Small Foward

[Mismatched]

Sometimes when I watch us I think maybe we shouldve gone for Cyril Rioli, but Patrick Dangerfield is going to be some player

Do people think we shouldve gone for Rioli or Dangerfield

IMO we most certainly made the right choice. Far too many question marks regarding Rioli's committment, fitness and whilst he is super talented, I'm not sure he'll ever be a super consistent player. He'll have some outstanding games, but then he'll have a couple of weeks where he's barely sighted.

Dangerfield I think just ticked all the boxes, great attitude, dedicated, leader, supremely talented, quick, great body size, tough, strong, loves the contested ball and versatile. He's that real Ricciuto, Voss, Buckley, Judd style big bodied midfielder, who can really carry a side to victory. Isn't quite there yet, probably a year or so away, but I think we can be very, very happy with our decision.

That we even had a choice between these two players at pick 10 is something that's astounding, especially considering how highly we apparently rated both as footballers.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Small forward is where young midfielders go to cut their teeth, and where old midfielders, and failed midfielders, go to die.

Why not try Edwards as he is the tunrover king in the midfield? Good overhead & smart around goals.

Should also try Macca too when he is not in the game much.

Petrenko to play in defence or leave him out of the side as not a small forward IMO.

 

[smoovy]

Petrenko can make a good small forward IMO. Just needs to be given an extended run there.

 

[CrowCro]

Nobody drafts small forwards, they draft potential midfielders and, if they earn a spot in the 22 through effort or injury, play them in a forward pocket or half back flank while rotating them through the bench.

Secondly, I'm not conceding a rubbish finishing position of 13th after just 5 rounds.

Thirdly, who would you suggest we trade to the Gold Coast for pick 26? I can't see any of Griffin, Cook, Douglas, Reilly, Jacky, Petrenko, Sellar, Young, Sloane, Martin, or any of the yet to debut players, being worth that pick. For them, anyone over the age of 26 who isn't an outright superstar is a waste of a trade.

For pick 26 they're going to want Knights, Mackay, Otten, or van Berlo - in other words, not a star of the competition, but still an established and credentialed AFL ready player.

I think they will want strong bodies to start with. They will get the best mids with their priority draft picks. They will need some strong bodies around them so i think someone like Ben rutten or Nathan Bock will be of interest. Rutten might be the one we will have to give up. We will then have to groom a full back from the list of remaining talls we have

 

[TheLeftFist8]

I think they will want strong bodies to start with. They will get the best mids with their priority draft picks. They will need some strong bodies around them so i think someone like Ben rutten or Nathan Bock will be of interest. Rutten might be the one we will have to give up. We will then have to groom a full back from the list of remaining talls we have

With the physical attrition of modern footy, it may not be that long before Bock may be best suited on the last line anyway.

 

[NTRabbit]

I think they will want strong bodies to start with. They will get the best mids with their priority draft picks. They will need some strong bodies around them so i think someone like Ben rutten or Nathan Bock will be of interest. Rutten might be the one we will have to give up. We will then have to groom a full back from the list of remaining talls we have

Given that Ben Rutten is a former AA Full Back and one of the best in the comp, we would be will within our rights to demand a top 10 pick for him. In fact, if we traded him for anything less than a top 10 pick from the GC we ought to be taken out and shot.

With the physical attrition of modern footy, it may not be that long before Bock may be best suited on the last line anyway.

Bock is not a final stopper, certainly not even in the same league as Rutten.

Ultimately, as a CHB Bock is more expendable to us than Rutten is, simple facts.

Put it this way - with Bock out injured we have Stevens, Davis, and Young who can immediately come in and play, plus the likes of Talia, and even Moran was originally taken by us to be a utility tall defender.

There is nobody who can come in for Rutten if he goes down - Bock drops back, and someone else comes in for Bock.

It's a ridiculous thought anyway - who in their right mind trades away a fit 26 year old AA Full Back or CHB, for a speculative late first to mid second round pick - in a dodgy draft no less - who has only a 30% chance of being a successful player?

 

[TheLeftFist8]

Given that Ben Rutten is a former AA Full Back and one of the best in the comp, we would be will within our rights to demand a top 10 pick for him. In fact, if we traded him for anything less than a top 10 pick from the GC we ought to be taken out and shot.



Bock is not a final stopper, certainly not even in the same league as Rutten.

Ultimately, as a CHB Bock is more expendable to us than Rutten is, simple facts.

Pick 7 and it's SOLD We could on-trade that or our pick for a very good ready made mid. But let's remember Rutten was AA a long time ago. Having said that his form is reasonable and he'd be an excellent pick up for a fledgling team needing defensive stability. (Sure, we also need it but we need a far better midfield first)

Bock has played deep with success previously...remember his effort on Franklin at AAMI a couple years ago?

I'd be more than comfortable with Bock at FB

 

[TheLeftFist8]

There is nobody who can come in for Rutten if he goes down - Bock drops back, and someone else comes in for Bock.

