Geelong's 2004 Draft Thread

[Tweak Talent]

What about andrew mcqualter?

 

[GeeCat]

Geecat , been down that track before , Best available is like pepetual motion , a term that is hypothetical. At P32 , the best available for us may not be the best available for another club, its more about best available, in ones estimate,within list balance requirements.Surley we now have enough young talls with the addition of Ottens (ruck/forward) NA, (tall).Yes take Loats off but but I think at last count our list had 13 or 14 defined as a tall , most of which are yet to prove themselves.
Moore may be more inside than Moloney but not a pure insider , more like a inside/outside guy who can kick goals out of the pack like GAJ.

Turbo I simply believe that come pick 32, we should not specifically go out to target 'the best' of a certain player type, something you seem to allude to with your belief that we need to cover Moloney. IMO, we should simply select the best available talent, be it small or tall.

Moloney does not strike me to be that big blow to warrant a 'target pick' and risk us potentially missing out on a better talent who may happen to be a tall.

 

[Turbocat]

GeeCat , I was not meaning to target anything other than keeping a balanced list. I understand that you wouldnt wish to miss the 6th best midfielder for the 12the best tall (In theory) but as ive said before

HOW DO WE DEFINE WHO IS THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE
( I posted this earlier this year)
The best player or the worst player or any players "rating" is different from club to club, recruiter to recruiter.Every year sombody that was touted as a high pick slips to be picked up by others with a late pick or in some case's dont get drafted.The experts that know all these kids,spend years of study on them,interviews,tests,comparisons weighing up their plus's, their minus's and they can mostly agree on the top ten but once we get past the TT its seems to be raffle.In the end its opinion.

What made us go for Andrew Mackie instead of Jason Laycock or Byron Schammer.Why did we draft Tom Lonergan before Jared Rivers.What made us go for James Bartel before Nick DelSanto.Why James Kelly before Matt Maguire?Was it that they were the the best available? Was it,in our judgement that they will end up being the best?How do you try to compare different types of attributes,body shapes, positions anyway?

What factors effect opinion. Ive heard it said that Mick Malthouse likes fat bums, strong bodys, other might like speed , others want athletism, others football nous. How does anybody put a value on anything.The draft is like an auction how much are you willing to pay,and that differs from bidder to bidder and their needs. Thousands of kids list, probably a 100 or so think they are real chances to get picked and all clubs get a chance to draft about 80% of that talent.Just like us last year, we wanted Thurley and paid probably a heavy price.Was he the best avlialble?
==
Since posting this of course , Ottens has come, Graham has gone, Moloney has gone, NA23 has signed on, and to be honest Im not sure how the staff would see our list and what type of player would be our preference if we still had P16.We now again have a senior defeciency in AFL reliable talls but we have heaps of young height and some have been here long enough to be ready to put their hand up.
If we get Egan with our last pick, NA with P48 to me it make sense to me that its on baller with 32, but who knows.By the time we get to 32, Id think if you asked all 16 clubs there would be at least 4-6 different choices as to who the best player available is.

 

[GeeCat]

HOW DO WE DEFINE WHO IS THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE
( I posted this earlier this year)
The best player or the worst player or any players "rating" is different from club to club, recruiter to recruiter.Every year sombody that was touted as a high pick slips to be picked up by others with a late pick or in some case's dont get drafted.The experts that know all these kids,spend years of study on them,interviews,tests,comparisons weighing up their plus's, their minus's and they can mostly agree on the top ten but once we get past the TT its seems to be raffle.In the end its opinion

Was it that they were the the best available? Was it,in our judgement that they will end up being the best?How do you try to compare different types of attributes,body shapes, positions anyway?

By the time we get to 32, Id think if you asked all 16 clubs there would be at least 4-6 different choices as to who the best player available is.

Some valid points here, many of which I tend to agree with as well.

When I say 'best available talent' I of course mean through the eyes of the recruiters. However my main point being that with our pick, it is of my belief that we should not specifically target a type of player with it.

