I get this sinking feeling...

[CaptainDangerfield]

This is my biggest concern - the risk that Wood won't even make it. Young talls are a HUGE risk. Even Josh Fraser was considered the absolute standout of his draft, and yet hasn't become a star. I know he is young but I strongly doubt he will ever be able to put on enough bulk to be a gun ruckman.

Monfries is a quality player - Wood is a tall kid.

For me, the bottom line is that you don't need a gun ruckman/men to win a flag, but you sure as hell need a gun midfield unit.

There are other options aside from Wood, DeLuca, Meesen and Maric, some of whom have been mentioned and some who haven't. I would hazard a guess that many of the quality ruckmen in the competition weren't taken in the first round.

Vote #8, Angus Monfries.

You've got my vote

 

[Mad Dog]

I go to the clubs that have won the premiership in recent years and they all had few things in common and thats a good ruckman. We won our flags with Pittman and Rehn and *sigh* Marsh

you left out Aaron Keating there Stiff !

 

[RooDog]

This is where I STRONGLY disagree. Look at say last 5 years and see the ruckman in winning sides. They might not be guns but they have to be good and offer something in field play

2000 - Barnes / Alessio
2001 - Keating / McDonald
2002 - Keating / McDonald / Charman
2003 - Keating / McDonald / Charman
2004 - Brogan / Lade.

Those look like pretty good combos to me. Even if you go back to 96 you had McKernan, 97 and 98 we had Pittman and Rehn.

Bottom line ruckman are very important in a good side. Many people would argue that Collingwood lost in 2002 GF because there was no one that could go with Keating. To win GF you need quality ruckman and a very good spine.

give the man a prize!

this is exactly what you and i have been saying now for a while stiffy and this is just more evidence to support it! If Wood is there at 8 and we dont take him i will personally throttle someone down there at the AFC! the kid is going to good, he will be very good! Midfielders are a dime a dozen, ruckmen are not, especially not quality ones like Wood. He is tall, he isnt exactly slow, has wicked skills and isnt scared to put his body on the line. Played 2 league games as a 17yr old, for a big fella thats a good effort, anyone else remember the last big fella we overlooked in the draft who had played a couple of SANFL games?? one and only Matthew Pavlich!

 

[marvin]

This is where I STRONGLY disagree. Look at say last 5 years and see the ruckman in winning sides. They might not be guns but they have to be good and offer something in field play

2000 - Barnes / Alessio
2001 - Keating / McDonald
2002 - Keating / McDonald / Charman
2003 - Keating / McDonald / Charman
2004 - Brogan / Lade.

Those look like pretty good combos to me. Even if you go back to 96 you had McKernan, 97 and 98 we had Pittman and Rehn.

Bottom line ruckman are very important in a good side. Many people would argue that Collingwood lost in 2002 GF because there was no one that could go with Keating. To win GF you need quality ruckman and a very good spine.

Four Counter arguments.

1. A good ruckman is not the lynchpin of most premiership teams.

As evidenced by the B+F results from the premiers of the last decade:

1996 - McKernan 3rd
1997 - Pittman 10th
1998 - Top 3 Roo / Jarman / Macca - don't have the full top 10.
1999 - McKernan 8th
2000 - Top 3 Fletcher / Hird / ??? - neither Barnes nor Alessio were top 3.
2001 - no ruckmen in top 10
2002 - no ruckmen in top 10
2003 - Charman 10th
2004 - Lade 6th, Brogan 11th.

2. Premiership ruckmen are, by and large, not top 10 picks.

As evidenced by where they were picked up:

Brogan - rookie list
Lade - zone selection
Keating - zone selection
McDonald - pick 73
Charman - pick 29
Alessio - zone selection
Barnes - pick 59
McKernan - zone selection
Capuano - pick 55

3. Having a great ruckman is not a recipe for success.

It's been 5 years since the AA ruckman played in the grand final, and 6 years since the AA (second) ruckman was also a premiership ruckman.

4. Strike rate for 1st round ruckmen is low

Allowing that the jury is still out on the likes of Laycock and Spaanderman, the previous first round picks are not an outstanding list, especially compared to later picks:

2003 - Bradley (6), Spaanderman (18)....Krueger (31), Hudson (58), DeLuca (72)
2002 - Laycock (10), Bell (14)......Minson (20), Paul Johnson (24),
2001 - Hale (7), Brooks (15)...... Seaby (22)
2000 - Koschitzke (2), Angwin (7).....Petrie (23), Charman (29)
1999 - Fraser (1), Leigh Brown (5).....Biglands (36), Hille (40), Barnes (59), Spider Burton (74)
1998 - Fitzgerald (4), Street (17)....Thurstans (39), Lucas Herbert (48) Ray Hall (79)

Now, I have to add I've never seen any of the potential draftees play, so I wouldn't know Monfries or Wood from Tommy Porridge. However, the evidence would seem to say:

- you need good ruckmen, not great ones
- you can get a good ruckman later in the draft
- while the wisdom is that good midfielders are a dime a dozen, and ruckmen are jewels to be treasured, the facts remain that you need a squadron of midfielders, but only 2 (1 at a pinch) ruckmen to be competitive.

