Pick 23 - Possibilities?

[Kane McGoodwin]

I would say Sloane is equally as good both inside and outside. The fact that he is good on the outside without good speed or acceleration is probably a bigger credit to his outside ability.

Douglas is most certainly an outside player who can play inside.

I agree Sloane can play both roles, but IMO he our best wingman with his gut running.

 

[azza77]

Shaw has talent, but is nearly always injured - but is far from a write-off.

Not to sure as to why so many people speak about Shaw as a write off or in that matter. When fit he's shown he can certainly play and hold his own at AFL level and will be a great defender. Yes hes struggling with injuries, but hes still 22 and has bucket load of time on his hands, and the club rate him VERY highly, despite people saying hes on the edge of being delisted

There is a huge list of players who really struggled with injuries as a junior and went on to become fine players, with Pav, Hodge and Cotchin a few examples of many.

Would hardly call him a dud draft pick.

 

[NTRabbit]

I think you are struggling with your maths.

3 players have clearly AFL quality standard - Talia, Smith & Gunstan - all great players, even if 1 left AFC.

2 players appear that they will make it - Kerridge & Grigg - we will know more after this season.

Shaw has talent, but is nearly always injured - but is far from a write-off.

This is well above drafting in (nearly) anyone's language... particularly as most of these players would be ranked higher if you re-did the draft order.

Talia has proven his value as a first round pick. Smith has made it as a player, but not yet proven his value. Gunston ****ed off 30 seconds after his contract ended, that's not a victory for anyone but Hawthorn.

Grigg appears he will make it. Kerridge is borderline, it's ludicrous to rate him any higher than that given what he has shown to date.

Shaw is always injured. So what if he has talent? "He has talent but is injured so never gets to show it" is just as much an excuse as "the player has talent, he just didn't have the drive to make the most of it".

None of this changes the fact that we do not have any specialist outside midfielders beyond the potential of Smith and Grigg. Douglas and Sloane are not outside mids, saying it over and over and over again does not make it true. They are gut running inside/outside mids. Their best work is done inside, getting the ball out and then breaking to create space for someone with pace and/or precision to exploit - either just to make holes, or to be on the receiving end of the next pass in play.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Talia has proven his value as a first round pick. Smith has made it as a player, but not yet proven his value. Gunston ****** off 30 seconds after his contract ended, that's not a victory for anyone but Hawthorn.

Grigg appears he will make it. Kerridge is borderline, it's ludicrous to rate him any higher than that given what he has shown to date.

Shaw is always injured. So what if he has talent? "He has talent but is injured so never gets to show it" is just as much an excuse as "the player has talent, he just didn't have the drive to make the most of it".

None of this changes the fact that we do not have any specialist outside midfielders beyond the potential of Smith and Grigg. Douglas and Sloane are not outside mids, saying it over and over and over again does not make it true. They are gut running inside/outside mids.

Gunstan is a gun player who was a good draft pick. Just because he left AFC doesn't make him a crap player. Just need to watch his finals series with the Hawks to see he is a quality player.

You answered your own question - if you are a gut running inside/outside mid, then you are an outside mid!!!

 

[azza77]

Gunston ****** off 30 seconds after his contract ended, that's not a victory for anyone but Hawthorn.

Just because Gunston was a complete and total ass wipe, doesnt mean it wasnt a fantastic pick by the Adelaide recruiting team, dont think anyone saw that coming at all. We're talking about having faith in our team to pick talented players and they have certainly done that.

Shaw is always injured. So what if he has talent? "He has talent but is injured so never gets to show it" is just as much an excuse as "the player has talent, he just didn't have the drive to make the most of it".

No, no it's not the same at all.

 

[Tex Appeal]

NTRabbit officially ignored. I implore anyone who despises cynical and pessimistic whinging to follow suit.

 

[Brenton Davy]

NTRabbit officially ignored. I implore anyone who despises cynical and pessimistic whinging to follow suit.

Sounds like a plan

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

NTRabbit officially ignored. I implore anyone who despises cynical and pessimistic whinging to follow suit.

I dunno, it's fun to read just to know I'm still sane.

