Rate our draft picks - National and rookie

[macca23]

With all the criticism of Adelaide's draft selections and counter-criticism of the critics, let's see how you really rate Fantasia and his team's efforts at the 2 drafts.

We made a commitment to go tall, and we did that.

Do you think we achieved our aims?? Did we do it well??

Give it a rating and tell us why.

 

[macca23]

I gave us a 7.

Our National draft choices were pretty good

Watts was a coup with our first pick, Krueger is a big boy who is obviously going to be developed as a KPP cum ruckman, while Hudson had a very good season at VFL level and will provide a ready-made back-up in ruck.

I wasn't happy about not being able to use the remaining pick to snaffle a Gayfer or Surjans. Time will tell on that one.

As for the rookie draft, Hazell is a good gamble if he stays sound, and nothing wrong with Andrews or Dabrowski as choices. I wouldn't have picked Matthew Smith in a mad fit.

Overall - 7.

 

[Ripper]

I am afraid that you have recruited a mob of hacks.




















Having said that, if we had of recruited the same players they would be all guns.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
I am afraid that you have recruited a mob of hacks.

Having said that, if we had of recruited the same players they would be all guns.

Love it!!

Ain't that the truth!!

 

[DaveW]

Watts - fantastic.

The rest - meh.

 

[noddy]

I took the easy way out & voted for a 7

will have to wait awhile to see if that choice will go up or down depending on how they perform on the oval.

 

[Mong]

I voted 6

We certainly did the right thing taking a highly rated key forward with our first pick.

I think we lose points for not using all our draft picks due to salary cap mismanagement, although that is obviously nothing to do with Fanta.

I also think we have gone absolutely overboard with ruckman. If we are so desperate for ruckman why didn't we start addressing it last year or the year before? I think we've been forced to take too many ruckman at the expense of taking the best available players that were available so points are lost there.

This draft should produce a good one, being Watts. Other than that I think we would all be very happy and a touch surprised if even one of the others actually provides decent long term value. That is not a very high expectation and probably indicates an average draft at best at this stage. Of course with this type of thing the true indication will come years down the track.


****

 

[Jars458]

None of us really have a clue after seeing very little of most of the players we have

Proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Silly poll in my view.

 

[marvin]

Originally posted by Jars458
None of us really have a clue after seeing very little of most of the players we have

True enough - but we can look at the trend.

Recruited - tall forward / defender.
Drafted - key forward, ruckman, ruckman.
Upgraded - small midfielder.
Rookie listed - tall forward, ruckman, ruckman, tall defender, tall defender.
Delisted - ruckman, midfielder, midfielder, defender, tall forward.

At the beginning of this season, I thought the squad balance was pretty fair. Now, it's very top heavy.

We're in the position now where over the last 2 years, Kane Johnson, Mark Bickley, Ben Nelson and Matthew Shir have been replaced by Jason Torney (not really a midfielder) and Martin Mattner. And of course, Rob Shirley and Hayden Skipworth have been replaced by Hayden Skipworth and Rob Shirley.

Our midfield is significantly weaker, and what remains is aging en masse and/or hopping about on one good knee.

That's why I rate our recruiting 3/10 (without having seen any of them play) - the fact we've recruited 2 rucks and rookie listed 2 more suggests a lack of confidence that any of them will come through by Fantasia and his team, and has undermined our midfield depth.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Rate 7
Watts was a great pickup - hopefully can put on weight quickly, otherwise with the way he plays could get injured and often.

Once we got to second pick, all the possible midfield GOOD options had been taken (between picks 19-30). Kruegers not a bad get, met requirement for tall, is athletic (apparently), and played 8 league games in 03.
How many higher profile recruits with the Crows have spent more time in 2nds over the years than Krueger.
Remember a time we had 4-5 of our listed players playing reserves football consistently.
Hudson, well pick 50+, in a draft bereft of good talls, with his background doesnt sound like a bad choice, and certainly an improvement on Marsh.
Given our picks cant complain (still would love the goss on Gayfer - surely all the knowledgable people on these boards cant all be wrong and recruiters right).

Rookies - not unhappy - yes Smith???????? - reminds me of the days we criticised players who wore white anklets - good skills but a touch of "Marsh" in there
Like Dabrowski - didnt do much on the games I saw on foxtell as a ruckman, but seemed to flourish everytime moved to CHF. Got good mobility and a bit of physicality.

Future - yes concerned about midfield - lost physicality in last 2 years with departure of Sugar and Bickley- need to replace and keep physicality in the midfield.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Heard next year is supposed to be good for talls.
Perhaps with clubs taking midfielders this year, they might be looking for talls next year, opening the door for a good midfielder to the crows?

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Jars458
None of us really have a clue after seeing very little of most of the players we have

Proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Silly poll in my view.

agree 100%

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Jars458
None of us really have a clue after seeing very little of most of the players we have

Proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Silly poll in my view.

