KPP Drafting is costing us

[Daytripper]

As most of you know, I have long been critical of the way we have drafted lately - especially the amount of KPP we now have on our list in a time when the game is all about pin-point disposal and pace.

In my opinion the Lloyd, Lucas, Johns triumvirate cannot work. I know its only a practice game but Saturday night illustrated it perfectly. Johns is a pure, leading full forward and looked lost having to play second fiddle to Lloyd.
Secondly, I lost count of the number of times the ball was whipped out of defense simply because we could not place enough pressure on all their running defenders. Davey did a fantastic job but he can't be everywhere.

We have two excellent prospects in Ryder and Gumbleton who simply won't get a game because we are overloaded with height. I love Paddy as a player but it was a horrific mistake drafting him over a Drum or Higgins in 2005. We need skilled midfielders and don't need height. So what did we do. Draft height !!!

Welsh and Winderlich have to either learn to hit a target every time they attempt a chipped 30 metre kick or give that option away. I am particularly worried about Welsh as it seems to me that the game is getting too quick for him. I love his courage and attack on the ball and I hope he can prove me wrong.

Hopefelly Heffernen and Camporeale will play a bigger part in the 2007 season as their excellent disposal is badly needed in our side.

The back line looked okay except for Welsh's disposal. Most of the Carlton goals were kicked from pin point passes into their forward line from their midfield. Nothing has really changed from last year in that regard (despite the recruitment of Michael) and it makes a mockery of those who think that CHB was our weakness last season. Its our midfield and always has been our midfield.

For the first time I am slightly pessimistic about our team. We just don't have that jet in the midfield that seemingly every other team has. Our forwards are good (although top heavy), our back line is excellent but the runners are just pedestrian.

Watson, Lovett, Monfries, JJ, MJ are all nice players but none of them are what you call elite.

Again, I hope that I am wrong.

 

[marcuz]

Watson, Lovett, Monfries, JJ, MJ are all nice players but none of them are what you call elite.

Again, I hope that I am wrong.

If Dempsey, Jetta, Nash, Dyson, Lovett, Winderlich, Reimers, Houli etc all step up to the mark as midfielders over the next few years then your concerns will be gone. We have quick and skillful players but 95% of them are kids so they will need time to develop. The midfield and the team in general is in transition and it will soon take on a different look once the baton is passed to the younger blokes.

As for the height issues well Fletcher and Micheal are near the end and to a lesser extent so are Lloyd and Lucas. And to be honest there isnt much to back them up, Lee, Gumbleton, Johns and Neagle are pretty much it in teams of genuine KP players. To be honest we are probably one quality young tall defender away from a truly balanced list.

It's no point topping up with replacements once players have retired as it sets you back on your arse a few years as kids play senior games when they are not ready and arent able to develop at their own pace. You want to have a near seemless transition from one generation to the next. When Scotty hangs up his boots Gumby will be 21-22 and physically ready to make CHF his own, Andy Lee will be ready to step straight in and hit the ground running once fletch says he's had enough.

Drafting kids is never about now its always about what your list will be like in 4 or 5 years once the players development is done. If you want to draft for an early fix then draft or trade for a veteren.

 

[Daytripper]

marcuz,
I agree with a lot of what you've said.

However, its all well and good planning for the future but you need to give the kids a taste.

Ryder will be out of contract at the end of this season and Gumbleton the year after. Will either be happy being at a club that hasn't really allowed them to play senior football.
We are going to have to pay them over the odds to stay eventually and we are going to run into cap problems as a result.

I have a lot of hope in Ricky Dyson. He could be the midfielder with pin-point disposal and pace that we are looking for. He just needs to find the ball more often.

I know hindsight is a wonderful thing but why did we draft Ryder so early when we have Hille, Laycock and Bradley all relatively young ?
That selection will prove costly I feel.

Please note, in no way am I potting Ryder.
I think he's a wonderful talent but eventually either him, Laycock or Bradley will be moved on. All top 10 picks.

Just seems a waste to me.

 

[marcuz]

marcuz,
I agree with a lot of what you've said.

However, its all well and good planning for the future but you need to give the kids a taste.

Ryder will be out of contract at the end of this season and Gumbleton the year after. Will either be happy being at a club that hasn't really allowed them to play senior football.

Players get injured or lose form so openings will be there if their form warrants it. Gumbleton can play as a third tall forward or defender the same goes for Ryder. so they don't need guys in their preffered positions to be gone to get a game either

I have a lot of hope in Ricky Dyson. He could be the midfielder with pin-point disposal and pace that we are looking for. He just needs to find the ball more often.

