Geelong's 2004 Draft Thread

[GeeCat]

I agree that recruiting a ruck may sound stupid.

Nice U-Turn.

First you say those dud rucks are, in your opinion, worth pick 58. Now you say drafting a ruckman with that pick sounds stupid.

 

[Robin Hood]

Nice U-Turn.

First you say those dud rucks are, in your opinion, worth pick 58. Now you say drafting a ruckman with that pick sounds stupid.

I didnt say it was stupid, i said it may sound stupid. May existing in the sentence.

No U-turn existed.

 

[Robin Hood]

I fail to see how anything mentioned here is contradictory.

Constant babling about taking the best available player yet having to take Egan with 58.

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...

No Im saying because we dont have a pick between 32 and 58 if another club does want him even if he is worth less than 58 they will take him before 58. Simple draft logic. Just because they know we would be interested.

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.

I was refering to if another club doesn't select him before 58 and we passed on him with 58, I believe IMO that he would slip throught to the Rookie Draft were we could have a crack. He is going to be looked at by established teams rather than up and coming teams simply because he is more of a fill the gap player in the short term than a long term superstar.

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.

Agreed. Thats why if you read I said take Egan in the Rookie Draft. I am confident he would be around then. If not take someone like Luke Molan as a back up.

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.

How is what I said contradictory? I believe a National Draft spot should be used on someone if its a recycled player that would fit in our structure and play more senior games than a pure back up. I believe that drafting a ruckman would free up King to go forward. This ruckman would be in my starting 22 in the Ruck.

Egan would not. Egan would be a back up if one of Harley/Scarlett got injured long term. Egan would have about as much chance of playing a lot of senior football as Foster did. Sure Egan may be better but I wouldnt imagine he will not play alot of football. Hence we can promote him from the Rookie list when required.

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.



Spare me...

Mooney also played Key Defensive for us at time this year. I think in the short term he could handle playing key defence I just dont think he should play there week in week out. Thats what I said they can cover it in the short term but not the long term. In the long term we can promote someone aka Egan from the Rookie list. I said H could for a short term but lets face it he should mature his body and improve as a player this season. I think you under estimate H. I also mentioned Milburn who can capably play tall. Milburn could play tall and another player take over Milburn's role in defence.

Spare me...

 

[Robin Hood]

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.

I meant a ruck hack to play in 2005, just to ruck and not much else, just to feed the ball to our players. I don't think that a young ruck would be what we need. I think we need some one who can ruck to free up King.

Yeh why I liked the idea of King and Ottens in the forward line was that they are both 202cm and 105kgs they would strech every side in the AFL. We have a reasonable defensive intensity within our forward line so the run from opposition defenders may not be as prevelent. However, yes I agree that the run may be a problem. But under my idea if it fails what have we lost, the Ruckman idea may be successful. Perhaps Ackland could even be our priority seeing he played a fair bit up forward in SA. Not sure, Im just trying to throw up ideas.

 

[GeeCat]

I didnt say it was stupid, i said it may sound stupid. May existing in the sentence.

No U-turn existed.

Why post stupid things?

 

[GeeCat]

Constant babling about taking the best available player yet having to take Egan with 58.

Not 'babbling' at all, just simple discussions regarding who we each think should be pick 32. Even you yourself shared your views.

And no one is 'having' to take Egan. Once again just each one's opinion on who we think should be picked.

No Im saying because we dont have a pick between 32 and 58 if another club does want him even if he is worth less than 58 they will take him before 58. Simple draft logic. Just because they know we would be interested.

I still don't understand where your trying to head with this. Quite obviously if a club wants Egan they'll take him before they think other clubs will. Apparently the same way we were pressured into taking Thurley so early last year (Whether this is infact true remains to be seen I believe).

It appears to me your just pointing out the blatant, obvious things.

