraid to back himself. Bottom aged and only been solely focusing on football this year, he will still have a huge amount of improvement in him, that makes me think he could be the best forward from the last few drafts. Melbourne could surely use both of Naitanui or Rich, but it had to be Watts.

 

[mitch richmond]

Re: Draft Discussion

A) Bowden is very much a fringe player, and Richardson has been dropped once in his entire career. Polak played key back maybe a couple of times and got smashed, and he never played more than a couple of half decent games as a goal kicking forward. B) Polak got dropped not once, but twice in the season, sheesh open your eyes, what do you think a fringe player is?

A) Although you clearly hate it, Joel Bowden would get a game playing the role he does at any other side - Gun!!!!
B) Polak didn't miss a game last year. In '08 he played for Coburg, as did Richo in the past and Polak earnt his spot back, as did Richo in the past. Thursfield played for Coburg - fringe player? No, he was out of form, returning from injury or dropped for team balance. Thursfield aint no fringe player and neither was Polak!

 

[tigerdan]

Re: Draft Discussion

Bowden is very much a fringe player, and Richardson has been dropped once in his entire career. Polak played key back maybe a couple of times and got smashed, and he never played more than a couple of half decent games as a goal kicking forward. Polak got dropped not once, but twice in the season, sheesh open your eyes, what do you think a fringe player is?

I would have thought Hyde was a fringe player rather than Polak. Struggling to get a game is not the same as going in and out of the side. Especially when there is team balance to take into account as well as form.

But why argue semantics Bentleigh? There is no definition of 'x number of games = fringe player' in the Oxford dictionary, is there? It's not like we are arguing over the value of Pi.

 

[_RT_]

Re: Draft Discussion

Bowden is very much a fringe player, and Richardson has been dropped once in his entire career. Polak played key back maybe a couple of times and got smashed, and he never played more than a couple of half decent games as a goal kicking forward. Polak got dropped not once, but twice in the season, sheesh open your eyes, what do you think a fringe player is?

You must have a pretty strict meaning of fringe if you can label a player who played 33 from 36 prior to being in that accident. Wouldn't doing that suggest the club looked at them as a key member of the side rather than someone who was trying to hold their spot?

Correct me if this is wrong but the way I understand your logic you see anyone who gets dropped twice in one year as a fringe player and can never change. Does that mean you still have Moore, who was dropped 3 times last year and only played 7 games in total but played every game in 08 and is now seen by many as our best defender and an integeral part of the side, in the fringe player catergory too?

 

[Glitch]

Re: Draft Discussion

Kruezer was the highest rated player going into last years draft.

No disagreements there, however it is worth pointing out Carlton did do their due dillegance on Cotchin and were tempted from all reports. For them though it was a very simple choice, they had a strong and upcoming midfield but very little in ruck/kpp stocks. Game over.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Re: Draft Discussion

Yes he is. He dominates as a footballer and is a supreme athlete as well as a outstanding intelligent young person on all accounts.
Here is what was written in the official BF draft where he was taken at No.1

[/B] [/FONT]

Good Lord.Your right.Watts is the best this year because he went #1 here on BF.Taken by a Dees supporter .

 

[richoatthedisco]

Re: Draft Discussion

8: Trengove, McKernan, Hartlett, Swift
26: Schoenmakers, Johnston, Hanneberry, Broadbent, Suban, Heyne, Roughead
58: Sibosado, Sharples
70: Really Tall Bugger

This is likely to be the highest pick we have for a few years, unless we wrangle one out of GC. We desperately need quality talls and we won't get a better chance than this year to get them.

So I'm almost certain we'll draft a midfielder.

 

[Toadvine]

Re: Draft Discussion

Good Lord.Your right.Watts is the best this year because he went #1 here on BF.Taken by a Dees supporter .

I'm not even bothering myself with this anymore as I would just be repeating my self.

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

I'm not even bothering myself with this anymore as I would just be repeating my self.

Tell me about it. These guys really are as stupid as they come across as.

