tayte pears

[kinggaz29]

Looking at a few phantom drafts alot of ppl have us taking pears as he is a key back. Anyone know much about the lad?

If we could get him with our pick 17 it would be good start to cover the loss in the future of milburn scarlett and harley.

 

[cat_fanatic]

We will most likely take Thompson with our second third rounder (pick 49 over all) and we already have Egan on the list. That's two young KP players ready to take over from Scarlo/Harley/Milburn when they retire, Thompson will be approaching his peak by this time and Egan obviously is on the verge of peaking and will be around for quite a while)

We should be looking to take the best available ruckman with pick 17 as we only have three on our list. Pick 34 and 44 should be used for a project KPB and project Ruckman respectively, while pick 59 (last pick) will be used for Adam Donohue.

Pick 17: Best Ruckman (Tom Bellchambers/Dawson Simpson - both will most likely be gone but would be rapt if one of them was still available at Pick 17)

Pick 34: KPB
Pick 44: Project Ruckman
Pick 49: Scott Thompson
Pick 59: Adam Donohue


That would add two ruckman and two key backs to the list as well as a small back flanker in Donohue.

Alternatively id like to pick up Rhyce Prismall with one of pick 34 or 44 or Scott Selwood should he still be available.

Thoughts..?

 

[hbk_aus]

We will most likely take Thompson with our second third rounder (pick 49 over all) and we already have Egan on the list. That's two young KP players ready to take over from Scarlo/Harley/Milburn when they retire, Thompson will be approaching his peak by this time and Egan obviously is on the verge of peaking and will be around for quite a while)

We should be looking to take the best available ruckman with pick 17 as we only have three on our list. Pick 34 and 44 should be used for a project KPB and project Ruckman respectively, while pick 59 (last pick) will be used for Adam Donohue.

Pick 17: Best Ruckman (Tom Bellchambers/Dawson Simpson - both will most likely be gone but would be rapt if one of them was still available at Pick 17)

Pick 34: KPB
Pick 44: Project Ruckman
Pick 49: Scott Thompson
Pick 59: Adam Donohue


That would add two ruckman and two key backs to the list as well as a small back flanker in Donohue.

Alternatively id like to pick up Rhyce Prismall with one of pick 34 or 44 or Scott Selwood should he still be available.

Thoughts..?

I think some people have gotten carried away with Thompsons GF game. Yes he played well, but he was no more than serviceable in the games that i saw during the year, and there is no way that he is ready for Afl yet. Given that he is 21/22 (?) and not really KP size, i would rather a younger, taller option. Just my opinion of course.

 

[sarah.13]

We will most likely take Thompson with our second third rounder (pick 49 over all) and we already have Egan on the list. That's two young KP players ready to take over from Scarlo/Harley/Milburn when they retire, Thompson will be approaching his peak by this time and Egan obviously is on the verge of peaking and will be around for quite a while)

I see Thompson more as a 3rd tall in the Milburn style of sweeping backman and not as a key position player.
Egan is well and truely entrenched in the side already and therefore cannot be considered as a replacement for either Scarlett or Harley. That being the case we need to recruit for that now so he will be ready to take over in 2 -3 years when required.

 

[BigBadCam]

Simpson was initially tipped to got 30+. He's big, but he's uncoordinated and has no skills. We could get him with our pick 17, and if not, we should get the best available ruckman.

 

[MOONEY 21]

threads about players nobody has heard of = yawn fest

 

[Budda 230]

I'm not overally keen on taking Simpson that high. If Bellchambers is still available I believe we will take him. If he isn't, I believe the other rucks will still be available come our 2nd round pick. So go best available.

Unless Rance is available, I don't believe it's a great idea to draft a tall backman with our 1st pick. Highly rated junior backman often struggle to make the grade in the big league.

 

[year of the cat]

Part of the appeal of Pears is that he is bottom aged and therefore has perhaps more room for improvement than some of the others he will be judged against. He apparently did well at draft camp in the 20m sprint and has neat skills. You would think that he would be an attractive proposition with those attributes.