When I start regularly agreeing with NTR ban or shoot me

 

[CROUCH #2]

I dont think we will get a star from matt but get a consistent player... vince for matt crouch ? How can you complain, I think the crouch brothers will be history for the making for the club just like the jarmans

 

[NTRabbit]

Just because Gunston was a complete and total ass wipe, doesnt mean it wasnt a fantastic pick by the Adelaide recruiting team, dont think anyone saw that coming at all. We're talking about having faith in our team to pick talented players and they have certainly done that.

No, we're talking about the recruiting team selecting players who have gone on to play well for the Crows, and contribute their 'selection value' or greater. Where is Gunston again? Detecting asswipes is what draft interviews are for.

No, no it's not the same at all.

Yes it is. It's an excuse. Players aren't selected just on footballing talent. They're selected on athletic ability, how they apply themselves at school or in their trade, leadership qualities, decision making and reaction times, but most importantly durability.

NTRabbit officially ignored. I implore anyone who despises cynical and pessimistic whinging to follow suit.

I never ignore anyone. It's the easy escape for the simpleton and the coward.

 

[Cleric]

Little did you know we also got picks 2 and 18 out of that trade...

...before trading both of those picks away for Carey

Not our finest trade. The Jarmen one was a winner tho.

 

[fairfooty]

There's another reason why Matt may have slipped to 23 - there appears to be an increasing level of sophisticated recruitment in the AFL - it's not just about talent and filling a need (although that's important) - Adelaide is simply the best place for Matt for 'fit', family and wellness reasons - and it's great that happened given effect on performance. He really wants to be here and for a Victorian that's a huge plus. Never good for other clubs to recruit a kid who really wants to be elsewhere.

I'm really pleased with his selection - this kid looks good - left- footer, footy smarts and guts. The only question is his fitness and that's fixable - and I'm sure Brad has had something to say about that given how competitive these two are.

Well done Crows recruiting. He may even end up better than his brother... and wouldn't that be something!

 

[Mego Red]

Ah, so everyone is allowed to rant and rave about Trigg to zero effect in every single thread post season, but we can't point out flaws and errors being made by the football department.

Ok, I'm all over this double standard now, crystal clear

Flaws and errors? It is a recruiting team that has made very few of those.

You haven't really seen these kids. Most folks writing mock drafts have barely seen them. We have recruiters who have seen every game Matt has played the last three years.

Pretty ballsy to claim you're pointing our flaws and errors. You have no real evidence to back that up - just other opinions.

Geelong made more shocking picks, but no one would question Wells. I don't think the AFC recruiting staff should be assumed to be idiots either. Their record is better than that.

 

[Sanders]

NTRabbit stop whinging, everyone muted you about 5 pages ago.

Talk about last refuge...

Nothing wrong with him expressing a different view point.

 

[Sanders]

I don't think the AFC recruiting staff should be assumed to be idiots either. Their record is better than that.

What record?

The main man left, there is virtually no track record with this team.

Our recruiting wasn't great before Rendell, he made a huge difference and now he's gone

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

What record?

The main man left, there is virtually no track record with this team.

Our recruiting wasn't great before Rendell, he made a huge difference and now he's gone

Rendell has had his fair share of misses and I think you would find that Hamish can take a fair bit of credit for some of the success under Rendell's watch

Rendell wasn't a one man operation and you do realize that Smack was Rendelk's decision and it was Hamish not Rndell that pushed son strongly for Dangerfield

 

[Sanders]

Rendell has had his fair share of misses and I think you would find that Hamish can take a fair bit of credit for some of the success under Rendell's watch

I don't think I'll find that at all

The decision maker takes the flack & the credit

 

[cmndstab]

Ignoring this draft, we've only drafted 3 players inside the top 50 since 2009 - Smith, Kerridge and Grigg. Including 2009 adds Talia, Gunston and Shaw.

That's two player who have made it - one already worth the pick spent, one could be but isn't yet - one who is tracking well, one who is borderline, one who is always injured and one who quit the club immediately after his rookie contract.

It's hardly the stuff of legend and song.

In terms of talent, that's 5 hits (and possibly 6) from 6.

Considering we're only talking about talent, I think it's a pretty good strike rate.

 

[Mego Red]

What record?