Its a big year for Ricky as it is for a few others like Winderlich and Nash. Physically they are ready to go its now up to them if they want to be bonafide senior footballers or not. It certainly won't be through a lack of talent if they don't succeed. If they are considered as being in our best 22 by the end of the year then we will have improved as a side.

I know hindsight is a wonderful thing but why did we draft Ryder so early when we have Hille, Laycock and Bradley all relatively young ?
That selection will prove costly I feel.

Best available talent, would you pass on a potential superstar just becuase you have another who may play the same position? There are plenty of spots on an aussie rules field for him to contribute.

Please note, in no way am I potting Ryder.
I think he's a wonderful talent but eventually either him, Laycock or Bradley will be moved on. All top 10 picks.

Just seems a waste to me

Bradley may be in trouble as he hasnt come on like most thought he would. If i was coach he wouldnt be in my best 22. But if he isnt there then we can easily fit Ryder, Hille and laycock in the same 22. They would give teams headaches as they could be rotated to keep fresh as well as being a threat deep in the forward line.

 

[Smokin]

what are you talking about Ryder being unhappy at a club who doesnt show him game time? He played 9 games in his first year FFS! He will play games this year. He, like anyone his size, is a 3-4-5 year work in progress.

mark my words, he will be the best of the "talls", dont worry about that.

Talls take years to settle in at AFL level, he has played as good as we could really have expected in his time thus far. He still has a kids body, once he fills out he can be anything.

How can you make assumptions like that on Gumbleton? Pure lunacy.

 

[Daytripper]

Players get injured or lose form so opening will be there if their for warrants it. Gumbleton can play as a third tall forward or defender the same goes for Ryder. so they don't need guys in their preffered positions to be gone to get a game either


Bradley may be in trouble as he hasnt come on like most thought he would. If i was coach he wouldnt be in my best 22. But if he isnt there then we can easily fit Ryder, Hille and laycock in the same 22. They would give teams headaches as they could be rotated to keep fresh as well as being a threat deep in the forward line.

marcuz,
They would be the 4th tall foward.

We already have Lloyd, Lucas and Johns.

The modern game just won't allow four tall forwards. It doesn't even allow three and even two nowadays is stretching it.

Although the new push in the back rule may bring back the advent of two genuine forwards into the game.

 

[marcuz]

marcuz,
They would be the 4th tall foward.

We already have Lloyd, Lucas and Johns.

The modern game just won't allow four tall forwards. It doesn't even allow three and even two nowadays is stretching it.

Although the new push in the back rule may bring back the advent of two genuine forwards into the game.

There is a thing called a bench where players can be interchanged. And with lloyds and johns recent injury history who is to say they will line up like that all year?

 

[hulld]

Last year Gumby was the only KPP we drafted. We have a good mix of height and speed. I was surprised with how Paddy played in defence. Besides the handball to Whitnall he looked quite composed. I think that he could be used in defence more often. Without putting any pressure on the kid, Goodes started in defence before playing in the ruck. And I reckon Paddy is already more agile than Kepler and Andy Lee. Paddy should be played at CHB for Bendigo while McKinnon has showed a bit in the ruck.

I reckon Bendigo will dominate this year. This is a good sign of our depth and our competent youngsters.

If you do a starting 18 team for Bendigo it will look quite complete.

 

[Daytripper]

what are you talking about Ryder being unhappy at a club who doesnt show him game time? He played 9 games in his first year FFS! He will play games this year. He, like anyone his size, is a 3-4-5 year work in progress.

I asked the question. "will either be happy?"
It wasn't a statement that they will be both unhappy.

mark my words, he will be the best of the "talls", dont worry about that.

He certainly shows signs.

Talls take years to settle in at AFL level, he has played as good as we could really have expected in his time thus far. He still has a kids body, once he fills out he can be anything.

I think I mentioned numerous times that I wasn't having a go at Ryder. In fact, I am one of his biggest admirers.

How can you make assumptions like that on Gumbleton? Pure lunacy.

Question vs statement.
There is a difference.

 

[Smokin]

Asking the question is incinuating the potential problem.

Are Carlton asking themselves "what if Gibbs goes home, what a wasted pick blah blah".

You pick the best available talent, and run with it. Play the percentages.

