Pick 27

[TradeDraft]

I think the reason Alex would struggle with us is that Buckley is very intent on kids who have a huge appetite for the competitive nature. Alex turned his back on footy 12 months ago so would need to convince them he is committed and wouldnt walk again. Compare that to a kid like Ben Crocker who is a competitive animal. When you think about Maynard and De Goey selections I just wonder if we dont aim more at a Crocker than a Morgan. Dont get me wrong I like Alex. Has terrific pace but its his ball use thats his thing. Its elite. Other kid I reckon we would be right into is Cunningham. He is a Freeman clone.....bar the injuries.

How you explain Crocker. He Sounds like a Type Hine and Bucks would love.

Though with De Goey and Treloar. Don't we already have similar types?

 

[Kirby]

I would like Crocker just so I can call him "Crockershit"........

 

[Snoop Dog]

Posted up my Phantom this avo for those that are keen for a read.....I will add the rookies in a day or so.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...-national-rookie-draft.1117575/#post-41993477

 

[Maggie5]

Posted up my Phantom this avo for those that are keen for a read.....I will add the rookies in a day or so.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...-national-rookie-draft.1117575/#post-41993477

Great job and lots of work, will be interesting to see how you went.
Thanks!

 

[sr36]

When is the draft?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

When is the draft?

http://www.afl.com.au/
top of the page

 

[Crazy Tails]

Posted up my Phantom this avo for those that are keen for a read.....I will add the rookies in a day or so.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...-national-rookie-draft.1117575/#post-41993477

Great work Snoop.

So you have us taking Crocker, Kerbatieh and Williams with our live picks. Are you happy with that haul?

Crocker does sound a lot like De Goey doesn't he? x-factor and versatility appeal. I like Johnson, Fiorini (elite user) or Redman as possibles their two. How close where they for you there?

Kerbatieh's stocks seemed to have fallen a bit since the combine testing and Fas comparisons have me a bit wary. Can sniff a goal though and fills a real list need. Would you have gone different here if you took Johnson or Hardwick at our first?

I know nothing about Williams but it sounds like he has no trouble finding the pill.

So you have us taking 3 medium to small types; do we try and unearth some talls in the rookie?

Cheers

 

[TradeDraft]

When is the draft?

Next Tuesday

 

[Apex36]

http://www.afl.com.au/
top of the page

You could have just told him the date if you had already been to the AFL site yourself...

 

[ksardog]

How you explain Crocker. He Sounds like a Type Hine and Bucks would love.

Though with De Goey and Treloar. Don't we already have similar types?

Just by watching the video, i agree, he does look a lot like De Goey, possibly a better kick.

Wouldnt say he was like Treloar tho

 

[wednesdaywarrior]

Nice sticky hands Crocker, good kick. Is he tall enough to play medium forward or is he going to be a mid or flanker?

 

[TradeDraft]

Just by watching the video, i agree, he does look a lot like De Goey, possibly a better kick.

Wouldnt say he was like Treloar tho

I am talking Postion. Not How Good he is or his Potential

 

[ace andy]

How you explain Crocker. He Sounds like a Type Hine and Bucks would love.

Though with De Goey and Treloar. Don't we already have similar types?

Just from watching that video he doesn't look much like De Goey or Treloar.

From those highlights he only showed one aspect of his game though that was impressive. He lead well took strong marks and passed the ball well. However his passes were all in space or after a mark. Didn't show any contested ball winning ability or reading off the pack like the two players above.

Seem like a medium marking forward of which we already have a few. If he is better than the players around him then take him but otherwise I think we have more pressing needs.

 

[wednesdaywarrior]

Just from watching that video he doesn't look much like De Goey or Treloar.

From those highlights he only showed one aspect of his game though that was impressive. He lead well took strong marks and passed the ball well. However his passes were all in space or after a mark. Didn't show any contested ball winning ability or reading off the pack like the two players above.

Seem like a medium marking forward of which we already have a few. If he is better than the players around him then take him but otherwise I think we have more pressing needs.

Steady on there. We could be looking at the next Tim Membrey.

 

[wednesdaywarrior]

Is his name Ben? We definitely need to draft him if his name is Ben. Let's get back to Project Ben. Working towards a future where every single name on the list is Ben. Remember Benny Broomhead? Now we have Ben Trealor, Ben Aish, Ben Howe ...