The main man left, there is virtually no track record with this team.

Our recruiting wasn't great before Rendell, he made a huge difference and now he's gone

You're being naive. If Rendell was a one man show of recruiting genius, they wouldn't have been itching to let him go.

There was frustration with Rendell for a long time, irrespective of picking McKernan or Claude. It is a recruiting team and network, for better or worse.

 

[Sanders]

You're being naive. If Rendell was a one man show of recruiting genius, they wouldn't have been itching to let him go.

Is this one of those circular arguments where because we let him go he wasn't that good; and of if he was that good we wouldn't have let him go?

Yeah nah.

There was frustration with Rendell for a long time, irrespective of picking McKernan or Claude. It is a recruiting team and network, for better or worse.

The very same recruiting network that sucked under Fantasia.

The man in the top job makes a huge difference

 

[adelaidecrows]

A freak situation for an entirely different type of player is no justification at all.

Oh look, here we go, now he's the top 5 talent we snared ahead of other clubs at 23 because "..."

Sam Mitchell, Luke Ball and Diesel Williams stopped reading your meandering nonsense right about there

While that's true, he also didn't get taken inside the top 20 as most of the phantoms had him going - before word started leaking out that clubs really weren't all that interested in him, and the phantom makers started tweaking.

Sloane and Dougy are not those type of players for a start and I have no idea why your knickers are pinched over me saying they aren't inside mids. Diesel and Sam are extremely strong in and under players. Sloane is aggressive at the contest but he isn't big enough in the upper body to win hard contested ball plus Sloane is a gut running beast that serves the crows better running up and down the wings running his opponent of his legs and winning loose ball. Dougy is definitely the outside mid type who has pace to burn on the outside of the pack. How often do you see him gunning it through the centre after being given a hand ball receive from Thommo.

As we have all been told clubs generally take the best available player in the draft with their first pick and subsequent picks generally are based on best available to suit their needs. Your assumption because he was picked at 23 that he isn't top 1st round talent on the surface is correct but technically floored. Only 15 clubs had a pick in the 1st round with two clubs having 3 picks and three other clubs having two picks. Some clubs clearly picked on best available need players before the end of the first round and you can see this with the phantom drafts being accurate for the first 13 then massively thrown out the door for the rest. Remember some clubs may have had 3 picks in the first 25 but they may only have been drafting 5 players that day. They need to draft to needs at some point.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

You're being naive. If Rendell was a one man show of recruiting genius, they wouldn't have been itching to let him go.

There was frustration with Rendell for a long time, irrespective of picking McKernan or Claude. It is a recruiting team and network, for better or worse.

Forget this part as frankly none of us know the real situation ......but the other point re team effort in recruiting is spot on

I have said Stewart is undervalued because he's not high profile, Jonas likewise, and the entire team .....but also remember the coach has a mighty big say when it gets to profiling recruit characteristics

Any fluke that both picks had strong contested footy gamestyles??

 

[Mego Red]

Is this one of those circular arguments where because we let him go he wasn't that good; and of if he was that good we wouldn't have let him go?

Umm - I don't think that qualifies as a circular argument. That's just the same argument phrased two different ways.

And Fantasia is almost a lifetime ago, so stretching back that far is, well, a bit of a stretch.

 

[Sanders]

Umm - I don't think that qualifies as a circular argument. That's just the same argument phrased two different ways.

That's right, its not logically sound (or true)

And Fantasia is almost a lifetime ago, so stretching back that far is, well, a bit of a stretch.

Not really.

The same "team" was transformed under a new leader, almost instantly. now you take that leader out and say it makes no odds because it was always the team?

