Draft/Trade Talk Only Thread

[Pigdog]

Re: Paul Hasleby anyone?

I think he creates more chances through his hard running than he wastes through poor disposal.

Yeah he does, but I think we lose the advantage we may have gained by giving Cross the ball far more times than we should, This probably happens more so in traffic than in open space. Personally I hate seeing Cross given the ball in broken play especially when we are on the counter. He seems to unsure in these scenario's and often just by his indecision we lose the adavantage.

You say the hard running should be a given. It's not just a good attitude thing with Crossy, he also has the ability to run hard.

But he also has the desire. He wants to run hard, a few others dont. Cross is probably the least talented midfielder, in terms of natural talent in our team, but he has worked bloody hard to make himself the player he is today. Gia take note.

Lets hope players like Cooney, Griffen and Higgins work equally as hard because thay could be anything with a similiar work ethic.

 

[DOG GOD]

The voice of wisdom, Scotland. By that logic, Ryan Murphy would be worth, ohh, a downgrade of 5 picks in the 30's and 7 picks in the 60's, which is precisely what we got McDougall for.

On another thread, we have put together a list of shithouse KPP's that opposition club supporters have offered as a lure of fools gold to the Bulldogs. Ryan Murphy should be added to that list. Those 22 goals he kicked in 2006 - he hardly kicked a behind from memory? Imagine if he did not kick straight. Wow, a KPP who kicked 12-15 goals for the season. Where do I sign

Ray has shown infinitely more than Ryan Murphy in his career to date. Anyone who disagrees with that doest not know their footy, plain and simple.

And another thing, we don't need a slender mark on a lead type of KPP, which is the only trick Ryan Murphy has. We need the bash and crash, mongrel, presence, body strength, contested marking kind.

sbsolutely agree sedat. Murphy is an UNPROVEN fwd who has been in the system for awhile and yet to be a best 22 player.

If i had to pick either murphy or mcgregor i would pick mcgregor every time.

 

[Allan Shorty]

And another thing, we don't need a slender mark on a lead type of KPP, which is the only trick Ryan Murphy has. We need the bash and crash, mongrel, presence, body strength, contested marking kind.

A slender mark on a lead Pieman-type of KPP would be fine.

 

[Scotland]

The voice of wisdom, Scotland. By that logic, Ryan Murphy would be worth, ohh, a downgrade of 5 picks in the 30's and 7 picks in the 60's, which is precisely what we got McDougall for.

On another thread, we have put together a list of shithouse KPP's that opposition club supporters have offered as a lure of fools gold to the Bulldogs. Ryan Murphy should be added to that list. Those 22 goals he kicked in 2006 - he hardly kicked a behind from memory? Imagine if he did not kick straight. Wow, a KPP who kicked 12-15 goals for the season. Where do I sign

Agree, but I think you are being a bit harsh. If I was running the Bulldogs recruiting department, I certainly wouldn't be against bringing in Ryan Murphy on principle, but I wouldn't want to move Heaven and Earth to do so.

Ray has shown infinitely more than Ryan Murphy in his career to date. Anyone who disagrees with that doest not know their footy, plain and simple.

And another thing, we don't need a slender mark on a lead type of KPP, which is the only trick Ryan Murphy has. We need the bash and crash, mongrel, presence, body strength, contested marking kind.

Yes, yes, yes. The 'Bulldogs need a gun key forward' line that peanuts (ie R. Walls) throw around is utter crap, and is utter crap when applied to any side. The Bulldogs need a key forward, but not necessarily a gun key forward. Sure, it'd be nice to have Pavlich or Brown in your side, but would you give up Johnson and West? No. We have a forward spine of Lynch and Hansen, two big guys who play roles for the side and provide a physical presence. Neither are in line for AA honours in their positions any time soon, but they compliment our guns, who are mostly centremen. Someone big who can crash packs and bring the ball to ground when the ball is bombed into the forward line would compliment the Dogs' strengths, IMO.

 

[Sedat!]

Agree, but I think you are being a bit harsh. If I was running the Bulldogs recruiting department, I certainly wouldn't be against bringing in Ryan Murphy on principle, but I wouldn't want to move Heaven and Earth to do so.