 

[Mong]

Nice work with all that research Marvin.

- you need good ruckmen, not great ones
- you can get a good ruckman later in the draft
- while the wisdom is that good midfielders are a dime a dozen, and ruckmen are jewels to be treasured, the facts remain that you need a squadron of midfielders, but only 2 (1 at a pinch) ruckmen to be competitive.

While there is evidence to support both sides I tend to be on Marvin's side of the fence.

To get anywhere in this league you have to have one of the better midfields in the comp. You probably need to have the top 4 or 5 midfields in the comp to challenge for a premiership, ideally even top 2 or 3. I wouldn't say Brisbane's ruckmen are dominant, and Essendon before that were far from good in the ruck. Port's best ruckman and captain hasn't played for 2 years. On the other side of the ledger the Bulldogs and Cats have have had Darcy and King.

And here's the clincher for me - a good midfield takes years to build while a good ruck can be added overnight with one trade or one good recruiting decison.

So my preference is for the midfielder unless at the time of our pick the ruckman is clearly the better player. But I see merit in both sides of the argument.


****

 

[Thunderstruck]

The first thing we need is another good midfielder. Take the best available with pick #8 and pref from SA so they dont cry and go home. Monfries would be the man hopefully.

Wood is the best ruckman in the draft but really he will take time. Will be a solid ruckman, sorta across between Beau McDonald from Brisbane and Guy Richards from Collingwood. That type. Very good tap ruckman, performs it like an art. But we should go for the best midfielder with pick #8. We can get a ruckman or big man with #24. IMO we hardly need one, could go with Ferber from South, underated roughie or wait for Devries.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Nice work with all that research Marvin.


And here's the clincher for me - a good midfield takes years to build while a good ruck can be added overnight with one trade or one good recruiting decison.

So my preference is for the midfielder unless at the time of our pick the ruckman is clearly the better player. But I see merit in both sides of the argument.


****

Convincing arguments, and your right there are good arguments on both sides.
But every AFC official and ex official I hear speak all say "midfield speed" - I think that says what we're thinking.

 

[Crow-mosone]

give the man a prize!

this is exactly what you and i have been saying now for a while stiffy and this is just more evidence to support it! If Wood is there at 8 and we dont take him i will personally throttle someone down there at the AFC! the kid is going to good, he will be very good! Midfielders are a dime a dozen, ruckmen are not, especially not quality ones like Wood. He is tall, he isnt exactly slow, has wicked skills and isnt scared to put his body on the line. Played 2 league games as a 17yr old, for a big fella thats a good effort, anyone else remember the last big fella we overlooked in the draft who had played a couple of SANFL games?? one and only Matthew Pavlich!

sorry Roodog,
you're fishing without facts here.
the pavlich reference is ridiculous, and your assertions about midfielders/ruckman just aren't supported by the facts or history.

 

[PowerKop]

I would to if I was a cows supporter!

 

[- PC -]

]

As evidenced by the B+F results from the premiers of the last decade:

1996 - McKernan 3rd

2000 - Top 3 Fletcher / Hird / ??? - neither Barnes nor Alessio were top 3.
2. Premiership ruckmen are, by and large, not top 10 picks.

As evidenced by where they were picked up:


Barnes - pick 59

Now, I have to add I've never seen any of the potential draftees play, so I wouldn't know Monfries or Wood from Tommy Porridge. However, the evidence would seem to say:

- you need good ruckmen, not great ones
- you can get a good ruckman later in the draft
- while the wisdom is that good midfielders are a dime a dozen, and ruckmen are jewels to be treasured, the facts remain that you need a squadron of midfielders, but only 2 (1 at a pinch) ruckmen to be competitive.

Marvin great research and my guess is your an accountant or a lawyer.. .because while your facts are correct the way they are presented can lead to different intrerpretations...McKernan led the Brownlow Count but was ineligible in 96 and Barnes WAS taken at 56 by his SECOND club after been delisted by Geelong....

I have said before that the current ruck situation lends itself to having mediocre ruckmen..but I have also said if Adelaide choose Wood or Monfries or Porridge it wouldnt bother me greatly IF the kid could play for 10 years.

 

[marvin]

Marvin great research and my guess is your an accountant or a lawyer.. .

Wash your mouth out!

because while your facts are correct the way they are presented can lead to different intrerpretations...McKernan led the Brownlow Count but was ineligible in 96 and Barnes WAS taken at 56 by his SECOND club after been delisted by Geelong....

I'm aware of the McKernan situation. Rehn was 4th in the 98 Brownlow as well as being a premiership ruckman that year, too. I chose to go with the B+F stats because I figured that's how the clubs rated the importance of their players in their performances, and so presumably the B+F players in the premiership side are the players who have the greatest impact on the success of that side.