Two examples:

In the 2002 draft, we set out to draft young key fowards. That year, we went home having drafted Mackie and Lonergan. Looking at many phantom drafts, Mackie and Lonergan appear to have not necessarilly been the best available talent at the pick, at that time. Many acknowledge there were other players available who had a better junior resumé etc. Yet our club knew that we didn't need another midfielder that year, nor another defender; rather, that year we set ourselves to draft young tall forwards. Another example is the 1999 draft. Acknowledging the fact that our midfield then was full of players nearing the end, we set out to draft midfielders. We came home with the likes of Corey, Spriggs, Bray, and Enright. These are examples of targeting specific players with picks, something I hope our club doesn't do this year.

Last years draft is a good example of picking the best player available. Mr.Wells and co identified several players (I believe we sounded out we were to pick one out of Bradley, Tenace, Dunn or Clarke) of which they believed to be the best available talent and would be of benefit to the team list. In the end, I'm sure you would have heard it was to be out of Bradley and Tenace.

IMO this year is similar to last season in that we have no clear deficiencies in the long run. We don't urgently require some young talent in the midfield, we don't urgently require young key forwards. It has been said we may lack some players down back but apart from Sanderson, with whom the likes of Callan should be well groomed to take over immediately from, there shouldn't be any worries within the immediate future (this is of course assuming we pick Egan up in the pre-season).

Moloney is, in my eyes, not that big a loss to warrant us targeting a midfielder to draft with pick 32. Rather, let Wells skim through the draft pool and pick a kid who, in their eyes, would best benefit the club in the long term. If that player is a midfielder so be it. If it's another ruckman, tall forward or what have you, then so be it.

 

[jim boy]

. If it's another ruckman......

That's the one type of player we wont be drafting. Considering how low our first draft pick will be, the best ruck around would be a speculative choice. However we have enough 'speculative' rucks around the place as it is.

 

[GeeCat]

That's the one type of player we wont be drafting. Considering how low our first draft pick will be, the best ruck around would be a speculative choice. However we have enough 'speculative' rucks around the place as it is.

I don't expect us to a pick a ruckman either, mainly due to your above points. But I'm sure you get the picture I'm trying to paint.

 

[jim boy]

I don't expect us to a pick a ruckman either, mainly due to your above points. But I'm sure you get the picture I'm trying to paint.

Oh yes, just nitpicking!

 

[Turbocat]

Moloney is, in my eyes, not that big a loss to warrant us targeting a midfielder to draft with pick 32. Rather, let Wells skim through the draft pool and pick a kid who, in their eyes, would best benefit the club in the long term. If that player is a midfielder so be it. If it's another ruckman, tall forward or what have you, then so be it.

In the GeeCat , its hard to disagree with this. My main thought is to draft our best available and Im sure that will be Wells's brief. Guys like Salde and Rooke might yet step and fill the Beemer spot.
As you say we have no real obvious defiencies in our youth bar a young, athletic tall who could go on to become a star, basically thats why we had to go after Ottens.Maybe we have that now with Nathan or who knows we might yet have Jumpin Jack Juniper at the club.

 

[Tweak Talent]

with keating wanting to come back to melbourne does anyone think he would be worth drafting?
With keating and king it would allow ottens to play as a permanent forward.
ALthough he has a obvious down side being injury prone and his wages would be on the higher side.
thoughts?

In the national draft i'd love to c thomas redden end up at the club with our pick 32.

 

[GeeCat]

with keating wanting to come back to melbourne does anyone think he would be worth drafting?
With keating and king it would allow ottens to play as a permanent forward.
ALthough he has a obvious down side being injury prone and his wages would be on the higher side.
thoughts?

In the national draft i'd love to c thomas redden end up at the club with our pick 32.

I think Keating has already stated he has no intentions of leaving Brisbane, and even if he did, I don't believe we'd be in a position to draft him.