We are suddenly in a position where we have depth in a few areas, which is really exciting. Adelaide has 4 ruckmen on their list. What if Hille goes down?

Our major problem IMO is the fact that the team has changed so much in the past couple of years, and needs time to settle and gel. This year is a development year, I think 2008 may be the year for the serious assault on the finals.

I feel too many fans are a bit too impatient around here. The development is definitely there, but it is going to take a bit of time. This team will develop and improve as the season goes, not hit the ground running.

 

[Daytripper]

There is a thing called a bench where players can be interchanged. And with lloyds and johns recent injury history who is to say they will line up like that all year?

Primarily these days the bench should have one resting ruckman and three running players used to rotate with the other midfielders.
Having a KPP sitting on the pine takes away from our run through the middle.

 

[Daytripper]

Asking the question is incinuating the potential problem.

Are Carlton asking themselves "what if Gibbs goes home, what a wasted pick blah blah".

You pick the best available talent, and run with it. Play the percentages.

We are suddenly in a position where we have depth in a few areas, which is really exciting. Adelaide has 4 ruckmen on their list. What if Hille goes down?

Our major problem IMO is the fact that the team has changed so much in the past couple of years, and needs time to settle and gel. This year is a development year, I think 2008 may be the year for the serious assault on the finals.

I feel too many fans are a bit too impatient around here. The development is definitely there, but it is going to take a bit of time. This team will develop and improve as the season goes, not hit the ground running.

You're missing my point.

Gibbs will most likely play in excess of 30 games over the next two seasons for Carlton and will be a prime factor in the team.

Gumbleton and Ryder will more than likely be little more than back up players for us in the next two years.

Now how would you feel if you saw one of your peers (who you know you are just as good as) getting all the attention and being an integral part of their particular team ?

'Best available talent' belongs in the 1980s in my opinion and is a cop out.

Clayton at the Bulldogs targeted midfielders early on and its now paying dividends.

Put it this way, if I've got a BMW, a Jaguar and a Porsche sitting on my front lawn at home in Caroline Springs and I suddenly come into another 500K.
What's the sensible thing to do ?

Buy a new home or buy another car ?

You buy what you need.

 

[Smokin]

Im not miss your point at all.

Talls can only be compared with talls. How many talls play 80% of games from day dot? How many midfielders? Not many, but the elite may. Apples with Oranges.

Gumby has had a knee problem, Gibbs has been injury free. One is a midfielder, the other KPP - how can their development for this year be comparable at all?

You're "asking questions" which are simply based on made-up assumptions. Why would you "ask the question" about Ryder, when he played 9 games in his first year, and thus far played in our NAB game?

You are assuming we didnt need talls, but we did.

How many Essendon fans are confident at all of Bradley making it? Laycock has struggled his whole career with injury, who is to guarantee he will suddenly get over these injuries this season?

Before we took Ryder, an injury plagued Laycock was our only alternative to Hille. Hardly Ideal. Bradley is not a ruckman. What happens if Hille does he knee round 1? We have no ready replacement AT ALL - if anything, we were too late in developing a talls division, not whatever your saying.

What are our future prospects beyond Lloyd and Lucas for KPP? Johns? Thats it, forget Gumby because we have Lloyd and Lucas NOW? Gumby's value wont be seen for at least 3 years, unless he is a freak like Carey.

What about KP backs beyond Fletch and MM? In three years we are going to need them. Lee? Neagle? Maybe. Daniher? Havnt even drafted him yet.

Drafting KPP's have NOT been our problem at all. We needed them, just like we need classy midfielders.

Our problem was poor recruiting in a period prior to around 2003/2004 where OVERALL we got little from most of our draftees, not necessarily picking talls over smalls. We took a small Mcalister at 4, what did he do?

Our gap between our kids and Seniors is too big - we need the kids to develop now and bridge that gap. We have a talent pool of smaller and taller kids now - but they are going to take time to develop.

 

[Daytripper]

smokin,
Hence the title of my thread.

"KPP drafting is costing us."

In your own words you aren't confident about either Bradley or Laycock. Both top ten picks that we may as well have flushed down the toilet if they fail.

I am a bit more bullish than you regarding them but if they do succeed it just gives us another headache about where to squeeze all our tall players in a game that is increasingly about run, run and run.

The game these days is becoming like Gaelic football. I don't like that its heading that way but it is and tall players don't get a game in Gaelic football.

I do take your point about KPP players taking longer to develop and it is a valid one.

