Draft Watcher Knightmare's 2013 phantom draft

[Patron]

Needing a key forward. Jon Brown is surely in his final year. Brisbane are also typically reluctant to look to Vic Metro talent which probably drops Ben Lennon past that Brisbane selection leaving McCarthy, Kolodjashnij, L.Taylor, Gardiner and Crouch as those more likely to be considered.

No clarity at this stage on that Brisbane selection as that selection I'm less confident picking at this stage.

Word from perth is that Brisbane are interested in him and Mcarthy thinks he is a good chance to go to brisbane. Doesn't mean they will draft him but he is definitely in the mix for their pick.

 

[captainrich]

Based on footywire data for height & position there are 10 midfielders 191 or taller:
Pendlebury, Scott 191
Mundy, David 192
Blicavs, Mark 198
Corey, Joel 191
Watson, Jobe 191
Morton, Cale 192
Rosa, Matthew 191
Gysberts, Jordan 191
Paparone, Marco 194
Wearden, Patrick 192

Paparone is more a linking third tall forward type, Wearden is more a CHB/Third Tall in defence

 

[Richo83]

It depends on the gamestyle played but finals footy has historically been whoever wins the contested footy wins the game.

Sure, but teams also need outside types, and I don't understand why teams can't recruit inside types later, like Mitchell and Barlow.

Similar to Tom Liberatore.

Liberatore came 3rd in the kicking test and came under 3 seconds in the running test, I'd say Liberatore was a better prospect than Crouch is currently.

If a style of game is going out of flavour that's exactly when I'd capitalise. I'm fine with clubs wrongly overlooking guys because they're looking for a particular type. It just means all the better value for me if picking and at the end of the day I go home with the 200 gamer which from a first round pick is always the aim.

But teams are moving away from these types because it's not as effective. So the notion that a club can capitalise presumes that this is a player who can work in the modern environment.

Crouch I agree is not as good as Wines. Wines has a more complete game. I'll take the taller midfielder who is already doing the same things as the shorter midfield at the same age. He'll relatively with this being a weak draft be the equivalent of Greene/Wines in this draft with his numbers and contested ball winning ability in that same category of dominance from a junior.

Greene is meh. He survives because he's surrounded by kids where losing is expected.

Kelly I rate a safe selection who will almost certainly make the grade, I'm just not seeing the upside or that ability to develop an inside game as a smaller framed guy and someone who mostly around the ball just flutters around hoping for it to come out. Those outside components of the game he'll get being so highly skilled and being able to run all day but it's without the hurt factor as an only average penetrator with his pace good but not great and footskills while as precise as they come again not penetrating.

I think Kelly is overrated, but Gardiner has a number of flaws to his game. He's undersized, and not an amazing kick for goal. He'll need to put on weight over the summer. He could become the next Alex Rance, he could also become the next Lachie Plowman.

Taylor has some extreme explosiveness, finds plenty of it and can do his damage both inside and outside the contest. He's just too much offensive flash at this stage and defensively hasn't impressed me with his tackles not sticking and his two way game relatively poor as more an offensive runner. At his limited height and size I see it as relatively unlikely that he establishes that side to his game that well with most of those taller types typically struggling against bigger opposition with Brent Harvey the only recent exception. I would agree with anyone who says that of the recent short people that Taylor is the best. He's by far the best midget since Brent Harvey, but he's just not nearly on that same level with Harvey the exception to the rule.

Sure, I just think that Taylor is a more solid prospect. My problem with Gardiner is due to the shallowness of the KPPs of this draft, it's hard to know whether the KPPs are actually good or just lack good competition. Bar say Boyd, I'd be unwilling to draft any KPP within the first round.

 

[banana_bus]

Hi Knightmare, great job as always, followed you last year and watched you nail the top 10-15

Just a quick question - how confident are you in Richmond taking Salem? I know you were one of the first to pick Vlastuin last year and by draft day you were 100% sure they would take him.

Is Salem their man and is there a chance of a slider coming into play?

Cheers

 

[The Big H]

KM- What's your thinking on Brady Grey from Burnie? Might be one that really sneaks under a few peoples guard as he has only played 13 games of footy (I believe) and was close to BOG in the TSL grand final and has tested well in the kicking test? (not that that test is really any good)

 

[Knightmare]

Sure, but teams also need outside types, and I don't understand why teams can't recruit inside types later, like Mitchell and Barlow.