We'll only use the minimum 3 picks required (32, 46, 58). I can gurantee you we won't use 32 on him, and 46 is obviously allocated for Nathan. The general consensus, and hopefully it is true, is that we'll use pick 58 on Matt Egan; someone I'd definitely take over Keating considering our weakest spot right now is our defensive stocks, and not our ruck.

Regarding Redden, the more I hear about the boy the more I hope he's that 'best player available'

Just some quickie thing the Wiz posted on young Redden:

Wiry 6'3", versatile Sacred Heart 17yo.
Exempted from draft age clause in '04.
Progressed through to Glenelg Reserves late '04.
Hard at man and ball, good skills, pace query

Cheers

 

[tragicforces]

I say now with the addition of two extra 'Talls" and maybe Egan late we go for a big bodied midfielder , the type that could replace Bemmer.

The irony... replacing our #32, who resembled our previous #32, with pick #32

 

[iameviljez]

Should make the draft pick take a permed mullet

 

[Werribee KingCat]

The irony... replacing our #32, who resembled our previous #32, with pick #32

Very good!

 

[Robin Hood]

At the moment Geelong will effectively have selections 32 and 58 to choose with at the 2004 National Draft. Nathan Ablett has already been selected with our third round selection under the father son rule so we cannot use that selection on draft day.

I hear a lot about taking the best available and targeting Matt Egan with selection 58, surely some posters on here are contradicting themselves. Quite frankly if another club wants Matt Egan they are going to take him before 58 because they know that it’s a strong possibility that Geelong snag him with 58. If another club wants him we won’t get him. There are only 9 selections after 58 and a lot of the later picks in most drafts are passes so there aren’t going to be many clubs that would snap Egan up after 58 in the National Draft. If Geelong didn’t select him, my tip would be that St Kilda takes him at 47 or he slips through to the Rookie Draft.

Lets face it what are we drafting Egan for? It’s as a back up. I disagree that our key defensive stocks lack depth. Lets face it if we lose Scarlett or Harley for a long-term injury we could promote a Rookie. If one of those players are injured in the short term we could quite easily chuck Mooney or Playfair down back despite their shortcomings. Playfair should improve and Mooney will learn more about defense in 2005. Milburn can play tall when required and other players such as Enright or Rahilly could play a similar role to that of Milburn. We have options. I think to draft Egan with 58 as purely as a back up that might play as many games as Foster did in his productive stay. Lets face it Foster would have had to be a very good player to play key defensive for us and I doubt that Egan is good enough to do it on a regular basis. Surely we don’t need Egan on the Senior list that desperately.

The Preseason Draft is starting to look a lot more packed than in normal years. Collingwood are going to pull a player, the Dogs will pass with selection 3. Trent Knobel and Jason Blake look like certainties for the Preseason Draft. In my opinion its doubtful Egan would find a home in Preseason Draft. I believe we should hope that Egan is available with our first Rookie selection. If he isn’t available then lets look at someone like Luke Molan. A key defender from the Rookie list we can promote if serious injury does occur to Scarlett or Harley.

My main concern with our list is our forward line. Graham was underrated by the Football public and will be a devastating loss. Ottens is effectively a replacement for him. That still leads us a key forward short. One position which there is a surplus of on the market this year in terms of recycled players are ruckmen. I would consider Cain Ackland, Ricky Mott, Mark Porter and James Meikeljohn as all players that would be worth considering with Selection 58. Why I say target a ruckmen with 48 is that Steven King could be a handy forward. I would like to see Brad Ottens and Steven King (both 202cms and 105kgs) play forward at the same time. I think a Ottens, King and Kingsley key forward set up would be a winner for Geelong. The problem is see there is who will play ruck? In most drafts there aren’t potentially 9 ruckmen on the market, six of whom would be available late in the National Draft (Mott, McKee, Porter, Ackland, Marsh and Meikeljohn), 3 would be preseason draft picks (Blake, Knobel and Keating).