 

[suspect footskills]

Watching that footage of Crocker I'm super impressed by his marking and kicking for goal. Not quite sure where he fits into our team though.
At around 2:30min odd he goes up for a contest and doesn't come down with the ball. Watching him though he's already well past that lost opportunity by the time his feet hit the ground and he kicks the goal after collecting his own crumb.
Not sure how he'd go as a crumbing forward but that's solely due to the fact he doesn't lose in the air against that competition.
I'm just watching clips commentating though and have no idea what his game looks like in other areas. It is slightly worrying that his footage is so heavily weighted to one facet of his game though.

 

[suspect footskills]

Has some serious wheels and evasive skills this lad. May be a touch high given the medias's top 30's.

I know its only a small snapshot of the overall talent we're evaluating but that footage just blew me away. There's a LOT to work with there.

Seeing as we treated the trade period
this year as our main source of young, highly talented players I wouldn't mind at all if we use our picks on a couple of
kids like this.

That combination of pace, foot skills and willingness to take on the game would drastically improve our attack out of our defensive 50. There's also a good dose of vision there too but his decision making just needs some work. Those cute kicks would be a liability at AFL level but he knows he's good enough so he probably utilises them sometimes without thinking.

Having him work on his strengths at VFL level would do him a world of good. I just don't see how a player with such obvious gifts is an almost unheard of entity in a "shallow" draft. Let's hope for his hope he's not hitting the captain Morgan too often or doing something else off field that is holding him back. It burns me seeing young blokes with a talent letting themselves get in the way of their success.

 

[Crazy Tails]

I just don't see how a player with such obvious gifts is an almost unheard of entity in a "shallow" draft.

Missing three months this year with a hammy probably has a bit to do with it. He got back to play in the Chargers GF though and was pretty good.

He's also an over ager who stepped away from footy in 2014; so his commitment to making it at the top level may also be a query.

Definitely has the talent to make it though.

 

[Crazy Tails]

Knightmare Snoop Dog Would it be too much of a reach to go for Callum Moore at our first pick? Looks to have a lot to work with.

Super impressive highlights clip IMO. Very athletic and three booming running goals from outside 50 were massive. Small sample but kicking didn't look that bad. His highlights reminded me of Johnno Marsh's the year we drafted him.

Brett Anderson thinks he could settle back but his highlights showed a lot of good work up forward. At 193cm and good overhead he looks like someone who could push up the ground as a high HF and then beat his opponents on the way back.

If we went with a taller type like Moore early I think that we could still fill our other list needs (small forward/medium type with outside speed) later.

 

[Harry O]

If we think we need a tall at pick 32 for list balance needs, then Mitch Brown will probably be 'best available'. As much as we badly need more key position players, they will take 'best available at our first pick at 32/33

We can dream that a Hibberd/Balic/Burton/B Mackay/Clarke/Rioli slides to pick 32, however the reality is we will more likely pick from the likes of Crocker/Dunkley/Partington/Phillips/Johnson/Morgan/Cunningham

 

[The Dawes]

Again we once-a-year draft experts are faced with the annual dilemma posed by the draft highlights package.

Let's face it they all look good in these packages (as they bloody well should too), what we really need is an UN-highlights package full of fumbles, turnovers and general incompetence, only then can we truly judge a prospective player's worth in a balanced and objective fashion.

 

[Snoop Dog]

Knightmare Snoop Dog Would it be too much of a reach to go for Callum Moore at our first pick? Looks to have a lot to work with.

Super impressive highlights clip IMO. Very athletic and three booming running goals from outside 50 were massive. Small sample but kicking didn't look that bad. His highlights reminded me of Johnno Marsh's the year we drafted him.

Brett Anderson thinks he could settle back but his highlights showed a lot of good work up forward. At 193cm and good overhead he looks like someone who could push up the ground as a high HF and then beat his opponents on the way back.

If we went with a taller type like Moore early I think that we could still fill our other list needs (small forward/medium type with outside speed) later.

I would be ok with it because if that is the need they identify then he is probably the best of those left who play that position. He is a relative late comer to the elite talent pathway so there is enormous upside and the comparisons to Marsh are fair. Marsh was a bit of a late comer as well and showed equally as impressive athletic traits and has subsequently developed rapidly into a senior player. Athletically both good but Moore is better in the air though whereas at junior level Marsh was better on the ground turning his opponent over. Moore to has wonderful speed and initial movement so he gets good separation on his defender which you want to see in a forward. With his leap and ball control in the air he has the potential to be pretty dominant. The issue with these young forwards though is how good are they at understanding leading patterns (timing, areas, creating space to lead back into, repeat leads etc). When scouts look at tall forwards they look closely at it. My query on Moore (along with his consistency of set shot kicking) is how much footy IQ he has around his leading patterns. If Hine and the development coaches think they can refine those two areas then absolutely he could be that selection. People talk about Himmelberg being in that range. I dont see a lot splitting them and I have seen a bit of them both.