 

[Rosso]

I think Simpson will go somewhere in the second and third round so I wouldn't be using a first rounder on him. I know he's tall but it all just smacks of Peter Street.

I'd rather someone a little more mobile. Either that or a capable pack marking ruckman. It amazes me that some of these blokes standing over 2 meters tall can't take a mark when there's a couple of players in the vacinity.

Thompson, as stated, isn't really KPP size but then again, niether is Scarlo. I'd take him at 44 in a heartbeat. At least with his, as with Egan, the Geelong coaching staff know what they're getting.

As for Rhyce Prismall, he hasn't really kicked on that much this year has he?

Rookie listed at best I'd think.

 

[Reg Hickey]

We will most likely take Thompson with our second third rounder (pick 49 over all) and we already have Egan on the list. That's two young KP players ready to take over from Scarlo/Harley/Milburn when they retire, Thompson will be approaching his peak by this time and Egan obviously is on the verge of peaking and will be around for quite a while)

We should be looking to take the best available ruckman with pick 17 as we only have three on our list. Pick 34 and 44 should be used for a project KPB and project Ruckman respectively, while pick 59 (last pick) will be used for Adam Donohue.

Pick 17: Best Ruckman (Tom Bellchambers/Dawson Simpson - both will most likely be gone but would be rapt if one of them was still available at Pick 17)

Pick 34: KPB
Pick 44: Project Ruckman
Pick 49: Scott Thompson
Pick 59: Adam Donohue


That would add two ruckman and two key backs to the list as well as a small back flanker in Donohue.

Alternatively id like to pick up Rhyce Prismall with one of pick 34 or 44 or Scott Selwood should he still be available.

Thoughts..?

Have heard that we are only considering Thompson for the rookie draft, which I think is the right call. He was very good in the VFL this year, but he's not a superstar yet. And as someone else has pointed out, he does come across as probably more of a third tall than a KP prospect (although he is tall enough and good overhead, so maybe with a heap of development he could fill a KP role).

I would be absolutely flabbergasted if both Bellchambers and Simpson went before our first pick, and in fact I think it likely that neither will. I also doubt that either of them are worth our first rounder, although you could argue that Bellchambers might be worth the stretch. However, I'm not sure he's THAT much better than the half dozen or so project ruckmen that will be available later on - Mulligan, Sullivan, Putt, Renton, Smouha, Connelly, etc - so given this is our fourth ruckman we're talking about I'd be leaning towards one of those guys with a later pick. I also wouldn't be taking two ruckmen in the main draft - we have more pressing needs - although although I wouldn't be averse to taking a second one in the rookie draft.

And why Prismall or Selwood?? Prismall is a medium forward and Selwood is a bulldozing midfielder, and really we don't need any more of either. Is it just because we have their brothers already on the list (which by itself is a dumb reason)?

I think Pears would be a good pick at #17. He is a very solid 192cm, 90kg key defender who is quick (2.92s for 20m at draft camp), strong, very good overhead particularly with his spoiling, and provides plenty of run out of the backline - which is exactly what we like in our defenders. I could definitely see him being the key defender to replace Harley/Scarlett when their time is finished.

In terms of overall draft priorities, our top 25-30 are probably the best in the competition at the moment, so we should be thinking about succession planning. We have just got rid of eight talls and our five oldest players are also talls (Milburn, Harley, Ottens, Scarlett, Mooney), so we desperately need to get some tall timber. My thoughts:
- At least one key defender - Pears would be ideal
- A project ruckman such as the ones I mentioned above with pick 44 or 49
- A developing tall forward, such as a Tony Notte - a 194cm, 70kg CHF from WA who is very mobile, has a great set of hands and overall has a shedload of talent, but will need 3-4 years to bulk up and develop (precisely in time to take over from Mooney)
- A Dangerfield or McNamara - tallish (188-189cm), talented, quick, running wing/defender types, who could provide a lot of run up and down the wings and potentially take over from Milburn as the fourth tall defender when he retires

 

[Reg Hickey]

threads about players nobody has heard of = yawn fest

Well then don't read it.

