pick 8,24,28,40,56

[mymansyd]

as much fun as it is to follow, there is a real credibility issue with Footydraft.
Let's not forget an old adage "just because you say it, doesn;t make it true".

I think they're trying, but I am long way from convinced they're on the right track. consider: the change or update every 2 - 3 days. The real draft board doesn't change that much, they are speculating, often, to keep people interested. the hook is the changing places, not the quality of the opinion.

I agree, these sorts of enterprises are always based on speculation and can't claim too much credibilty. But full marks to FootyDraft.com...

1) It's fun &
2) It bloody wets our appetite for the real thing this Saturday

By the way, journalist Matt Burgan publishes his AFL Phantom Draft on afl.com.au today. From memory, he didn't do too badly last year.

 

[Jumbo]

FootyDraft now has the Crows picking up WOOD with 8, Monfries sliding down to No.11 (port) and Crows getting Eckermann at No.24, you would have to be happy with both Wood and Eckermann if that does happen!

 

[mymansyd]

FootyDraft now has the Crows picking up WOOD with 8, Monfries sliding down to No.11 (port) and Crows getting Eckermann at No.24, you would have to be happy with both Wood and Eckermann if that does happen!

I would definitely be happy with that combination.

However, I just get the feeling that Monfries is the only exception to us drafting a ruckman at pick 8 (unless another one of the more fancied youngsters slides down, eg. Franklin). If Monfries is available, I think Craigy will insist we grab him & hopefully grab a ruckman (Maric or Shaw) with picks 24 or 28. Just my gut feeling. Personally, I don't care, either Wood or Monfries would do very nicely.

I really don't think Monfries will last to Port's pick 11, there's actually more chance of him not lasting to our pick 8. Then again, remember Salopek?

 

[Crowked]

Starting to wish we had traded for another high draft pick.

Monfries @11 to Port!

wish we had 8 & either 9 or 10.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Listen Stiffy,
I'll explain more clearly if I can. A ruckman is much like an NBA centre, if you're any good you go 1 or 2. if you haven't developed yet, you slip under the radar (see brad miller/primus); there are almost NO decent ruckman/centres ever taken late in the top 10 in either sport.

why is wood going to buck the trend? either he is hot and he is already gone by the time we pick, or...

Patterns are there to be broken. We can't wrtie something off just because history suggests its not a good idea. Every year scouts get better, networks of information get better and draftees are more scrutinised than ever. Trends change. I see no reason why Wood won't make it unless there is something we are not aware of or he gets a shocking run with injuries ala Ryan Fitzgerald.

 

[Thunderstruck]

After hearing whispers and the like, I sure the crows are going to pick Wood up with their first pick, assuming he is still there. Wood is raw but he has a heap of talent, in the LONG TERM he is the best bet going around in terms of the ruckman available this year. Now I'm a massive Monfries fan and am dying to see him play but GOOD ruckman are rare and we do need a GOOD ruckman, and who better than Wood. He will take time, I expect him to play mostly ressies next year with about 5-10 SANFL games thrown in. If he can improve his speed, and his kicking, look out.

We have a better chance picking up a decent midfielder with our 2nd pick than a decent ruckman. Think of it that way.

If Wood is gone b4 8, take Monfries assuming he is also there. If not, take Meyer or Lewis or Grundy.

 

[Stiffy_18]

We have a better chance picking up a decent midfielder with our 2nd pick than a decent ruckman. Think of it that way.

And that is a very astute comment to make. You can still get a very good midfielder @ 24 but not a top ruck prospect. I think we can still get both a good ruckman and a good midfielder with picks 8 and 24 respectively.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

as much fun as it is to follow, there is a real credibility issue with Footydraft.
Let's not forget an old adage "just because you say it, doesn;t make it true".

I think they're trying, but I am long way from convinced they're on the right track. consider: the change or update every 2 - 3 days. The real draft board doesn't change that much, they are speculating, often, to keep people interested. the hook is the changing places, not the quality of the opinion.

Your right.
Anyone in the know will tell you the eveness in players after the first 10 is just so even. But it is fun, unless you see an unknown 183cm player (Le Cras) then you tend to cringe a little.