It's a ridiculous thought anyway - who in their right mind trades away a fit 26 year old AA Full Back or CHB, for a speculative late first to mid second round pick - in a dodgy draft no less - who has only a 30% chance of being a successful player?

Point 1 is exactly my plan...Davis, Sellar or Stevens to CHB.

I agree the Rutten pick would need to be top 10, and my idea would be to on-trade for a proven midfielder for that pick (+/- any sweeteners)

 

[NTRabbit]

Pick 7 and it's SOLD We could on-trade that or our pick for a very good ready made mid. But let's remember Rutten was AA a long time ago. Having said that his form is reasonable and he'd be an excellent pick up for a fledgling team needing defensive stability. (Sure, we also need it but we need a far better midfield first)

Bock has played deep with success previously...remember his effort on Franklin at AAMI a couple years ago?

I'd be more than comfortable with Bock at FB

You're kidding yourself if you think that. Bock very rarely plays close to goals, and only does so on Franklin because of the way the matchups work with Roughead. Even then, Franklin still nabbed the ball 20 odd times and kicked 1 goal 7 or something like it.

If I was given a binary choice between keeping Bock or Rutten, I'd be waving goodbye to Bock without a second thought.

Even ignoring our current list, CHB is still the most replacable position down the spine. Taking our list into consideration only amplifies it.

 

[Vader]

It's a ridiculous thought anyway - who in their right mind trades away a fit 26 year old AA Full Back or CHB, for a speculative late first to mid second round pick - in a dodgy draft no less - who has only a 30% chance of being a successful player?

To borrow a line from everyone's favourite poster, "you keep saying this but it doesn't make it true".

The 2010 draft is not "dodgy" at all - it's actually rated as a VERY good one at this stage, even allowing for the cream of the bottom aged players having already signed with GC. The ONLY problem with this draft is the fact that GC get to take 1/3 of the first round all to themselves, shunting everyone else down the order as a result. If we were to be able to obtain some of GC's draft picks, then that would go a long way towards mitigating the one weakness the draft does have.

 

[NTRabbit]

The 2010 draft is not "dodgy" at all - it's actually rated as a VERY good one at this stage, even allowing for the cream of the bottom aged players having already signed with GC.

While this may be true, it's not really relevant to my point.

If we wanted to trade away Bock to strengthen our team, we should not be throwing away a walk up first 22 player for a teenager who has only a 25% chance of becoming a success and strengthening our side 2 or 3 years from now.

What we should be doing, is finding a team bereft of key defenders, and with a surfeit of midfielders, so that we can strengthen our team next year with a peak age player by saying to Hawthorn "We'll trade Nathan Bock for Jordan Lewis, are you interested?"

Players to the GC for picks is what we should be doing with fringe players - senior bodies with AFL experience that the GC will be after to bolster their ranks, who only weaken us in their departure by an amount comparable with the low success rate of new draft picks. This is the realm of Brent Reilly and Richard Douglas.

You don't trade just for the sake of trading - you trade to try and make a net gain by sacrificing from a strong area to boost a weak area, or you trade when your hand is forced by a player who demands out, then you just make the best you can, or ultimately you clean the entire deck and start again, aiming for 5-8 years from now with a good 4 years of bottom 4 finishes and priority picks ala Hawthorn.

 

[Vader]

Players to the GC for picks is what we should be doing with fringe players - senior bodies with AFL experience that the GC will be after to bolster their ranks, who only weaken us in their departure by an amount comparable with the low success rate of new draft picks. This is the realm of Brent Reilly and Richard Douglas.

But here we have a contradiction.

Outside of their raft of first round selections, GC only have one selection per round to trade. They're not going to be giving us first round selections for the likes of Reilly and/or Douglas. If you want a quality pick, you have to give up a quality player. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

That said, I do agree with your other comments - about trading from our strength to someone else's weakness, in order to strengthen one of our own weaker areas.

 

[afc1991]

But here we have a contradiction.

Outside of their raft of first round selections, GC only have one selection per round to trade. They're not going to be giving us first round selections for the likes of Reilly and/or Douglas. If you want a quality pick, you have to give up a quality player. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

That said, I do agree with your other comments - about trading from our strength to someone else's weakness, in order to strengthen one of our own weaker areas.

I remember hearing about this early on in the piece, is this something the afl imposed on them to avoid fremantle type scenarios? e.g how we were able to get mcleod, the dons lloyd etc?

 

[Vader]

I remember hearing about this early on in the piece, is this something the afl imposed on them to avoid fremantle type scenarios? e.g how we were able to get mcleod, the dons lloyd etc?

McLeod was a very different scenario to Lloyd.

They had McLeod in their hands but the coach decided he didn't want him - and so a trade was arranged with Adelaide for Groom.