 

[cat_fanatic]

And why Prismall or Selwood?? Prismall is a medium forward and Selwood is a bulldozing midfielder, and really we don't need any more of either. Is it just because we have their brothers already on the list (which by itself is a dumb reason)?

The fact that their brothers are on our list is something i considered, along with the fact that they come from solid football families, but i really liked what i saw of Ryhce at the end of 06 while if Selwood is still available at pick 34 i think we would be mad not to consider him.

Thompson may not be KP yet but at the same hight as Scarlo i think he could well be moulded into one with time.

I think you may be underestimating our ruck stocks. If Ottens goes down we are in the sh!t. We should be looking to get at least one form the National draft and another from the Rookie draft, idealy three all together IMO.

 

[ben_cats_fan]

We should be looking to get at least one form the National draft and another from the Rookie draft, idealy three all together IMO.

Understandable. But for a grand total of 6 ruckman? Hardly seems justifiable, especially as the ruckmen we are likely to draft this season are going to be nowhere near ready, so regardless of whether ottens goes down, are we any better off taking three green ruckmen in one year???

FWIW, I would like to see us draft Pears.

 

[Metallica_Man]

I reckon Kangars (local boy, athletic tall backman) would be a good pick at 34

 

[Catman]

threads about players nobody has heard of = yawn fest

What's your problem? This is not the first time you've complained about these type of threads.

A lot of people want to hear about potential draftees and what they might be able to bring to the club. Clearly you aren't one of these and that's fine, but as Reg Hickey said, if you don't like it then don't read it. Simple stuff, don't you think?

Considering there will be many of these threads appearing over the next few weeks and months I take it we won't be hearing from you until the NAB Cup starts, when players you have heard of return, am I right?

 

[cat_fanatic]

Understandable. But for a grand total of 6 ruckman? Hardly seems justifiable, especially as the ruckmen we are likely to draft this season are going to be nowhere near ready, so regardless of whether ottens goes down, are we any better off taking three green ruckmen in one year???

FWIW, I would like to see us draft Pears.

If Ottens goes down next season there is not going to be much we can do, im not suggesting any 07 draftees might be ready next year. Ruckman take a long time to develop and not all of them turn out so great which is why, in order to avoid this situation in the future, i believe it is necessary to draft three in the one year.

As far as im concerned our ruck stocks aren't great, and in a few years when Otto moves on we will need a replacement. If we were to draft three rucks this year then the chances of at least one of them developing into a solid AFL player will be increased. Also, im not overly convinced that Blake will make it as a number 1 ruckman which is why im suggesting we top up now.

Pears sounds good BTW and whether we take him, another KPB or a ruck at 17 doesn't bother me.

 

[grantyc77]

Have heard that we are only considering Thompson for the rookie draft, which I think is the right call. He was very good in the VFL this year, but he's not a superstar yet. And as someone else has pointed out, he does come across as probably more of a third tall than a KP prospect (although he is tall enough and good overhead, so maybe with a heap of development he could fill a KP role).

I would be absolutely flabbergasted if both Bellchambers and Simpson went before our first pick, and in fact I think it likely that neither will. I also doubt that either of them are worth our first rounder, although you could argue that Bellchambers might be worth the stretch. However, I'm not sure he's THAT much better than the half dozen or so project ruckmen that will be available later on - Mulligan, Sullivan, Putt, Renton, Smouha, Connelly, etc - so given this is our fourth ruckman we're talking about I'd be leaning towards one of those guys with a later pick. I also wouldn't be taking two ruckmen in the main draft - we have more pressing needs - although although I wouldn't be averse to taking a second one in the rookie draft.

And why Prismall or Selwood?? Prismall is a medium forward and Selwood is a bulldozing midfielder, and really we don't need any more of either. Is it just because we have their brothers already on the list (which by itself is a dumb reason)?

