List Mgmt. Pick 9

[ray8182]

Cripps is 25 - Setterfield 22 - Kennedy 22 - Fisher 21 - Dow 20 - SPS 22 - Stocker 20 - Walsh 19
All these players are primarily mids and young mids at that and then we have the likes of Gibbons, Cuningham and JSilvagni who can pinch hit through there.

If we do go by way of a midfielder, it has to be one with tricks and the ability to play various roles or what have we otherwise achieved?
We have the basis of a quality midfield and had have Coniglio come along, it would have been perfect. To load up on another limited mid and an 18 year old one at that, can only stifle his development by playing him out of position which won't serve us much at all.

Agree, taking another inside mid would be just adding one more to the list of young inside mids we have(that need time to develop). Wouldn’t solve anything.

We need run, speed, agility.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[reubsblues]

From my very basic and unqualified opinion right now, I love the look of Stephens and Kemp for our Pick if we choose to keep it. Stephens has speed, a tank, good ball use and finishing ability up forward. Kemp has huge potential as a mid or utility, a bit of pace and hurt in his hits.

Good minds think alike

 

[Macca43]

Agree, taking another inside mid would be just adding one more to the list of young inside mids we have(that need time to develop). Wouldn’t solve anything.

We need run, speed, agility.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Add quality foot skills and we couldn't agree more.

 

[Gethelred]

Cripps is 25 - Setterfield 22 - Kennedy 22 - Fisher 21 - Dow 20 - SPS 22 - Stocker 20 - Walsh 19
All these players are primarily mids and young mids at that and then we have the likes of Gibbons, Cuningham and JSilvagni who can pinch hit through there.

If we do go by way of a midfielder, it has to be one with tricks and the ability to play various roles or what have we otherwise achieved?
We have the basis of a quality midfield and had have Coniglio come along, it would have been perfect. To load up on another limited mid and an 18 year old one at that, can only stifle his development by playing him out of position which won't serve us much at all.

Of the two players you have in there, only 2 (Cripps and Walsh) have proven consistency of possession. Every other name on there (and let's throw Gibbons and Stocker in there, as well) has had strong games and off games, with the only player capable of gathering 30 possessions in a good performance in the AFL being SPS.

And before we go any further, yes I'm well aware that Setterfield, Kennedy, Dow have all had their injury issues.

We have a talented brigade, of whom only 2 can really be described as accumulators. We either need each of them to raise their input around the stoppage by 30% (if they are to replace Murphy and Ed without including someone new) if we are to negate merely the players lost, let alone propel us into flag contention; or, we can continue hedging our bets and continue to draft midfielders with likely attributes (in this case, drafting Stephens with 9 if he's still there, and trading for roundabout where Robertson will go to try and nab him before anyone else) allowing them to displace what players there already are if they're good enough.

We have the cattle at both ends. We definitively do not through the middle.

 

[HARKER]

Of the two players you have in there, only 2 (Cripps and Walsh) have proven consistency of possession. Every other name on there (and let's throw Gibbons and Stocker in there, as well) has had strong games and off games, with the only player capable of gathering 30 possessions in a good performance in the AFL being SPS.

And before we go any further, yes I'm well aware that Setterfield, Kennedy, Dow have all had their injury issues.

We have a talented brigade, of whom only 2 can really be described as accumulators. We either need each of them to raise their input around the stoppage by 30% (if they are to replace Murphy and Ed without including someone new) if we are to negate merely the players lost, let alone propel us into flag contention; or, we can continue hedging our bets and continue to draft midfielders with likely attributes (in this case, drafting Stephens with 9 if he's still there, and trading for roundabout where Robertson will go to try and nab him before anyone else) allowing them to displace what players there already are if they're good enough.

We have the cattle at both ends. We definitively do not through the middle.

That's not exactly correct as Fisher and Dow were clocking around the 20 mark before being asked to tend to duties elsewhere.
If we are to worry about our mids not getting enough off the ball, what makes us think the next one will? Maybe there's something in there to unpack.

