Rumour GFC 2021 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists... Part II

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
He's one I could definitely see sliding into the 30's, but his is a case that is very polarizing IMO. You either think he's a first rounder or he's a pick in the 30's, - there's no in-between, haha

Outside of St Kilda who probably won't take him that high I think he almost certainly slips past clubs in the first round. His post injury form was very worrying. You need big balls to stick to your guns and remember what he had done for the previous 18 months. Especially because what looked so poor post injury was the very thing that was the main question mark. He is athletic enough for sure. I have watched him week in week out but clubs seem to be highly suspicious of him being a mid at the next level and if he isn't that then he might even be 40 plus.
 
I'm over it tbh. Be happy if we get him, but I'm actually leaning more towards someone who's got pace and an elite kick - like Tom Brown, Zac Taylor or Sam Butler - instead of a big Cripps like inside mid who can drift forward.

Probably better if he does go early IMO, as it means that someone else will drop to us.

100 percent this. Spare me the super athletic kicking is a work in progress guy every time. There are players who are also very good athletes (maybe not quite as elite) who just happen to kick it well. Them please!!
 
Not sure what he ran for the 2k at the combine but I reckon it was around 6:30 and thats below what he could run fully fit. I reckon he would be sub 6:20 if fit and that's in the good bracket for AFL mids so it's not like he is constable or anything. If he get's to 22 and we don't take him I will be very frustrated!

Agree.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Outside of St Kilda who probably won't take him that high I think he almost certainly slips past clubs in the first round. His post injury form was very worrying. You need big balls to stick to your guns and remember what he had done for the previous 18 months. Especially because what looked so poor post injury was the very thing that was the main question mark. He is athletic enough for sure. I have watched him week in week out but clubs seem to be highly suspicious of him being a mid at the next level and if he isn't that then he might even be 40 plus.

In my mock draft, I had him coming to us at Pick 34, which is where I see him. I think if all other clubs ignored him, Adelaide would just take him at 35, so I don't think he gets any further than that. Could also be a late teens/early 20's pick to a club like the Swans, North or Hawks - but seriously hard to judge where he's gonna go.

What you've said re: clubs and their thoughts around his ability as a full time mid, muddies the waters even more, haha
 
I'm over it tbh. Be happy if we get him, but I'm actually now leaning more towards someone who's got pace and an elite kick - like Tom Brown, Zac Taylor or Sam Butler - instead of a big Cripps like inside mid who can drift forward.

Probably better if he does go early IMO, as it means that someone else will drop to us.

it is funny how we all become draft experts by looking at small highlight clips and then you see a barrage of comments on here after the draft how wells mackie dont know what they are doing and fked everything up...

at the end of it all, we (big footy posters) know absolutely nothing beyond a 2 minute video clips highlight, and whoever we take, we just have to accept we are not in some position to be judgemental on here and claim it wrong.

edit* that is unless your the 1/1000 on here who is actually a fanatical draft watcher and game attender.
 
Of course not...but you can only comment on what's presented...and I was underwhelmed......shoot me...

was interesting to hear just how little coaches have a say on drafted players... and they just leave it up to the recruitment.

wonder if they even get presented a snipett clip or they just leave it all to recruitment?
 
was interesting to hear just how little coaches have a say on drafted players... and they just leave it up to the recruitment.

wonder if they even get presented a snipett clip or they just leave it all to recruitment?
I suspect Wells and Co sit with Chris Scott who identifies needs and gaps in the playing group, but when it comes to the individuals to meet those needs, Wells and Co make those decisions.

I recall a couple of years back when a Geelong pick was due, there was lots of discussion amongst the recruiting staff, but it appeared Scott had little or no input in those discussions....

....which makes sense really as they have researched and in some cases interviewed individuals throughout the year, while Scott was coaching and probably has little or no idea about kids coming through....
 
I suspect Wells and Co sit with Chris Scott who identifies needs and gaps in the playing group, but when it comes to the individuals to meet those needs, Wells and Co make those decisions.

