Pick 2,18,20

[Silvagnis]

I didn't say not to draft him because he's a defender,

You said

My only concern over drafting Hansen is, are we going into the National Draft with a defensive mind set. How many CHB win you grand finals?

To me that sounds like you do want him because he's a CHB and he won't win us a Grand Final.

Did we draft Russell and Hartlett with a defensive mindset early since they're defenders?

Or an attacking one given Russell's pace and the canon Hartlett has for a leg?

I just think with the likely hood of Gibbs being overlooked we would be better served with probably the best mid talent since Judd.

Cooney, Griffen and Deledio no good?

The kid can seriously play.

And Hansen is chop liver?

It's no secret those two backlines you suggested were awesome in their own right, but you also have to consider the defensive pressure from the midfield aswell. You can have the best backline ever, but if you don't have adequate pressure on the supply, that backline can look very ordinary.

We won't lose any defensive pressure with Hansen and plus O'Brien/Schmidt and Connors/Schmidt as opposed to Gibbs, plus another midfielder and a tal like Reid/Everitt.

So how are we improving defensive pressure if we draft Gibbs early and potentially a tall(taking three mids early would be a record) who Mojo has rated as less talented than Hansen, Gumbleton, Thorp and Sellar?

Gibbs/O'Brien/Reid or Connors equals a winning side because they put pressure on and Hansen/O'Brien/Connors doesn't because one is a gun defender?

What's the difference?

 

[Silvagnis]

I think another way to look at it is how closely do people rate Hansen and Gibbs....is Gibbs 97/100 to Hansens 96/100, vice-versa or is there more of a gap. Picking on need you could mount (and people have already) a good argument for either.

Then look at who is likely to be available at 18 and 20. You could mount a case that some of the skillful ball carriers will slip through as some clubs go for the talls they desperately need. So does that mean we are better served taking a punt on Hansen, banking on better smalls being available at 18 and 20 than talls or ruckmen. Would people be upset if we went with 3 quick skillful ball carriers with our first three picks?

I don't have the answers as don't others, but these are the sorts of things to think about. I suspect we will come away with a better group of picks taking Hansen, then hoping some of the better mids fall to oour second pick.

With Livo and Prenda likely to be delisted i don't subscribe that we are too top heavy...one more tall would be a good replacement, no more though, other than a develpoing ruckman. I would be happy with one tall, 3 or 4 smalls and a young ruckman. Remember that rucks take a few years to develop anyway, so even a speculative ruckman in the rookie draft would work for me. Then pick up Kreuezer or McEvoy next year.

No, but I think it's unlikely a side will draft three midfielders early and we'd have a glut of tall forwards and midfielders if we did that.

And no gun defender.

Bower, Edwards and Hartlett haven't debuted or proven themselves yet so it's a bit naive to say we'd be top heavy with Hansen.

Roughead is copping a bit of a stick for not tearing it up in his second season and the Griffen/Roughead question for Hawthorn is awfully similar to ours. Gibbs will probably be a safe bet for next season like Murphy even if he doesn't have as much upside as Hansen, Gumby, etc.

Who'd be a recruiter with 99.99% of people on the net talking out their arse?

That includes me!

 

[Salaryman]

I don't know, maybe you read the opinion of the 0.01% who does know what he's talking about.......and he's left the site!!!!


I don't know if drafting 3 early mids would leave us a glut of midfielders. Recently i stole a method from the business industry and did a brief study of the competition "best practice" . I did a very basic, and i underline basic analysis of our list structure versus that of the two most successful sides, Adelaide and WCE....they have very similar breakdown of players, which basically amounts to something like 21 ball carriers...i think we currenlty have about 15, I'm going off the top of my head here so don't quote me on the exact figures. Sure they aren't all going to be champions, but we need those extra ball carriers developing in the Ants...who do we have now? Jacko on the rookie list, and Russell and Blackwell who are both getting time in the 1's. we do seriously need to up our midfield stocks IMO. that's why i would be able to sleep if we picked up Gibbs, then two more runners and took a punt on the best available tall left at 36.

 

[BlueFeaver]

You said

To me that sounds like you do want him because he's a CHB and he won't win us a Grand Final.

Did we draft Russell and Hartlett with a defensive mindset early since they're defenders?

Or an attacking one given Russell's pace and the canon Hartlett has for a leg?

Cooney, Griffen and Deledio no good?

And Hansen is chop liver?

We won't lose any defensive pressure with Hansen and plus O'Brien/Schmidt and Connors/Schmidt as opposed to Gibbs, plus another midfielder and a tal like Reid/Everitt.