Nah

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Interesting reading when you look at draft history & outcomes

Crows National Draft history

November 21, 2013 4:23 PM


Crows National Draft history:
1992
Marty McKinnon (selection #26), career games: 86
Brooke Fogden (selection #41), career games: 0
Matthew Powell (selection #56), career games: 16
Sam Smart (selection #86), career games: 1
Michael Godden (selection #116), career games: 0
1993
Eugene Warrior (selection #8), career games: 0
1994
Toby Kennett (selection #27), career games: 0
Allen Nash (selection #31), career games: 31
Matthew Collins (selection #38), career games: 43
Brett Higgins (selection #50), career games: 0
1995
Brent Williams (selection #18), career games: 7
Kane Johnson (selection #27), career games: 220
Scott Hodges (selection #45), career games: 38
Adam Ugrinic (selection #53), career games: 0
Ashley Fernee (selection #70), career games: 2

1996
Tom Gilligan (selection #13), career games: 3
Andrew Eccles (selection #60), career games: 54
Chad Rintoul (selection #69), career games: 76
Greg Dempsey (selection #76), career games: 0
Ben Parker (selection #86), career games: 0

1997
Lance Picioane (selection #17), career games: 77
James Thiessen (selection #33), career games: 51
Ian Perrie (selection #49), career games: 116
Linden Stevens (selection #65), career games: 2

1998
Brett Burton (selection #16), career games: 177
Tyson Stenglein (selection #29), career games: 208
David Gallagher (selection #32), career games: 33
Bryan Beinke (selection #34), career games: 38
Lucas Herbert (selection #48), career games: 14
Clint Kirey (selection #63), career games: 0
Ken McGregor (selection #75), career games: 152
Brodie Atkinson (selection #80), career games: 7

1999
Rhett Biglands (selection #36), career games: 134
Ricky O’Loughlin (selection #51), career games: 9
Justin Cicolella (selection #65), career games: 5
Robert Shirley (selection #67), career games: 151
Balraj Singh (selection #79), career games: 0
Matthew Shir (selection #83), career games: 11

2000
Lawrence Angwin (selection #7), career games: 4
Michael Hanby (selection #38), career games: 0
Matthew Smith (selection #48), career games: 0
Hayden Skipworth (selection #53), career games: 55
Graham Johncock (selection #67), career games: 227

2001
Brent Reilly (selection #12), career games: 193*
Ben Finnin (selection #44), career games: 0
Jacob Schuback (selection #59), career games: 7

2002
Luke Jericho (selection #32), career games: 33
Robert Shirley (selection #56), career games: 151
James Begley (selection #68), career games: 68

2003

Fergus Watts (selection #14), career games: 6
Joshua Krueger (selection #31), career games: 0
Ben Hudson (selection #58), career games: 168

2004
John Meesen (selection #8), career games: 6
Nathan van Berlo (selection #24), career games: 182*
Chad Gibson (selection #28), career games: 0
Ivan Maric (selection #40), career games: 118*
Chris Knights (selection #56), career games: 101*

2005
Richard Douglas (selection #16), career games: 136*
Darren Pfeiffer (selection #17), career games: 23
Bernie Vince (selection #32), career games: 129*
Allan Obst (selection #48), career games: 5

2006
James Sellar (selection #14), career games: 44
Kurt Tippett (selection #32), career games: 116*
David Mackay (selection #48), career games:105*
Nick Gill (selection #64), career games: 17
Bryce Campbell (selection #78), career games: 8

2007
Patrick Dangerfield (selection #10), career games: 109*
Andy Otten (selection #27), career games: 69*
Jarrhan Jacky (selection #30), career games: 3
Myke Cook (selection #38), career games: 14
Tony Armstrong (selection #58), career games: 29*
Aaron Kite (selection #71), career games: 0
Taylor Walker (selection #75 NSW Scholarship), career games: 69*

2008
Phil Davis (selection #10), career games: 53*
Shaun McKernan (selection #28), career games: 32*
Rory Sloane (selection #44), career games: 78*
Tom Lee (selection #60), career games: 10*
Will Young (selection #72), career games: 2

2009
Daniel Talia (selection #13), career games: 54*
Jack Gunston (selection #29), career games: 56*
Sam Shaw (selection #45), career games: 16*
James Craig (selection #61), career games: 0

2010
Brodie Smith (selection #14), career games: 54*
Jarryd Lyons (selection #61), career games: 12*

2011
Brad Crouch (selection #2 GWS mini-draft), career games: 14*
Mitch Grigg (selection #41), career games: 5*
Nick Joyce (selection #46), career games: 0
Cameron Ellis-Yolmen (selection #64), career games: 0*

2012
Sam Siggins (selection #62), career games: 0*
Rory Atkins (selection #81), career games: 0*