Liberatore came 3rd in the kicking test and came under 3 seconds in the running test, I'd say Liberatore was a better prospect than Crouch is currently.

But teams are moving away from these types because it's not as effective. So the notion that a club can capitalise presumes that this is a player who can work in the modern environment.

Greene is meh. He survives because he's surrounded by kids where losing is expected.

I think Kelly is overrated, but Gardiner has a number of flaws to his game. He's undersized, and not an amazing kick for goal. He'll need to put on weight over the summer. He could become the next Alex Rance, he could also become the next Lachie Plowman.

Sure, I just think that Taylor is a more solid prospect. My problem with Gardiner is due to the shallowness of the KPPs of this draft, it's hard to know whether the KPPs are actually good or just lack good competition. Bar say Boyd, I'd be unwilling to draft any KPP within the first round.

Mitchell was picked in the 30s. Barlow is the most successful mature recruited midfielder we've seen. You can't get a Michael Barlow every year as a rookie.
I'd say the same about outside types every year.
Colquhoun was available in the PSD and Sumner could be had at 55.
The year before that Aaron Hall as a PSD selection has proven to be an excellent get at that stage and the year before that Jason Johannison was had as a rookie, Aaron Mullett was had as a rookie, Luke Dahlhaus was had as a rookie, Michael Hibberd and Bachar Houli in the PSD with Arryn Siposs and Paul Seedsman selected at 76/77 respectively.
Every year there are outside types who break through in a big way as rookies whereas early draft so few even make the grade and those that do are no better than those taken later in the draft.

Draft combine testing means little. I prefer watching what guys can do on the field, not what they can do in a gym. What they do in a gym doesn't tell you who the guy is on the field. Joel Wilkinson had the quickest ever recorded 20m sprint time at 2.75sec and yet he doesn't take on the game or break the lines. But then you look at Lewis Jetta who scored from memory a 2.95 or 2.96sec and he's the most dangerous linebreaker in the competition.
And then those who perform well in the kick tests are rarely the best kicks in the draft. James Tsitas won the kicking test this year but anyone who watches him would describe him as one of the least damaging kicks in this draft with his limited penetration and hurt factor whereas Luke Reynolds can score from memory what was a 22 and be the most damaging kick in this draft with the way he can swivel onto his left boot and lace out hit those inside 50 targets.
I could not care less who scores what in any test at the draft combine. Show me you can do it on the field.
Liber whether he is sub 3sec over 20m is of little relevance. Pace is not what makes him special. Neither are his footskills. What makes Liber special is his hardness at the footy, ability to win the clearances, win the contested ball and tackle. Crouch is no different. Neither is Andrew Swallow. Luke Ball, Brad Sewell, Scott Thompson, Michael Barlow, Toby Greene, Daniel Kerr, Joel Corey, Matthew Boyd, Daniel Cross, Shane Tuck, Brock McLean, James Magner all the same story. They're all quality and you'd love to have any of them on your team because they excel in the most vital aspects of the game.

Clubs can move away from pure contested ball winning midfielders all they want. There will always be someone who capitalises on that poor tendency by anyone who overlook these types.

Greene is exceptional. He's had his issues this year struggling with the tag after his ripping preseason. Some people have a short memory but before the new boys on the block this season Greene was putting up some historic numbers for his age (28.4 disposals per game) as a first year player just recruited from the juniors. He's an exceptional inside mid who is as hard as nails, wins all the contested ball and tackles like a machine. I'd want that on my team and would pay a premier to get that.
It's clear that we have different values as to what makes a winning midfield.

On Gardiner I wouldn't consider 192cm undersized. For a key forward it's shorter than you'd ideally like, key defender no problem. He's exceptionally strong bodied and is the same height as that Darren Glass guy who doesn't lose all that many 1v1 contests and has been the premier key defenders these past seasons. Sure some monster key forwards are coming along at 200cm+ but with Gardiner's growing strength if he can do as Glass has then it may not be an issue if he can as Glass does continue to outpoint his direct opponent.

I'd be more than happy to take McCarthy and Gardiner in the first round with both exceptional talents for their types and beyond Boyd those only other KPPs worth taking first round.