I was refering to if another club doesn't select him before 58 and we passed on him with 58, I believe IMO that he would slip throught to the Rookie Draft were we could have a crack. He is going to be looked at by established teams rather than up and coming teams simply because he is more of a fill the gap player in the short term than a long term superstar.

Firstly, I'm uncertain as to whether or not he's even eligible to be rookie listed. He either just fits the cut off age, or just misses it.

Secondly, I'd be feeling even less confident of being able to draft him as a rookie if he indeed were eligible. Either you do or you don't rate him above youngsters who are on the bubble to be drafted Robin.

The fact remains that we need another capable key defender who knows how to hold down fullback or centre half back. A quickie fix up guy like Playfair cannot do it. Neither can a guy like Mooney, who is more a running third back if anything. What we need is a true key defender; Matt Egan can be that.

How is what I said contradictory? I believe a National Draft spot should be used on someone if its a recycled player that would fit in our structure and play more senior games than a pure back up. I believe that drafting a ruckman would free up King to go forward. This ruckman would be in my starting 22 in the Ruck.

I apparently misunderstood your earlier post were you stated "Lets face it if we lose Scarlett or Harley for a long-term injury we could promote a Rookie". Would have been easier to understand if you had said something more along the lines of "Lets face it if we lose Scarlett or Harley for a long-term injury we could promote Egan off as a rookie".

If you would have someone like Cain Ackland or Steve McKee or any other of those duds in your starting 22 then heaven help you.

 

[Robin Hood]

Why post stupid things?

Cos u didnt read and i was correcting you.

 

[Robin Hood]

If you would have someone like Cain Ackland or Steve McKee or any other of those duds in your starting 22 then heaven help you.

How do u better propose solving the lose of Ben Graham? Your ideas Gee Cat?The club cant stand still. It must think of some solution.

 

[Robin Hood]

Not 'babbling' at all, just simple discussions regarding who we each think should be pick 32. Even you yourself shared your views.

And no one is 'having' to take Egan. Once again just each one's opinion on who we think should be picked.

Read the posts.

I still don't understand where your trying to head with this. Quite obviously if a club wants Egan they'll take him before they think other clubs will. Apparently the same way we were pressured into taking Thurley so early last year (Whether this is infact true remains to be seen I believe).

Im saying if another club is after him because of our draft position we won't get him. Simple.

It appears to me your just pointing out the blatant, obvious things.

Yes the things that you ignore.

Firstly, I'm uncertain as to whether or not he's even eligible to be rookie listed. He either just fits the cut off age, or just misses it.

My belief is that he is eligible for Rookie Selection.

Secondly, I'd be feeling even less confident of being able to draft him as a rookie if he indeed were eligible. Either you do or you don't rate him above youngsters who are on the bubble to be drafted Robin.

Im saying he isnt going to be a permenant member of our team like a recycled ruckman could be hence the Rookie listing. This has nothing to do with youngsters. My thoughts on 58 and our first Rookie selection and this arguement we are having have nothing to do with youngsters. Its about Egan vs Recycled Ruckman that could play next year.

The fact remains that we need another capable key defender who knows how to hold down fullback or centre half back. A quickie fix up guy like Playfair cannot do it. Neither can a guy like Mooney, who is more a running third back if anything. What we need is a true key defender; Matt Egan can be that.

A true defender who won't get a regular game. Whats the point of having a back up on the Senior list why not have him on the Rookie list if he isnt going to get a regular senior game.

I apparently misunderstood your earlier post were you stated "Lets face it if we lose Scarlett or Harley for a long-term injury we could promote a Rookie". Would have been easier to understand if you had said something more along the lines of "Lets face it if we lose Scarlett or Harley for a long-term injury we could promote Egan off as a rookie".

My language was correct Gee Cat because I intended to say Rookie because I said Egan would be my first preference and if not give Luke Molan a crack.

If you would have someone like Cain Ackland or Steve McKee or any other of those duds in your starting 22 then heaven help you.

