List Mgmt. Pick 9

[Dravid's in]

They finished top of the ladder. But the Cats are set for an audacious draft play

They finished top of the ladder. But the Cats are set for an audacious draft play

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Eiffel 65]

They finished top of the ladder. But the Cats are set for an audacious draft play

They finished top of the ladder. But the Cats are set for an audacious draft play

www.foxsports.com.au

I'd be happy with Dylan Stephens if the draft turned out that way.

However, if Adelaide slide back to pick 6, it wouldn't surprise me if they're keen on Stephens and he's off the board at our selection.

 

[HARKER]

If the likes of Weightman and Jackson do slip into top ten contention, I can't see the CFC moving on the pick #9

We do rate Kemp, but are we prepared to sit out a year before he comes into play?
I'm not sure it's worth it. Put more time in Setterfield, Stocker and Kennedy. Surely we won't fire blanks on all these fronts.

Just keep coming back to the same two names that can make us better from the get-go; Stephens or Serong.
Could be way off, but can't see the CFC taking on Flanders, Ash, Jackson or Robertson should the aforementioned be available. Young yes, but he won't be.

 

[JuddgementDay]

If the likes of Weightman and Jackson do slip into top ten contention, I can't see the CFC moving on the pick #9

We do rate Kemp, but are we prepared to sit out a year before he comes into play?
I'm not sure it's worth it. Put more time in Setterfield, Stocker and Kennedy. Surely we won't fire blanks on all these fronts.

Just keep coming back to the same two names that can make us better from the get-go; Stephens or Serong.
Could be way off, but can't see the CFC taking on Flanders, Ash, Jackson or Robertson should the aforementioned be available. Young yes, but he won't be.

What do you like serong? Where would he play in our team?

 

[murphster]

They would be forced to use pick 10 on him

It’s a pretty simple equation really they can have Henry and 22 if we bid at 9 or they can have 9 and Henry if they give us 10 & 22, I know I’d rather a player at 9 than 22, and when you boil it down that’s what it is.

 

[rog1995]

Ideal draft first round for us would be Stephens or Serong.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

I know it’s a reach, but I’d be happy to trade down to Geelongs 14 and pull the trigger on Will Gould.

I think with his combination of size (1.92m, 106kg) and kicking skills he would be ideal as a HBF with stints in the midfield.

Has leadership experience in captaining SA, and I think under our acclaimed conditioning program with AR he can shed some of that weight, build a bigger tank and be a monster 100kg on baller that would be impossible to move off ball.

 

[HARKER]

What do you like serong? Where would he play in our team?

Serong comes across as a genuinely tenacious individual to me and one that would become a good piece of the whole.
He's someone we don't have and is someone we wanted to have (Papley) as he can kick goals and manufacture goals.

I really don't care if he could eventually go through the centre as many seem to see this as an important building block in ones armoury.
He's aggressive in a negating and attacking fashion. Does all the little things well and makes for a good piece of the pie.

Would be very happy should he join The Blues in 2 weeks time.

 

[GT619]

Serong comes across as a genuinely tenacious individual to me and one that would become a good piece of the whole.
He's someone we don't have and is someone we wanted to have (Papley) as he can kick goals and manufacture goals.

I really don't care if he could eventually go through the centre as many seem to see this as an important building block in ones armoury.
He's aggressive in a negating and attacking fashion. Does all the little things well and makes for a good piece of the pie.

Would be very happy should he join The Blues in 2 weeks time.

how high does the club rate him and Stephens

 

[HARKER]

I know it’s a reach, but I’d be happy to trade down to Geelongs 14 and pull the trigger on Will Gould.
I think with his combination of size (1.92m, 106kg) and kicking skills he would be ideal as a HBF with stints in the midfield.
Has leadership experience in captaining SA, and I think under our acclaimed conditioning program with AR he can shed some of that weight, build a bigger tank and be a monster 100kg o baller that would be impossible to move off ball.

Why does this fantasy keep showing up?

If this is any reason why we should be taking one player ahead of another...because they may be able to go through the midfield....we truly have rocks in our heads. Take the player that has showcased his wares best in the position they've been playing in.