Having said that he may prove to be a fantastic pick-up, but I doubt really if any of the second round or 3rd round selections for us turn out to be correct.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Patterns are there to be broken. We can't wrtie something off just because history suggests its not a good idea. Every year scouts get better, networks of information get better and draftees are more scrutinised than ever. Trends change. I see no reason why Wood won't make it unless there is something we are not aware of or he gets a shocking run with injuries ala Ryan Fitzgerald.

Its been said Wood has the capability to be a great ruckmen. Obviously his frame and doubts over his ability to put weight on are contributing factors to his slide to later half of top 10.

Fact is we are guaranteed to get a good player at 8 - Wood, Monfries, Meeson, or even Williams.

Our concern from here should be the vital selections of 24 & 28 which will decide ultimately how we're judged in this draft.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

And that is a very astute comment to make. You can still get a very good midfielder @ 24 but not a top ruck prospect. I think we can still get both a good ruckman and a good midfielder with picks 8 and 24 respectively.

You see, in this draft I disagree with that comment.
Plentiful supply of ruckmen, even recycled - shortage of quality midfielders.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Patterns are there to be broken. We can't wrtie something off just because history suggests its not a good idea. Every year scouts get better, networks of information get better and draftees are more scrutinised than ever. Trends change. I see no reason why Wood won't make it unless there is something we are not aware of or he gets a shocking run with injuries ala Ryan Fitzgerald.

you're clutching at straws there stiffy, pure hit and hope.
those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it...

from burgatron:
"but the fact that some astute judges have 'crystal-balled' Wood as potentially the best ruckman in the game"

if that were true why would he last to no.8?

 

[Crow-mosone]

And that is a very astute comment to make. You can still get a very good midfielder @ 24 but not a top ruck prospect.

not true, this has been proven a couple of weeks ago. more likely to get a decent ruckman in the 20's than latter in top 10.

seaby anyone?

 

[tribey]

not true, this has been proven a couple of weeks ago. more likely to get a decent ruckman in the 20's than latter in top 10.

seaby anyone?

Gardiner anyone?

It's hit and miss in any draft, that much is sure.

Because talls (ruckmen and KPPs) are rarer than midfielders and flankers, the hits and misses are that much more magnified, that's all.

 

[crowsarethebest]

you're clutching at straws there stiffy, pure hit and hope.
those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it...

from burgatron:
"but the fact that some astute judges have 'crystal-balled' Wood as potentially the best ruckman in the game"

if that were true why would he last to no.8?

Because wood is a south australian. Maybe hawthorn like meeson because he won't be homesick. meeson is more agressive alot of reasons

 

[Crow-mosone]

Gardiner anyone?

nice to see you agreeing with me. Gardiner was a no.1 pick.

 

[Crow-mosone]

alot of reasons

indeed. a lot of reasons.

 

[Stiffy_18]

not true, this has been proven a couple of weeks ago. more likely to get a decent ruckman in the 20's than latter in top 10.

seaby anyone?

And tell me where a lot fo good judges had Seaby before the draft. Burgan had him @ 12 and Colin Wisbey had him in the top 10 and the pick of the ruckman that year.

Players slide not because they are not Xth best player in the draft but because of clubs needs or the local Vs interstate factor. There is a lot more to just taking the most talented kid.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Gardiner anyone?

It's hit and miss in any draft, that much is sure.

Because talls (ruckmen and KPPs) are rarer than midfielders and flankers, the hits and misses are that much more magnified, that's all.

Exactly right.

If we are going to bring up all these percentages of ruckman that turn out to be busts why don't we do the same for midfielders.

The "failure rate" for ruckman is magnified more because they are much rarer to find. Every year there is a Monfries type or a Meyer type in the draft. However, not every year do you get a Wood type or a Meeson type.

 

[Stiffy_18]

You see, in this draft I disagree with that comment.
Plentiful supply of ruckmen, even recycled - shortage of quality midfielders.

Who cares about recycled ruckman????? I sure as hell don't.