We have enough mids where another 18 year old isn't likely to add much value to the overall....and if all those guys other than Cripps and Walsh aren't' able to accumulate, then we genuinely have issues on our hands. Dow went at #3.....Setterfield at #5....we rated Stocker at #6....SPS at #6...so what makes us think that a pick #9 in a weaker draft will be a solution?

 

[Macca43]

Of the two players you have in there, only 2 (Cripps and Walsh) have proven consistency of possession. Every other name on there (and let's throw Gibbons and Stocker in there, as well) has had strong games and off games, with the only player capable of gathering 30 possessions in a good performance in the AFL being SPS.

And before we go any further, yes I'm well aware that Setterfield, Kennedy, Dow have all had their injury issues.

We have a talented brigade, of whom only 2 can really be described as accumulators. We either need each of them to raise their input around the stoppage by 30% (if they are to replace Murphy and Ed without including someone new) if we are to negate merely the players lost, let alone propel us into flag contention; or, we can continue hedging our bets and continue to draft midfielders with likely attributes (in this case, drafting Stephens with 9 if he's still there, and trading for roundabout where Robertson will go to try and nab him before anyone else) allowing them to displace what players there already are if they're good enough.

We have the cattle at both ends. We definitively do not through the middle.

You are skating to where the puck is, not where it will be.

 

[Macca43]

That's not exactly correct as Fisher and Dow were clocking around the 20 mark before being asked to tend to duties elsewhere.
If we are to worry about our mids not getting enough off the ball, what makes us think the next one will? Maybe there's something in there to unpack.

We have enough mids where another 18 year old isn't likely to add much value to the overall....and if all those guys other than Cripps and Walsh aren't' able to accumulate, then we genuinely have issues on our hands. Dow went at #3.....Setterfield at #5....we rated Stocker at #6....SPS at #6...so what makes us think that a pick #9 in a weaker draft will be a solution?

I agree but a midfielder with genuine pace and good foot skills is still something we lack.
Dow - good burst speed, not great by foot.
Setterfield & Kennedy - not great by foot and not particularly quick
Stocker - Good kick but not really quick
Walsh - can butcher the ball
SPS - decent pace and accurate by foot but not penetrating
Fisher - quick and good by foot by very light.
Throw in Cripps and Ed, not quick or great by foot, and you can see a gap opening up. Martin partially solves it but another wingman would be great. A small forward would be my second option.

 

[Gethelred]

That's not exactly correct as Fisher and Dow were clocking around the 20 mark before being asked to tend to duties elsewhere.
If we are to worry about our mids not getting enough off the ball, what makes us think the next one will? Maybe there's something in there to unpack.

... because the players selected were selected for other attributes than their ball-winning?

We picked a wide variety of players with our selections, but accumulation wasn't an attribute we looked for unless it was in conjunction with other things, quality of disposal and evasiveness being our main targets. As for there being 'something to unpack', there is literally nothing I'm saying that I haven't said; we cannot simply rely on players to reach heights they may not be able to reach. While past performance is no indicator of future performance, it is certainly a greater indicator than its complete absence.

We have enough mids where another 18 year old isn't likely to add much value to the overall....and if all those guys other than Cripps and Walsh aren't' able to accumulate, then we genuinely have issues on our hands. Dow went at #3.....Setterfield at #5....we rated Stocker at #6....SPS at #6...so what makes us think that a pick #9 in a weaker draft will be a solution?

Or, the other players (Dow, Setterfield, Kennedy) will continue to build incrementally, and will become great with each additional inclusion that can spread the load, akin to how the key to Collingwood's forward line's function is Cox and Stephenson. Cox makes the smalls and Reid significantly more potent, and Stephenson allows their platoon of other smalls to pester without the best small/medium defender to worry about.

And I do not see the issue with continuing to obtain talent whilst Harry, Charlie, Weitering are young.