I said I wouldnt be interested in McKee and Marsh. I said I would consider Ackland, Mott, Porter and Meikeljohn.

 

[GeeCat]

Read the posts.

Done and done. Drafting Matt Egan with pick 58 appears to be the majority of people's views.

Im saying if another club is after him because of our draft position we won't get him. Simple.

Precisely. Stating the blatantly obvious things.

Yes the things that you ignore.

How so?

Im saying he isnt going to be a permenant member of our team like a recycled ruckman could be hence the Rookie listing. This has nothing to do with youngsters. My thoughts on 58 and our first Rookie selection and this arguement we are having have nothing to do with youngsters. Its about Egan vs Recycled Ruckman that could play next year.

Yes I made it quite clear I understood your post having read through it a second time. I've already stated I misunderstood what you were trying to say about rookies.

And what makes you so certain Egan cannot become a regular player and that a recycled ruckman can? In fact, what makes you so certain anyone of those ruckman are capable? We struggled without King earlier in the season, and our midfield had to do things the hard way trying to feed off opposition ruckman because our second stringers in Chambers and Mooney couldn't cut it in ruck contests. Now what makes you so certian the likes of Ackland, Mott etc can cut it against the better ruckman of the comp. No point in sitting King down in the forward as a target when our midfield struggles to consistently get first use of the ball and send it down to the forward line in the first place.

And for all we know Egan could turn out to be our third tall, with Mooney shifting between forward, back, and a ruck-rover. So why rule him out as a guy who will only get games as a back-up?

I said I wouldnt be interested in McKee and Marsh. I said I would consider Ackland, Mott, Porter and Meikeljohn.

What exactly is the difference? Are they above average duds?

 

[Robin Hood]

And what makes you so certain Egan cannot become a regular player and that a recycled ruckman can? In fact, what makes you so certain anyone of those ruckman are capable? We struggled without King earlier in the season, and our midfield had to do things the hard way trying to feed off opposition ruckman because our second stringers in Chambers and Mooney couldn't cut it in ruck contests.

In terms of Ruck work Mooney has to be the worst ruckman in the league. He is just good because he plays like a ruck rover. You just contradicted yourself big time by saying we struggled without King (note: when Moons was rucking) yet you say why couldn't Mooney cut it in ruck contests. My opinion is a part time ruckman just because the amount of ball he gets and we need someone else to ruck alot more. Chambers has heart but you need more than heart to be an AFL Footballer. Personally I think we struggled because of leadership early on not because of actual players.

Now what makes you so certian the likes of Ackland, Mott etc can cut it against the better ruckman of the comp. No point in sitting King down in the forward as a target when our midfield struggles to consistently get first use of the ball and send it down to the forward line in the first place.

I was impressed with Mott when he was at Sydney he won alot of tap outs - what we need from a ruckman. Ackland seems to have ability just needs to knuckle down and I think him getting delisted will do him the world of good - a big kick up the ass.

And for all we know Egan could turn out to be our third tall, with Mooney shifting between forward, back, and a ruck-rover. So why rule him out as a guy who will only get games as a back-up?

We dont need a third tall every week. Our structure at the moment is fine and is very very capable. You have to rememeber Egan is built about as much as he ever will - he wont get much bigger. He has developed, he isnt going to develop much more. He is a back up not a star. Quite simply we already have better players in defence.

 

[GeeCat]

In terms of Ruck work Mooney has to be the worst ruckman in the league. He is just good because he plays like a ruck rover. You just contradicted yourself big time by saying we struggled without King (note: when Moons was rucking) yet you say why couldn't Mooney cut it in ruck contests. My opinion is a part time ruckman just because the amount of ball he gets and we need someone else to ruck alot more. Chambers has heart but you need more than heart to be an AFL Footballer. Personally I think we struggled because of leadership early on not because of actual players.

What the hell are you on?