Hi Knightmare, great job as always, followed you last year and watched you nail the top 10-15

Just a quick question - how confident are you in Richmond taking Salem? I know you were one of the first to pick Vlastuin last year and by draft day you were 100% sure they would take him.

Is Salem their man and is there a chance of a slider coming into play?

Cheers

Salem has to be there to be picked which is no guarantee.

He's someone who even a year and a half out from the draft was heavily linked to Richmond so it's a possibility but not assured.

 

[Knightmare]

KM- What's your thinking on Brady Grey from Burnie? Might be one that really sneaks under a few peoples guard as he has only played 13 games of footy (I believe) and was close to BOG in the TSL grand final and has tested well in the kicking test? (not that that test is really any good)

Grey can get drafted. He's a late/rookie selection if he does but far from certain. Strong performances in any grand finals only enhance a draftees prospects so I'm sure someone will have noticed, whether that's enough? We'll have to wait and see as his fate is very much unclear.

 

[maverick001]

KM can you tell me where you had Jed Anderson ranked at the time of last year's draft. top 10-20?

 

[maverick001]

I
Key learnings:
Pick the contested ball winners early (confirmed).

Whitfield/Toumpas and those outside guys with all the fanfare as every year proves continue to go too early and end up not living up to that selection (new learning - and something I'm increasingly picking up on seeing Gaff/Polec, Hoskin-Elliott and Scully taken too early in the years before). Some genuine quality speedsters can be taken later with those outside types late draft not much worse if they are indeed worse late draft: would you take Toumpas at pick 4 or Sumner at pick 55? Hoskin-Elliott at 4 or Aaron Hall in the PSD? Gaff or Polec at 4/5 or Seedsman at 77? (new learning). Then guys like Walters (Freo) and Motlop (Gee) were selected mid draft so you don't need a first round selection to get a quality outside player, just identify the right talent who can be had later.

Mature agers late/rookie remain the highest % selections in that range (Terlich/Goodes/Dwyer). I'd like to see how many failed project guys late draft make it. Not only do these state leaguers make your state league teams and depth better but they can play a role on your team if you find the right guys who can fit your structures/style and play a position/role of need. (Confirmed)

*Some other ideas in drafting that I'm now more than ever strong on: your small forwards can come in the rookie draft or late draft. No need to pick them early. Just looking historically so many went late/rookie. Betts (PSD), Garlett (rookie), Milne (rookie), L.Thomas (mid draft), Porplyzia (PSD). The only notables not selected late of this type are Rioli who genuinely lived up to his high draft billing and Yarran who still intrigued but you probably wouldn't spend that high pick on him again as someone who has only shown flashes and not developed as hoped.

It's all loose ideas. But these are some of the bits and pieces that go into how I evaluate talent and why I have some particular types higher than many others will with others lower.

I agree with all of these drafting theories

 

[Richo83]

Knightmare

We could argue about drafting strategies all day. I know Chris loves his outside types more than you, for instance while I consider Hill a reach even to this day, he thinks that pick worked out well. It's about finding that balance, and I like players who have shown the ability to be versatile, be able to play inside and out. I think players who can't play inside are just as problematic as guys who can't play outside. It's just that most clubs would expect more than Daniel Cross, I know that Richmond expects its group of recent midfield top ten picks to all be better than Cross. But I'll agree to disagree, I'm mostly repeating myself anyway.

I definitely agree with the small forward comment though. The thing about small forwards, even in juniors is that they rarely rack up huge numbers, so you're often working from limited data, and hoping they have the skills to be able to make a 5-15 possession game valuable, which is often really hard. So drafting small forwards is a really inexact science, possibly even more than drafting ruckmen or KPPs. If you're going to draft a small forward, he needs to be able to play on a flank, and ideally, through the midfield too. No wonder Carlton didn't care that Betts left. For instance Addam Maric was highly rated at the time of drafting for, among other things, his kicking for goal. Problem is, he rarely generated enough chances to shoot for goal anyway. So recruiters, both on bigfooty and in the AFL have had to correct.