So how are we improving defensive pressure if we draft Gibbs early and potentially a tall(taking three mids early would be a record) who Mojo has rated as less talented than Hansen, Gumbleton, Thorp and Sellar?

Gibbs/O'Brien/Reid or Connors equals a winning side because they put pressure on and Hansen/O'Brien/Connors doesn't because one is a gun defender?

What's the difference?

First thing read all statements in context rather than plucking out different pieces for your convenience.
My point (again) is if Gibbs falls to our first selection I can see better long term value with him. The idea of Gibbs, Murphy, Simpson, Walker, Blackwell, Bentick, Carazzo and Russell all rotating through the mid-field is appealling to say the least. The game is getting faster and we need good ball carriers who can deliver the ball. My other point (again) was I can see other players all ready on our list playing CHB in the near future (Hartlett, Bower, Thornton). Do I think Hansen is a match winner compared to say Gibbs? Hard to say, Gibbs has been playing senior football where I have only seen Hansen play juniors to date. Slightly in Gibbs favour.

We drafted Hartlett and Russell not on a strictly positional needs basis, we thought they were the best players availible at that time. Hartlett had played forward for most of the year and showed great versatility when put down back. Russell showed poise, skill and speed. Russell didn't just play HBF he also played on the wing more often than not.

As for trying to suggest that Cooney, Griffen and Deledio are no good you are surely being comical. They are all fantastic players that obviously you have no respect for. I have seen Gibbs play on a couple of occassions and each time he has impressed me, he has a rare ability to find the ball in the centre as well as in the forward line. From all reports his preperation is second to none in both fitness and skills.

Hansen Chopped Liver? Your words, not mine!

Sexton, Dean and Christou and Jakovich, McKenna and Worsfold weren't a factor in their premiership sides.

My point here was all these players were supported by a accountable mid-field and no individual here was more important than the other. Our defensive problem at the moment won't be fixed by Hansen or Gibbs it will be fixed by the whole team playing accountable football.

If you read my other posts you would see that I have never said to recruit 3 mids, my first personal first choice option is:
2/Gibbs
18/Nathan Brown
20/Collard or best player possible
36/Ruck prospect or trade for a uncontracted ruck (Maric)
I think if this was the result CFC would be in good shape for the future.

You pressume to much!

 

[Silvagnis]

First thing read all statements in context rather than plucking out different pieces for your convenience.

I did read them in context and this was the basis of my picking apart your comment about who how many defenders win Grand Finals?

You state that it's a defensive mindset if we drafted Hansen, but you then proposed a scenario to draft Thorp and stated that he can play midfield.

And a slow KPP in Nathan Brown.

Where do we play Hartlett?

Have you seen Thorp play in the midfield?

Where will he fit in since we have enough height up forward and Bower for the back flank?

Why have Gibbs stocks risen if Gumbleton went at pick one?

My point (again) is if Gibbs falls to our first selection I can see better long term value with him. The idea of Gibbs, Murphy, Simpson, Walker, Blackwell, Bentick, Carazzo and Russell all rotating through the mid-field is appealling to say the least. The game is getting faster and we need good ball carriers who can deliver the ball. My other point (again) was I can see other players all ready on our list playing CHB in the near future (Hartlett, Bower, Thornton). Do I think Hansen is a match winner compared to say Gibbs? Hard to say, Gibbs has been playing senior football where I have only seen Hansen play juniors to date. Slightly in Gibbs favour.

Bower and Hartlett ready to play CHB?

They haven't even debuted yet and you're saying they're going to play CHB, they're best positions might be on a flank for Bower or fullback for Hartlett.

We drafted Hartlett and Russell not on a strictly positional needs basis, we thought they were the best players availible at that time. Hartlett had played forward for most of the year and showed great versatility when put down back. Russell showed poise, skill and speed. Russell didn't just play HBF he also played on the wing more often than not.

As for trying to suggest that Cooney, Griffen and Deledio are no good you are surely being comical. They are all fantastic players that obviously you have no respect for. I have seen Gibbs play on a couple of occassions and each time he has impressed me, he has a rare ability to find the ball in the centre as well as in the forward line. From all reports his preperation is second to none in both fitness and skills.

I didn't say they were duds so sarcasm is lost on you, I was naming as mids who are arguably the best since Judd.

Hansen Chopped Liver? Your words, not mine!

They all can seriously play and you're just C & P to pretend you know what you're talking about.