His type is not what we need, so I personally wouldn't even consider him. Just my opinion, but we already have mark and lead prospects being developed on our list. Do we not give Tiller chance to cement himself in the line-up in this role to bring in someone who would commande much more money but who has achieved little more in his career to date? I much rather put some faith in a guy like Tiller in this role. Even a McDougall with his body size provides more of what we really need., and we already have him.

Yes, yes, yes. The 'Bulldogs need a gun key forward' line that peanuts (ie R. Walls) throw around is utter crap, and is utter crap when applied to any side. The Bulldogs need a key forward, but not necessarily a gun key forward. Sure, it'd be nice to have Pavlich or Brown in your side, but would you give up Johnson and West? No. We have a forward spine of Lynch and Hansen, two big guys who play roles for the side and provide a physical presence. Neither are in line for AA honours in their positions any time soon, but they compliment our guns, who are mostly centremen. Someone big who can crash packs and bring the ball to ground when the ball is bombed into the forward line would compliment the Dogs' strengths, IMO.

Your analogy is spot on. Lynch provides the contest, Hansen provides the target. Neither are superstars by any stretch but they do their job within the WC stucture, bringing others into the play in the process.

That is why I don't want us to chase Fev. I rate him as a quality footballer, but he will come so damn expensive (picks/players and money), and the incremental benefits to our side and our structure will be minimal compared o the outlay to secure his services. Fev kicked 84 goals in a pathetic side 2 years ago, what is the point? He had a fantastic season and it benefitted his club didly squat.

Walls is a populist fool. We need quality ruckmen first and foremost, we need some added grunt in the midfield - someone who can actually win a contested ball - next. Then we need a strong body up forward, but not for the cost to get a Fev.

In short, we have plenty of holes, not just up forward, and Ryan Murphy doesn't help fill any of them.

 

[Rocco Jones]

Your analogy is spot on. Lynch provides the contest, Hansen provides the target. Neither are superstars by any stretch but they do their job within the WC stucture, bringing others into the play in the process.

I think a Lynch type would help free up Bobby and/or Johnno to play the target/lead up HF role. Hansens height is a strength but it's not as important as his work rate, intelligent leading and agility.

Fans go on about 'CHF' but it's a power forward who uses FF as their default base that we are missing most.

 

[Scotland]

There is far too much sense being made in this thread.

Get ready for some of our points to make it to the papers under the guise of the innovative and original thoughts of R. Walls or C. Wilson.

Of the existing key forwards who aren't rated as out and out guns, Cameron Mooney or Daniel Bradshaw would go well in the Bulldogs forward line, IMO. I would imagine either of those two players would still cost a fair bit at the trade table though. Adam Campbell at the Dockers too, though they opted to re-sign him, even though he plays less often than Murphy.

 

[lindsay_bulldogs]

List management

Really basic list management says that you work out how many of each type of player you need on your list (to cover injuries, allow for development in positions you're weak at, etc), and when you do delistings, for the most part you look to replace like with like.

When Port delisted almost exclusively flankers and midfielders last year, a lot of Port fans (myself included) still thought we'd go for one or two talls early. Nope, we redrafted pretty much what we lost. Obviously you can overlook some good players by using that method, but you end up with a list that SHOULD be able to cover any position reasonably well.

And if you can't draft that player, then look to trade for them...but don't expect a bargain basement guy to be your #1. Westhoff has come on great for us this year, but if he didn't, we still have White to come in and offer something.

Recruiters (draft)I've got a couple of nitpicks in how Scott Clayton seems to run things.

First up, he has a real penchant for drafting smokeys with early picks. Thats nice, but if the player doesn't star, he's got the trade value of a smokey, not of an early pick. Secondly, `best available' is a farce when you are managing a list with such glaring deficiencies. Brian Harris is your only good long-term tall since Luke Darcy!

But he's just one man. You have to ask yourself why he's picking the players he is. Is it because your supporting recruiting network isn't feeding him useful information? Is it because he's following an overarching directive to make sure every player is fast and agile? (the big secret about Port and West Coast is that both teams definitely have slow players too). Is it because he just doesn't have the resources to get good people around the country watching talent? Its important for your club to really look at why you keep doing the same draft every year.

Recruiters (trade)
The real reason why `best available' is a farce, is because certain types of players are more common than others. Skinny short blokes that run a lot are probably the `best' player at almost every pick. Tall blokes with strength and awareness are not.