I'd just wish they'd stop avoiding rucks though, the risk of drafting a ruck with a top ten pick is there, but it's not that risky. The notion that no ruck will ever be taken in the first 10-15 picks seems dumb to me. You either use a pick early or late, which is fine. So use those early picks on a ruckman, ruckmen are incredibly valuable.

 

[Yoda_]

Being a pies supporter Knightmare, thought you would see the value of having midfielders that can play forward rather than small forwards who can't play through the midfield. After all, that was something I have envied about Collingwood for the past few years. Most of the Pies forwards have been able to run through the midfield, something Essendon have struggled with for years IMO.

 

[Power_Knight_1]

Knightmare great job... their is one thing you have the Power getting Max King, but Max King IS in the mix for GWS as he is in their draft zone (refer article links below) and they look very serious in signing him.

#48 Port Adelaide – Max King (NSW – KPF/Ruck)
Height: 200cm, Weight: 89kg, DOB: 24/09/1995
Recruited from: Murray Bushrangers
Style: Shaun Hampson
Player comparison:
Range: 30-rookie
Profile: King is an athletic tall who at his height will intrigue some. He has some real pace at that size with that point of difference that leap making him a threat up forward with that ability to take some impressive marks. As a ruckman King is an effective tap ruckman. While he does have some nice traits there is also a lot missing. He doesn’t find much of the footy around the ground. He’s not a great follow-up ruckman and not a great tackler. I’d also like to see him dominate a strong opposition. He’s a project player who will require time but reports are that he’s a high character guy and will continue to work hard at his game so if you’ve got patience he has the opportunity to continue his improvement and perhaps surprise some.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-11/giants-eye-young-king

http://www.aflnswact.com.au/index.php?id=5&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=2185&cHash=b012f2aeb7

 

[Knightmare]

KM can you tell me where you had Jed Anderson ranked at the time of last year's draft. top 10-20?

The link to my 2012 draft is here: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/knightmares-2012-mock-draft.956129/

I had Anderson at 25 (or 23 if you take Jaeger and Crouch out as players taken the year before in the minidraft).

Hawthorn got Anderson in a trade for Gilham which is a bargain with Gilham a veteran depth key defender.

Knightmare

We could argue about drafting strategies all day. I know Chris loves his outside types more than you, for instance while I consider Hill a reach even to this day, he thinks that pick worked out well. It's about finding that balance, and I like players who have shown the ability to be versatile, be able to play inside and out. I think players who can't play inside are just as problematic as guys who can't play outside. It's just that most clubs would expect more than Daniel Cross, I know that Richmond expects its group of recent midfield top ten picks to all be better than Cross. But I'll agree to disagree, I'm mostly repeating myself anyway.

I definitely agree with the small forward comment though. The thing about small forwards, even in juniors is that they rarely rack up huge numbers, so you're often working from limited data, and hoping they have the skills to be able to make a 5-15 possession game valuable, which is often really hard. So drafting small forwards is a really inexact science, possibly even more than drafting ruckmen or KPPs. If you're going to draft a small forward, he needs to be able to play on a flank, and ideally, through the midfield too. No wonder Carlton didn't care that Betts left. For instance Addam Maric was highly rated at the time of drafting for, among other things, his kicking for goal. Problem is, he rarely generated enough chances to shoot for goal anyway. So recruiters, both on bigfooty and in the AFL have had to correct.

I'd just wish they'd stop avoiding rucks though, the risk of drafting a ruck with a top ten pick is there, but it's not that risky. The notion that no ruck will ever be taken in the first 10-15 picks seems dumb to me. You either use a pick early or late, which is fine. So use those early picks on a ruckman, ruckmen are incredibly valuable.

Hill I'd agree with you is a reach at 3 in a strong draft. He's not the worst ever pick 3 but guys like Michael Walters (53), Rory Sloane (44), Steven Motlop (39), Daniel Hannebery (30), Dayne Beams (29), Jack Redden (25), David Zaharakis (23), Luke Shuey (18), Steele Sidebottom (11), Phil Davis (10), Jack Ziebell (9), Daniel Rich (7) and Michael Hurley (5) are all players I'd take before Hill if I was to pick a team to win for me today.
Hill is an absolutely incredible talent. His pace is as good as any with the way he breaks the lines when given the time and space, incredibly skilled and does damage with his touches and always requires attention making him a weapon you have to at all times account for but he's a guy you can tag out of games and if you have a solid tag on him he'll have a limited influence on the outcome. You'd still love to have him on your team though!