I think Pears would be a good pick at #17. He is a very solid 192cm, 90kg key defender who is quick (2.92s for 20m at draft camp), strong, very good overhead particularly with his spoiling, and provides plenty of run out of the backline - which is exactly what we like in our defenders. I could definitely see him being the key defender to replace Harley/Scarlett when their time is finished.

In terms of overall draft priorities, our top 25-30 are probably the best in the competition at the moment, so we should be thinking about succession planning. We have just got rid of eight talls and our five oldest players are also talls (Milburn, Harley, Ottens, Scarlett, Mooney), so we desperately need to get some tall timber. My thoughts:
- At least one key defender - Pears would be ideal
- A project ruckman such as the ones I mentioned above with pick 44 or 49
- A developing tall forward, such as a Tony Notte - a 194cm, 70kg CHF from WA who is very mobile, has a great set of hands and overall has a shedload of talent, but will need 3-4 years to bulk up and develop (precisely in time to take over from Mooney)
- A Dangerfield or McNamara - tallish (188-189cm), talented, quick, running wing/defender types, who could provide a lot of run up and down the wings and potentially take over from Milburn as the fourth tall defender when he retires

Spot on Reggie, I would be doing the same.

 

[rizzo]

I reckon Kangars (local boy, athletic tall backman) would be a good pick at 34

He also runs teh 400 quicker than Kathy Freeman

 

[ben_cats_fan]

If Ottens goes down next season there is not going to be much we can do, im not suggesting any 07 draftees might be ready next year. Ruckman take a long time to develop and not all of them turn out so great which is why, in order to avoid this situation in the future, i believe it is necessary to draft three in the one year.

As far as im concerned our ruck stocks aren't great, and in a few years when Otto moves on we will need a replacement. If we were to draft three rucks this year then the chances of at least one of them developing into a solid AFL player will be increased. Also, im not overly convinced that Blake will make it as a number 1 ruckman which is why im suggesting we top up now.

Pears sounds good BTW and whether we take him, another KPB or a ruck at 17 doesn't bother me.

But three? It seems more a waste than anything. Think about it. Where are they all going to get game time to develop? Two in the ones, two in the twos, two not getting game time? Taking three and hoping for a hit just is plain irresponsible. No way should we take three ruckman in the one year. Six is overkill

 

[Rosso]

West's development has been slowed due to the fact that he has played second fiddle to both Blake & King over the past two years. If we were to grab more that one ruckman through this years drafts then one would be forced to play as a KPP rather than a ruck in the magoos.

For this reason I would suggest that we'd take one in the senior list and possibly another on the rookie but no more than that. A player such as Dean Putt who has played forward a fair bit might be the sort that we rookie.

In Wells we trust.

 

[Budda 230]

Have heard that we are only considering Thompson for the rookie draft, which I think is the right call. He was very good in the VFL this year, but he's not a superstar yet. And as someone else has pointed out, he does come across as probably more of a third tall than a KP prospect (although he is tall enough and good overhead, so maybe with a heap of development he could fill a KP role).

I would be absolutely flabbergasted if both Bellchambers and Simpson went before our first pick, and in fact I think it likely that neither will. I also doubt that either of them are worth our first rounder, although you could argue that Bellchambers might be worth the stretch. However, I'm not sure he's THAT much better than the half dozen or so project ruckmen that will be available later on - Mulligan, Sullivan, Putt, Renton, Smouha, Connelly, etc - so given this is our fourth ruckman we're talking about I'd be leaning towards one of those guys with a later pick. I also wouldn't be taking two ruckmen in the main draft - we have more pressing needs - although although I wouldn't be averse to taking a second one in the rookie draft.

And why Prismall or Selwood?? Prismall is a medium forward and Selwood is a bulldozing midfielder, and really we don't need any more of either. Is it just because we have their brothers already on the list (which by itself is a dumb reason)?

I think Pears would be a good pick at #17. He is a very solid 192cm, 90kg key defender who is quick (2.92s for 20m at draft camp), strong, very good overhead particularly with his spoiling, and provides plenty of run out of the backline - which is exactly what we like in our defenders. I could definitely see him being the key defender to replace Harley/Scarlett when their time is finished.