Tell me what to teams look for most pretty much every year. Every year you hear recruiting managers come and tell us that they are always looking for quality talls. Why is that?????? So do you think a club will overlook a quality KPP or even a ruckman for a midfielder?????? I don't think so. Recruiters always say you pick the best available regardless of position. This draft is strong on talls so don't you think that clubs would take a tall before they take a running type??????

Drafts like this one don't come along very often as far as talls are concerned. You ask any recruiter out there and they will tell you this draft has 4 real quality ruckman that should go 1st round and no draft before has had this many quality ruckman. So what do you think the likes of Carlton, Adelaide, Port, St. Kilda, Richmond etc do????? They will go for the best ruckman available.

There is MUCH greater chance of Monfries slipping down to late 1st-early 2nd round than there is of someone like Wood slipping down that much. Wouldn't you agree??????

 

[Thunderstruck]

Yeah for sure.

Be interesting tho to see what the AFC does if Wood is gone b4 pick 8 but Meesen is still there. Will they still go for the ruckman, albeit an interstate ruckman with the I wanna run home factor coming into play....or do they go for Monfries or someone similar? Be very interested to see. Hopefully thats not the case and Wood is picked at 8.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Yeah for sure.

Be interesting tho to see what the AFC does if Wood is gone b4 pick 8 but Meesen is still there. Will they still go for the ruckman, albeit an interstate ruckman with the I wanna run home factor coming into play....or do they go for Monfries or someone similar? Be very interested to see. Hopefully thats not the case and Wood is picked at 8.

I think if Meeson is there we will take him. I don't think we will go for DeLuca if both Wood and Meeson are gone. We will go with the best available but if Wood is there I am sure we will take him. Good to see he is up to 89 kg now. 3 years in the gym and he is ready to go

 

[crowsarethebest]

Someone said he need to put on 22kg AT LEAST to play AFL footy... he's already 89kg.. put on 22kg 111kg... heaviest guy in AFL?

 

[jc67]

I still think neaves will be our next (maybe not only) ruckman as i reckon wood and meeson will be gone by 8.
Monfries at 8 is still my bet.

Stiffy what happened to your old avatar??
changed it a few days too early

 

[Crow-mosone]

And tell me where a lot fo good judges had Seaby before the draft. Burgan had him @ 12 and Colin Wisbey had him in the top 10 and the pick of the ruckman that year.

Players slide not because they are not Xth best player in the draft but because of clubs needs or the local Vs interstate factor. There is a lot more to just taking the most talented kid.

rubbish.
1) I don't care what Wisbey says about todays weather.
2) No one - who matters - thought he was worth a top 10 pick, he was not that outstanding. how do I know that? the actual draft board. There were obviously big question marks at that stage. This is the point, there may well a great ruckman in this class; he is either developed to the point where it is obvious - and will go top 3 or 4 at worst, or it is not clear, and if it is not clear then he will probably not be selected that high.

Guy Richards & Mark Seaby are prime examples of good players, with big enough question marks, that the risk was not right to use a top 10 pick. Now all risks can pay off, it's about the stake. If they were sure things both would have gone top 10. Plenty of big guys have failed in that slot too, which is where risk and reqard converge for risky big men.
my point is based, on your very flawed view, that our pick is likely to yield a top ruckman - has there been a top ruckman taken in the latter part of the top 10 - say picks 8 - 10, since the draft was created?

There have been top ruckman gone top 5, top 30, and top 80 - and virtually no one of note who went 8 - 10.
Risk and reward converge in the top 3 for sure things, and later for potential busts.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Exactly right.

If we are going to bring up all these percentages of ruckman that turn out to be busts why don't we do the same for midfielders.

The "failure rate" for ruckman is magnified more because they are much rarer to find. Every year there is a Monfries type or a Meyer type in the draft. However, not every year do you get a Wood type or a Meeson type.

wrong.
the failure rate is magnified because of the type of player they are, players who often develop much, much later than the draft age. therefore if you have to draft a guy who is 3,4,5 years away at 17 - it becomes a huge risk, unless they have shown enough - and then EVERYONE wants him.