By the way, McCallister was drafted years ago. 2003 and 2004 wasn't too bad in hindsight. It was 2000 and 2001 that we really let ourselves down.

 

[Smokin]

Yes, but also remember that the club has to make decisions based on the future - they see Laycock struggling all the time for example, they have to make decisions based on the probabilities. FWIW I still dont think we are 100% covered for the future KPP - what if Lee doesnt develop? I really worry for our defensive KPP beyond Fletch and MM.

As I said, the period prior to 2003/2004, from then on it got a lot better. From 99-03/04, it was ordinary and is why we have very little 24-27 year old AFL hardened players.

And it is in this area which has caused the most grief more than anything in the past 2 years. No real depth due to the huge gulf between the experienced and the youth.

We will see if a team like Footscray can win a flag, with a great running side and fledging big players. It hasnt bee proven that that is the way to go yet. Have they done the opposite to your essendon arguemnt, with too much of a focus on smaller players, and now cant cover their bigger player injuries and immenent retirees? Time will tell.

 

[Daytripper]

We will see if a team like Footscray can win a flag, with a great running side and fledging big players. It hasnt bee proven that that is the way to go yet. Have they done the opposite to your essendon arguemnt, with too much of a focus on smaller players, and now cant cover their bigger player injuries and immenent retirees? Time will tell.

I would argue that WCE and to a lesser extent Sydney have already shown us that it is the way to go with both teams playing one power forward each (Lynch and Hall) surrounded by a multitude of midfielders and 6'2 floaters who can run.

Adelaide seem to be going all right too as are Melbourne (Neitz).

The game could change back to being about big players again. It would be a radical change though based on what has been developing over the past five years.

 

[Smokin]

Those sides have big ruck divisions and solid defense.

Adelaide has a multitude of big players. Not sure where you're going with that one. They have 5 Ruckmen on their list.

And if you're only referring to forwards - of all the talls we have discussed Gumby has been the only one we have drafted.

Sydney has Jolly, Everitt, Doyle (and had ball) plus Goodes, Roberts-Thompson and Bolton to add to Hall who all play as talls, and its a bloody formidable big man division who all play/will play every game. Im not even mentioning other 195cm plus youngsters Shaw, Rowe and Barlow.

Sure, West Coast are very midfield-carried as we all know, but they still have their core of Cox, Staker, Hansen, Seaby, Glass and Lynch. Hunter is about the same heigh as Lucas, who play as more mobile KPP.

And with West Coast, Im sure their forward line is like that due to necessity, rather than design. If they could throw another big power forward they would, they just dont have it.

Hardly small teams like what Footscray is doing.

Who are our automatic big men selected? Lloyd, Lucas, MM, Fletcher, Hille, and perhaps Johns.

Hardly over the top when compared to teams you mentioned as not having a lot of KPP. Laycok and Ryder will alternate for the backup ruckman position, and I dunno about Bradley.

How long with MM and Fletch be around?

Hardly over the top.

 

[whirl]

In three years Lloyd, Lucas, Fletcher, Hird, and Michael could all be gone. We have to prepare for that.

 

[jodo27]

As most of you know, I have long been critical of the way we have drafted lately - especially the amount of KPP we now have on our list in a time when the game is all about pin-point disposal and pace.

In my opinion the Lloyd, Lucas, Johns triumvirate cannot work. I know its only a practice game but Saturday night illustrated it perfectly. Johns is a pure, leading full forward and looked lost having to play second fiddle to Lloyd.
Secondly, I lost count of the number of times the ball was whipped out of defense simply because we could not place enough pressure on all their running defenders. Davey did a fantastic job but he can't be everywhere.

We have two excellent prospects in Ryder and Gumbleton who simply won't get a game because we are overloaded with height. I love Paddy as a player but it was a horrific mistake drafting him over a Drum or Higgins in 2005. We need skilled midfielders and don't need height. So what did we do. Draft height !!!

Welsh and Winderlich have to either learn to hit a target every time they attempt a chipped 30 metre kick or give that option away. I am particularly worried about Welsh as it seems to me that the game is getting too quick for him. I love his courage and attack on the ball and I hope he can prove me wrong.

Hopefelly Heffernen and Camporeale will play a bigger part in the 2007 season as their excellent disposal is badly needed in our side.

The back line looked okay except for Welsh's disposal. Most of the Carlton goals were kicked from pin point passes into their forward line from their midfield. Nothing has really changed from last year in that regard (despite the recruitment of Michael) and it makes a mockery of those who think that CHB was our weakness last season. Its our midfield and always has been our midfield.