Obviously we could chose from Ricky Mott, Steven McKee, Mark Porter, Cain Ackland, Ben Marsh and James Meikeljohn. I don’t think Playfair or Mooney can play in the Ruck full time. My preferences would be in order Ackland, Mott, Porter then Meikeljohn. McKee and Marsh don’t interest me. I would hope we could snare Ackland or Mott with 58. I think they can ruck reasonably well and would enable King to play forward.

A revised draft for me would be:

National Draft

32: Justin Sherman (Clarence TAS)
46: Nathan Ablett (F/S – Modewarre BFL)
58: Cain Ackland (Port Power AFL)

Rookie Draft

If Egan available at 12
12: Luke Egan (Geelong VFL)
28: Renwick Watts (Geelong Falcons TAC)
44: Benjamin Fraser (Gippsland Power TAC)

If Egan not available at 12
12: Seamus Young (Bendigo Pioneers TAC)
28: Renwick Watts (Geelong Falcons TAC)
44: Luke Molan (Melbourne AFL)

 

[jim boy]

I expect Egan to get a modicum of interest. A few on the North board are keen on him as a late pick/rookie pick. I don't think it boils down to us being his only possibility of playing. If we are serious about recruiting him imo we would take him (if still available) with our last pick in the ND. At that late stage in the draft there is still every possibility that the player we might have otherwise chosen with that pick will still be available in the rookie draft.

 

[Robin Hood]

I expect Egan to get a modicum of interest. A few on the North board are keen on him as a late pick/rookie pick. I don't think it boils down to us being his only possibility of playing. If we are serious about recruiting him imo we would take him (if still available) with our last pick in the ND. At that late stage in the draft there is still every possibility that the player we might have otherwise chosen with that pick will still be available in the rookie draft.

That my point - every possibility that he will be available in the Rookie Draft. If he is a back up and not going to be a regualr contributor why take him in the National? I'd rather get an Ackland that could ruck or play forward to help ease the loss of Ben Graham - someone that would play every week.

 

[jim boy]

That my point - every possibility that he will be available in the Rookie Draft. If he is a back up and not going to be a regualr contributor why take him in the National? I'd rather get an Ackland that could ruck or play forward to help ease the loss of Ben Graham - someone that would play every week.

I don't think he will be avilable in the rookie draft. A club like North are likely to pick him before we get the chance.

Anyway, what good is a backup in the rookie draft? If, for example, Harley was to be injured for a couple of weeks, Egan won't be able to replace him, so what would be the point of recruiting him at all?

 

[Robin Hood]

I don't think he will be avilable in the rookie draft. A club like North are likely to pick him before we get the chance.

Anyway, what good is a backup in the rookie draft? If, for example, Harley was to be injured for a couple of weeks, Egan won't be able to replace him, so what would be the point of recruiting him at all?

Because I think for a couple of weeks we can replace him with Mooney, Playfair, Milburn etc but over a long period of time I think we would need a specialist. I don't believe we need Key Defender. Its you guys saying that not me.

 

[jim boy]

Because I think for a couple of weeks we can replace him with Mooney, Playfair, Milburn etc but over a long period of time I think we would need a specialist. I don't believe we need Key Defender. Its you guys saying that not me.

If we can cope for a couple of weeks, we can cope for 10.

Drafting him as a backup in the rookie draft is just pointless and a waste of a rookie spot.

 

[Robin Hood]

If we can cope for a couple of weeks, we can cope for 10.

Drafting him as a backup in the rookie draft is just pointless and a waste of a rookie spot.

So is giving him a senior list is just as ridiculous, he will play as many games as Foster. Did we play another Key Defender when Harley was injured earlier in the seasomn? Why do we need him then?

