Remove this Banner Ad

Drafting coming up

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lach72
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Lach72 said:
I'm wondering whether GWS make take a disproportionate number of talls at the top end, given that they've got Ward, Palmer and Scully. It's not exactly elite but given they have the top five then another 6 before we have a pick, we could find that all the premium talks are gone.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking they will take two ruckman because they have known other than Jonathon Giles. And possibly 3-4 KPP's. No doubt a lot of the 17 year olds they signed are gun midfielders eg Dylan Shiel.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

As mentioned before the 2009 draft pool only contained 2/3 of the normal new talent due to the shifting in the draft age. Therefore, statistically it was the most compromised draft of recent times and looking like the best in our history.
Click to expand...

Fair call, forgot about that.


NYJetsfor2029 said:
Yeah you're right here Tayl0r, GWS got the same deal as Gold Coast PLUS the deal with the mini-draft for next year's 17 year olds.

GWS got to choose the best 12 players born January to April from this year's draft (effectively reducing the pool by a quarter!) as well as auctioning off access to the best 4 players from the same period for the 2012 draft.

That said, I think many are underrating the WA boys this year and there might be some real gems available right up to the 40's. And GWS appear to have stuffed up not taking McInness as one of their 12!
Click to expand...

Yea, that's what I was referring too, not the mini-draft thing. The AFL have found all sorts of ways to give GWS a monumental foot-up and it will mean slim(mer) pickings for the rest of us.
 
Not including GWS, only 3 clubs have a pick before our first, and only another 3 after that before our 2nd pick. Our 3rd pick will be before 5 clubs have even entered the draft.

Just thought it was an interesting fact and will probably mean that if GWS decide to pick a few needs players, there's a good chance some quality players will slide to us
 
IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN said:
Not including GWS, only 3 clubs have a pick before our first, and only another 3 after that before our 2nd pick. Our 3rd pick will be before 5 clubs have even entered the draft.

Just thought it was an interesting fact and will probably mean that if GWS decide to pick a few needs players, there's a good chance some quality players will slide to us
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's funny just how well this business with Mitchy may have panned out for us in the end. Would like to see us pull the trigger on two big KPF's with our first two picks and take our chances that a gun/solid inside mid will slide to 29.
 
Lloyd is on record a number of times (as is Bond) as saying they draft the best available with early picks, not for need. I think this is the best approach. Need should only really come in to it if it is a close run thing between 2 players of different types.

Obviously there is a point where you just don't need any more of a certain position, but I don't think we're there anywhere on the field just yet...maybe rucks.

Fortunately, it would seem that our perceived needs and the best available at our picks may well coincide this year, particularly with the tight grouping of our early picks.

I still remember Richmond saying they passed on Buddy Franklin because they already had Matthew Richardson and some other KPF I can't remember, even though they thought BF was the best kid available at that pick. People rightly hound them for it now but I also distinctly remember many of the "experts" at the time suggesting the reasoning was sound. Before we knew what Franklin was, the logic did make some sense. This is what drafting for need can lead too.

I really don't see any area on our list where we can pass on the best guy available because we already have a surplus in that position.
 
Docker Dolph said:
Lloyd is on record a number of times (as is Bond) as saying they draft the best available with early picks, not for need. I think this is the best approach. Need should only really come in to it if it is a close run thing between 2 players of different types.

Obviously there is a point where you just don't need any more of a certain position, but I don't think we're there anywhere on the field just yet...maybe rucks.

Fortunately, it would seem that our perceived needs and the best available at our picks may well coincide this year, particularly with the tight grouping of our early picks.

I still remember Richmond saying they passed on Buddy Franklin because they already had Matthew Richardson and some other KPF I can't remember, even though they thought BF was the best kid available at that pick. People rightly hound them for it now but I also distinctly remember many of the "experts" at the time suggesting the reasoning was sound. Before we knew what Franklin was, the logic did make some sense. This is what drafting for need can lead too.

I really don't see any area on our list where we can pass on the best guy available because we already have a surplus in that position.
Click to expand...

Thisssss :thumbsu:

So much sense in this post.