Well forgive us oh mighty Jars for

a) trying to create some activity on a quiet board

b) having an opinion however speculative it might be.

Mind you, if we only stuck to known facts there'd be bugger-all posts on this board or any other.

Who would you be an all-knowing smart arse to then??

 

[Stiffy_18]

National Draft

Fergus Watts - A great get. I am extremely happy with this choice and I hear Crows are delighted with his work ethic and attitude on training track. Cocahing staff are really impressed with his ability to really push himself.

Josh Krueger - As a ruckman NO, as a KPP YES. Bit of a mixed emotion on this one. He shows enough promise to suggest that he is a decent chance to make it as a KPP but AFC's idea to develop him as a ruckman has me a bit worried.

Ben Hudson - This pick was always going to be used for a mature ruckman. I have never seen him play but going by all reports he sounds like an improvement on Marsh.

Rookie Draft

Tim Hazell - A good get IMHO. A player thats read to step up and play AFL footy straight away if needed. My only query is whether he should have been taken with our 1st pick.

Rowan Andrews - Probably the pick of the ruckman overlooked in the national draft. He sounds like a decent prospect for a Rookie List. Lets hope he is a late developer and really flourishes in AFL environment. Apparently he has a good attitude and work ethic.

Brad Dabrowski - I like this guy. His tapwork needs a bit of work and he does need to beef up but he offers a bit in field play. I am very happy with this pick up. He could play AFL in the need arises. Might get a few games in Wizard Cup.

Matthew Smith - Pfffffft.


Overall 6. We were forced to go tall after not planning well for the future especially when it comes to ruckman. This years selections looks decent BUT we could have snatched up a highly rated player or 2 that we might have overlooked because of our needs for talls.

 

[naughty monkey]

5 talls out of 7 - not counting Parker or Smith, who was meant to be a KPP when they recruited him!

sounds like Panic Stations to me. Why pick up 4 ruckman?

Watts was a no-brainer
Wasted second round pick on Krueger if they think he's a ruckman.
Don't know about Hudson.

Hazell is injury riddled. If he wasn't he'd be on Hawthorn's main list. I would rather have taken a youngster who would at least be fit.
Smith is just bizzare. No way known he'll be able to play the same style of play for the Crows as he seems to for Sturt.

Can't give more than a 5.

Only thing in Fantasia's defence is you don't know who has the final say on selections.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Given who we delisted who thinks the new recruits have improved the list or kept it the same.

I believe we have improved the list - time will tell by how much

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by macca23
Well forgive us oh mighty Jars for

a) trying to create some activity on a quiet board

b) having an opinion however speculative it might be.

Mind you, if we only stuck to known facts there'd be bugger-all posts on this board or any other.

Who would you be an all-knowing smart arse to then??

Mate, I just stated MY view.

If you believe I am mighty and all knowing, I am flattered but I just state my view - plain and simple.

 

[Watzsup]

No point being too critical of the players we drafted. If you want success in the draft just stuff up on the field for a few years and you can get all the talent you want.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Watzsup
No point being too critical of the players we drafted. If you want success in the draft just stuff up on the field for a few years and you can get all the talent you want.

this is very true, I am amazed by the people who secretly wish we were st kilda, all those draft picks and young kids.
problem is, rubbish organisations tend to get these picks consistently, and then lose the players later on. poor salary cap management strains the ability to pay, and constant poor on field performance strains the players ability to want to stay.
Soon the young gun, who has yet to really achieve too much wants to be paid on potential not performance, which sets back the whole process to step 1. Consistent underachieving skews the age of your list, when you have 6 or 7 young studs, all wanting potential based contracts at once, then you start leaking players all over the place.

I am not sure anyone has agreed yet, which is the best way to rebuild, other than that it seems to be the better run clubs who usually manage to find a way to be around the finals mark.

 

[noddy]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
this is very true, I am amazed by the people who secretly wish we were st kilda, all those draft picks and young kids.
problem is, rubbish organisations tend to get these picks consistently, and then lose the players later on. poor salary cap management strains the ability to pay, and constant poor on field performance strains the players ability to want to stay.
Soon the young gun, who has yet to really achieve too much wants to be paid on potential not performance, which sets back the whole process to step 1. Consistent underachieving skews the age of your list, when you have 6 or 7 young studs, all wanting potential based contracts at once, then you start leaking players all over the place.

I am not sure anyone has agreed yet, which is the best way to rebuild, other than that it seems to be the better run clubs who usually manage to find a way to be around the finals mark.

Well i agree

Have always said i would rather the AFC be a consistent finals contender & to be a leading light in how to run a club professionally & successfully than be a club that finishes in the bottom 1/2 dozen of the ladder looking for hand-outs & early draft choices.