I said we struggled without King because our second stringers in Mooney and Chambers couldn't cut it against the opposition ruckman. Where's the contradictory in that?

We dont need a third tall every week. Our structure at the moment is fine and is very very capable. You have to rememeber Egan is built about as much as he ever will - he wont get much bigger. He has developed, he isnt going to develop much more. He is a back up not a star. Quite simply we already have better players in defence.

No we may not need a third tall everyweek, but that's not my point. My point being you assume Egan will only ever be good for back-up and that he can't crack it into the 22.

He is developed enough as it is, and that's the good thing about him. With Egan we don't need to depend on a raw youngster if we need a back-up.

And who gives a damn if he's not a star; you don't need to be a star player to be in the team. Stupidest argument I've heard in a long time.

That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

You ought to read some of your own posts then.

 

[Robin Hood]

What the hell are you on?

I said we struggled without King because our second stringers in Mooney and Chambers couldn't cut it against the opposition ruckman. Where's the contradictory in that?




No we may not need a third tall everyweek, but that's not my point. My point being you assume Egan will only ever be good for back-up and that he can't crack it into the 22.

He is developed enough as it is, and that's the good thing about him. With Egan we don't need to depend on a raw youngster if we need a back-up.

And who gives a damn if he's not a star; you don't need to be a star player to be in the team. Stupidest argument I've heard in a long time.



You ought to read some of your own posts then.

Im not even going to argue back anymore. Your never going to agree because of who I am and Im never going to agree with you in it. So end of arguement.

 

[GeeCat]

Im not even going to argue back anymore.

Thank God for that

 

[Robin Hood]

Thank God for that

No I believe he is the new Nick Reiwoldt.

 

[Turbocat]

I meant a ruck hack to play in 2005, just to ruck and not much else, just to feed the ball to our players. I don't think that a young ruck would be what we need. I think we need some one who can ruck to free up King.

Yeh why I liked the idea of King and Ottens in the forward line was that they are both 202cm and 105kgs they would strech every side in the AFL. We have a reasonable defensive intensity within our forward line so the run from opposition defenders may not be as prevelent. However, yes I agree that the run may be a problem. But under my idea if it fails what have we lost, the Ruckman idea may be successful. Perhaps Ackland could even be our priority seeing he played a fair bit up forward in SA. Not sure, Im just trying to throw up ideas.

Sherwood man, Just to clarify my thinking.I think a side is in a continual state of evolutuion.We basically have a young side but without the right mix we had to go and get Ottens.Messen to me would have been a quality addition to our list that would allow us to pair him for a longterm teaming with Blake thus preventing another restructure in time when we are yet again are a 1 ruckman club.Not urgent but rucks generally take years to mature, we have a window now of 5 years to develop another 2.

Now I know your think NOW not long term but I think if we wanted to stretch a defence, as you have propossed, Id think we could use "Johnny" Plairfair or HairyCat maybe in the last quarter when the other side was tired when the loss of ruck taps would be less a problem.King and Ottens would not both play forward for 4 quarters, we would lose too much in the middle.Now I know your thinking was to have basically 3 rucks in the same side, thus no loss but who are we going to pick up that would match King or Ottens in the middle.

Ottens in Graham out already changes things.Ottens is at min forward/ruck but more likely ruck/forward. He will change our mix next year as he is not a straight swap for BenG.He was a Key position player, probably FB or CHB who was playing forward because he was our best option and he evolvolved as a player.So one might argue we dont need another ruck option as we will now have 2 serious ruck options , we need another key tall.

As Graham evolved as it can be with others.I can see a similar evolution is possible in Scarlett. He handles FB well but probably will as time gets on he will need to move from there, in fact with his run he is probably more a traditional HB. Imagine the rebound of Scarlett and Harley of HB if Egan held FB. Egan hasn't played that much football, he has still much upside.He has the tools, he just needs guidance and experience in their use. The other thing is we are super reliant on Scarlet performing to All Australian level and if he losses form we dont have a real option in the side, re his last game aginst the Lions

 

[Tweak Talent]

Maybe with our pick 32 we should recruit another tall to sure up our stocks. someone in the mould of a jack juniper, micheal newton or adam pattison.