 

[Turbocat]

RobinH , you almost had me with your points on Egan but then you bring up those ruck duds and you lost me.
You might argue that Egan will be playing backup in V's all year but how do we know that.I feel a player of his type is needed in our back six structure, who's to say he doesnt come in and play backpocket beside Scarlo and learn form the best.The advantage he has is we already know him, he knows us and our systems.
As far as your forwardline setup go's it would be a total departure from what got us to the PreliminaryFinal.Two bomb to guys is one too many.King is not a permanent forward option. I feel we must hope that one of Gardiner, Mackie or Playfair steps up to become 3T

 

[Robin Hood]

I agree that recruiting a ruck may sound stupid. But we just need some one to get a tap out not to win the game for us. I was refering to more King at Full Forward and Ottens at Centre Half Forward. It was just an idea that I would consider and I agree that it could sound stupid but hey if everyone agreed there would be no point posting!!

Egan does know our system but its my opinion he will slip through to the our 1st Rookie selection so thats what I think there. I'd use Playfair in defence if required. Gardiner is too small IMO and Mackie too light. I wouldnt mind McCarthy - maybe he just has to kick the ball all summer to well and truely improve his kicking. If McCarthy could play CHF and kick reasonably we would be a show.

 

[Turbocat]

Didnt say stupid.Its not drafting a ruck so much as drafting hack rucks.If we had shot Messen I'd love to pick him but more guys that ultimately wont get picked when it counts, just like the Chambers, we dont need.Quality not quanity
King is ideal as a switch FF , a last quarter guy but in todays footy the likes of the Lions love to run off the less agile talls.

 

[Unwritten_Law]

On Egan, I reckon he would be good value at FB against teams with mediocre forwards. That would free Scarlett up to play as the third tall and pick everything off, as well as creating carnage running out of the backline. Perhaps I'm just dreaming

 

[GeeCat]

I hear a lot about taking the best available and targeting Matt Egan with selection 58, surely some posters on here are contradicting themselves...There are only 9 selections after 58 and a lot of the later picks in most drafts are passes so there aren’t going to be many clubs that would snap Egan up after 58 in the National Draft. If Geelong didn’t select him, my tip would be that St Kilda takes him at 47 or he slips through to the Rookie Draft.

I fail to see how anything mentioned here is contradictory. In general most of the posts have been in reference to taking the best available with pick 32.

Quite frankly if another club wants Matt Egan they are going to take him before 58 because they know that it’s a strong possibility that Geelong snag him with 58. If another club wants him we won’t get him.

Of course if another club has interest in Egan they'll take him.

What your saying is basically if Player A is drafted before our pick we won't get him. I mean, c'mon, no sh it Sherlock...

Lets face it what are we drafting Egan for? It’s as a back up. I disagree that our key defensive stocks lack depth. Lets face it if we lose Scarlett or Harley for a long-term injury we could promote a Rookie.

Err...what rookie do you plan to promote? I assume you mean we draft a young tall with one of our rookie picks; but how in God's good grace he is any better than Egan is beyond me.

1) Chances are that kid is raw. Egan is much more ready for senior action then any of them will be. He's played VFL footy, and he's physically capable of holding down a key post, something I'm not so sure any rookie is.

2) What you appear to be suggesting here is that we use this rookie for the same reasons as Egan, as back-up if one of Scarlett or Harley go down. Fairly contradictory if you ask me.

If one of those players are injured in the short term we could quite easily chuck Mooney or Playfair down back despite their shortcomings. Playfair should improve and Mooney will learn more about defense in 2005. Milburn can play tall when required and other players such as Enright or Rahilly could play a similar role to that of Milburn. We have options. I think to draft Egan with 58 as purely as a back up that might play as many games as Foster did in his productive stay. Lets face it Foster would have had to be a very good player to play key defensive for us and I doubt that Egan is good enough to do it on a regular basis. Surely we don’t need Egan on the Senior list that desperately.

Egan is a far superior defensive player to H or Moons. Watch any of last seasons VFL matches and you'll see for yourself. H struggled against bigger opponents in defence last season, most of which were only third talls resting in the forward half. If Scarlett or Harley do go down, and your solution of throwing him back takes place, you can bet his opponents will be bigger and more capable of handing young Henry a hiding.

I would consider Cain Ackland, Ricky Mott, Mark Porter and James Meikeljohn as all players that would be worth considering with Selection 58.

Spare me...