Sexton, Dean and Christou and Jakovich, McKenna and Worsfold weren't a factor in their premiership sides.

My point here was all these players were supported by a accountable mid-field and no individual here was more important than the other. Our defensive problem at the moment won't be fixed by Hansen or Gibbs it will be fixed by the whole team playing accountable football.

If you read my other posts you would see that I have never said to recruit 3 mids, my first personal first choice option is:
2/Gibbs
18/Nathan Brown
20/Collard or best player possible
36/Ruck prospect or trade for a uncontracted ruck (Maric)
I think if this was the result CFC would be in good shape for the future.

You pressume to much!

Hint:look at Weaver's thread.

You're all over the place with your logic and you don't have a clue.

 

[HBF]

You've changed your tune!

Are you saying we don't need a gun tall defender who is a soda to make it?

We need one badly since Whitnall has 3 maybe 4 years left at best (if he stays) and I believe there aren't many gun KPPs coming through next year.

Bower is a tall flanker at this stage, Raso will probably on a wing/flank as well and we don't know what Edwards can do just yet. We need Hansen as mich as Gibbs and I hope we don't take Sellar or Leuenberger just to satisfy our need for a ruck, even though it's no different to drafting Hansen.

Yeah I have, but it is very likely it will change back to Hansen. I completely understand what you are saying about Hansen, but i'm just wondering what we'd do with Bower, Hartlett, Whitnall and Thornton should we draft Hansen.
We've picked up quite a few KPP's in the last few drafts, and I just think we need another gun in the midfield, and that gun is Bryce Gibbs.

I'm also thinking that there would still be some pretty good defenders available when our second pick comes along e.g. Brown, Everitt and Reid.

 

[audas]

not everyone makes it people. Strike at least one probably two and maybe even three of the players you bantering around off your list. Thats footy. Players dont make it. There is the expectation that we will have flint, raso, jackson, smith, edwards, bower, etc, etc all running around like champs. We wont. i still havent seen fish or waite tear a game apart. They are still considered potential champs, a title I seriously doubt. Fev came good this year as a champion. (no-one doubted the guys ability but geez people didnt want him). So some maybe even ALL of these players could end up duds. We are pox at recruiting lets not forget. So simply saying we have all these kids in the magoos means squat since not one of them has proven anything yet. the only thing to come out of this year is Murphy, Kade, Blackwell and some hope on the kennedy.

 

[Salaryman]

On Hansen and our talls.

For mine, Whitnall can be pushed back forward where he belongs and his football smarts can be used and he doesn't get senslessly run around by oposition forawrds. Play Kennedy in a forward pocket, then swap him with lance for half a game so he gets used to playing the position, but isn't required to play there all day just yet. Waite HFF and Betts and another small forward.

Try Fisher at HBF, rotating down forward to give one of the other talls a rest on the bench. Thornton can go back to taking 3rd best tall and try Hartlett at FB, Bower we can worry about later when he breaks into the team.

My only concern is initially we might ease Hansen into senior footy on the third best tall, eventually he can swap with Thornton, which means he may be potentially competing with Bower for a spot, which mightn't be the best thing for Bower's development......heck, get Gibbs

THese guys will take a few years to come on, by which time the game might be past Lance, Hartlett may continue having soft tissue injuries, I don't think one more versatile tall is going to be a bad thing (if we rate him significantly over Gibbs).

So the tall structure with Hansen is something like:

......... Hartlett Hansen

......... Thornton Fisher

....... ......... ..........

Waite Whitnall ..........

.......... Fevola Kennedy

Hansen and Thornton swapping in time, Kennedy and Whitnall and Waite sharing CHF duties....like i say, Bower is the headache in this theory, but we will always have injuries and form issues. maybe we have Bower on the pine as another defensive option swapping with Fisher.

Hartlett may prove a better CHB option with Hansen FB, but that is the flexibility Hansen would hopefully provide.

Still maybe 1 player top heavy...but the problems are down forward and where to play Lance, Josh, jarrad and fish, not whether hansen will fit into our long term plans IMO. Whitnall is not a long term option at CHB and Bower may or may not develop into a monster or stay a McPhee type attacking defender.

 

[Salaryman]

not everyone makes it people. Strike at least one probably two and maybe even three of the players you bantering around off your list. Thats footy. Players dont make it. There is the expectation that we will have flint, raso, jackson, smith, edwards, bower, etc, etc all running around like champs. We wont. i still havent seen fish or waite tear a game apart. They are still considered potential champs, a title I seriously doubt. Fev came good this year as a champion. (no-one doubted the guys ability but geez people didnt want him). So some maybe even ALL of these players could end up duds. We are pox at recruiting lets not forget. So simply saying we have all these kids in the magoos means squat since not one of them has proven anything yet. the only thing to come out of this year is Murphy, Kade, Blackwell and some hope on the kennedy.