Also i saw somewhere can't remember the thread that we were very interested in nick becker.
here's his bio.

Nick Becker
Details:
Club: Strathmore/Calder
DOB: 7 July 1986 Hgt: 186cm Wgt: 78kg
Position: Wing
Natural Foot: Left

Honours:
Victoria Metro 2004 (Emergency)
National Draft Camp 2004

TAC Stats:
2003: 10 games, 11 goals, 12.3 PPG
2004: 19 games, 16 goals, 20.8 PPG

Strengths: Becker is a wingman with a raking left foot and reasonable pace. He has a laconic kicking style that looks awkward but is usually very effective. He is adept at finding the ball in space, running a few yards then nailing a target.

He is also a good tackler, good overhead for his size and agile. Had a tremendous season in the TAC Cup, capped with 26 possessions in the Grand Final.

Weaknesses: Can take a bit too long to dispose of the footy at times, and can be a bit too cute by going inboard rather than kicking long. Can be unaccountable on direct opponent.

Footydraft.com comment: I'm quite a fan of this guy. Gets a lot of possessions and could develop into an AFL outside midfielder in time. Definite value later in the draft.

 

[Turbocat]

Reads like a Rookie to me, too cute , not accountable, awkward kicking style .. doesnt really get my blood pumping.

 

[GeeCat]

I watched Becker play in the TAC Grand Final, and needless to say came away impressed with his game. However I wouldn't be using pick 32 on him. He's either good value late in the draft or deserves a spot as a rookie.

 

[Turbocat]

I watched Becker play in the TAC Grand Final, and needless to say came away impressed with his game. However I wouldn't be using pick 32 on him. He's either good value late in the draft or deserves a spot as a rookie.

Watched the game G , cant remember him. To me the stand out was bate

 

[WestCat]

It was posted on here earlier, that if Egan was drafted, then he could play FB (against weaker teams) and Scarlett could be used as a third tall. This got me thinking, and it may not be such a bad idea, if Egan can become a successful FB, then Scarlett, with his excellent reading of the play, could just float across in front of everyone and rebound the ball up to the forward line. Admittedly this would mean taking probably the best player at his position in the league away from that position, but it may work. His pace would be great through the middle, adn it could further improve our already sensational defence.

 

[GeeCat]

Brent Prismall heads down the highway...perhaps abit too early?

 

[GeeCat]

Brent Prismall

Details:

Club: Werribee/Western
DOB: 14 July 1986 Hgt: 184cm Wgt: 82kg
Position: Onballer
Natural Foot: Right

Honours:

Victoria Metro 2004
Half Forward Flank in TAC Cup Team of the Year 2004
National Draft Camp 2004

TAC Stats:

2003: 19 games, 23 goals, 12.6 PPG
2004: 17 games, 14 goals, 23.3 PPG

Strengths: After a good season as a half-forward flank in 2003, Prismall moved into the centre for the Jets this year, and had an excellent season. He is good at the stoppages and his main asset is his kicking, usually pinpoint with his disposal by foot.

Brent is a good leader (captain of the Jets), very efficient in his use of the footy and likes to kick a goal. He is already a very good size to play AFL footy and reads the play well.

Weaknesses: Have been queries over his work ethic and pace. Tends to be efficient rather than outstanding during a game.

Footydraft.com comment: Would be pretty unlucky not to get selected, I'm sure a lot of clubs are looking at him for a later pick. If he isn't drafted definitely should be rookie listed.

 

[GeeCat]

Matt Egan officially joins the senior list

 

[catempire]

Can't believe we didn't use either 32 or 62 for a tall forward

Hope this doesn't come back to haunt us.