One has to understand that many HBF'ers are failed midfielders.
You won't find many players that have been failed HBF'ers to become quality midfielders. There's a good reason for this.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Why does this fantasy keep showing up?

If this is any reason why we should be taking one player ahead of another...because they may be able to go through the midfield....we truly have rocks in our heads. Take the player that has showcased his wares best in the position they've been playing in.

One has to understand that many HBF'ers are failed midfielders.
You won't find many players that have been failed HBF'ers to become quality midfielders. There's a good reason for this.

I’ll ignore the condescending remarks in your post, but its my opinion that he has the capacity to make it as a midfielder under a profession conditioning environment.

We have question marks as it is across HBF, so it’s not as if we would be drafting him to play as a midfielder in year one (or two, or three for that matter).

The AFL landscape is about versatility these days, yes you adopt the Teague “play to your strengths” mantra - but I think he would be a decent addition to a midfield rotation down the track.

 

[HARKER]

I’ll ignore the condescending remarks in your post, but its my opinion that he has the capacity to make it as a midfielder under a profession conditioning environment.

We have question marks as it is across HBF, so it’s not as if we would be drafting him to play as a midfielder in year one (or two, or three for that matter).

The AFL landscape is about versatility these days, yes you adopt the Teague “play to your strengths” mantra - but I think he would be a decent addition to a midfield rotation down the track.

Not set-out to be condescending to an individual but to the cliche.

Anyone that bestows more value to an individual simply because they may...may...make for a part-time midfielder hasn't learnt through experience.
We just keep doing this and it rarely shows up to be true. Pick a player on the strength of what they've showed to date and for all the times you may get lucky for them becoming a multi-positional player you thought they would, you'll lose out for them not becoming so.

I trust the CFC have learned this and if they haven't; There will be more DVR's, more Temay's, more Bootsma's, more Davies etc.
Again; A failed midfielder has much more of a chance to become a quality HBF'er than vice versa.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Not set-out to be condescending to an individual but to the cliche.

Anyone that bestows more value to an individual simply because they may...may...make for a part-time midfielder hasn't learnt through experience.
We just keep doing this and it rarely shows up to be true. Pick a player on the strength of what they've showed to date and for all the times you may get lucky for them becoming a multi-positional player you thought they would, you'll lose out for them not becoming so.

I trust the CFC have learned this and if they haven't; There will be more DVR's, more Temay's, more Bootsma's, more Davies etc.
Again; A failed midfielder has much more of a chance to become a quality HBF'er than vice versa.

We’re at cross purposes here.

I am advocating for Gould because he is the best HBF in that region of the first round, because he has size, kicking skills, height and leadership. He plays in a role where we are thin (with the departure of Daisy and lack of exposure for Williamson/Docherty).

I think the added benefit is that he has the potential and ability to play as an on-baller down the track once he gains some conditioning and pit to use his niche size/strength and kicking at the coal face.

Whereas I take it that you are saying it’s a fallacy because 7 years ago, a completely different footballer, with a completely different skill set and a different mindset, who was identified and drafted under a consistently poor list management/recruiting team, and who played under the some of the worst coaches and teams development wise .. didn’t transition from position X to midfielder.

Every individual case is unique when it comes to the draft. Our list management team would have ‘rocks in their head’ (as you put it) if they had a preconceived bias to potential dual role players under our circumstances today because Tom Temay and DVR didn’t make it back then.

 

[windows1]

If the likes of Weightman and Jackson do slip into top ten contention, I can't see the CFC moving on the pick #9

We do rate Kemp, but are we prepared to sit out a year before he comes into play?
I'm not sure it's worth it. Put more time in Setterfield, Stocker and Kennedy. Surely we won't fire blanks on all these fronts.

Just keep coming back to the same two names that can make us better from the get-go; Stephens or Serong.
Could be way off, but can't see the CFC taking on Flanders, Ash, Jackson or Robertson should the aforementioned be available. Young yes, but he won't be.