Exactly audas, goes to my point above too.....what if Lance goes down with an ACL next week (touch wood he doesn't), or Hartlett never gets over his soft tissue problems, Bower joins the scientologists and punts for their gridiron team. point is Hansen would be far from surplus.

 

[BlueFeaver]

Either Gibbs, Hansen or Thorp are going to fit the bill in some manner. We have deficiences both in the mid-field and in defense. I will not be disappionted if we draft any of these kids, and I agree with cypher that Hansen and Thorp for that matter have a huge up-side. But, and I mean but, I'm still a little shy of selecting a defender with our 1st selection if Bryce Gibbs was available. I completely inderstand that if Bower doesn't come through and Hartlett suffers more soft tissue injuries, Hansen will go a long way to covering them. And I also agree on Lance as well. But we must atleast entertain the thought of Bryce Gibbs v Hansen and what each will offer as the club goes forward. We also need to try and predict how the game has changed and how it is going to change.
Neither are a sure thing and my statement about a defensive mind set was probably phrased incorrect, I just have reservations of drafting a defender with such a high pick. (Re-Livo)

 

[Salaryman]

Blue, you make some very good points, and i share your Livo anxiety. Gibbs is probably the no-miss selection of the top 4 or 5.

 

[Silvagnis]

I just have reservations of drafting a defender with such a high pick. (Re-Livo)

IIRC Livingston was an AA forward as a junior and screwed around early in his development by being thrown to the AFL's wolves before he was ready. I'm more worried about your proposal of selecting Nathan Brown at 18 since all the descriptions of his play remind me of Livingston. Hansen is quick, skilled and he won't have to be taught how to play down back like Livingston.

Can play forward as well looking at the game when he kicked 3 goals and took 7 contested marks.

General question, how many picks should we have in this superdraft?

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

General question, how many picks should we have in this superdraft?

around 5 I say.

 

[HBF]

How many picks, maybe 5 or 6. That would mean something like:

2
18
20
36
52
68

That should just about do it. Will depend on who's available in the PSD.

 

[john21]

if we get 6 picks in the national draft, 1 in the psd and elevate 2 rookies, that gives us the advantage of possibly delisting 9 players. Could be a useful thought when it comes to resigning players

 

[peppy la pew]

hopefully we can beat Melbourne again, surly we can beat the hawks this time around

Very well said. This post has more balls than anything in the entire thread.
Honestly it is like reading a suicide note.

You guys have a good chance this weekend, transfer some energy into winning a game , not hoping for 15th or 16th.

Good luck, and may the best team on the day win

 

[BlueFeaver]

General question, how many picks should we have in this superdraft?

Good question, obviously as many as we can afford without raping the club of what "senior" players we do have.
I can see 7 players leaving the club either by retirement or delisting. One of the 7 places will probably be kept for the PSD in the likely hood of snatching a out of contract player.
IMO there will be no Rookie elevations this year, the club will want to capitilise on this draft and keep as many positions open as possible. As I think ther will be no F/S selection this year.

Just to play "devils advocate". Cypher you said that Nathan Browns play reminds you of Luke Livingstone, but you also said that Livo was a AA Junior Forward and this is related to his developement as a defender (I agree). Is Brown worth a selection because he's the current AA Junior Fullback and is a natural at the position and would be more confident in this position therefore easier to develope.

 

[HBF]

Very well said. This post has more balls than anything in the entire thread.
Honestly it is like reading a suicide note.

You guys have a good chance this weekend, transfer some energy into winning a game , not hoping for 15th or 16th.

Good luck, and may the best team on the day win

Even if we have a few more wins, we'll still end up being 15th anyway. 2.5 games away from 14th spot suggests we can really only finish in 2 spots anyway.

I have a feeling we may be able to upset Fremantle on Sunday, especially now that J.Carr and Headland will not be playing.

 

[Pafloyul]

What many on this site are conveniently forgetting is that just because a player roughly suits a position on paper doesn't mean that we have that spot sown up when we draft him.

Preserving a particular draft pick to accommodate 'types' is flirting with danger and lessening our chances of having enough players who will actually make the grade. Do we want to increase the instances of us wondering where opposition sides got particular players from?