Always interesting to me. Do you take a Moore because he has the athletic traits but still learning the game over an Allen who has the footy IQ but lacks the pace. Clubs usually go the former and players like Allen have to go the harder way. James Podsially was that player!

Regarding him playing back. I would be surprised if we took him as a back given the talent we have there but he has the traits to do it.

Also remember we very nearly took him last year. Collingwood and the Swans were all over him but it was decided another TAC year would be best. It would have to be #27 I think as with clubs like Freo, North, Melbourne and one or two others it was pretty clear to me when doing my phantom draft they would be all over him from about 30 or so onwards.

 

[unplugged]

I feel like I understand the draft bidding system as good as reasonably possible, however, I've got one question I'm still unsure about.

Let's say Melbourne bid for Callum Mills at Pick 3. Sydney match it and jump ahead in the draft order with their points to take him with Pick 3.

Melbourne now go on to select Pick 4. Some people think this could be Curnow or whoever else. However, my question is this:

Seeing as though Melbourne already bid Pick 3 for Mills, can they now go and bid Pick 4 on Jacob Hopper from GWS, and force them to match this as well?

Then all of a sudden it has gone Carlton, Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and low and behold, Melbourne now have Pick 5!

On the above theory, could they then go and bid Pick 5 on Eric Hipwood and make Brisbane match? And so on?

So in short, is there a number of times a club can bid on players? If a club with Pick 3 sees the best 3, 4 or even 5 players all as academic prospects, they should be able to continue bidding to try and at least get one of them, right? Or is this limited?

Snoop Dog Knightmare

 

[Snoop Dog]

I feel like I understand the draft bidding system as good as reasonably possible, however, I've got one question I'm still unsure about.

Let's say Melbourne bid for Callum Mills at Pick 3. Sydney match it and jump ahead in the draft order with their points to take him with Pick 3.

Melbourne now go on to select Pick 4. Some people think this could be Curnow or whoever else. However, my question is this:

Seeing as though Melbourne already bid Pick 3 for Mills, can they now go and bid Pick 4 on Jacob Hopper from GWS, and force them to match this as well?

Then all of a sudden it has gone Carlton, Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and low and behold, Melbourne now have Pick 5!

On the above theory, could they then go and bid Pick 5 on Eric Hipwood and make Brisbane match? And so on?

So in short, is there a number of times a club can bid on players? If a club with Pick 3 sees the best 3, 4 or even 5 players all as academic prospects, they should be able to continue bidding to try and at least get one of them, right? Or is this limited?

Snoop Dog Knightmare

yes they can absolutely do that. And its conceivable and I nearly did it my mock draft. Clubs should be mercenaries about this and if I was Melbourne or Essendon I would do it. Its not a 'mean' thing but its tactical and it may benefit their club later in the order (e.g. by ensuring clubs dont get 'residual selections' later in the order ahead of them)

 

[Apex36]

I feel like I understand the draft bidding system as good as reasonably possible, however, I've got one question I'm still unsure about.

Let's say Melbourne bid for Callum Mills at Pick 3. Sydney match it and jump ahead in the draft order with their points to take him with Pick 3.

Melbourne now go on to select Pick 4. Some people think this could be Curnow or whoever else. However, my question is this:

Seeing as though Melbourne already bid Pick 3 for Mills, can they now go and bid Pick 4 on Jacob Hopper from GWS, and force them to match this as well?

Then all of a sudden it has gone Carlton, Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and low and behold, Melbourne now have Pick 5!

On the above theory, could they then go and bid Pick 5 on Eric Hipwood and make Brisbane match? And so on?

So in short, is there a number of times a club can bid on players? If a club with Pick 3 sees the best 3, 4 or even 5 players all as academic prospects, they should be able to continue bidding to try and at least get one of them, right? Or is this limited?

Snoop Dog Knightmare

AFAIK as long as your pick is 'live' you can bid on any player you like. So yes, in theory, Melbourne could bid on every highly rated academy player if they wanted to, until a club refused to match. It will be interesting to see what happens this year, as GWS, Sydney and Brisbane have all painted themselves in to a corner by trading out of the first round for extra points. They've basically flagged their intentions, so other clubs can go in with confidence if they wish, and place an early bid knowing that the academy clubs will match. There's no way in hell any of them will refuse to match just so they can use a couple of extra late picks in the draft, so I can see clubs being willing to force them to pay overs in this system.