(Bondy is this you?)
 
Docker Dolph said:
Lloyd is on record a number of times (as is Bond) as saying they draft the best available with early picks, not for need. I think this is the best approach. Need should only really come in to it if it is a close run thing between 2 players of different types.

Obviously there is a point where you just don't need any more of a certain position, but I don't think we're there anywhere on the field just yet...maybe rucks.

Fortunately, it would seem that our perceived needs and the best available at our picks may well coincide this year, particularly with the tight grouping of our early picks.

I still remember Richmond saying they passed on Buddy Franklin because they already had Matthew Richardson and some other KPF I can't remember, even though they thought BF was the best kid available at that pick. People rightly hound them for it now but I also distinctly remember many of the "experts" at the time suggesting the reasoning was sound. Before we knew what Franklin was, the logic did make some sense. This is what drafting for need can lead too.

I really don't see any area on our list where we can pass on the best guy available because we already have a surplus in that position.
Click to expand...

Very well said. We do need KPP's but our midfield is not strong enough to overlook a talented midfielder for a KPP. It is fortunate that we have a close grouping of top 30 picks.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Totally agree with you but the one thing im really not hoping for is another flanker. Someone that is a forward/back flank that has the potential to go into the midfield, would much prefer an out and out midfielder. personally if someone like Kavanagh or Adams slipped to 16 you jump on it but if not i would much prefer it to be mciness. a big kpp that can play at either end and could play next year. Second pick i would be happy if we took Kersten there or even Jackson Paine if still available and then with pick 29 get an inside mid, hopefully someone like Nelson or Devon smith may slide.
if we can get that done we have catered to all of our needs KPB, KPF and mid. while our immediate depth is lacking massively in KPP it is much worse than our midfield depth and whether you like it or not we really really need to start using some of our earlier picks on KPP because our later picks and rookie picks are not coming on, e.g. Houghton, Sibisado, Shephard. This is the year to do it because there is a few from WA that should be available at our pick.

The other option is to wait until next year and try to get Jack Martin or Mason Shaw, but the longer we leave it the less depth we are going to have.
 
Think we desperately need a small shutdown defender with pace to release the likes of Broughton and Ibbo to midfield roles

Take the time to watch this entire video of SA's Luke Brown, Anyone from Adelaide know if there is much hype on this kid ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N_rIHq5ass

Amazing pace, clean foot skills, im really amazed how well he reads the game.

Another couple of SA kids i spotted at Etihad this year are forward Sam Mayes - reminds me of a young Pav, kicked bags of goals in u/16s and u/18s so knows how to find them. We need to start looking at a replacement for the skipper someday, may as well start with this kid.

Then there's midfielder workhorse Mitchell Grigg, a lovely kick, built like nathan buckley, tough as they come. Watched him live and his work rate off the ball was second to none.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bi3uI4cXV0

Both of these kids were all australians this year, and both are ready to go round 1, Grigg is the in and under hard nut we need (selwood type) and Mayes looks a better prospect than chris mayne.

after looking into this popular phantom draft, BF heads think Grigg would slide to #28
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=843582

Id love to see what everyone else thinks , good to do your own research rather than predict the same names every other punter throws around, after all, our recruiters always tend to surprise us on draft day : )
 
What about Trey Hardee? 196cm 95kg Is really quick, can jump high and is just really versatile in everything he does?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Docker Dolph said:
Lloyd is on record a number of times (as is Bond) as saying they draft the best available with early picks, not for need. I think this is the best approach. Need should only really come in to it if it is a close run thing between 2 players of different types.

Obviously there is a point where you just don't need any more of a certain position, but I don't think we're there anywhere on the field just yet...maybe rucks.

Fortunately, it would seem that our perceived needs and the best available at our picks may well coincide this year, particularly with the tight grouping of our early picks.

I still remember Richmond saying they passed on Buddy Franklin because they already had Matthew Richardson and some other KPF I can't remember, even though they thought BF was the best kid available at that pick. People rightly hound them for it now but I also distinctly remember many of the "experts" at the time suggesting the reasoning was sound. Before we knew what Franklin was, the logic did make some sense. This is what drafting for need can lead too.