The rationale of `best available' is that you should be able to trade player type that you have an excess of for player types that you need. No one is willing to trade tall blokes with strength and awareness for shinny short blokes that run a lot, and especially not in the hostile trading environment post-2003 (which the Bulldogs helped create incidentally), whereby trade making is like tooth extraction, and almost always involves players forcing clubs to trade them.

Then there's the issue of bargain trades. They can sometimes (rarely) be excellent, but most of the time they're not. McDougall was always doomed to failure at your club. Why even bother? Seriously. At least when you redraft a delisted player, they've had enough of a kick up the arse than there might be some improvement, but traded players rarely enjoy that same condition unless the club & player part aggressively (quite rare).

Player development
Player development is always going to be difficult in a side with such a non-conventional structure, because young players, left without clear instruction, will always learn how best to fit in with the current structure - not the structure you wish was in place. Its a difficult situation, and generally the only way to significantly change a team's structure is by sucking it up and (most likely) bottoming out while they readjust.

But, to even make that worthwhile, you need the types of players appropriate to this new structure to be on your list so that the team can learn the new structure. Its all a bit chicken and egg.

This is the part where I'll end up sounding like an infomercial, but in this scenario it can be worthwhile getting players that know the role you want played, but aren't necessarily great at it - sort of like a placebo, or the naturopathic theories of dilution. My prime example of this sort of player right now would be Damon White. He's not a gun, but if you force the side to learn to kick to his advantage, they'll get better at learning the structure...and then when you HAVE that key tall, he can slot into White's spot and have midfielders kicking to him that have real experience in hitting a leading tall at AFL level!

Tredrea had it really hard...it took from 1998 until 2001 of him being smashed around by every tall defender around for Port's midfield to start reliably kicking to him on the full, and not the half-volley or over his head.

When you recruit a guy like McDougall, who any honest West Coast fan would've described more as a big rover than a key forward, you're just continuing to build on the current fast, aimless, make-it-up-as-we-go-along structure that the top sides don't use. That doesn't help change.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. I could be completely wrong.

From a Port supporter on the AFL board about the Dogs. Interesting I thought

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Baker, Maguire and Koschitzke are all out of contract. There you are, a couple of hard men and a tall marking forward. We would be laughing. We should move mountains to get them.

 

[stefoid]

I agree that clayton overrates skill and athleticism over intensity and footy nous (maybe what porthos is refering to as awareness).

If we look at his draftees who have failed or dont look promising, compared to those that have flourished, pretty much the missing ingredient in each case is 'footy nous' and/or intensity.

I think clayton believes its easier to teach a skilled athlete how to play footy than it is to teach a 'footy player' to run faster or kick better.

It is a bit of a furphy that we dont draft big players or tall players - its just that a lot of the big players or tall players we have picked havent come on as we have liked.

walsh - no intensity
minson - poor footy nous
skipper - poor intensity, poor footy nous
wight - poor footy nous
michael west - no footy nous
bowden - no intensity
patrick wiggins - no intensity
simon cox - poor intensity
jesse wells - poor footy nous

thats pretty much 2/3rds of any talls he has drafted who could be playing with us today, that have failed to develop or have been delisted or traded away.

almost to a man they are characterized by being athleticly impressive types who dont know how to play footy, or skilled players who are too polite to impose themselves on a contest.

 

[rapidshave]

Baker, Maguire and Koschitzke are all out of contract. There you are, a couple of hard men and a tall marking forward. We would be laughing. We should move mountains to get them.

All will re-sign with St Kilda I believe but out of that crop Kosi would be the one I would move mountains to get.

 

[lindsay_bulldogs]

I agree that clayton overrates skill and athleticism over intensity and footy nous (maybe what porthos is refering to as awareness).

If we look at his draftees who have failed or dont look promising, compared to those that have flourished, pretty much the missing ingredient in each case is 'footy nous' and/or intensity.

I think clayton believes its easier to teach a skilled athlete how to play footy than it is to teach a 'footy player' to run faster or kick better.