With those small forwards it's an interesting comment about drafting those who can push up onto flanks. It helps. Again I feel they can be specialists at times (you wouldn't spend heavily on them, but as with specialist inside and specialist outside players if they do what they do better than the next guy they can still make it even if their game isn't fully rounded). But I agree if they can push up the ground then that's only an extra weapon.

My view with those inside types. If they have those special weapons as say Jaeger does then that just puts them over the top and puts them into that absolute franchise player category. But with so few players this talented you do need to find that compromise and find a combination of specialists. I'd be fine with two pure midfielders only if by position they are dominant but you wouldn't have a whole team of them. As long as you have that balance within reason then you can win with that.

The comment about drafting ruckmen early is interesting. Historically the absolute best ruckmen have come as rookies. So that is something that absolutely needs to continue - Cox/Sandilands/Jolly/Mumford/Jacobs. So I'd still strongly encourage clubs to look for ruckmen through the rookie draft but if the value is there early draft in a ruckman I wouldn't be opposed to the selection.
In the late 90s/early 00s clubs had lots of misses on these ruckmen taken too early because ultimately many ended up being too short with so many sub 200cm ruckmen drafted early at the time. Clubs now won't draft you early as a say 193cm ruckman as might have happened in the 90s with clubs better understanding that with the current rules as they are these types probably aren't viable options in that position unless no.2 options and they will probably if they make it become more role players rather than elite by position.
In the current era there have been few misses from those ruckmen drafted early. Perhaps they may not have become the greats that Cox/Sandilands have before them but they can still become by position very good and I'd class ruckmen taken early as mostly a safe selection but unless they're Naitanui or perhaps Grundy then those are the exceptions with your Longers/Kreuzers/McEvoys more what should be expected from most others drafted first round which is sufficient.

The two types I particularly like early are the KPPs and inside mids.
Those quality key forwards more than any position in the competition have always come from those early selections. Some have come as F/S selections, T.Walker as a zone selection, J.Cameron prelisted and a few other odd ways they have been found but that first round is really where you find the cream with the second round also in some cases also successful with Tippett and S.Reid examples of second rounders who are more than handy.
The inside midfielders because it's a position where clubs require so many of this type there have been a number selected late/rookie but I'd still class it as the exception rather than the rule with so many of the really elite inside mids coming early (Judd/Pendlebury/Selwood and so on). There just aren't as many misses with these types early which we see all too often with the outside types and small forwards taken early barr a few unusual exceptions.

These ideas and ideals of who to draft where can be broken and there may never be a consensus in the drafting community of which types to select where with so many clubs approaching the draft differently and with different clubs having success using different ideas and with the randomness of the draft with so many variables there will probably always be that element of disagreement and uncertainty. It's a conversation and stream of though I enjoy discussing anyway as something I enjoy researching year after year in greater depth.

Being a pies supporter Knightmare, thought you would see the value of having midfielders that can play forward rather than small forwards who can't play through the midfield. After all, that was something I have envied about Collingwood for the past few years. Most of the Pies forwards have been able to run through the midfield, something Essendon have struggled with for years IMO.

The midfielders who can push forward and have an impact does help. It's just something particularly with those inside types I believe can be built into someones game so I'm not too stressed if they don't have it at this stage. It's something in a hard inside type I feel is earlier to develop than the ability of an outside player to develop an inside game.
With those inside types typically they have such good hands in close and ability at ground level that the transition can be made with the skills relatively transferrable.
I'm usually of the mindset that what a guy is producing today is what you evaluate them on, but with inside types this is one of the few exceptions I would have to this rule as an element I hold hope for guys to develop. If Luke Ball can become an effective forward and Brock McLean can do the same then it can be done.

At the end of the day all I want is the most dominant individual talents at each position and an individual superiority in as many positions as possible as well as a team with varied and complimentary skills so that they can play effectively as a team unit and be effective against a range of different types of teams.
So you don't load up all in the one type but if you can greater a situation as Fremantle have where they have superior size in the midfield at each position or like Gold Coast where they are developing a team with superior pace at each position then you can work with that if the other components aren't missing/compromised as a result.