I quite like Weightman but I will fall backwards out of my chair if he’s taken top 10. And if Flanders by some small miracle slides to us and we don’t take him....well I just don’t know what I’ll do. Go postal probably. I’d say Jackson has as much chance of getting to us as Rowell... there’s no world does Melb pass on him twice.

But regardless- Stephens would be a great get if there.

But I’m thinking more and more it will be a choice for us if taking Serong or trading down with Cats.

 

[The Grover]

Jackson and McAsey in high demand for top 10.

Hopefully this enables us to get a player we really want at pick 9

 

[Eiffel 65]

If the likes of Weightman and Jackson do slip into top ten contention, I can't see the CFC moving on the pick #9

We do rate Kemp, but are we prepared to sit out a year before he comes into play?
I'm not sure it's worth it. Put more time in Setterfield, Stocker and Kennedy. Surely we won't fire blanks on all these fronts.

Just keep coming back to the same two names that can make us better from the get-go; Stephens or Serong.
Could be way off, but can't see the CFC taking on Flanders, Ash, Jackson or Robertson should the aforementioned be available. Young yes, but he won't be.

Regardless of who we take, they'll probably spend the year in the VFL developing their craft. If we rate Kemp as the best available prospect, we should take him. We're going to have 7-8 players who will be unlucky to miss out on a starting 22 spot next season. We're building enough depth that we don't have to throw these teenagers in the deep end straight away.

There is one consideration that could come into play though. If GWS match the bid for Green, they'll be adding to a glut of high quality inside mids rotting away in the NEAFL. If we're confident we can attract a 3rd year mid next trade period such as Caldwell or Hatley, could that potentially sway our decision to select a more outside running type in Ash, Stephens, or the half forward/mid in Serong?

 

[HARKER]

We’re at cross purposes here.

I am advocating for Gould because he is the best HBF in that region of the first round, because he has size, kicking skills, height and leadership. He plays in a role where we are thin (with the departure of Daisy and lack of exposure for Williamson/Docherty).

I think the added benefit is that he has the potential and ability to play as an on-baller down the track once he gains some conditioning and pit to use his niche size/strength and kicking at the coal face.

Whereas I take it that you are saying it’s a fallacy because 7 years ago, a completely different footballer, with a completely different skill set and a different mindset, who was identified and drafted under a consistently poor list management/recruiting team, and who played under the some of the worst coaches and teams development wise .. didn’t transition from position X to midfielder.

Every individual case is unique when it comes to the draft. Our list management team would have ‘rocks in their head’ (as you put it) if they had a preconceived bias to potential dual role players under our circumstances today because Tom Temay and DVR didn’t make it back then.

It's not just about the players we took previously as much as for the examples I've given.
It's for the larger illusion purported by many Phantom Drafters as this player can become this sort of player......
I don't care for other clubs but if we're still doing this as a club then we've truly learned very little.

In essence, take a player on the merit they've shown in their position to date and don't dream up too many scenarios where you'll turn this type of player into that type of player and please CFC, do not take a HBF'er with a hero call of making them a midfielder, as for every hit you may have, you'll have way too many misses along the way. It's not worth it.

 

[HARKER]

Regardless of who we take, they'll probably spend the year in the VFL developing their craft. If we rate Kemp as the best available prospect, we should take him. We're going to have 7-8 players who will be unlucky to miss out on a starting 22 spot next season. We're building enough depth that we don't have to throw these teenagers in the deep end straight away.

There is one consideration that could come into play though. If GWS match the bid for Green, they'll be adding to a glut of high quality inside mids rotting away in the NEAFL. If we're confident we can attract a 3rd year mid next trade period such as Caldwell or Hatley, could that potentially sway our decision to select a more outside running type in Ash, Stephens, or the half forward/mid in Serong?

This is where opportunity comes into consideration.
If we take someone like Serong or Stephens, there are immediate openings there for them.....as there were for Rozee, Duursma and Butters for Port Adelaide last year and I keep saying; Opportunity is a wonderful thing.

The best players are often the ones that have opportunity from day one and if often if they don't, they can become a product of a secondary system.
There are no hard and fast rules here, but this seems to come up too often to be just one of those things.