I recall a couple of years back when a Geelong pick was due, there was lots of discussion amongst the recruiting staff, but it appeared Scott had little or no input in those discussions....

....which makes sense really as they have researched and in some cases interviewed individuals throughout the year, while Scott was coaching and probably has little or no idea about kids coming through....

There was footage on the club website of Wells calling Scott after we drafted Brad Close. It was clear Scott had absolutely no input on the decision, Wells said something along the lines of "There were a few 190cm type midfielders, but we felt this guy will have a bigger impact" and Scott just responded "Great, sounds good".
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Don't get immediately combative just because you disagree, it derails any meaningful convo.

Stephens broke his leg in his senior draft year too...prior to that he was touted as a possible Top 10 pick.

On his ankle, he actually re-injured it more than once...and hasn't got on the park more than a handful of times in the last 3 years (his senior year and two years in our system). We could have taken Dev Robertson instead, who was a far safer bet and had no injury history, yet we again took the guy we perceived as being better due to his prior ranking - similar to Murley.

My point on Thurlow, Lang and Smedts, is that internally we rated them differently based on projection - the same rings true for sliders or bolters...because we're the ones who ultimately ended up making them become either of those things when we draft them and rate them above others.

Also one last point, I stated 'I like him' (referring to Murley) and just said that we've been burnt too many times by using picks on projected talent from underage level, that's curtailed due to injury. Given his range is around the 25-40 mark on most phantoms, it wasn't clear which pick you meant for us to take him with.

Regardless, I'd still rather take a player who actually has more than just his underage year to go on, and is physically sound. Given how many times we've been burnt by going against this philosophy, I don't think that's such an outlandish point of view.
Sorry on second read my post did come across as a bit combative. That certainly wasn't my intention.

I definitely don't think your point of view is outlandish, in fact my philosophy on the draft is probably the more unique one.

I have just always believed that in the first round of the draft you try to pick players who have both a high ceiling and high floor.

But After that you just start focusing on the ceiling as much as possible. You will get a lot more duds. But how you make up for that is after there first 2 year contract you be really harsh if they aren't at where you expected them to be after 2 years when you first drafted them. This way you are getting more quantity through the door.

This is because I believe the point of the draft is to get your A and B+ Grade talent. Any other list holes you have in the future can be solved through free agency, delisted free agency, the trade period and drafting mature age talent.

For example a guy like Angus Sheldrick in this draft, he has had an awesome year. However, personally I don't see a huge amount of upside. His body has already filled out. He isn't overly athletic. Like I would be surprised if he was ever better than a 4th or 5th best mid. Drafting him is a waste because if you ever need a player like that you can just get one for peanuts in the ways I stated above.

I hope this explains why I believe drafting Murley is a smart decision due to his upside but that doesn't mean that my opinion is right. Both philosophies have there pros and cons and won't always work.

Lastly, again appologies for how poorly worded my last post was. That's my bad.
 
Its very hard to do that when you consistently make top 8 and you dont have players with the trade currency to get you into the top 10.

Just about every other club finds a way to do it. Rich coming off 3 flags has a bad year and gets a single figure pick. Yes its hard but how hard have we tried, we have been very focus, are still focused, still in the believe that ,"according to Joel" , we dong believe in that you have to go down etc..

When did future picks come in ..I think it was the year after NC.. the Danger year.... but when we had 10 ... did how hard did we try to get earlier?
 
Hocking said the club would still contend in 2022, but he felt there had perhaps been too much emphasis on the now rather than the having one foot planted in the current season and another foot looking towards the future.

He said Wells had responsibility for getting their picks 22, 30, 32, 34 and 50 right to ensure the Cats laid a foundation for the future with a beefed-up emphasis on development an indication of where they were heading under Scott.
 
Just about every other club finds a way to do it. Rich coming off 3 flags has a bad year and gets a single figure pick. Yes its hard but how hard have we tried, we have been very focus, are still focused, still in the believe that ,"according to Joel" , we dong believe in that you have to go down etc..