For what it's worth, premiership ruckmen and their Brownlow votes since Corey McKernan in 1996:

1997 - Rehn 2, Pittman 1
1998 - Rehn 22,
1999 - McKernan 13, Capuano 0
2000 - Alessio 3, Barnes 2
2001 - Keating 1, McDonald 1, Charman 0
2002 - McDonald 1, Keating 0, Charman 0
2003 - McDonald 0, Keating 0, Charman 0
2004 - Lade 6, Primus 3

You could argue that those votes are because it's the "midfielders medal", but Jeff White got 15 votes this year, Goodes won last year, and Darcy regularly polls well.

You're point about Barnes is also taken, but in being delisted by Geelong and picked up late in the draft, surely that supports the point **** makes that you can potentiall solve your ruck problems with one astute trade or pickup, whereas a midfield has to be built?

I have said before that the current ruck situation lends itself to having mediocre ruckmen..but I have also said if Adelaide choose Wood or Monfries or Porridge it wouldnt bother me greatly IF the kid could play for 10 years.

I presume you mean by "the current ruck situation" the current set of rules and interpretations, and I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. In a year where Port had arguably the strongest ruck tandem going around, and St Kilda arguably the worst, the difference between who made the grand final was a brilliant tackle and a gutless umpire, not the rucks.

I also agree wholeheartedly that we need a 10 year player above all else - we've got weaknesses in so many areas, we can't afford to be too choosy at #8 about filling a position.

 

[drakeyv2]

I think we should pick up Cain Ackland with the no. 8 pick.

He is fat, lazy & injury prone. If he were 10 years older he would be perfect!

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I think we should pick up Cain Ackland with the no. 8 pick.

He is fat, lazy & injury prone. If he were 10 years older he would be perfect!

Now, now..

 

[lozstar]

He is fat

he's not fat...

 

[drakeyv2]

he's not fat...

Sorry I was looking in the mirror. I'm fat, he's lazy & injury prone.

 

[Portia]

I presume you mean by "the current ruck situation" the current set of rules and interpretations, and I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. In a year where Port had arguably the strongest ruck tandem going around, and St Kilda arguably the worst, the difference between who made the grand final was a brilliant tackle and a gutless umpire, not the rucks.

Port vs St Kilda
Brogan/Lade - 16 disposals, 3 goals, 33 hitouts, 6 tackles, 5 marks
Knobel/Koschitzke - 11 disposals, 0 goals, 35 hitouts, 4 tackles, 6 marks

We broke even, but the difference was that a good ruckman is a ruckman that can do OK in the ruck, can direct the ball to their midfield when winning the taps, and be productive when not rucking too.

I tend to think thats worth a #8 pick.

Comparing the effect of a couple of ruckmen on a side to having an entire fleet of midfielders is ridiculous. If you can get a fleet of midfielders with, say, two first round picks, I salute you.

 

[lozstar]

Sorry I was looking in the mirror. I'm fat, he's lazy & injury prone.

thats better.

 

[marvin]

Port vs St Kilda
Brogan/Lade - 16 disposals, 3 goals, 33 hitouts, 6 tackles, 5 marks
Knobel/Koschitzke - 11 disposals, 0 goals, 35 hitouts, 4 tackles, 6 marks

We broke even, but the difference was that a good ruckman is a ruckman that can do OK in the ruck, can direct the ball to their midfield when winning the taps, and be productive when not rucking too.

I tend to think thats worth a #8 pick.

I agree that it's worth the #8 pick if that's the biggest hole in your side. It's ONE of the holes in the Crows lineup, but there are other gaping holes.

Comparing the effect of a couple of ruckmen on a side to having an entire fleet of midfielders is ridiculous. If you can get a fleet of midfielders with, say, two first round picks, I salute you.[/QUOTE]

Well, obviously you aren't going to get a fleet of midfielders in one year. But in the past 3 years, the only midfielders we've added to our list have been Skipworth and Shirley (both over and over again), Reilly (yet to play in the midfield for significant minutes) and now Thompson. Meanwhile, Bickley, Johnson and Stenglein have all left. At the same time, we've drafted 2 ruckmen, and rookie listed 2 others.

 

[Portia]

I would personally think that the opportunity to pick the draft's top-rated ruckman, who is from South Australia, whose SANFL coach will be Shaun Rehn, would be too good an opportunity to pass up if Wood is available at #8.

As for your midfield drafting woes, the advantage of drafting a ruckman early is that you don't need to panic by drafting so many low-grade ruckmen the rest of the time.

 

[marvin]

As I've said earlier, I haven't seen any of the potential draftees play, so I'm not arguing the merits of either.

I guess if we get a good ruckman early in the draft we can go back to plan B, which is to panic by drafting low-grade midfielders the rest of the time instead