In terms of overall draft priorities, our top 25-30 are probably the best in the competition at the moment, so we should be thinking about succession planning. We have just got rid of eight talls and our five oldest players are also talls (Milburn, Harley, Ottens, Scarlett, Mooney), so we desperately need to get some tall timber. My thoughts:
- At least one key defender - Pears would be ideal
- A project ruckman such as the ones I mentioned above with pick 44 or 49
- A developing tall forward, such as a Tony Notte - a 194cm, 70kg CHF from WA who is very mobile, has a great set of hands and overall has a shedload of talent, but will need 3-4 years to bulk up and develop (precisely in time to take over from Mooney)
- A Dangerfield or McNamara - tallish (188-189cm), talented, quick, running wing/defender types, who could provide a lot of run up and down the wings and potentially take over from Milburn as the fourth tall defender when he retires

Reg, does picking a tall, gun junior backman with our first pick worry you at all? Talented junior backman tend to find it hard to develop once on an AFL list. You look at all the gun backmen in the AFL now (with the exception of Glass), almost all of them didn't play junior football in the defensive half. The clubs developed them into what they are now.

Can Pears play anywhere else? From what I've seen (very limited) and read, he doesn't.

 

[WE Are Geelong]

West's development has been slowed due to the fact that he has played second fiddle to both Blake & King over the past two years. If we were to grab more that one ruckman through this years drafts then one would be forced to play as a KPP rather than a ruck in the magoos.

For this reason I would suggest that we'd take one in the senior list and possibly another on the rookie but no more than that. A player such as Dean Putt who has played forward a fair bit might be the sort that we rookie.

In Wells we trust.

Sound reasoning there. The King departure was as much to do with West as it was Blake. Both West and Blake signed up trade week...speaks for itself really.

Dont know alot about Pears...so wont pretend I do...so hopefully this isnt getting too far off the thread topic as a result...

Wells is as good a draft recruiter as anyone in the business today...so this draft could be his crowning glory. No side has really been able to maintain a premiership lists integrity or quality with these sorts of draft picks....17,34,44,49...we have no right really to do that well with those picks...but I have faith in Wells that we can.

Our first pick should usually be for the best player available regardless...but at pick 17...that could be much of a muchness. Whilst you can debate it both ways RE surnames...I would pick Selwood at 17 if he is available...for the simple reason its quite likely he will be a very good footballer and in the modern game you can never have enough talent in the middle. Other than that I expect us to pick 3 big guys...plus Donohue...If we miss on a guy like Selwood I expect us to pick a taller type run with mid in the mould of Enright.

Our rookie picks could well be for more mature aged guys for some depth.

Whatever the case...all the guys we pick should be athletic, quick for whatever size they are but critically have big engines and be prepared to run all day. They also have to be super competitive at every contest and have that burning desire to achieve at the highest level. Wells has been able to find these sorts of guys anywhere in the draft...so positive it can continue.

 

[Reg Hickey]

Reg, does picking a tall, gun junior backman with our first pick worry you at all? Talented junior backman tend to find it hard to develop once on an AFL list. You look at all the gun backmen in the AFL now (with the exception of Glass), almost all of them didn't play junior football in the defensive half. The clubs developed them into what they are now.

A little, but not a lot.

My theory is that traditionally the most talented kids played forward at junior level, because that is where they had the most opportunity to play attacking football, kick goals and show off their talent. And because they stood out more they were the most likely to be drafted.

There have been some exceptions of course - you mentioned Glass, and I can't believe you could forget Matty Scarlett! And it is interesting to note that along with Rutten (not sure where he played as a junior), those blokes are the clear standout tall defenders in the competition.

However, I think it is changing now. Recruiting is much more sophisticated than it was even five years ago, and the way junior football is played has followed suit. It tends to mirror AFL footy much more. U/18 players and coaches know that tackles, spoils, smothers and shepherds are just as likely to get noticed by recruiters as possessions, marks and goals, which I think means that highly talented kids are more willing to take on defensive roles without being worried about damaging their draft currency.