 

[Eiffel 65]

I quite like Weightman but I will fall backwards out of my chair if he’s taken top 10. And if Flanders by some small miracle slides to us and we don’t take him....well I just don’t know what I’ll do. Go postal probably. I’d say Jackson has as much chance of getting to us as Rowell... there’s no world does Melb pass on him twice.

But regardless- Stephens would be a great get if there.

But I’m thinking more and more it will be a choice for us if taking Serong or trading down with Cats.

Sounds like Jackson is firming for pick 3.

I'd like us to get pick 22 off Fremantle somehow. Really like Dylan Williams as a prospect and would fit our needs perfectly.

Weightman is a good player, but I've always been of the opinion that unless they've got the potential to be a generational talent, don't take small forwards in the top 10 of the draft. Weightman is a very good player, and will be a very good player at AFL level, but I don't quite have him at the same level as say Izak Rankine.

There will be enough good small forwards available later on in the draft. Our 3rd round selections onward would be perfect for this.

 

[Eiffel 65]

This is where opportunity comes into consideration.
If we take someone like Serong or Stephens, there are immediate openings there for them.....as there were for Rozee, Duursma and Butters for Port Adelaide last year and I keep saying; Opportunity is a wonderful thing.

The best players are often the ones that have opportunity from day one and if often if they don't, they can become a product of a secondary system.
There are no hard and fast rules here, but this seems to come up too often to be just one of those things.

True. I have heard people say that when players spend too long at VFL level, they become VFL players.

In saying that, I'd prefer us to just take the guy with the highest ceiling.

For me, If Kemp is still on the board, he's our man.

 

[GT619]

I quite like Weightman but I will fall backwards out of my chair if he’s taken top 10. And if Flanders by some small miracle slides to us and we don’t take him....well I just don’t know what I’ll do. Go postal probably. I’d say Jackson has as much chance of getting to us as Rowell... there’s no world does Melb pass on him twice.

But regardless- Stephens would be a great get if there.

But I’m thinking more and more it will be a choice for us if taking Serong or trading down with Cats.

serongs contested and uncontested numbers are impressive

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

True. I have heard people say that when players spend too long at VFL level, they become VFL players.

In saying that, I'd prefer us to just take the guy with the highest ceiling.

For me, If Kemp is still on the board, he's our man.

I'm liking this combination already

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

It's not just about the players we took previously as much as for the examples I've given.
It's for the larger illusion purported by many Phantom Drafters as this player can become this sort of player......
I don't care for other clubs but if we're still doing this as a club then we've truly learned very little.

In essence, take a player on the merit they've shown in their position to date and don't dream up too many scenarios where you'll turn this type of player into that type of player and please CFC, do not take a HBF'er with a hero call of making them a midfielder, as for every hit you may have, you'll have way too many misses along the way. It's not worth it.

Again, your point would have more merit if we were discussing some random late 2nd/3rd round middle of the rung HBF.

Not one of the premier ones from the first round like Gould.

He is talented and highly acclaimed = fit for talent/best available (#14)

We are currently thin across our half back line = fit for need

He has scope to play alternative roles down the track due to specs to better serve our 22 and provide versatility = added bonus and a big tick.

Going on the above reasoning we are taking him on merit and what he has shown to date in a position where we are lacking IMO, however he has transferable weaponry.

 

[chipzac]

True. I have heard people say that when players spend too long at VFL level, they become VFL players.

In saying that, I'd prefer us to just take the guy with the highest ceiling.

For me, If Kemp is still on the board, he's our man.

Does it matter? Pretty sure the guy won't have to practice his kicking indoors.

 

[smashbox gill]

Again, your point would have more merit if we were discussing some random late 2nd/3rd round middle of the rung HBF.

Not one of the premier ones from the first round like Gould.

He is talented and highly acclaimed = fit for talent/best available (#14)

We are currently thin across our half back line = fit for need

He has scope to play alternative roles down the track due to specs to better serve our 22 and provide versatility = added bonus and a big tick.

We don’t need another big bodied 3rd tall. We need speed and rebound. Thats why I think there are much better options available which suit our needs