National Draft

[llosis]

Realistically, who are you hoping we pick up at number 11 in the draft? The main candidates seem to be Burges, Moody or Surjan all local products and all different sorts of players. There is also talk of us going for someone like Chaplin or McLean or Ryley Dunn.

It seems Chaplin could help us most immediately as a KPP but there will more than likely be some prospects available at #20 and #26 in the key positions.

Burges, Moody and Surjan have the local sentiment going for them but I wouldn't want to pick them on that basis alone. And even though it is hard watching good local WA players running around with interstate clubs if we get a better player out of it then we should all be smiling (Judd v Polak for example...)

So what do you think? Even though at the end of the day it depends on the 10 picks that are before us who would you like for us to take most at the 2003 draft?

 

[Mead]

Good question.

I'm going for Chaplin at 11, on the basis that everything I've heard about him suggests he could slot into a key role pretty soon. As with most eastern state draftees, though, we could save a bit of grief by making sure he'd be coming here in a reasonable state of mind. If he's prepared to give us a go, then I guess we take the punt and bank on our exemplary record of hanging onto vics continuing.

Burges is supposed to be super promising, but I guess I really see him as a next generation player at least 3-4 years down the track. I don't think he's really worth our 1st pick at this stage but I would be well chuffed if we got him at #20. I do worry about the ****ers with anchors taking him at #19, just to **** us off.

As for the #25, I think its impossible to plan that until you see how the previous picks went. Every year, there are a few highly rated sorts who fall through the cracks, so its really just a question of drafting whichever quality player is still around at that time.

 

[Sera]

Originally posted by llosis
Realistically, who are you hoping we pick up at number 11 in the draft? The main candidates seem to be Burges, Moody or Surjan all local products and all different sorts of players. There is also talk of us going for someone like Chaplin or McLean or Ryley Dunn.

It seems Chaplin could help us most immediately as a KPP but there will more than likely be some prospects available at #20 and #26 in the key positions.

Burges, Moody and Surjan have the local sentiment going for them but I wouldn't want to pick them on that basis alone. And even though it is hard watching good local WA players running around with interstate clubs if we get a better player out of it then we should all be smiling (Judd v Polak for example...)

So what do you think? Even though at the end of the day it depends on the 10 picks that are before us who would you like for us to take most at the 2003 draft?

Good question, I was trying to deal with this in the phantom draft thread. I guess ultimately its hard to compare Apples and Oranges so I have 2 lists, one rating talls and another smalls. People around our pick could be... (for the talls), I would go Chaplin, Watts, Gayfer, Johnson in that order. For the smalls, I would go Walker, Dunn, McLean, Surjan, Burges in that order. I have a feeling we will take a tall with our first pick. Maybe I am wrong I have come to this by cross referencing various information posted throughout the internet

 

[dasler]

Just go for the best available player at the time. Only keep in mind of media build up with players. I think Burges is an unknown quantity and from my reports is a dud. This could be false it could be true...we just go on what we know.

If the best player available is Surjan, take him, if it is Chaplin take him. 100% trust in you Sera just go with the instinctive first gut feel and the team needs.

 

[drexel]

We should pick long term prospects instead of looking for the ready made types. Our top 22-30 looks pretty settled for the next 3-4 years at least.
Get the youngest players possible, and trust our club to develop them... guys like Fletcher and Embley didin't show alot at draft time but look at them now.
-get Burgess. he could be a superstar one day.

 

[The Passenger]

Out of that group definetaly Chaplin, but I'd be very suprised if he was around at 11. Most probably Moody or Farren Ray with pick 11, or maybe Burges.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

If recent history is anything to go by, the dockers will pick off WA talent with their early picks. They'll probably take Moody at #10, we'll take an interstater at #11, and they'll get Surjan at #12.

I'd be surprised if Chaplin lasts to #11. He has been highly rated on the "Drafts and Trading" board.

IMO, take the best talent available. Our late season form slump proved you can never have enough players of any position (midfielders in this case), and our talls are at this stage nothing more than "potential" players. Take the best thats available and we can't lose.

 

[Streaker]

I would be suprised if we took Burges with our first pick. The idea (I think) was to sneak Burges through the system and pick him up with one of our later picks. I seriously doubt he would go before our second round pick.

It would have been interesting to see the full results from the draft camp rather than just the top 10 as Burges was descibed as being athletic and yet the results didn't indicate it. That being said, recruiters don't always base their decisions just on draft camp results.

Michael Pettigrew is an interesting prospect

“Michael Pettigrew from Western Australia produced three of the very good performances. His speed ranked him up in the top half-a-dozen of all time as well and for a boy that’s 193 or 194cm and a key position player, who is so quick over the ground, it really makes the clubs have a good hard look at how his footy’s been going in the last couple of years. You don’t just adjust your assessment on him, because he’s certainly got that speed to play at a higher level, in those vital key position roles.” afl.com.au

More agile than Burges, Tenace and Sylvia
Faster in a 20m Sprint than Surjan or Tenace
A better verticle leap than Raph Clarke and Tenace
A good vertical jump off of both legs.

If we compare some of his figures to those of players from last year.
His agility rating was close to that of Daniel Wells.
His 20m Sprint was close to that of Jarred Brennan.

Extremely athletic player who can play either end. Has speed and agility and is good at ground level.

Don't know much about his decision making abilities.

Could be a reasonable pick up at #26

 

[llosis]

Originally posted by West Coast Stre
I would be suprised if we took Burges with our first pick. The idea (I think) was to sneak Burges through the system and pick him up with one of our later picks. I seriously doubt he would go before our second round pick.

It would have been interesting to see the full results from the draft camp rather than just the top 10 as Burges was descibed as being athletic and yet the results didn't indicate it. That being said, recruiters don't always base their decisions just on draft camp results.

Michael Pettigrew is an interesting prospect

“Michael Pettigrew from Western Australia produced three of the very good performances. His speed ranked him up in the top half-a-dozen of all time as well and for a boy that’s 193 or 194cm and a key position player, who is so quick over the ground, it really makes the clubs have a good hard look at how his footy’s been going in the last couple of years. You don’t just adjust your assessment on him, because he’s certainly got that speed to play at a higher level, in those vital key position roles.” afl.com.au

More agile than Burges, Tenace and Sylvia
Faster in a 20m Sprint than Surjan or Tenace
A better verticle leap than Raph Clarke and Tenace
A good vertical jump off of both legs.

If we compare some of his figures to those of players from last year.
His agility rating was close to that of Daniel Wells.
His 20m Sprint was close to that of Jarred Brennan.

Extremely athletic player who can play either end. Has speed and agility and is good at ground level.

Don't know much about his decision making abilities.

Could be a reasonable pick up at #26

yeah but can he kick a footy?

 

[Streaker]

Originally posted by West Coast Stre
I would be suprised if we took Burges with our first pick. The idea (I think) was to sneak Burges through the system and pick him up with one of our later picks. I seriously doubt he would go before our second round pick.

It would have been interesting to see the full results from the draft camp rather than just the top 10 as Burges was descibed as being athletic and yet the results didn't indicate it. That being said, recruiters don't always base their decisions just on draft camp results.

After reading the Sunday Times article on Burges I have changed my position. The Sunday Times article had him described as "a ready-made AFL player" and his results at the draft Camp were unavailable due to the fact "he had a back injury and osteitis pubis"

Colin Wisbey said he would go between 10 and 25 and with Fremantle, Collingwood and some other Melbourne based clubs interested maybe we will need to grab him with our first pick if he is available.

Pick #
11 Callum Burges
20 Michael Embley
26 Pettigrew or Johnson if they are still there.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Originally posted by West Coast Stre
Pick #
11 Callum Burges
20 Michael Embley
26 Pettigrew or Johnson if they are still there.

Thats very speculative drafting. Burges and Embley are much too high, but trying to take them lower could prove risky.

 

[Streaker]

Originally posted by daddy_4_eyes
Thats very speculative drafting. Burges and Embley are much too high, but trying to take them lower could prove risky.

After reading the Sunday Times article I think that the Dockers (pick 12) or Collingwood (pick 17) will take him.

 

[footyman]

I'd love to see Troy Chaplin at the Eagles next year cos if that happens it means my club hasn't taken him.

 

[Sera]

Originally posted by footyman
I'd love to see Troy Chaplin at the Eagles next year cos if that happens it means my club hasn't taken him.

Whats wrong with him?