A good illustration of how this has changed the willingness of clubs to draft key defenders was last year's "super draft", where Lachlan Hansen, Nathan Brown, Andrejs Everitt and young Frawley all went in the first round.

Can Pears play anywhere else? From what I've seen (very limited) and read, he doesn't.

I'd say if he makes it, it will be as a defender.

 

[Budda 230]

A little, but not a lot.

My theory is that traditionally the most talented kids played forward at junior level, because that is where they had the most opportunity to play attacking football, kick goals and show off their talent. And because they stood out more they were the most likely to be drafted.

There have been some exceptions of course - you mentioned Glass, and I can't believe you could forget Matty Scarlett! And it is interesting to note that along with Rutten (not sure where he played as a junior), those blokes are the clear standout tall defenders in the competition.

However, I think it is changing now. Recruiting is much more sophisticated than it was even five years ago, and the way junior football is played has followed suit. It tends to mirror AFL footy much more. U/18 players and coaches know that tackles, spoils, smothers and shepherds are just as likely to get noticed by recruiters as possessions, marks and goals, which I think means that highly talented kids are more willing to take on defensive roles without being worried about damaging their draft currency.

A good illustration of how this has changed the willingness of clubs to draft key defenders was last year's "super draft", where Lachlan Hansen, Nathan Brown, Andrejs Everitt and young Frawley all went in the first round.



I'd say if he makes it, it will be as a defender.

I didn't state Matty Scarlett because he swapped and changed between forward and defence as a junior. Not to mention that his junior form wasn't anywhere near convincing. Rutten was a forward as a junior.

I agree with most of what you say there. But if you look closer at Hansen, Brown, Everitt and Frawley, they all have a bit of flexibility and can play different roles. That's my concern with Pears. If he doesn't make it as a defender, is he capable of different roles? If no, well I don't think he is worth the risk of pick 17.

As you say, these talented junior kids play positions that are attacking and show off their benefits. Pears played in defence. Why wasn't he given the opportunity to show those benefits in other positions? Do they exist?

 

[Reg Hickey]

I didn't state Matty Scarlett because he swapped and changed between forward and defence as a junior. Not to mention that his junior form wasn't anywhere near convincing. Rutten was a forward as a junior.

I agree with most of what you say there. But if you look closer at Hansen, Brown, Everitt and Frawley, they all have a bit of flexibility and can play different roles. That's my concern with Pears. If he doesn't make it as a defender, is he capable of different roles? If no, well I don't think he is worth the risk of pick 17.

As you say, these talented junior kids play positions that are attacking and show off their benefits. Pears played in defence. Why wasn't he given the opportunity to show those benefits in other positions? Do they exist?

I didn't see much of last year's kids during their regular seasons, but I did see every game of the U/18 champs, and I know that Brown, Hansen and Everitt all played pretty much exclusively in defence there. Hansen was the only one who I think might have snuck forward once or twice, but he spent most of his time across half back. So you could ask the same questions of them that you are asking of Pears, yet they all went in the top 12 in a "super draft".

I do agree with you that a kid who is limited in terms of potential roles at AFL level might be more of a risk than a more versatile player. However, I wouldn't assume that just because Pears played all of the U/18 champs in defence that he can only play there. I think in previous years he might have played more up forward to show off his ability, but as I tried to say in my previous post, these days kids are much happier playing more defensive roles knowing they will still be noticed, and I think thats what happened with Pears.

That said, I haven't seen him play anywhere else, or heard of him playing anywhere else for that matter, and my impression is that he is best suited to defence. But that doesn't mean thats all he can do.

Also, I think that a player can be good enough at his role that he is worth the risk. Pears has showed that he has in spades pretty much everything he needs to be a really good AFL tall defender, so why not pick him up if thats where we intend to play him, he's easily in the top couple in that area in the draft, he will almost certainly be gone by our next pick, and thats our area of biggest need?