When did future picks come in ..I think it was the year after NC.. the Danger year.... but when we had 10 ... did how hard did we try to get earlier?

Richmond got a single figure pick because they finished 12th. I’d rather make a prelim than have pick 7.
 
Richmond got a single figure pick because they finished 12th. I’d rather make a prelim than have pick 7.

As I said one bad year ..and then make the most of it... WC used to be excellent at that and after the most recent results ... Im not convinced continually making a PF is a great outcome ..especially when we are not competitive.
 
Last edited:
For those that followed this years talent closely, which players have elite speed and are damaging by foot? With a bit of class.

Explosive speed, rebounding defender
Sinn is super quick and my dream selection if somehow he managed to slide. Also the only player I could sort of be OK with us trading into the first round to get (that's assuming we'd need fr1).
Tom brown also tested really well, good ball user off half back and pacy.

Run & Carry... Outside, ball use, smooth mover type
Sonsie looks to have good speed and good foot skills. Saw him play in the VFL and he looked really assured.
Wanganeen is in the smooth mover speed category but is the best kick in the draft by all reports. Has a lovely technique and looks poised. Plays wing mostly.
Chesser similar, wing/hb/hf type. Very classy but been a little inconsitent

Quick & Composed:
Butler is good inside but also super quick and i like butler lots. tested well in all facets, rated for his pressure game too!
Zac Taylor, maybe not as quick as some of the options but pacey, agile with good endurance - very effective and penetrating quick for a smaller type.

x-factor, speed, agility, vision
Ronnie fejo jnr has quite the highlight reel.
Motlop played some wafl this year and held his own. tested #1 for agility

taller but still quick
goater, callaghan and knevitt are all taller mids but all tested well and are rated for having good speed. goater more physical and explosive, callaghan gets talk up for being a smart mover (bont-like), and knevitt tested really well in the 2km and 20m sprint - apparently a very good athlete but a neat kick, rather than an elite kick.

two late options:
woewodin's kid and corey warner (brother of chad) both tested extremely well. Warner in particular can jump, run, stay and sway

I will have missed plenty and haven't seen as much lower level stuff this year as i usually try to
hope this helps.

for our picks:
sinn/sonsie/wanganeen/goater won't slide far enough.
taylor, knevitt, chesser & butler all chances to be there at 22 and i'd be ok with any. butler my preference
brown, knevitt would be huge if they got to 30 but more likely they are gone too.
so for us to bring in real speed we could take stabs at ronnie/motlop later, alleer quick too for an intercepting defender and would be real nice if there at 30
 
Sorry on second read my post did come across as a bit combative. That certainly wasn't my intention.

I definitely don't think your point of view is outlandish, in fact my philosophy on the draft is probably the more unique one.

I have just always believed that in the first round of the draft you try to pick players who have both a high ceiling and high floor.

But After that you just start focusing on the ceiling as much as possible. You will get a lot more duds. But how you make up for that is after there first 2 year contract you be really harsh if they aren't at where you expected them to be after 2 years when you first drafted them. This way you are getting more quantity through the door.

This is because I believe the point of the draft is to get your A and B+ Grade talent. Any other list holes you have in the future can be solved through free agency, delisted free agency, the trade period and drafting mature age talent.

For example a guy like Angus Sheldrick in this draft, he has had an awesome year. However, personally I don't see a huge amount of upside. His body has already filled out. He isn't overly athletic. Like I would be surprised if he was ever better than a 4th or 5th best mid. Drafting him is a waste because if you ever need a player like that you can just get one for peanuts in the ways I stated above.

I hope this explains why I believe drafting Murley is a smart decision due to his upside but that doesn't mean that my opinion is right. Both philosophies have there pros and cons and won't always work.

Lastly, again appologies for how poorly worded my last post was. That's my bad.

No worries at all mate, appreciate the apology. Completely reasonable point of view on your own part btw, and some interesting points you make too :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top