It is a bit of a furphy that we dont draft big players or tall players - its just that a lot of the big players or tall players we have picked havent come on as we have liked.

walsh - no intensity
minson - poor footy nous
skipper - poor intensity, poor footy nous
wight - poor footy nous
michael west - no footy nous
bowden - no intensity
patrick wiggins - no intensity
simon cox - poor intensity
jesse wells - poor footy nous

thats pretty much 2/3rds of any talls he has drafted who could be playing with us today, that have failed to develop or have been delisted or traded away.

almost to a man they are characterized by being athleticly impressive types who dont know how to play footy, or skilled players who are too polite to impose themselves on a contest.

Impressive list of duds there.

The most significant thing he points to is with list management you have a certain amount of each type and you get rid of the access.

 

[Dorval6]

All will re-sign with St Kilda I believe but out of that crop Kosi would be the one I would move mountains to get.

I've mentioned previously that we should go for Kosi.

Would be cheaper than Fev IMO and probably a better choice given his age and ability to help in the ruck.

Or maybe I'm just blinded by the fact that he seems to turn it on everytime we play the Saints (in the same way that Welsh plays his one and only good game for the Crows each year against us).

 

[rapidshave]

Kosi is a one of a kind player, is a good ruckman but can also dominate up forward and at 24 his best footy is ahead of him.

Would cost more to get him I reckon then Fevola.

 

[The_Bulldogs_Bite]

No doubt Clayton's earlier picks (Skip, Walsh, Wells etc.) are very speculative. However recently, IMO Clayton has changed his focus.

Minson has bucket loads of intensity. He's raw still, he's still learning the game. I would be surprised if Minson wasn't a good player by 26/27. He has the tools to be a good player.

Williams is another big lad full of aggression. He's athletic like Clayton's picks, but he's seriously solid. He's missed so much footy that it's hard to tell if he has the footy nous, but I think he's a quick learner and will pick it up soon enough. Williams has the tools to be a very good player for the club. He's fast, strong, athletic, can mark/kick and has an appetite for the contest. He just needs games.

Everitt as we know looks like he's going to be a dead set star. He's mobile, he's a good contested mark, he oozes footy nous, plenty of skill & has a fantastic leap. The only thing Everitt is lacking is the body size atm. Still, further evidence that Clayton has made sure whilst athletic, these talls are able to find the ball in tight and aren't afraid of a contest.

O'Shea I haven't seen much of, but from all reports - if anything - his intensity is almost too high in that he risks serious injury. Therefore he obviously loves a contest. I'm not sure of his footy nous/skill etc. as he's very raw and I didn't get to see too many Werribee games this year, but he definitely has a body that could put on weight.

There was a similiar pattern with Walsh, Skipper etc. in that they were a bit laconic, lacked intensity but had ability. His recent drafting of talls would suggest a bit different though IMO - but it could be just the way its panned out. Still, if Minson, Williams, Everitt & O'Shea turn out good players then the questioning of Claytons ability to draft talls will be long gone.

 

[The_Bulldogs_Bite]

Kosi is a one of a kind player, is a good ruckman but can also dominate up forward and at 24 his best footy is ahead of him.

Would cost more to get him I reckon then Fevola.

Kosi would be a good fit for our side, but I can't see him ever leaving St. Kilda. Why would he? The club has been loyal to him throughout his injury prone career to date - why would he suddenly pack his bags and go to a club where expectations would be enormous on him? At the Saints, the list is arguably better, he has Riewoldt to work in tandem with, and Gehrig has now retired which will probably see him as their new FF.

If Gehrig was 25/26, then Kosi may be considered for trade. That's obviously not the case though, and IMO Kosi is as important as any to them now. Could you imagine St. Kilda with only Riewoldt in their forward line? He'd be swamped. Gehrig's retirement makes Kosi one of their most important players.

 

[rapidshave]

Didn't say he would leave, said he would re-sign.

 

[The_Bulldogs_Bite]

Didn't say he would leave, said he would re-sign.

I know. I just used your post as a reference, I wasn't debating it. If anything, agreeing.

 

[SBI]

How would Polak have added anything to our side this year - he's a s apre man in defence. We don't need any more of them.

Murphy gets games and never does anything in them. Good WAFL player - if he can't kick goals on the third best tall defender (with Pav and Tarrant getting the best two), he'd be ****ed at the Dogs.

