Pick 64 - A mistake?

[Macca Pakka]

Considering it was a token trade, I wonder if we made a mistake of using pick 64 as a trade for Pods instead of using a later pick. The last time we had pick 64 we selected CEY and used 62 and 81 on Siggins and Atkins respectively.

Late picks are always a gamble but in the event that a player slid in the draft we now no longer have the option of taking them. From memory, we were done in the 2011 draft but Rendell rated CEY too highly at pick 64 not to select him.

For every player added to our list another would need to go. So simple question would you have preferred a gamble in the draft with pick 64 or to have retained a player like Tambling/Jaensch/Riley/Graham/Thompson keeping in mind some of them are contracted for next year?

Will be really interesting to see who is selected from pick 64 onwards in the draft.

 

[spexau]

As bad as Tambling, Jaensch, Riley, Graham and THompson may be they all do at least have AFL experience and have had multiple pre-seasons at AFL level. They provide cover and are able to play a role in a team as a last resort if we're hit by significant injuries. Only the very best juniors are able to step up straight away and make a meaningful contribution in their first year. Pick 64 would most likely be more of a long term prospect who wouldn't be expecting to play AFL until late 2nd, early 3rd year. It would only be worth making a call on one of those 5 players if the draft year was exceptionally deep.

 

[Skippy231]

Just remember the draft is pretty thin this year, the first 30 or so players should be ok but there isn't a lot of depth later in the draft

 

[Wright Away]

Anyone we might have selected at 64 will likely be there in the rookie draft.

 

[Wood_Duck]

There is a distinct possibility we wont even use 46.

 

[bigman]

Anyone we might have selected at 64 will likely be there in the rookie draft.

This is why.

 

[Hank93]

The draft is really skinny, and some talk that this draft will feature the least number of players selected in history.

So, anyone selected at pick 64 would be an absolutely lottery at best. As much as our deadwood is frustrating, the club would probably have more faith in them than anything available at that point.

Also, I'd expect only rookie upgrades to occur at 64 or later anyway.

 

[relapse]

I'd be interested to see why the trading happened for Geelong's delisted free agents.

That being the case, we were never going to use that pick anyway, but I was under the impression that we could have just signed Pods for free because any player not offered a new contract automatically because an unrestricted free agent.

 

[Bacon8]

I'd be interested to see why the trading happened for Geelong's delisted free agents.

That being the case, we were never going to use that pick anyway, but I was under the impression that we could have just signed Pods for free because any player not offered a new contract automatically because an unrestricted free agent.

If we didn't trade, Pods still wouldn't be our player officially. It was goodwill by Geelong & Adelaide (and GWS & Essendon) to get the players to their destinations quickly.

 

[DREAM TEAM BUFF]

The draft becomes weak after pick 30 so no big deal

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The draft becomes weak after pick 30 so no big deal

What if our 30th ranked player is there at 64?

Anyway, doesn't look as though we were planning to use it regardless. I wonder who ends up playing more AFL games from here on? Pods or the 64th player taken in the draft?

Am surprised we haven't made deeper cuts to the squad. Obviously the draft penalties play a key role here but I would have thought the SA U/18 results might have led us to roll the dice on some late picks rather than stick with the proven meh at the back end of our list.