For the first time I am slightly pessimistic about our team. We just don't have that jet in the midfield that seemingly every other team has. Our forwards are good (although top heavy), our back line is excellent but the runners are just pedestrian.

Watson, Lovett, Monfries, JJ, MJ are all nice players but none of them are what you call elite.

Again, I hope that I am wrong.

Terry Wallace and Rodney Eade would agree with you ...however neither Terry nor Rodney have coached a premiership team. Their sides are fully of quick flashy players who cant complete the job. Gumby and Paddy will be in our next premiership side. Western Bulldogs and Richmond will not win a flag inside our next premiership side either because they lack the structure required.

 

[Bombersfc]

I really like this thread and some of the points being raised

but just a few things i was thinking about

- it has been stated that gumby or say a ryder might not get much game time this year given all our talls. i think it wouldnt really have made a difference if we used our first pick this year on a midfielder or as we eventually did on gumby. The 2nd best midfielder in the draft was probably selwood. the question is would selwood actually get a game for the bombers this year. he would be competing with watson, stanton, lovett, monfries who are all proabaly better than him. then there is also MJ and JJ and campo who would all be ahead of him as well. that leaves him competing with dyson, heffernanan, winderlich, peverill and also our other draftess in hislop, houli and jetta.

- going by that the only player i think who will play consistently for the bombers this year is davey and he plays as a forward. If that turns out to be the case, then all these players would be in the saem category as gumby and then it turns out that drafting gumby and having him only playing in the secoonds would not just be isolated to him.

- also like i was saying our midfield component has lots of competetion and most of them are young. watson, monfries, stanton, lovett, dyson, winderlich, lonergon are all below 24. on top of that you add the draftees this year which is jetta, hislop and houli and we have a lot of good young midfielders coming through. On the other hand, our forward line and backline have not got too many youngsters coming through. I mean we have the stalwarts in the forward line of lloyd, lucas and hird and what maybe lloyd will be the last to retire of that bunch say in about 5 years. all we have after that is basically neagle, johns and gumby.

- the same goes for the backline. you take away mal and fletch who both prolly have 2 years left and you've got McPhee who is 25 and bradley who is like 23. Hence ryder is being developed in that position.

look only time will tell if the right decision was made. but i think generally there has been some rationale to getting who we've picked up as explained above. fingers crossed it will turn out good for the club.

 

[Monkey King]

Bradley may be in trouble as he hasnt come on like most thought he would. If i was coach he wouldnt be in my best 22.

I just hope Bradley isn't being played out of position. Don't really think he's a CHB. If I'm right, I hope Sheeds can discontinue the experiement and develop him in another position. Either that, or trade him to the Blues......... I'd take him.

 

[Daytripper]

I tell you what guys. You slowly are starting to convince me.

Still worried about what part Johns is going to play for us though.

 

[Darealrath]

Still worried about what part Johns is going to play for us though.

Same. The 3 big blokes will likely only work if our midfielders are really on top and/or are using the footy well. Unfortunately that's a bit rare lately. When that happens we'll be a chance to kick 8 or 9 in a quarter, but most of the time we're going to be exploited by teams who play extra runners back there. If Hird is up there too then we'll get absolutely torched when we turn it over.

 

[monty1104]

marcuz,
They would be the 4th tall foward.

We already have Lloyd, Lucas and Johns.

The modern game just won't allow four tall forwards. It doesn't even allow three and even two nowadays is stretching it.

Although the new push in the back rule may bring back the advent of two genuine forwards into the game.

What's stopping us from trying something different to other teams to try and get an edge. ATM, our midfield disposal is not great. But if we can just dump it high into the forward line, we will have a great advantage over other teams. Strategy is all about playing to your strengths. Our strangth are our tall forwards and young ruck talent. It would be a shame to waste them.

 

[Daytripper]

What's stopping us from trying something different to other teams to try and get an edge. ATM, our midfield disposal is not great. But if we can just dump it high into the forward line, we will have a great advantage over other teams. Strategy is all about playing to your strengths. Our strangth are our tall forwards and young ruck talent. It would be a shame to waste them.

We would have to mark 50% of the time for that strategy to work. Otherwise it would just be turnover - goal.

Do you really think our forwards can get in a position to mark the ball every 2nd time and with the ball being delivered haphazardly ?