You are skating to where the puck is, not where it will be.

Sounds good. Elaborate, though; I'm not across hockey metaphors.

 

[HARKER]

I agree but a midfielder with genuine pace and good foot skills is still something we lack.
Dow - good burst speed, not great by foot.
Setterfield & Kennedy - not great by foot and not particularly quick
Stocker - Good kick but not really quick
Walsh - can butcher the ball
SPS - decent pace and accurate by foot but not penetrating
Fisher - quick and good by foot by very light.
Throw in Cripps and Ed, not quick or great by foot, and you can see a gap opening up. Martin partially solves it but another wingman would be great. A small forward would be my second option.

Absolutely, but we don't need another dour accumulator with poor foot-skills or one that can't kick goals.

I've already said that on profile alone I'd be looking at Dylan Stephens, but I don't know - He may be a character we don't need.
Many things other than skill alone gets you at the pointy end of the draft.

 

[HARKER]

... because the players selected were selected for other attributes than their ball-winning?

We picked a wide variety of players with our selections, but accumulation wasn't an attribute we looked for unless it was in conjunction with other things, quality of disposal and evasiveness being our main targets. As for there being 'something to unpack', there is literally nothing I'm saying that I haven't said; we cannot simply rely on players to reach heights they may not be able to reach. While past performance is no indicator of future performance, it is certainly a greater indicator than its complete absence.


Or, the other players (Dow, Setterfield, Kennedy) will continue to build incrementally, and will become great with each additional inclusion that can spread the load, akin to how the key to Collingwood's forward line's function is Cox and Stephenson. Cox makes the smalls and Reid significantly more potent, and Stephenson allows their platoon of other smalls to pester without the best small/medium defender to worry about.

And I do not see the issue with continuing to obtain talent whilst Harry, Charlie, Weitering are young.

Sounds good. Elaborate, though; I'm not across hockey metaphors.

Fisher and Dow were good accumulators in the junior days and especially so when playing in their favoured positions.

I understand that some people want talent for talents sake, but I don't see it as being as simple as that.
I'd sooner have a 7/10 in a position we're lacking than a 8.5/10 in a position we have plenty of players vying for and inside mids just don't seem to fit into the way I'm seeing things at the moment.

That simply comes down to a matter of opinion but doubling up on players just because they're good, has never sat well with me.
I often see it as an opportunity lost.

 

[Matty411]

Seems like a lot of us are zoning in on player attributes that Dylan Stephens has, but he seems pretty unique of those spoken about in circles as a first rounder - so will be in hot demand. Someone already alluded to it, but he's the type (like Rozee from SA last year) that could bolt to top 5 and out of our reach.

 

[Broadside]

I agree but a midfielder with genuine pace and good foot skills is still something we lack.
Dow - good burst speed, not great by foot.
Setterfield & Kennedy - not great by foot and not particularly quick
Stocker - Good kick but not really quick
Walsh - can butcher the ball
SPS - decent pace and accurate by foot but not penetrating
Fisher - quick and good by foot by very light.
Throw in Cripps and Ed, not quick or great by foot, and you can see a gap opening up. Martin partially solves it but another wingman would be great. A small forward would be my second option.

LOB could be an elite kick.

 

[Macca43]

LOB could be an elite kick.

Agreed but while he is an elite distance runner doesn't seem to have that real pace. Hasn't yet shown an ability to break the lines and makes his disposal a real weapon. If he does next year having 2 of those blokes is better than 1, if he doesn't bringing one in this draft is even more essential.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Flanders is a midfielder/forward so I don’t see the Simo comparison

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Fisher and Dow were good accumulators in the junior days and especially so when playing in their favoured positions.

I understand that some people want talent for talents sake, but I don't see it as being as simple as that.
I'd sooner have a 7/10 in a position we're lacking than a 8.5/10 in a position we have plenty of players vying for and inside mids just don't seem to fit into the way I'm seeing things at the moment.