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

A) Although you clearly hate it, Joel Bowden would get a game playing the role he does at any other side - Gun!!!!
B) Polak didn't miss a game last year. In '08 he played for Coburg, as did Richo in the past and Polak earnt his spot back, as did Richo in the past. Thursfield played for Coburg - fringe player? No, he was out of form, returning from injury or dropped for team balance. Thursfield aint no fringe player and neither was Polak!

A) Absolute and utter bollocks
B) 2007 he did his job as a loose man in defense. 2008 more was asked of him (i.e. play key position) and he was found wanting and dropped. Twice. The Richardson example is just so stupid. Thursfield was returning from injury, he wasn't dropped. Sheesh. If I remember correctly he didn't even play for Coburg.

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

I would have thought Hyde was a fringe player rather than Polak. Struggling to get a game is not the same as going in and out of the side. Especially when there is team balance to take into account as well as form.

But why argue semantics Bentleigh? There is no definition of 'x number of games = fringe player' in the Oxford dictionary, is there? It's not like we are arguing over the value of Pi.

Dropped twice in the space of 14 rounds. Had he secured a position? Had he made full forward his own. No. That's what makes him a fringe player.

Look up enema in the dictionary, I think you may need one.

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

Correct me if this is wrong but the way I understand your logic you see anyone who gets dropped twice in one year as a fringe player and can never change. Does that mean you still have Moore, who was dropped 3 times last year and only played 7 games in total but played every game in 08 and is now seen by many as our best defender and an integeral part of the side, in the fringe player catergory too?

RT you are all over the shop. Yes Moore was a fringe player last year. Is he now? No. He has become our number 1 defender and has proven he is a capable key defender. Has Polak achieved even a speck of what Moore has? I think you know the answer. Polak's 2007 season did not make him an established player. Just like Schulz's 2008 season does not make him an established player. I don't know how better to explain these concepts to you pseudo-realistic tiger, they seem to be beyond your scope

I'll try one more time. Darren Gaspar our FB for many years. His form dropped, and hey presto he became a fringe player. Wow, but he was our number 1 key defender for so long, how could have this happened? Form. Better players. I hope this helps.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Re: Draft Discussion

Tell me about it. These guys really are as stupid as they come across as.

Im still waiting for you to debunk my opinion that clubs do take first rnd picks for needs.

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

Im still waiting for you to debunk my opinion that clubs do take first rnd picks for needs.

Where was I arguing that? I said in my opinion you take the best available. Then we were arguing whether Kruezer and Watts were taken as best available or needs. Really the only way we can know for sure is if Carlton's and Melbourne's recruiting team pop in for a visit. I'm basing my opinion on a former poster called Mojo who was a Carlton supporter and I believe has had inside knowledge of the Carlton football club. He rated Kruezer the best talent, and he believed so did Carlton. Watts is just a no-brainer, show me one mock draft that has him anywhere other than number 1.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Re: Draft Discussion

Where was I arguing that? I said in my opinion you take the best available. Then we were arguing whether Kruezer and Watts were taken as best available or needs. Really the only way we can know for sure is if Carlton's and Melbourne's recruiting team pop in for a visit. I'm basing my opinion on a former poster called Mojo who was a Carlton supporter and I believe has had inside knowledge of the Carlton football club. He rated Kruezer the best talent, and he believed so did Carlton. Watts is just a no-brainer, show me one mock draft that has him anywhere other than number 1.

A mock draft where everyone knows Melb will take Watts as #1.And everyone knows why they will take Watts.Because they NEED a chf.If they were going for the best available Natanui would go #1.
Geez go way back to when we drafted Fiora.We drafted Fiora because we needed Mids.We ignored Pavlich.

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

A mock draft where everyone knows Melb will take Watts as #1.And everyone knows why they will take Watts.Because they NEED a chf.If they were going for the best available Natanui would go #1.
Geez go way back to when we drafted Fiora.We drafted Fiora because we needed Mids.We ignored Pavlich.

A mock draft is not a phantom draft. A phantom draft is someone predicting a draft, a mock draft is where people are the recruiters, where they pick the best players they can. Yes Melbourne need a chf, but they need a lot of things. Watts may fill a need, but he is without a doubt the number 1 talent in this draft.