 

[cong8]

Kosi is a one of a kind player, is a good ruckman but can also dominate up forward and at 24 his best footy is ahead of him.

Would cost more to get him I reckon then Fevola.

From a blues supporter...

kosi would be a better fit for the doggies than Fev, however he will cost you a LOT more than fev in a trade. That is of course on the proviso that you can convince the saints to let him go (unlikely). I'd think the carlton admin would be prepared to let fev go for the right price though.

Out of curiousity, would the following 3 way trade be viewed as acceptable to doggies supporters?

dogs -> 3rd round + ray to freo
dogs -> first round pick to blues
freo -> murphy (seems all the rage on these boards) to the dogs
freo -> first round pick to the blues
blues -> Fev to dogs
blues -> 3rd round pick as sweetener to either dogs/freo (if required)

 

[bulldogtragic]

From a blues supporter...

kosi would be a better fit for the doggies than Fev, however he will cost you a LOT more than fev in a trade. That is of course on the proviso that you can convince the saints to let him go (unlikely). I'd think the carlton admin would be prepared to let fev go for the right price though.

Out of curiousity, would the following 3 way trade be viewed as acceptable to doggies supporters?

dogs -> 3rd round + ray to freo
dogs -> first round pick to blues
freo -> murphy (seems all the rage on these boards)
freo -> first round pick to the blues
blues -> Fev to dogs
blues -> 3rd round pick as sweetener to either dogs/freo

Who gets Murphy is this?

 

[cong8]

Who gets Murphy is this?

oops... dogs would get him of course. I'll edit my post

 

[murphy2bedabest]

From a blues supporter...

kosi would be a better fit for the doggies than Fev, however he will cost you a LOT more than fev in a trade. That is of course on the proviso that you can convince the saints to let him go (unlikely). I'd think the carlton admin would be prepared to let fev go for the right price though.

Out of curiousity, would the following 3 way trade be viewed as acceptable to doggies supporters?

dogs -> 3rd round + ray to freo
dogs -> first round pick to blues
freo -> murphy (seems all the rage on these boards)
freo -> first round pick to the blues
blues -> Fev to dogs
blues -> 3rd round pick as sweetener to either dogs/freo

no way we lose picks 5 38 and get murphy and fev

why whould we want murphy if we get fev

 

[Gridlock'd]

From a blues supporter...

kosi would be a better fit for the doggies than Fev, however he will cost you a LOT more than fev in a trade. That is of course on the proviso that you can convince the saints to let him go (unlikely). I'd think the carlton admin would be prepared to let fev go for the right price though.

Out of curiousity, would the following 3 way trade be viewed as acceptable to doggies supporters?

dogs -> 3rd round + ray to freo
dogs -> first round pick to blues
freo -> murphy (seems all the rage on these boards) to the dogs
freo -> first round pick to the blues
blues -> Fev to dogs
blues -> 3rd round pick as sweetener to either dogs/freo (if required)

So in a nutshell,

Dogs - Lose: Ray, 1st round selection, 3rd round selection, Gain: Fevola, Murphy, possible 3rd round selection.

Freo - Lose: Murphy, 1st round selection, Gain: Ray, 3rd round selection and another possible 3rd round selection.

Carlton - Lose : Fevola, possible 3rd round selection, Gain: Two first round selections.


Hmm interesting, Carlton are massive winners here. Freo do okay, but I think the Dogs are giving up way too much for a loose cannon and a muppet.

 

[bulldogtragic]

So in a nutshell,

Dogs - Lose: Ray, 1st round selection, 3rd round selection, Gain: Fevola, Murphy, possible 3rd round selection.

Freo - Lose: Murphy, 1st round selection, Gain: Ray, 3rd round selection and another possible 3rd round selection.

Carlton - Lose : Fevola, possible 3rd round selection, Gain: Two first round selections.


Hmm interesting, Carlton are massive winners here. Freo do okay, but I think the Dogs are giving up way too much for a loose cannon and a muppet.

If we gave up pick 5 and Ray (and the 3rds swapped) - And Ray wanted and/or was happy to head home -

For Fevola and Murphy ...

I'd probably do it. Risky yeah, hell yeah, but if it worked out than we would be doing quite well.

Get our hands on a good young ruckman in another trade and we're starting to address a few areas needing improvement.