Lloyd went to Essendon as a compensation pick, ahead of the draft, in exchange for Essendon losing an uncontracted player that they didn't want to keep anyway. Fremantle never had a chance to get their hands on Lloyd, so this one can't (or at least shouldn't) be a part of their litany of drafting & trading follies over the years.

The AFL's compensation scheme is to remedy the Lloyd situation, in that clubs will now receive a compensation pick in line with the value of the player they are losing. No longer will clubs be able to offload a complete dud and receive a top-3 draft pick (effectively) in return.

 

[Vader]

I remember hearing about this early on in the piece, is this something the afl imposed on them to avoid fremantle type scenarios? e.g how we were able to get mcleod, the dons lloyd etc?

It's more about giving the other clubs at least SOME chance of getting access to the talent in the draft.

GC have picks 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 within the first round. That's after they've already taken the 12 best "bottom aged" kids out of the draft. To grant them similar levels of access to the other rounds would have been to invite a riot from the existing clubs.

 

[afc1991]

It's more about giving the other clubs at least SOME chance of getting access to the talent in the draft.

GC have picks 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 within the first round. That's after they've already taken the 12 best "bottom aged" kids out of the draft. To grant them similar levels of access to the other rounds would have been to invite a riot from the existing clubs.

Yeah but, unless Im reading this wrong they can only trade away 1 pick per round? Seems restrictive when (for arguments sake) they could deal pick 1 for J Selwood, 2 for Roughhead, pick 3 for Bock. As long as they arent stupid it would be a good way of snaring established talent.

 

[Vader]

Yeah but, unless Im reading this wrong they can only trade away 1 pick per round? Seems restrictive when (for arguments sake) they could deal pick 1 for J Selwood, 2 for Roughhead, pick 3 for Bock. As long as they arent stupid it would be a good way of snaring established talent.

They have picks 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15, plus the first selection in every round (including the first - ie pick #1).

They can trade these selections the same as any other club does in any other year.

 

[NTRabbit]

But here we have a contradiction.

Outside of their raft of first round selections, GC only have one selection per round to trade. They're not going to be giving us first round selections for the likes of Reilly and/or Douglas. If you want a quality pick, you have to give up a quality player. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

That said, I do agree with your other comments - about trading from our strength to someone else's weakness, in order to strengthen one of our own weaker areas.

I never said we were going to get first rounders for either of those players, nor that we would be trading both of them to the GC.

 

[afc1991]

They have picks 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15, plus the first selection in every round (including the first - ie pick #1).

They can trade these selections the same as any other club does in any other year.

Cheers

 

[Mackay train12]

Did anyone notice Robin Nahas killed us, I'm not sure if we need a small foward or our defence just is too slow

 

[TheLeftFist8]

Did anyone notice Robin Nahas killed us, I'm not sure if we need a small foward or our defence just is too slow

Both are true.

In this day and age most teams have at least 2 decent small options, and most of those are pretty pacey.

I've said recently that both Petrenko AND Johncock should be playing back at the same time (most others seem to think Petrenko would fit into Johncock's position...but we need both).

Doughty...too slow and cannot defend decent small forwards (only good defensive job was on Murphy)

Jaensch...not a true defender though trying hard in a role not best suited to him

vB, Goodwin, Mackay...all HBF types who can play on taller HFF/wing types and hopefully provide run.

We still need another tough, quick, natural small defender.

Who knows, Carlton have Setanta's little helpers up forward. Maybe we'll end with our defensive equivalent in Johncock, Petrenko, Armstrong.

 

[sydney_crow]

Does Garlett from Carlton have a brother? That guy is a gun and still only a rookie. That is exactly what we need.

 

[WALL-e]

Grgic is probably to standout small forward so far in the TAC.

Was a goal kicking comp between him and Dacos on TAC future stars last Sunday if you can get vision of it.

Smart player, will likely slide.

 

[tinman]

Lloyd went to Essendon as a compensation pick, ahead of the draft, in exchange for Essendon losing an uncontracted player that they didn't want to keep anyway. Fremantle never had a chance to get their hands on Lloyd, so this one can't (or at least shouldn't) be a part of their litany of drafting & trading follies over the years.

The AFL's compensation scheme is to remedy the Lloyd situation, in that clubs will now receive a compensation pick in line with the value of the player they are losing. No longer will clubs be able to offload a complete dud and receive a top-3 draft pick (effectively) in return.

Delaney from memory. He was rated by Essendon but was one of those players that always struggled to string games together.

I think WCE did a similar deal with Port on Downsborough. Picked up the compensatory pick which gave them Gardiner.

 

[KingJames23]

Must admit that I was jealous watching saints v carlton last night. Betts, Yarran and Gartlett just move with so much speed and agility. Gartlett will be a great player. He is skinny as a rake but when you're as fast as him, who cares. If only the crows could get one of these guys in a trade but Carlton wouldnt even consider!

They are almost changing the way a forward structure is set up. Against Geelong, they put 3 small forwards up against the tall geelong defense and just ran them off their feet.