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare great job... their is one thing you have the Power getting Max King, but Max King IS in the mix for GWS as he is in their draft zone (refer article links below) and they look very serious in signing him.

#48 Port Adelaide – Max King (NSW – KPF/Ruck)
Height: 200cm, Weight: 89kg, DOB: 24/09/1995
Recruited from: Murray Bushrangers
Style: Shaun Hampson
Player comparison:
Range: 30-rookie
Profile: King is an athletic tall who at his height will intrigue some. He has some real pace at that size with that point of difference that leap making him a threat up forward with that ability to take some impressive marks. As a ruckman King is an effective tap ruckman. While he does have some nice traits there is also a lot missing. He doesn’t find much of the footy around the ground. He’s not a great follow-up ruckman and not a great tackler. I’d also like to see him dominate a strong opposition. He’s a project player who will require time but reports are that he’s a high character guy and will continue to work hard at his game so if you’ve got patience he has the opportunity to continue his improvement and perhaps surprise some.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-09-11/giants-eye-young-king

http://www.aflnswact.com.au/index.php?id=5&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=2185&cHash=b012f2aeb7

More likely with King is that GWS would look to trade him.

They have so many key forwards already and now their ruck stocks look settled with the addition of Mumford to play alongside Giles with another couple of developing ruckmen in their deck so I'm not so confident they draft him, but trade, sure if they can get currency or a small pick upgrade for him. Absolutely.

 

[Lefthanded]

Paparone is more a linking third tall forward type, Wearden is more a CHB/Third Tall in defence

Will take your word for it as I don't know much about either. I was pretty clear on what I was basing my information on.

 

[Richo83]

Yeah rookie rucks are popular, which is why I think either it's a very high pick or rookie. But teams who have been willing to use top ten picks on talent like Naitanui, Leuenberger, Ryder etc have benefited from their success. Longer looks good, just is unnecessary. Grundy could've easily gone top three. My point is that if a ruckman is talented enough to be seen as a top ten pick by everyone, then he should be treated as such, not devalued because he's a ruckman. That's what happened with Grundy. The job of a scout is to see whether players have the tools to make it, and it seems like some recruiters are unwilling to put in the effort or take a risk on ruckmen, even ruckmen who have shown heaps. If you do your homework you should be okay. And as you point out, clubs have a better understanding of what makes a ruckman successful, they look for height, tap work, work rate, foot skills, physicality, intensity etc.

I agree that KPPs are really valuable, and most of the top KPPs have gone early. My worry with this draft is that, apart from Boyd, no KPP in this draft appears to be elite, and if you're going to invest a top ten pick on a KPP, he needs to present as an elite prospect. The KPP quality in this draft is pretty shallow bar Boyd, and in any other year, picking a KPP in the top ten makes complete sense. This year? I'm not sure, I wouldn't back in a guy like Gardiner to be an elite prospect. Sure, he's probably the best KPD in this draft, but the KPD depth in this draft is probably weaker than in the past. So my aversion to KPPs early is a particular concern from this draft, as opposed to using early picks on KPPs in general. Richmond have used early picks on their two main KPFs, and I think that was justified.

The problem with Hill is that he lacks bulk. He's pure silk and is a great player on paper but not on grass. He can kick and run but he gets shut out of matches too much because he's skinny and can be buffered off the ball too much. Quigley made an interesting observation that when he was a junior, he'd run a lot but wouldn't get much touches, and I notice that even when Hill isn't being tagged, he doesn't get much of the ball, he will never be a high accumulator of the ball. This is why I like Salem because he's strong, so he should be able to deal with physical attention, he's defensive, so he can work through a tag by getting into the game defensively, and he seems to have that footballing IQ which means he can easily get 20+ touches a game, which is not something Hill was doing as a junior.

 

[Chris25]

There's no problem with Hill.

 

[Knightmare]

Your evaluation of ruck prospects mirros mine Richo.

Our evaluation on the KPPs is slightly different. I would take an elite KPP if there but with that rarely possible sometimes a talented KPP who is a level below - as McCarthy and Gardinder are is often plenty to develop a really good player by position.