That simply comes down to a matter of opinion but doubling up on players just because they're good, has never sat well with me.
I often see it as an opportunity lost.

I agree with this for the later picks and that’s when you pay over in trades but not with a top ten draft pick. (Especially because we shouldn’t be getting any more over the next 7-8 years.) That’s just me though.

 

[ray8182]

... because the players selected were selected for other attributes than their ball-winning?

We picked a wide variety of players with our selections, but accumulation wasn't an attribute we looked for unless it was in conjunction with other things, quality of disposal and evasiveness being our main targets. As for there being 'something to unpack', there is literally nothing I'm saying that I haven't said; we cannot simply rely on players to reach heights they may not be able to reach. While past performance is no indicator of future performance, it is certainly a greater indicator than its complete absence.


Or, the other players (Dow, Setterfield, Kennedy) will continue to build incrementally, and will become great with each additional inclusion that can spread the load, akin to how the key to Collingwood's forward line's function is Cox and Stephenson. Cox makes the smalls and Reid significantly more potent, and Stephenson allows their platoon of other smalls to pester without the best small/medium defender to worry about.

And I do not see the issue with continuing to obtain talent whilst Harry, Charlie, Weitering are young.

Sounds good. Elaborate, though; I'm not across hockey metaphors.

The hockey metaphor is spot on.

You are trying to solve a problem that may already be solved. The young midfielders we have will improve rapidly over next couple of years like many of the young players on the list. You can’t keep burning draft capital on the same position just because it isn’t completely fixed today.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ferrisb]

No real footage at this stage of Rivers unless you rewatch the U18 games

Re-watch the u18 games?!!? I didn't even watch them in the first place.

We come here to pick knowledgeable posters' brains so we don't have to actually watch footage ourselves.

Sheesh, Arr0w!

 

[ferrisb]

Hockey metaphors?

**** me!

 

[ABigOlDoofus]

LOB could be an elite kick.

LOB WILL be an elite kick.

 

[LemmingMaster]

Hockey metaphors?

Puck me!

You're treading on thin ice here. I suggest you puck off with your apple and biscuit before you go on a bender. Your post is just the icing on the cake.

 

[BlackGoanna]

The club came out at the start of trade period, very strongly, stating that we need small forwards. It was and still is a list deficiency. We have Eddie for a year and did not get Papley.

If there is a gun small/ mid forward around our pick we should be taking him. Serong, Flanders could play this role but will likely be gone. I wouldn't be upset if picked Weightmen.. he is projected around the mark and would likely play very early.

I do not want to replicate what we have done in recent drafts with more mids and KPP. There is no short term benefit in doing this and I think we have enough young talent in these positions already. We still have Murphy and Curnow while the younger brigade continue to develop.

The other pick I would seriously consider is the ruckmen from WA. he has some elite hands in close and excellent ground follow up.

 

[DIG]

Do you guys think come pick 12 or so we’d look to trade our 2020 1st pick again if someone we like slides?

Or are we more likely to hold it for trade currency.

 

[No1Suspect]

SOS doesn't have a great record in drafting Small Forwards. E.g. Pickett and Liam Sumner both drafted by him in the first round to GWS.

So please don't draft a small forward SOS.

So your blaming sos for Picketts injuries? Honestly..........

 

[JuddgementDay]

I don't know too much about this draft year, but...

If all of our key targets are gone by pick 8, should we look at trading down pick 9 to 12-18 and a 2nd rounder, this year or next, and get weightman?
9 seems to be too much of a reach for him, a 2nd rounder is still a good extra pick to obtain

 

[No1Suspect]

Im really keen to trade 9 to a mid level team for their next years 1st with a 2nd or 3rd thrown in.

Would love to have 2 1st and maybe 2 2nds next year along with our 2021 picks in play. Trade frenzy, yes please!

Yep, if we cant get flanders then id rather chuck the eggs in next years basket and load up trade currency!