Phantom 06

[gandaal]

I agree that our midfield is a major weakness, but I do not understand the logic behind addressing one and ignoring the other. Both need to be taken care of. We cannot draft just midfielders!

And remember, a midfield without a ruckman is not as potent as one with a ruckman. Classic example: St.Kilda

Of course we can just draft midfielders. If they're the best available then there's no reason not to draft just midfielders, even if you are as concerned about need when drafting as you seem to be.

You can't address all the needs of a wooden spoon team in just one draft. This draft imo doesn't lend itself to offering a quality ruck prospect outside of the top 10 and as such we shouldn't feel forced to deliberately undermine our draft just to fix short term needs. If a ruck happens to be the best available, or at least on a par with the other nominees then by all means we should pick him up. But unless Luenburger or Sellar to a lesser extent falls through I just don't see that happening with pick 17 or 19. Or even with pick 35 for that matter. That's just my opinion. Disagree if you want about the merits of Tippet and co but don't try and convince me that we should sacrifice a top quality prospect just to get a ruck prospect on our list because I'll never agree.

 

[smithos]

Renouf and Tippet aren't in the best 19 players of this draft, there will be better players at 17&19 - this is a certainty. It doesn't mean we shouldn't select one of them, I'd just have them bookmarked for 35 and if they're gone by then well we'll have to look at one of the lesser rated rucks for our 5th pick or wait for next year to get a genuine quality ruck.

Last year Hawthorn picked Max Bailey at 18 which was technically over the odds for him, but in reality it was a good pick; there was hardly any difference in quality from the second round to the third so they got the man they wanted and didn't miss anyone of substantial quality. I think this year is a different kettle of fish because AFAIC there are more 'first round' players than there are first round picks, and we're in a position to nab two of them.

Collard would be an excellent get at 17, there's every chance he'll go top ten but such is the depth of this draft that he may well be around for us in the second round. Picking someone like like him at 17 and perhaps Connors at 19 is how you get value out of this draft, both would be top 10 picks in any other draft to get 2 of them plus Gibbs at 1 is equivelent to 3 years recruiting in the space of 5 mins. Everyone in this draft is going to get a decent/very good player, to get ahead you have to use your high picks on the best talent; paying above the odds for Renouf at 17 may put us a year ahead in ruck development, but passing on Collard, Connors, O'brien will likely put us a year behind in midfield development and then there's the arguement of who is more likely to make it out of three natural footy players vs. a QLDer who relies more on athletic ability.

I don't care if we completely bypass a ruckmen in the national draft, if we use our picks to get the best players then boost the liklihood that these kids will one day be in your starting 22. It's great to have team balance, but not essential, I don't think WCE are a very well balanced team but they get the job done because they've got so much quality. Guys like Lynch and Hansen are made to look good because the opposition know that if they pay too much attention to shutting them down Judd, Cousins and Kerr will kick 6-8 goals between them.

 

[SurreyBlue]

Renouf and Tippet aren't in the best 19 players of this draft, there will be better players at 17&19 - this is a certainty. It doesn't mean we shouldn't select one of them, I'd just have them bookmarked for 35 and if they're gone by then well we'll have to look at one of the lesser rated rucks for our 5th pick or wait for next year to get a genuine quality ruck.

Last year Hawthorn picked Max Bailey at 18 which was technically over the odds for him, but in reality it was a good pick; there was hardly any difference in quality from the second round to the third so they got the man they wanted and didn't miss anyone of substantial quality. I think this year is a different kettle of fish because AFAIC there are more 'first round' players than there are first round picks, and we're in a position to nab two of them.

Collard would be an excellent get at 17, there's every chance he'll go top ten but such is the depth of this draft that he may well be around for us in the second round. Picking someone like like him at 17 and perhaps Connors at 19 is how you get value out of this draft, both would be top 10 picks in any other draft to get 2 of them plus Gibbs at 1 is equivelent to 3 years recruiting in the space of 5 mins. Everyone in this draft is going to get a decent/very good player, to get ahead you have to use your high picks on the best talent; paying above the odds for Renouf at 17 may put us a year ahead in ruck development, but passing on Collard, Connors, O'brien will likely put us a year behind in midfield development and then there's the arguement of who is more likely to make it out of three natural footy players vs. a QLDer who relies more on athletic ability.

I don't care if we completely bypass a ruckmen in the national draft, if we use our picks to get the best players then boost the liklihood that these kids will one day be in your starting 22. It's great to have team balance, but not essential, I don't think WCE are a very well balanced team but they get the job done because they've got so much quality. Guys like Lynch and Hansen are made to look good because the opposition know that if they pay too much attention to shutting them down Judd, Cousins and Kerr will kick 6-8 goals between them.

What a magnificent post.

Drafting = success, if;
1. You always pick the best available person for that pick no matter what. In other words don't recruit for need, that will come later in the draft 50+ when your tossing up between players.
2. Never trade top 2 picks, ever. Top 30 picks are crucial to longevity.
Anything else is a recipie for disaster. Something we should have learnt by now.
Example of successful plan = WestCoast.

 

[SA Blue]

I don't care if we completely bypass a ruckmen in the national draft.

How long can we continue to do this? We haven't recruited a rookie ruck from the ND for a long time, and this glaring defiency can't be overlooked. A good ruck will take years to develop, and we will never good regular top 4 contender without one.

While as a general prinicple I agree with taking the best player available, ignoring list needs is fraught with danger (I am not suggesting you are advocating this). There needs to be a balance between the two and I would hope WH would recruit in this manner.

We need an integrated approach to our recuitment, taking into account many needs, not just the best player available. These needs would include such things -

a. Immediate list needs
b. Long term requirements (Preparing for retirements, delisting etc)
c. Best player availablity


Saying this, I would expect us to recruit a ruck this year, with either 17/19 or 35.

 

[Silvagnis]

What a magnificent post.

Drafting = success, if;
1. You always pick the best available person for that pick no matter what. In other words don't recruit for need, that will come later in the draft 50+ when your tossing up between players.
2. Never trade top 2 picks, ever. Top 30 picks are crucial to longevity.
Anything else is a recipie for disaster. Something we should have learnt by now.
Example of successful plan = WestCoast.

How did the Eagles recruit Tyson Stenglein if keeping top 30 picks is crucial to future success?

Wooden spoon sides or middle of the road sides like North shouldn't trade top 30 picks.

Unless you've already lost that pick and you're bringing in Barnaby French for "free".

 

[smithos]

How long can we continue to do this? We haven't recruited a rookie ruck from the ND for a long time, and this glaring defiency can't be overlooked. A good ruck will take years to develop, and we will never good regular top 4 contender without one.

While as a general prinicple I agree with taking the best player available, ignoring list needs is fraught with danger (I am not suggesting you are advocating this). There needs to be a balance between the two and I would hope WH would recruit in this manner.

We need an integrated approach to our recuitment, taking into account many needs, not just the best player available. These needs would include such things -

a. Immediate list needs
b. Long term requirements (Preparing for retirements, delisting etc)
c. Best player availablity


Saying this, I would expect us to recruit a ruck this year, with either 17/19 or 35.

I think list needs are important, but just as Ackland and McLaren isn't a premiership rucking combination, neither is stevens, murphy, scotland, bentick, simpson, blackwell a premiership midfield; the players we have there are far better than our current rucks but we need more. I think our list is promising but it is definately in a stage of infancy, when you're in that situation I believe you just pick the best players regardless of size or position - not all players 'make it' so you have to maximize the amount that do.

The Bulldogs should pick for need in this draft, not because they've got Griffen, Cooney and Higgins, but more because they're not going to have Johnson, Aka, Darcy and West for much longer - a talented and developed KP like N.Brown or E.Mackenzie is going to start being able to play decent football by mid 2008 when they'll have a genuine crack at doing something.

Lance and Lappin aren't going to be around when we're challenging next, and as much as Murphy is a classy little player, we need another 6 of him to be really decent. My whole theory here is not based on us not taking ruckmen but I personally dont want us to take one at 17 or 19, there are only 2 that I'd take there and they most certainly wont be around. I can name at least 20 players I'd rather have than Renouf and Tippet which means I think we'd be passing up/paying over the odds if we went with them before 35.

I use the WCE model because I like the way they got themselves a young promising mid who passed up going father/son and soon they realised they had a star on their hands but they kept on recruiting the best available: Kerr, Judd, Butler, Waters. They've been without a decent forward since Sumich left, they should have pulled the trigger on Polak but they stuck to their guns. They picked up Shannon Hurn last year because everyone wanted speed and they ended up getting a bloke who should have gone top 3 - ridiculous for a team that finished 2nd! Now they've got so many top midfielders that blokes like Rosa and Priddis can't get a game, but **** happens, who would have thought Chad Fletcher would go from AA to useless - they're prepared for that now.

 

[HBF]

We should be looking at in the '06 draft:

3-4 Mids
1 Ruckman
1 Defender

Best availabe at all stages.

 

[Jeremias]

We should be looking at in the '06 draft:

3-4 Mids
1 Ruckman
1 Defender

Best availabe at all stages.

Exactly right, HBF.

To completely neglect our needs would be very silly.

1)Gibbs
17)O'Brien
19)Brown
35)Houlihan
51)Mackay
67)Currie

Would be ideal.

 

[HBF]

Exactly right, HBF.

To completely neglect our needs would be very silly.

1)Gibbs
17)O'Brien
19)Brown
35)Houlihan
51)Mackay
67)Currie

Would be ideal.

Mine is slightly different, but will wait until the Phantom Draft before you see mine. Only a couple of days to go now.

 

[Pafloyul]

Yeah to completely neglect our needs would be silly.

We need as many future champions as we can get and drafting based on positions could severely hamper this. I would go as far as saying that the reason we have no young ruckmen is because we have picked for position ahead of talent. Imagine the irony if overlooking the better player came back to haunt us in two years time. The only way to break the cycle is making sure you don’t fall for it a second or third time.

 

[gandaal]

Yeah to completely neglect our needs would be silly.

We need as many future champions as we can get and drafting based on positions could severely hamper this. I would go as far as saying that the reason we have no young ruckmen is because we have picked for position ahead of talent. Imagine the irony if overlooking the better player came back to haunt us in two years time. The only way to break the cycle is making sure you don’t fall for it a second or third time.

Take your opinion, do a 360 and your bang on the money.

Our recruiting philosophy (of kids anyway) of late has been dictated by three things: 1. No kids with attitude problems (Mitchell Clarke) 2. No risky prospects (Beau Muston) 3. Best available player taking the last two points into account

I fail to see where we've deliberately overlooked a ruckman for a less talented individual just because we don't want a ruckman. Where the hell did you come up with that crap btw?

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

I would be very happy with:

1 - Gibbs

17 - Collard/O'Brian/Armitage (any decent player that slips through)

19 - Nathan Brown

35 - Renouf

51 - Andrejs Everitt

I know Renouf @ 35 and Everitt @ 51 are very long shots ... but hey ... dare to dream.

 

[gandaal]

I'd be happy with:

1. Gibbs
17. Proud
19. Collard
35. Houli
51. Djerrkurra

Do you think I'm asking for too much?

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

I'd be happy with:

1. Gibbs
17. Proud
19. Collard
35. Houli
51. Djerrkurra

Do you think I'm asking for too much?

just a little.

But id rather Hansen at 35 instead of Houli.

 

[gandaal]

just a little.

But id rather Hansen at 35 instead of Houli.

Maybe Luenburger at 51?

 

[Jeremias]

Maybe Luenburger at 51?

We would be committing recruiting suicide with that pick-WAY over the top for him.

Rookie selection at best.

 

[Silvagnis]

I'd be happy with:

1. Gibbs
17. Proud
19. Collard
35. Houli
51. Djerrkurra

Do you think I'm asking for too much?

Do you plan on drafting any talls?

The odds say we will draft one this year and the number of KPP who are available this year is staggering. I think we will draft a young forward who can be developed into a tall defender and Reid would be a nice get given his genetics.

He might be the father-son pick.

Or Mark Austin.

 

[gandaal]

Do you plan on drafting any talls?

The odds say we will draft one this year and the number of KPP who are available this year is staggering. I think we will draft a young forward who can be developed into a tall defender and Reid would be a nice get given his genetics.

He might be the father-son pick.

Or Mark Austin.

Looking at our list no I wouldn't plan on drafting any talls. It's the number of quality KPPs who are available in this draft which make it possible for us to pick up some quality mids with latter picks. Watching a player of Cory McGrath's quality reguarly playing from the center square towards the end of last season was a living nightmare which I never wish to witness again in my lifetime.

That said Reid would be a good pickup with our third rounder aka Weavers draft.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Maybe Luenburger at 51?

No way should we even consider Luenberger at #51

Lets take Todd Goldstein at #1 - at least to make Shlomoglickstein happy about something at Carlton

 

[Silvagnis]

Looking at our list no I wouldn't plan on drafting any talls. It's the number of quality KPPs who are available in this draft which make it possible for us to pick up some quality mids with latter picks.

I hope you're right and Collard or someone like that can fall to our second pick and we add some pace and skill to complement Gibbs.

He appears to be a soda to be drafted at number one. But I'm suprised the conspiracy theorists haven't stated the elevation of Flint has ruled out Carlton drafting a key defender.

But aren't we lacking a quality tall defender who can play full back or CHB?

We should always draft the player we rate highest but I hope we draft one tall if there isn't much difference separating the talents on offer.

We can draft Renouf or Tippett for you.

Watching a player of Cory McGrath's quality reguarly playing from the center square towards the end of last season was a living nightmare which I never wish to witness again in my lifetime.

Ha ha!

That said Reid would be a good pickup with our third rounder aka Weavers draft.

Yes please!

And I might watch the second half of the Championship game where he is playing closer to the draft.

 

[gandaal]

I hope you're right and Collard or someone like that can fall to our second pick and we add some pace and skill to complement Gibbs.

He appears to be a soda to be drafted at number one. But I'm suprised the conspiracy theorists haven't stated the elevation of Flint has ruled out Carlton drafting a key defender.

But aren't we lacking a quality tall defender who can play full back or CHB?

lol Your right about the theorists. I half want us to draft Hansen just to confuse the hell out of everyone.

As for the key defender part, sometimes you've just got to have faith that some of the kids will come on, and the signs that Bower and O'hAilpin were showing towards the end of last year (not to mention Flint's elevation, Russell being signed up and players like Hartlett, Edwards and Raso still sitting pretty on our list) makes me think that the solution to that particular problem is well in hand. We need to start looking at our midfield which is a complete disgrace, and what scares me the most is that very little is coming up through the ranks to fill the gaping holes. We've got Murphy, Blackwell and... ??? It's a serious problem.

 

[Salaryman]

Looking at our list no I wouldn't plan on drafting any talls. It's the number of quality KPPs who are available in this draft which make it possible for us to pick up some quality mids with latter picks. Watching a player of Cory McGrath's quality reguarly playing from the center square towards the end of last season was a living nightmare which I never wish to witness again in my lifetime.

That said Reid would be a good pickup with our third rounder aka Weavers draft.

Thank god somebody has got some sense around here, lets hope WH has a similar plan. Maybe i KPD and rookie a ruckman, but we need pace and classy ball carriers.

 

[HBF]

Thank god somebody has got some sense around here, lets hope WH has a similar plan. Maybe i KPD and rookie a ruckman, but we need pace and classy ball carriers.

Exactly 100% spot on Gilly.
Mids, mids and more mids should be on WH's shopping list.

 

[Jeremias]

Exactly 100% spot on Gilly.
Mids, mids and more mids should be on WH's shopping list.

I agree that midfielders need to be the priority, but we should not draft entirely mids.

At the moment we have 6 picks in the ND (1,17,19,35,51,67), and I think we should be aiming for 4 midfielders, hopefully with pick 1, 17, 35 and 51, 1 defender with pick 19, and one ruckman with 67.

BTW, good to see you made the first right decision in the BF phantom draft. You know what the next decision needs to be

 

[HBF]

I agree that midfielders need to be the priority, but we should not draft entirely mids.

At the moment we have 6 picks in the ND (1,17,19,35,51,67), and I think we should be aiming for 4 midfielders, hopefully with pick 1, 17, 35 and 51, 1 defender with pick 19, and one ruckman with 67.

BTW, good to see you made the first right decision in the BF phantom draft. You know what the next decision needs to be

Don't get your hopes up J. He could be very well gone by the time Carlton get to pick again at #17, and he's one of many that I am considering.