McCarthy put up some big numbers through the u18 champs and showed his superiority by position and showed some big talent. Similarly Gardiner has done the same down back as that key defender. I wouldn't disregard either with this crop being relatively weak for KPPs as both would probably be rated as late first rounders again next year also as still potentially excellent by position. But again it's a different evaluation of talent with my trust in McCarthy and Gardiner stronger from a development standpoint.

Hill I agree on to an extent but not completely. Salem I wouldn't have in that same conversation. He may very well be capable of finding more of it than Hill but he's not nearly in that same impact category with Hill who makes his touches count more with the way he can take on the game with that explosive pace and ability to do damage by foot.

 

[Sydswans0512]

Who would be the best ruckman that we could get and make an immediate impact?

 

[swansfan51]

Who would be the best ruckman that we could get and make an immediate impact?

There are 2 questions there though. The ruckmen who could make an immediate impact are the dominant state-league ruckmen like Mark Seaby, but they are likely to be average at AFL level. The best ruckmen in the future won't be able to have immediate impact, like Lobb and Cameron.

 

[Sydswans0512]

There are 2 questions there though. The ruckmen who could make an immediate impact are the dominant state-league ruckmen like Mark Seaby, but they are likely to be average at AFL level. The best ruckmen in the future won't be able to have immediate impact, like Lobb and Cameron.

Could Ben Brown ever be a lead ruckman or not good enough at the tap work?

 

[Snake Charmer]

Marcus Davies any chance Knightmare

 

[Knightmare]

Who would be the best ruckman that we could get and make an immediate impact?

Mark Seaby. He had a big season in the WAFL, knows the Sydney programs and can step in and take over as the no.1 option without costing you a thing. I'd make him a priority to take late draft in Sydney's situation as a perfect fit for the win now Swans after the loss of Mumford.

Could Ben Brown ever be a lead ruckman or not good enough at the tap work?

Ben Brown is more a forward who can pinch-hit in the ruck. Think Tyrone Vickery.

Marcus Davies any chance Knightmare

He closed the season ok but most likely he will need to work his way back up through the state leagues.

 

[TheSunGod]

Yes.

I'd just like to see the whole free agency/trade period end first before I finalise my order.

My power rankings will also continue to float and change as we draft closer to the draft. I'll still be reviewing plenty of games, footage and reading further articles so my knowledge of this draft class will only continue to expand as we draw nearer to the draft as it does throughout the year with football never ending for me.



It's not something I really thought about and it's only there to give those who weren't reading my posts last year a feel for his game.

While I won't re-write my Jack Martin profile tonight the basics with his game the way I see it is that he's a supercharged Dale Thomas. He does those same freakish things but to a whole new level. He has that same leaping ability and ability to take a hanger. He can breakaway like anything and break the lines at near Lewis Jetta speed. He not unlike Bennell with ball in hand can do damage with his disposals.He hits the scoreboard.
His inside game is good for a light bodied guy but he is still light and I don't see him banging with the big boys right away to the level Jaeger did this year.
He's my tip for the rising star next year and can be close to Jaeger special but in my view while I know I'll get responses to this post emphatically saying I'm wrong with almost all I've spoken to evaluating Martin as the better talent of the two but I'll stick by it and continue to say Jaeger is/will be better as a rare professional who has that most complete game with Martin still complete but not a strong of body and doesn't have that same attention to detail of Jaeger which sets him apart and can make him a top 1-3 player in the competition rather than a top 3-7 player in the competition which is more where I see Jack Martin all things said and done.

He'll excite you to watch with the flash in his game and have an impact from year one. That you can bank on. Like Jaeger he's another absolutely sensational talent who will further elevate Gold Coast's play which even as an opposition spectator will be fun to watch.

Cheers mate - that will do.

From my limited viewing of Jack I tend to agree with your assessment ( a supercharged Daisy is an apt description), and comparison with Jaeger. Will be great watching them both that's for sure. Personally I'm just looking forward to seeing Jack regularly pull out something freakish that will blow my mind and, as Blighty said, just make you blurt out something like "What the **** was that!!"

 

[WaverleyWiz]

Hey KM.
Any word on who the Hawks would be/are most keen on with their first pick which looks likely to be at about 24 now when we trade our buddy compo pick to the saints for their early 2nd rounder?

Would someone like Luke army olds be a good fit in your eyes?