 

[Silvagnis]

Just to play "devils advocate". Cypher you said that Nathan Browns play reminds you of Luke Livingstone, but you also said that Livo was a AA Junior Forward and this is related to his developement as a defender (I agree). Is Brown worth a selection because he's the current AA Junior Fullback and is a natural at the position and would be more confident in this position therefore easier to develope.

As I've said on more than one occasion in this thread , more than one person has noted that he isn't an athletic tall and he's an old fashioned type KPP.

Could he keep up and run with with modern day KPP such as Riewoldt, Croad, Richo, etc.?

Lance couldn't beat those guys and he was in good form this year.

Austin Lucy was AA and quick but he was drafted in the last round or thereabouts last year.

We need guys who can fit a type but can play.

 

[HomerThompson]

My ten cents:

1. Carlton is in the midst of compiling a decent list after the well known recruiting/trading "issues" dating back to the late 90s. A number of decent youngsters are coming through, and most of the mooted high picks in this years draft would address an area of concern.

2. Specifc areas for development:
- field positions/roles: midfield, defenders, forwards
- player attributes - small/medium/tall, leg speed, hand/foot skills, inside/outside, aggression, accountability, reading of play, courage, attitude, ...

3. There are obviously differences of opinion on what each of us considers the relative priorities of our needs, and also on what can be taught and improved by fitness/training and what can't.

4. The agreement with the Bullants limiting the number of AFL-list players in every game (not just those against non-AFL aligned clubs) is slowing our list development. Our financial problems don't have us in the strongest position when it comes to reviewing this arrangement, but having to develop players in the VFL seconds makes it difficult to fast-track players at a time when we desperately need to do so.

5. Hansen, Gibbs, Gumbleton, Selwood, Thorp, and many others all appear to be excellent AFL prospects.

6. It is rare to see KPPs actually taken high in the draft, and we've not done well out of the few actual selection of KPPs when we've had them. It's tempting to go after them in this draft given that those available appear to be better prospects than KPPs in other years.
In my opinion, this is where most of the "superdraft" hype comes from. There are a few more standout non-KPPs than in recent years, but it's the supposed quality & number of KPPs that is the big difference.

7. I consider that it will be a few more years yet before we're regularly in the finals again.

8. With the above in mind, there is some merit in considering trading this year to improve our draft options. Unfortunately, the quality of the draft and the state of our list means that there are very few players of sufficient value to other clubs, and arguably none that won't be missed during the next year or two.


Where do I stand?

- Draft Hansen. This is the draft to get good quality talls and the best option is to use the first pick on exactly what we need and want.
We have tall forward options, we have midfielders coming through, and there is a spread of options for medium/tall utilities. We need a quality key defender, and we don't have one. Our defensive depth is improving, but Hartlett, Bower, etc. have yet to play a game. As stated elsewhere in the thread, given a list of prospects there will be several that don't make it. Whitnall is a forward doing a great job as a sweeping stop-gap, but he is not a long-term option. Yes, this means Bryce Gibbs will play elsewhere, and we could use him. But I think there are better draft combinations if we go for Hansen & other mids instead of compared to Gibbs/other KPP.

- Trade Whitnall and consider trading Stevens and Fisher. We will miss any one of them (or all ), particularly Whitnall's smarts, but Whitnall won't be anything like he is now in 3-4 years time, and they're about the only ones that would get anything of value this year.
Stevens would probably depart with less angst and we won't miss his lack of accountability, but it would leave our midfield more exposed.
Fisher going could hurt the supporter base, but appears to be headed towards being a popular depth player rather than a reliable & flexible forward option.

- Any additional picks we get from trading (above or others) should be used for a decent ruck if possible, then the midfield.

- Getting players from trading is not a priority, but it seems more likely that this year trades will be 'Player A + Pick B' for 'Pick C + Player D' that straight player/pick exchanges. Suffice to say any "mature" recruits should not have known shortcomings or injury concerns. Seems obvious, but our history suggests otherwise.

- Use our second round picks for the midfield also. Skill, speed, and courage as non-negotiable priorities. Preferably not lightly built, but that's more part of overall list consideration.

- No, we don't go for Akermanis, Davis or Gardiner, but should be ready to be part of any larger deal involving them if it suits the above.

- At some point in the future (still a fair way off IMO), we will end up with surplus of a particular type of player. You'll know we're back to normal when we're able to trade without leaving holes again. Surplus talls are almost always more valuable in trading, so it doesn't bother me that we might end up with a key defender too many.

- Other list changes are for another thread. This post is already on the large side.