Pick 14

[Purpellian Anchor]

Im thinking either Collier-Dawkins or Caldwell will be the steals of the draft. If we choose one of them over Hill/Sturt/etc I wouldn't be mad

RCD though is still only around the 15 possies a game...but is good in other ways. Still a long way of Neales 30 plus. At 193 Riley is a project player and wont be ready for a year or two perhaps.

 

[mike91]

Stocker and Woodcock.

http://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/...ntom-************-knightmare-first-two-rounds

Ahhh cheers mate, appreciate it.

 

[ChimpaWompa]

Woodcock would be a fire hazard at our HQ

 

[jedi mind tricks]

Woodcock would be a fire hazard at our HQ

That went over my head

 

[freo84]

Woodcock would be a fire hazard at our HQ

Woodcock marks and then kicks it to Cox who then fires a handball out to Dixon who slams home another sausage.

 

[tonygeeks]

Woodcock would be a fire hazard at our HQ

I heard his nicknames ' splinters '


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Patty_Moz]

IMO speed alone is such an overrated commodity at afl level for a bunch of reasons.

Firstly the game is congested these days so unless you have speed combined with the strength to break a tackle you won't be able to to use your speed much.

Secondly afl players are generally quicker than average so quick players at junior levels aren't as quick at league level. Plus putting on an extra 10kgs also can bring them back to the pack.

You look at the best midfielders in the league and they all share the ability to win contested ball. Some like Danger are quick but he definitely can break a tackle as well. I'd much prefer we pick up a midfielder who can win the contested ball ahead of a small quick midfielder who we're hoping will become a small fwd.

I won't be devastated if we get Hill but there are 5-6 others I'd prefer ahead of him.

 

[blue shark]

IMO speed alone is such an overrated commodity at afl level for a bunch of reasons.

Firstly the game is congested these days so unless you have speed combined with the strength to break a tackle you won't be able to to use your speed much.

Secondly afl players are generally quicker than average so quick players at junior levels aren't as quick at league level. Plus putting on an extra 10kgs also can bring them back to the pack.

You look at the best midfielders in the league and they all share the ability to win contested ball. Some like Danger are quick but he definitely can break a tackle as well. I'd much prefer we pick up a midfielder who can win the contested ball ahead of a small quick midfielder who we're hoping will become a small fwd.

I won't be devastated if we get Hill but there are 5-6 others I'd prefer ahead of him.

Forward line will need players in that 174-188cm range that can score, tackle, use the ball to take advantage of our new height.
Cerra is the only one that long term ticks all the boxes, another similar player who can play anywhere I think is required.
If we can get the Hills, Langdon more forward of centre they can bring the chase required to pressure the opposition, but to do that you
must even the midfield, halfback contests.

 

[Taylor]

I look at it the other way.

Congested football makes it more important to have speed, those packs are a great way to have most of your opponents kept somewhere else.

The side that can move the ball the safest and fastest, which is by running until you are clear to kick to a mark up field will get free +40m most stoppages. The fast players don't just allow that offensively, they block it defensively too by not allowing their men to get into space but that is where the smaller bodies will be less effective - they don't tackle as well.

Ideally we would have 6'3" 95kg guys who will run 20m in 2.7s and hug like gorillas but there aren't many.

 

[blue shark]

I look at it the other way.

Congested football makes it more important to have speed, those packs are a great way to have most of your opponents kept somewhere else.

The side that can move the ball the safest and fastest, which is by running until you are clear to kick to a mark up field will get free +40m most stoppages. The fast players don't just allow that offensively, they block it defensively too by not allowing their men to get into space but that is where the smaller bodies will be less effective - they don't tackle as well.

Ideally we would have 6'3" 95kg guys who will run 20m in 2.7s and hug like gorillas but there aren't many.

Logue at the state combine 20m 3.03, Ethan Hughes has clocked 35kmh in a game?

 

[Hammersoup12]

Speed and awareness creates ‘space’ that allows players to balance and make good decisions. Truly elite players must tick most of the boxes or must be truly exceptional in a few to make up for deficiencies. Absolute straight line pace helps but it is not the be all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Patty_Moz]

Forward line will need players in that 174-188cm range that can score, tackle, use the ball to take advantage of our new height.
Cerra is the only one that long term ticks all the boxes, another similar player who can play anywhere I think is required.
If we can get the Hills, Langdon more forward of centre they can bring the chase required to pressure the opposition, but to do that you
must even the midfield, halfback contests.

Totally agree I think we should be aiming for at least 1 med fwd with our ND picks plus Medhat. I just don't think we should be aiming for a small fwd with our 1st pick.

I look at it the other way.

Congested football makes it more important to have speed, those packs are a great way to have most of your opponents kept somewhere else.

The side that can move the ball the safest and fastest, which is by running until you are clear to kick to a mark up field will get free +40m most stoppages. The fast players don't just allow that offensively, they block it defensively too by not allowing their men to get into space but that is where the smaller bodies will be less effective - they don't tackle as well.

Ideally we would have 6'3" 95kg guys who will run 20m in 2.7s and hug like gorillas but there aren't many.

I don't really see it that way though. The game is not only congested around the ball but also zoned. Even attacking lines zone out the space so players can't just run in long straight lines. There just seems to be so few pure speedy players that are A-grade and really turn games that I'd be surprised if he is the one. I also don't really think it's a massive need for us right now.

I'd just much prefer a med-larger mid or med fwd. Also let someone else take and develop Hill and we can grab him in 2 yrs for our premiership team .

 

[jedi mind tricks]

I look at it the other way.

Congested football makes it more important to have speed, those packs are a great way to have most of your opponents kept somewhere else.

The side that can move the ball the safest and fastest, which is by running until you are clear to kick to a mark up field will get free +40m most stoppages. The fast players don't just allow that offensively, they block it defensively too by not allowing their men to get into space but that is where the smaller bodies will be less effective - they don't tackle as well.

Ideally we would have 6'3" 95kg guys who will run 20m in 2.7s and hug like gorillas but there aren't many.

Quick decision making with clean hands is more important.

Quick running is helpful obviously but athletic traits don't always make good footballers. They can be line breakers but still need to find the ball and deliver.

You are clearly over rating one aspect of a sportsman

 

[freo84]

Quick decision making with clean hands is more important.

Quick running is helpful obviously but athletic traits don't always make good footballers. They can be line breakers but still need to find the ball and deliver.

You are clearly overeating one aspect of a sportsman

Totally agree. Give me a smart footballer over an elite athlete any day of the week. Smart footballers appear faster because they know where to be and fitness is something that can be worked on.

 

[Joao]

IMO speed alone is such an overrated commodity at afl level for a bunch of reasons.

Firstly the game is congested these days so unless you have speed combined with the strength to break a tackle you won't be able to to use your speed much.

Secondly afl players are generally quicker than average so quick players at junior levels aren't as quick at league level. Plus putting on an extra 10kgs also can bring them back to the pack.

You look at the best midfielders in the league and they all share the ability to win contested ball. Some like Danger are quick but he definitely can break a tackle as well. I'd much prefer we pick up a midfielder who can win the contested ball ahead of a small quick midfielder who we're hoping will become a small fwd.

I won't be devastated if we get Hill but there are 5-6 others I'd prefer ahead of him.

Did you catch Stephenson's first year? Didn't see him breaking any tackles and managed to kick 35 goals with speed.

You do need more than just speed (or else Rohan would be a good player) but strength isn't the only complimentary trait.

 

[ep2018]

If I were freo and Hill were my number one target I'd be looking to (live trade) downgrade pick 14 for a 20ish and a late 20/early 30 pick. I doubt Hill gets taken before then unless we take him with 20 or 22. 14 feels like overs for him imo and if you pull it off and he is still there, you'd get another semi decent pick to use too.

 

[Lach72]

If I were freo and Hill were my number one target I'd be looking to (live trade) downgrade pick 14 for a 20ish and a late 20/early 30 pick. I doubt Hill gets taken before then unless we take him with 20 or 22. 14 feels like overs for him imo and if you pull it off and he is still there, you'd get another semi decent pick to use too.

We don’t need any more picks. We’re already struggling to fit everyone in.
Next year maybe...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Taylor]

If we wanted Ian Hill we should downgrade our #6 pick for a later first rounder.

 

[wayToGo_]

If I were freo and Hill were my number one target I'd be looking to (live trade) downgrade pick 14 for a 20ish and a late 20/early 30 pick. I doubt Hill gets taken before then unless we take him with 20 or 22. 14 feels like overs for him imo and if you pull it off and he is still there, you'd get another semi decent pick to use too.

24,254 posts in. I really thought you'd be due an intelligent one by now. A monkey with a typewriter would have a better hit ratio.

 

[ep2018]

24,254 posts in. I really thought you'd be due an intelligent one by now. A monkey with a typewriter would have a better hit ratio.

You disagree with my post?

 

[Walkingwounded]

24,254 posts in. I really thought you'd be due an intelligent one by now. A monkey with a typewriter would have a better hit ratio.

 

[Superkoops]

You disagree with my post?

You reckon?

Our first pick will likely end up being 16. I’m not obsessed with just Hill and I’m sure Freo aren’t either. He will be one of many in consideration at pick 15/16. I also believe that he isn’t much (if any) of a reach at that pick. It will really depend who is available. If Jordan Clarke slips to 15/16 then he’d be a big chance.

Also we already downgraded as indicated by Taylor from 6 to 11, then to 14 and finally likely to 15/16. We obviously feel there is decent midfield depth and we had to trade blokes in.

So yes he disagrees with your post.

 

[Jezzitizle]

If I were freo and Hill were my number one target I'd be looking to (live trade) downgrade pick 14 for a 20ish and a late 20/early 30 pick. I doubt Hill gets taken before then unless we take him with 20 or 22. 14 feels like overs for him imo and if you pull it off and he is still there, you'd get another semi decent pick to use too.

I don’t actually think this is an unreasonable post, I don’t think it will happen but it’s hardly outrageous.

 

[Ysaye]

We don’t need any more picks. We’re already struggling to fit everyone in.
Next year maybe...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The point EP is making is that you end up with more picks in a better end of the draft (ie. rather than taking picks in the 40+ range) - it makes sense if we are trying to get someone who wouldn't otherwise cost us that pick that we would be trying to downgrade. Notwithstanding the point others are making that hopefully we aren't wedded to one particular player as EP says we could be.

 

[wayToGo_]

The point EP is making is that you end up with more picks in a better end of the draft (ie. rather than taking picks in the 40+ range) - it makes sense if we are trying to get someone who wouldn't otherwise cost us that pick that we would be trying to downgrade. Notwithstanding the point others are making that hopefully we aren't wedded to one particular player as EP says we could be.

Are you the designated troll translator? Notwithstanding it was from a moron who continues to pretend he supports Freo and then bags us out away from this board, his post was also clueless.

By downgrading we would not only go in with more picks than we have spots available, so we get less for more but we'd also likely miss out on Hill if that is who we want. Nobody is rating Hill as a 2nd rounder. He has slid from clear top 10 (maybe even higher) last year to the teens this year. There are some f/s and academy players ahead of him meaning a pick #14 could easily become #16/#17 which is exactly where Twomey has him rated. If you really want someone you don't downgrade to the end of their expected range and cross your fingers they slide, you upgrade to where other clubs might pick him. SA clubs aren't sitting on pick #10ish going well Rankine or Rozee might slide to #10 so let's just sit on our hands - they've moved as far up the order as possible to make sure they have a shot.

FWIW I don't think we are wedded to Hill at all - there will be some other good quality at our 1st pick. Downgrading outside the 1st round in this draft would be stupid even if we didn't have limited picks - hence why WC couldn't satisfy Geelong for Kelly because nobody wants to give up 1st rounders this year (unless they have academy players in the 1st round).