The Real Welcome Tom Doedee Thread - Draft Pick #17

[Ian Dunross]

The Dogs have plenty of talent

But Picken (formerly a dour tagger), Smith (a nobody before this season, might as well be like CEY) and Dalhaus (my opinion of him is noted above) were important parts of that side

No reason why Pyke can't find 3 players on the Crows list to do jobs like the above did

 

[Crow Envy]

IMHO i believe at the start of last years finals, our list was rated as better than the Bulldogs .....just shows you how 4 weeks of finals can change opinions so dramatically

That's not true. We had just lost Danger and were touted to miss the 8 whereas most had the Dogs as improving.

Their list just can't be judged on the finals, you need to consider all their injuries and how they were still able to make the 8 when most other teams including us wouldn't have.

 

[Ramify]

Seedsman is a beast of talent

Lightning speed, huge mark, strong, huge kick

If the Dogs coaches can make Johannisen a Norm Smith winner, then the Crows ought to be able to make Seedsman a 150 gamer

Couldn't agree more. I know every dog has his day but That ANZAC clash performance is one of the best individual efforts I've ever seen and is confirmation to me at least that the kid is highly talented and capable when switched on.
If we could get 50% that effort on a consistent basis, we would be a very happy lot indeed.

 

[Scorpus]

Dahlhaus averaged 26 touches and 5 tackles as a midfield/half forward last year. That's better than the vast majority of our midfielders.

Guys like Douglas and Atkins would need to seriously improve their output to match a player like Dahlhaus

 

[Ramify]

So that Doedee is a good player.

All I know is, he ain't no Burton...

 

[1970crow]

Ok if we went two short do you think we would have picked up a rookie?

Not if there was nobody from our list still available.

 

[Ramify]

That's a big if and one you wouldn't want to rely on.

ABsolutely, but my point is that the Dogs haven't relied on recruiting marquis players as an instant cureall so why should we.

 

[1970crow]

Are any clubs ever two players short on their senior list?

NFI, we thought we'd be, plus 1 short on the rookie list given Shaw's situation. Might be better if you tell me, seeing his strongly you feel about it.

 

[Ramify]

Think you can add Milera to that group

Indeed and if we want to keep going we should add the one that has shown the best example of what it takes as far as ticker is concerned -> R.Knight.

 

[Crow Envy]

ABsolutely, but my point is that the Dogs haven't relied on recruiting marquis players as an instant cureall so why should we.

Boyd?

 

[1970crow]

Like when we picked Hartigan with pick 14 of the rookie draft that year?

So with 2 very late picks we now have 2 first choice players and posters really think it's ok to go in short and keep Thommo on the list?

Ironically it's being short that makes me comfortable about 'wasting' a spot on a cooked Thommo.

 

[Ramify]

Boyd?

Haha. Checkmate! Well played.

 

[Crow Envy]

NFI, we thought we'd be, plus 1 short on the rookie list given Shaw's situation. Might be better if you tell me, seeing his strongly you feel about it.

We passed with our second rookie pick, so we effectively went 2 short on our rookie list and one on our main list.

 

[Ramify]

Dahlhaus averaged 26 touches and 5 tackles as a midfield/half forward last year. That's better than the vast majority of our midfielders.

Guys like Douglas and Atkins would need to seriously improve their output to match a player like Dahlhaus

This year in isolation or Dalhauss entire career? He stepped up this year for sure. Same can happen for Atkins at least and I personally believe Atkins is the more talented one.

 

[1970crow]

If we'd delisted Otten, Shaw, Mackay and Thompson it wouldn't have made a difference because we'd have gone in 12 short on the list anyway so it's not costing us any players

I think Otten and Shaw got extra years because this was on the cards and had we expected talent to be available post 100 in this year's draft then Thommo wouldn't have been retained. Mackay getting paid out 2 years and delisted would have been a stretch though.

 

[Scorpus]

This year in isolation or Dalhauss entire career? He stepped up this year for sure. Same can happen for Atkins at least and I personally believe Atkins is the more talented one.

Just last year, but overall he averages 21 touches and has had three seasons over 20 (two of which near 26 touches per game). Atkins just barely cracked 20 touches last year.

Dahlhaus has also played 115 games compared to Atkins' 32 so he's more experienced

 

[1970crow]

Rutten
Bock

The list goes on. Plus this year was a strong draft with lots of surprises getting through to the rookie list. I bet you Hamish was spewing at our list management.