I really don't see any area on our list where we can pass on the best guy available because we already have a surplus in that position.
Click to expand...

Richmond have consistently said they erred in going best available in the Buddy Franklin draft. Similarly, Scott Clayton made his name as a canny drafter that got good picks later with 'best available' players, but left the Bulldogs with very few capable talls.

Best available is only so good to a point.
 
Best available is safest way to play it.
Sometimes though u just have to look at the bigger picture.
No point having a bunch of gun midielders.
If all we have left in defense and up forward in key positions is avg and about to retire players.

Very hard to get quality talls with late picks and they generally take alot of time an development.
Much easier to get quality with high picks.
Sometimes u have to give up a want for the overall benefit to the list.
Like the whole Mitch Clark saga he was a want not a need.
The want was asking to much an would of effected the rest of the team.
So it was best to let it slide.
Just like we will have to let one midfielder/flanker type slide with our 2 1st round picks so we can chase a KPP.
 
Docker Dolph said:
Lloyd is on record a number of times (as is Bond) as saying they draft the best available with early picks, not for need. I think this is the best approach. Need should only really come in to it if it is a close run thing between 2 players of different types.

Obviously there is a point where you just don't need any more of a certain position, but I don't think we're there anywhere on the field just yet...maybe rucks.

Fortunately, it would seem that our perceived needs and the best available at our picks may well coincide this year, particularly with the tight grouping of our early picks.

I still remember Richmond saying they passed on Buddy Franklin because they already had Matthew Richardson and some other KPF I can't remember, even though they thought BF was the best kid available at that pick. People rightly hound them for it now but I also distinctly remember many of the "experts" at the time suggesting the reasoning was sound. Before we knew what Franklin was, the logic did make some sense. This is what drafting for need can lead too.

I really don't see any area on our list where we can pass on the best guy available because we already have a surplus in that position.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with this blind adherence to the "best Available" principle.

It leaves too much to chance, in that over a number of drafts chance might throw up a string of outside flankers and before you know it you suddenly have a dearth of development in the other types of players.

IMO 2 of first three picks this draft have to be kpps, maybe even all three.

However I am not optomistic. I am expecting another clutch 187cm midfielders/forwards like last year.:(
 
Dudley Leopard said:
I do not agree with this blind adherence to the "best Available" principle.

It leaves too much to chance, in that over a number of drafts chance might throw up a string of outside flankers and before you know it you suddenly have a dearth of development in the other types of players.

IMO 2 of first three picks this draft have to be kpps, maybe even all three.

However I am not optomistic. I am expecting another clutch 187cm midfielders/forwards like last year.:(
Click to expand...

The 'best available' principle is a bit simplistic in reality. Only occasionally does a pick throw up a must-have player like Buddy or a Hodge and that's generally at the pointy end of the draft.

At any given pick there will be a 'best available tall' and a 'best available small' who are the best remaining player in their respective position/role (obviously there are more quality smalls than talls which is another reason to pick talls early). That is when you should make your choice based on needs to avoid drafting similar players who can't perform different roles (i.e. flankers who aren't lockdown defenders).

If we don't pick a KPP with one of our 3 inside-30 picks with the amount of talls on offer, our recruiters have gone mad. Our KPP stocks have reached a critical stage and we need to start developing a transition of talent in our spine. Likewise, it would be nice to draft a pure midfielder for once and back him in to do what he was recruited for.
 
Tayl0r said:
It's a real kick in the teeth that Barry Mitchell's son would be perfect.
Click to expand...

Yeah but his dad may of stayed if we had got him - so perhaps it was worth not getting him.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

M
    • Haha
    • Like
Drafting has to do a 180 degree turn
Replies
2
Views
663
mcnuggets rule
M
Bud
    • Like
    • Love
Sam Newman catching up with Nathan Fyfe in Lake Grace
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
anchor man
anchor man
dockerfemme
    • Like
Meet Up Is anyone going to our round 1 game in Geelong?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Nothing
Nothing

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom