Draft Discussions Recovered

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

Why not Daniel Rich?

 

[cormick]

Re: Draft Discussion

Probably cos' I don't like him much, he seems like an arrogant prick. If I was being 100% realistic, I would say there is a slight bit of doubt on him; he may be too lazy or too slow. He should be a gun though...

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Re: Draft Discussion

Yeah fools tend to get under my skin. You didn't even realise what the initial argument was about, and you then invented a topic to suit your argument. What a bunch of crap. Just let me check for a moment....nope you are the fool sunshine. It is getting embarrassing for you.

LOL.Now whe're onto selective memories.
Thats ok you went off topic awhile back and just do what most do when they are not capable of a discussion.Enter the name calling phase.
Your too predictable.

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

What about Stephen Hill? I saw his youtube video and it reminded me of Fiora.

 

[cormick]

Re: Draft Discussion

To be honest, I never really rated him, and so didn't watch particularly much. I'm suprised he's rated sao highly. But he had a good draft camp, which some raises his stocks to many somewhat.

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

LOL.Now whe're onto selective memories.
Thats ok you went off topic awhile back and just do what most do when they are not capable of a discussion.Enter the name calling phase.
Your too predictable.

This is what initially kicked it off:
Me: "For our first rounder, if it comes down to a choice between an A grade midfielder, and a B grade forward, you take the A grade midfielder everytime. Always take best available with 1st rounders, DundasBoy26."

That is an opinion of mine.

Then you incorrectly construed that to mean that I was saying that all clubs always take the highest rated player, regardless of needs.

"Dont think so.
kruezer vs Cotchin
Watts vs Natanui"

Then we argued about whether Carlton and Melbourne rated/rate Kruezer and Watts as the number one talents.

Then you finally said this:
"But anyway we are getting away from the debate on weather Clubs do or do not select on a needs basis in the 1st rnd."

I was never arguing that point, but in your mind I was. Then you think that me calling you a fool is evidence of a failing argument. Well like I said, foolishness is annoying eventually, and it doesn't change the fact that you construed my initial post incorrectly, and hence kicked off this ridiculous spate.

So no, it was you going off topic, thinking you were debating a topic that was not being debated by me in the first place. Understand now? I mean really I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

 

[_RT_]

Re: Draft Discussion

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.

1. No Moore isn't a fringe player any more but he was until about the halfway point of the year when he finally established that he can play in a position.
2. No Polak hasn't been able to achieve the same things that Moore had by years end, but that was hardly his fault. You don't know what the remainder of the season could have brought. He might have laid claim to CHF or FF had it not been for the accident.

To me, it seems you believe that if a player struggles over 1-2 seasons, they are then hacks with no chance of improvement. Is that correct?

So how can Moore, who has been on our list for 6 years, the same player who struggled to even get a game for the first 5, go from fringe player to established star in one year?

Yet, if I understand your opinion of Polaks prospects as a future KP, there was little chance that he could find form and become the CHF/FF we hoped he would become because he had a bit of a tough time during the 11 games he played this year.

 

[_RT_]

Re: Draft Discussion

While I'm enjoying the vigourous discussion can we please try and at least keep it on topic and not continue with the name calling.

Think we need to get this thread back onto the topic it was originally intended to discuss and that is who should we take with our picks in the draft.

Any posts made after post 135 that don't relate to the thread topic will be deleted.

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

1. No Moore isn't a fringe player any more but he was until about the halfway point of the year when he finally established that he can play in a position. I agree with that obviously.
2. No Polak hasn't been able to achieve the same things that Moore had by years end, but that was hardly his fault. You don't know what the remainder of the season could have brought. He might have laid claim to CHF or FF had it not been for the accident. 7 years he has had to show something. Didn't show enough. Could have is moot.

To me, it seems you believe that if a player struggles over 1-2 seasons, they are then hacks with no chance of improvement. Is that correct? No, you are jumping to conclusions. Polak has struggled over his whole 7 year career.

So how can Moore, who has been on our list for 6 years, the same player who struggled to even get a game for the first 5, go from fringe player to established star in one year? Moore was injured for a large part of his early years, and only in the last 2 years has his body been right to play football. Polak has had some injuries granted (not including the latest one), but nothing compared to Moore.

Yet, if I understand your opinion of Polaks prospects as a future KP, there was little chance that he could find form and become the CHF/FF we hoped he would become because he had a bit of a tough time during the 11 games he played this year. I'm basing my opinion on what he has shown over 7 years as an AFL footballer.

Easier this way.

 

[_RT_]

Re: Draft Discussion

Easier this way.

Got no issues with any of what you've just said in response to my last post. Now have a clear picture of where you stand on the issue.

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

So what exactly do we disagree about now? We both now agree forwards are looking bad. We disagree on what we should do to fix the problem.

The club it seems to me thinks it is making a fiscal decision to leave Polak on the main list, so we can replace him with a rookie, that is cheaper than a draft pick. Do you agree with what the club is doing in that regard? Or do you think we should have got permission to put Polak on the rookie list so we could get first dibs before the rookie draft and pay a bit extra?

 

[lvt06]

Re: Draft Discussion

So what exactly do we disagree about now? We both now agree forwards are looking bad. We disagree on what we should do to fix the problem.

The club it seems to me thinks it is making a fiscal decision to leave Polak on the main list, so we can replace him with a rookie, that is cheaper than a draft pick. Do you agree with what the club is doing in that regard? Or do you think we should have got permission to put Polak on the rookie list so we could get first dibs before the rookie draft and pay a bit extra?

According to RT, this post will be deleted.

Agreed?

 

[_RT_]

Re: Draft Discussion

So what exactly do we disagree about now? We both now agree forwards are looking bad. We disagree on what we should do to fix the problem.

The club it seems to me thinks it is making a fiscal decision to leave Polak on the main list, so we can replace him with a rookie, that is cheaper than a draft pick. Do you agree with what the club is doing in that regard? Or do you think we should have got permission to put Polak on the rookie list so we could get first dibs before the rookie draft and pay a bit extra?

I thought we should have either rookied him or delisted him (due to the brain injury not form). If we had of delisted him then we should have set him up with a position at the club that still gives him motivation to continue rehab.

However, no that we have kept him although he wont and delisted Gourdis, I believe we should get the best KP available at pick 8 be that McKernan, Trengove, Johnston or whoever. Then look at getting best available with pick 26 be that tall or small doesn't matter. With 58 & 74 get best available.

Forget the PSD as there will be no-one of great talent available with pick 5-8 depending on which teams are in that draft. Then with the rookie draft I would get the best 2 midfielders possible with our first 2 picks. With the remaining 3 picks (if we're using all of them) take a young ruck, and 2 young KPPs that we can tuck away at Coburg for 1-2 years and see if we can land a gem.

 

[TFLUA-Tiger]

Re: Draft Discussion

I thought we should have either rookied him or delisted him (due to the brain injury not form). If we had of delisted him then we should have set him up with a position at the club that still gives him motivation to continue rehab.

However, no that we have kept him although he wont and delisted Gourdis, I believe we should get the best KP available at pick 8 be that McKernan, Trengove, Johnston or whoever. Then look at getting best available with pick 26 be that tall or small doesn't matter. With 58 & 74 get best available.

Forget the PSD as there will be no-one of great talent available with pick 5-8 depending on which teams are in that draft. Then with the rookie draft I would get the best 2 midfielders possible with our first 2 picks. With the remaining 3 picks (if we're using all of them) take a young ruck, and 2 young KPPs that we can tuck away at Coburg for 1-2 years and see if we can land a gem.

McKernan has slid to past pick 20 in the BF draft now. He's not tall enough to play as a ruckman, and not agile or quick enough to play as Key Forward in my opinion.

Do we still go with the best tall even if he's nowhere near as good as the best available?

I wholeheartedly agree with Beaver, best available unless there's only the slightest of differences in talent/upside.

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

Personally I think an A-grade midfielder will be available at pick 8. I don't want to pass on A-grade talent. Then with 26, 58 and 70 take 2 key forwards and a ruckman. Would have liked to delist Pettifer to perhaps secure a project small forward.

Rookies should be targetting 195+cm key position players and at least 1 ruckman. Also a crumbing small defensive forward, maybe 2.

 

[Toadvine]

Re: Draft Discussion

Can someone tell me about Roughead, is he good enough for our second round? or should we go a utility in Lynch ot Lisle?
What do people think about Cornelius? He's been compared to Brad Fisher which makes me think we should stay away.​

 

[acr2751]

Re: Draft Discussion

McKernan has slid to past pick 20 in the BF draft now. He's not tall enough to play as a ruckman, and not agile or quick enough to play as Key Forward in my opinion.

Do we still go with the best tall even if he's nowhere near as good as the best available?

I wholeheartedly agree with Beaver, best available unless there's only the slightest of differences in talent/upside.

If its a line ball call on who's better take the tall but we should always take the best talent early in the draft.

if we end up with to many mids we can always trade them later.

jack ziebell would be my pick, from the very little i have seen i have really liked his hardness at the contest.
all reports i read tell me he is a leader and born winner.

tough hard at it mid who can go forward or back

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Re: Draft Discussion

This is what initially kicked it off:
Me: "For our first rounder, if it comes down to a choice between an A grade midfielder, and a B grade forward, you take the A grade midfielder everytime. Always take best available with 1st rounders, DundasBoy26."

That is an opinion of mine.

Then you incorrectly construed that to mean that I was saying that all clubs always take the highest rated player, regardless of needs.

Nice backtrack.LOL.
Thats all im gonna say on this matter.From now on RT.

 

[TFLUA-Tiger]

Re: Draft Discussion

Can someone tell me about Roughead, is he good enough for our second round? or should we go a utility in Lynch ot Lisle?
What do people think about Cornelius? He's been compared to Brad Fisher which makes me think we should stay away.​

Roughead is an interesting one, but one of the best ruckmen in the draft.

He's solid without being a matchwinner. Has a good leap, is fairly agile without being overly quick, is good around the ground. I personally wouldn't select him at 26, Lynch, Brown, Cahill, Cornelius and Lisle are all distinct possibilities.

The fourth round is the round of the ruckmen in my opinion, so I'd select best available CHF/CHB in the second, and possibly third rounds, and get one of Renton/McCulloch/Clarke/Smouha etc, later on.

As far as Cornelius goes, I'm not a huge rap.

Doesn't work hard enough when he doesn't have the ball, nor does he offer multiple leads, and at in between height without a big frame or good pace he just doesn't do enough to go top 20 like most are saying.

In saying that he has brilliant hands, is a good field kick and a good kick at goal, and seems to lead to all the right places.

 

[TFLUA-Tiger]

Re: Draft Discussion

If its a line ball call on who's better take the tall but we should always take the best talent early in the draft.

if we end up with to many mids we can always trade them later.

jack ziebell would be my pick, from the very little i have seen i have really liked his hardness at the contest.
all reports i read tell me he is a leader and born winner.

tough hard at it mid who can go forward or back

Oh I agree entirely.

In the BigFooty Mock Draft I selected Hartlett, as I have him at 4 behind Watts, Rich and Naitanui on my best available board.

Ziebell is just behind at 5, but he was already taken when I was making my selection.

 

[_RT_]

Re: Draft Discussion

McKernan has slid to past pick 20 in the BF draft now. He's not tall enough to play as a ruckman, and not agile or quick enough to play as Key Forward in my opinion.

Do we still go with the best tall even if he's nowhere near as good as the best available?

I wholeheartedly agree with Beaver, best available unless there's only the slightest of differences in talent/upside.

As I said last night, I'm not the most informed person when it comes to the kids in the draft, as my opinions are formed based on reading everyone elses opinions on them. Its not the best way to do it, but its the best I can do.

Without meaning any disrespect the those on BF who go and watch the kids week after week, just because the BF draft doesn't rate a kid doesn't mean the clubs don't. Last years BF draft IIRC had players like Hurley, Gaertner, Gourdis and others as certain draftees and some failed to get picked while others fell dramatically. Its because the clubs have more detailed info about them than what the posters on here do.

Thats what it all boils down to in the long run. We can all say who we like based on a highlights package on youtube or what we read about them on the net.

With regards to who we should pick I have my opinion as does every other poster, but in the long run it is going to come down to who CC and co rate as the best available when our picks comes around. While you have Hartlett at 4 on your list, they might have him at 9 while the player they have at 4 is still there.

Would you be disappointed if the club took someone you had at say 12 on your list ahead of someone you had at 4 given all the extra info the club has on them?

 

[beaver fever]

Re: Draft Discussion

Word is they are red hot on Hartlett RT.

 

[acr2751]

Re: Draft Discussion

Oh I agree entirely.

In the BigFooty Mock Draft I selected Hartlett, as I have him at 4 behind Watts, Rich and Naitanui on my best available board.

Ziebell is just behind at 5, but he was already taken when I was making my selection.

would be very happy with hartlett too,
if i was brave enough i would even take swift (possibly best in draft)

if the big mac slips a bit more in the mock draft will you take him?

 

[TFLUA-Tiger]

Re: Draft Discussion

As I said last night, I'm not the most informed person when it comes to the kids in the draft, as my opinions are formed based on reading everyone elses opinions on them. Its not the best way to do it, but its the best I can do.

Without meaning any disrespect the those on BF who go and watch the kids week after week, just because the BF draft doesn't rate a kid doesn't mean the clubs don't. Last years BF draft IIRC had players like Hurley, Gaertner, Gourdis and others as certain draftees and some failed to get picked while others fell dramatically. Its because the clubs have more detailed info about them than what the posters on here do.

Thats what it all boils down to in the long run. We can all say who we like based on a highlights package on youtube or what we read about them on the net.

With regards to who we should pick I have my opinion as does every other poster, but in the long run it is going to come down to who CC and co rate as the best available when our picks comes around. While you have Hartlett at 4 on your list, they might have him at 9 while the player they have at 4 is still there.

Would you be disappointed if the club took someone you had at say 12 on your list ahead of someone you had at 4 given all the extra info the club has on them?

Firstly, I'm not saying we'll definitely get Hartlett.

And each person has his own opinion on players, but my take is, McKernan is not on my radar for pick 8.

The club can disagree with it if they want, and you can too, but in the end I'll back my opinion to the hilt.

Having seen as much of Hartlett and McKernan as I have I'll be quite disullisioned if we pass over Hartlett, Ziebell and Sidebottom for McKernan.

EDIT: Are you implying I've only watched a highlights package? I've watched both of these guys 5 + times throughout the season.

 

[acr2751]

Re: Draft Discussion

Would you be disappointed if the club took someone you had at say 12 on your list ahead of someone you had at 4 given all the extra info the club has on them?

not untill i seen them play for 2-4 years