But all those success stories stand next to the failures in the rookie and main draft. And they all have one thing in common, we saw something in them that we thought would make them a competent player at the highest level. None of them would have been selected because there was an empty spot and we thought we'd have a crack at a player we thought wouldn't make it. We thought we'd have 2 empty spots, but a player we rated was unexpectedly available. So we chose him ahead of an expected vacancy. Why would you think we then passed on someone else who we rated?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

But all those success stories stand next to the failures in the rookie and main draft. And they all have one thing in common, we saw something in them that we thought would make them a competent player at the highest level. None of them would have been selected because there was an empty spot and we thought we'd have a crack at a player we thought wouldn't make it. We thought we'd have 2 empty spots, but a player we rated was unexpectedly available. So we chose him ahead of an expected vacancy. Why would you think we then passed on someone else who we rated?

If we lowered our standards a fraction there would have been plenty of players available

We think we're the greatest and would never rate Siggins over Atkins for instance, because we always get it right

Our list is only our list. It's not the list.

 

[1970crow]

We passed with our second rookie pick, so we effectively went 2 short on our rookie list and one on our main list.

I thought it was explained that the pass on our last in the rookie draft was there because we were one short on the primary list. So they're effectively the same pick. We chose to not have an extra rookie that we were entitled to have.

 

[Elite Crow]

But all those success stories stand next to the failures in the rookie and main draft. And they all have one thing in common, we saw something in them that we thought would make them a competent player at the highest level. None of them would have been selected because there was an empty spot and we thought we'd have a crack at a player we thought wouldn't make it. We thought we'd have 2 empty spots, but a player we rated was unexpectedly available. So we chose him ahead of an expected vacancy. Why would you think we then passed on someone else who we rated?

We have historically used all our late picks and rookies, we take a chance every time we do and there are plenty of misses but the hits are worth it.

Do you honestly think we decided of all drafts that this would be the year to go short? We went 1 short on the main list and 2 on the rookie list if you don't count Shaw.

Why did we do it and pass on a player even if we rated them? Because of list management, we wanted to keep our combined list down with the expected changes, Fagan and Reid confirmed it and Thommo takes up a list spot.

 

[1970crow]

If we lowered our standards a fraction there would have been plenty of players available

We think we're the greatest and would never rate Siggins over Atkins for instance, because we always get it right

Our list is only our list. It's not the list.

So you're saying they should take players that they don't see anything in because they don't have a perfect track record. The point is that they saw something in Rat so selected him late, as they did with Hartigan even later. That they pulled up stumps 3 picks before everyone else did suggests they weren't far away from everyone else. If we'd taken another rookie then we'd have taken the last player in the drafts. If we'd delisted Thommo and Shaw, we'd have taken the last 3 players in the drafts. Just think about that for a second.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So you're saying they should take players that they don't see anything in because they don't have a perfect track record. The point is that they saw something in Rat so selected him late, as they did with Hartigan even later. That they pulled up stumps 3 picks before everyone else did suggests they weren't far away from everyone else. If we'd taken another rookie then we'd have taken the last player in the drafts. If we'd delisted Thommo and Shaw, we'd have taken the last 3 players in the drafts. Just think about that for a second.

Then take them.

I'm 100% confident that the vacant list spot won't develop into a good player.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

If we lowered our standards a fraction there would have been plenty of players available

We think we're the greatest and would never rate Siggins over Atkins for instance, because we always get it right

Our list is only our list. It's not the list.

Huh??? ......thought you of all people was leading the anti-mediocrity group ......what, did you just run out of things to say ?

You do realise that if you lower your standards, you end up with another Mackay

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Then take them.

I'm 100% confident that the vacant list spot won't develop into a good player.

Yeah, think that's a safe bet

 

[1970crow]

We have historically used all our late picks and rookies, we take a chance every time we do and there are plenty of misses but the hits are worth it.

Do you honestly think we decided of all drafts that this would be the year to go short? We went 1 short on the main list and 2 on the rookie list if you don't count Shaw.

Why did we do it and pass on a player even if we rated them? Because of list management, we wanted to keep our combined list down with the expected changes, Fagan and Reid confirmed it and Thommo takes up a list spot.

Even if you believe Fagan and Reid, Thommo is taking up a spot designated as vacant anyway. But the fact remains that we thought we'd be an extra short, but a player took it because he was worthy of a late pick. Are you sure we are 2 short plus Shaw, I thought that originally, but was told by going 1 short in the main draft it opens up a spot in the rookie draft, which we didn't use. Meaning only 1 short plus Shaw. As for why, perhaps we're finally getting better. Not all clubs fill both lists and we've got 2 decent cat B rookies as well. Just because the draft was deep to the 3rd round, doesn't mean it was worth selecting 2 players from the last 5 picked.

And re Thommo, we keep going over it, his spot is valueless because we've left one open anyway. He's taking up literally nothing. You can argue that you disagree going in one or 2 short, but you can't argue that his spot has value when we were never filling the list anyway.