We have Pick 17 in the draft

[Rival_V]

Originally posted by jabso
I don't like the sound of that Mundy. Sure he might turn out to be a great player, he doesn't sound like a KPP. Remember Bo Nixon was a Centre Half Forward but is too small to be a real KPP at AFL level. If we need a key back get a player around 192cm.

One of my major gripes is the use of Lonie. I think he is being wasted on a half back flank. He should either be used in the wing/midfield a forward flank or have a role as a 3rd key defender maybe.

RE: Mundy. I agree with you.

He could be a top class 3rd defender but his build and the way he plays means that he will most probably never be a KPP (unless he is still growing).


RE: Lonie. He has tools that suit the 3rd tall role but it's up to the match commitee I guess.

He has always had that problem (apart from the finals in 02) of not finding enough of the ball when he plays on the wing.

It would be good to have an plan C when things are going wrong.


BTW, hopefully his father will recover from his health problems.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by FIGJAM


Yes, but what are the odds of Tarrant ever going down back? Or Tom Davidson for that matter??

Shorter than the odds of Presti going forward.

We need versatile talls, and at pick 17 I agree with Mark. Take the best available tall, hopefully a forward, and try to ensure that they are capable at both ends of the ground. As forwards are more capable of running and marking etc, they usually are going to be more versatile than defenders.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by hotpie
Shorter than the odds of Presti going forward.

We need versatile talls, and at pick 17 I agree with Mark. Take the best available tall, hopefully a forward, and try to ensure that they are capable at both ends of the ground. As forwards are more capable of running and marking etc, they usually are going to be more versatile than defenders.

So long as they're an inside forward, then OK, but Tarrant and Harley are outside leading forwards.

I don't deny for a second, the need to get another inside forward. In fact it's my preferred second priority!

Like I said, we aren't going to get a Pavlich. We will however likely have some talls slip through to our pick.

If they are defenders (Mundy, Gayfer), they wil come in as likely to succeed KP players. That individual would be groomed to fill the void left by Wakelin (again, I think Tex is very, very raw and there are many ?s over his game).

However, the tall forwards who slip through might be OK in the long run, but they have question marks.

Chris Stewart has been described as being very raw (although very talented) and mightn't be able to play down back.

Morrison is one we could look at (and I have heard about him being capable of "both ends of the ground"). However, he is a natural full forward, who has had significant injuries and is a Tasmanian. We have one of those already (#16)!

Another reason why I'm for a KP defender first (and I'm getting ahead of myself given that he mightn't even be up to it, although I have a hunch he will be) is that we have a lad on the way who will be a KP forward/poss ruck in Travis Cloke. He played one U18 game and had five shots at goal and a number of hitouts.

So say we get a KP forward. If they are capable of playing both ends, then magnificent (hmmm...but why are they still there at pick 17?). However, it's highly unlikely they'll be capable of both, at least 'capable of both' to an AFL standard. When Rocca drifts back, he's OK, but he's only a stop gap measure.

So in 2005 we then have Rocca (aging, but still capable), Tarrant, Davidson, Travis Cloke and this new kid, who may or may not be able to play down back at AFL level (I'm making the assumption that he'll be able to play forward at an AFL standard!).

Down back Wakelin is almost passed it. Presti is still tightasafishes, but is needing support. The Cloke boys are similar in that they'll get exposed for pace if not playing third man up and neither are forwards. Walker might have matured, but I have many reservations. Is Lonie capable of strengthening up and playing an inside KP defensive position?

You see, the amount of question marks over the defence is frightening. The forwardline not so much. I think there's a danger in automatically assuming that a natural (preferably inside) forward will automatically be able to play down back anyway.

It's the same half-arsed attitude that has seen the only genuine key position defenders selected at Collingwood, as being an injury riddled St Kilda reject and a fifth round draft pick on a very raw kid. Think about this, what if Melbourne had have taken Wakelin with the pick before our pick 49...where would we be today??

Nowadays, blokes like Matthew Scarlett don't slip through to the third round. You got to get them early. As yet, we haven't invested anything worthwhile into our KP defenders and that in my opinion, is a real concern.

If Judkins considers a Morrison type a likely forward/back combo and we want to take the gamble on injuries and the like, then go for it; otherwise the best KP defender available.

 

[Jabso]

Originally posted by FIGJAM
Morrison is one we could look at (and I have heard about him being capable of "both ends of the ground"). However, he is a natural full forward, who has had significant injuries and is a Tasmanian. We have one of those already (#16)!

Actually we have three of those already.
Brodie Holland played for the mighty Glenorchy Magpies (now called the storm I think) and The Shack also is Tasmanian. By what I've been told Brodies father Don, was one of those classic angry little rovers, which is where he picked up the tagging ability he has today.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by jabso
Actually we have three of those already.
Brodie Holland played for the mighty Glenorchy Magpies (now called the storm I think) and The Shack also is Tasmanian. By what I've been told Brodies father Don, was one of those classic angry little rovers, which is where he picked up the tagging ability he has today.

I know, I meant tall Tasmanian full forward coming back from serious injury (Tommy).

Being Taswegian myself originally, I'm all for more Tassie boys in the team, if they fill a future need.

This Morrison sounds promising, if he can actually play forward and back. Injury may have affected his draft value and we might get a bargain, like Richie Cole in 2001.

 

[Murray]

Figy, I don't necessarily agree that we need to select a KP back man, who has only ever played on the back line.
Would you suggest that Tarrant or Rocca could NOT play in defence if we wanted them to (I agree a total waste but for the sake of the arguement ... ).
My point is, we should go for the best tall available at #17 whether it be a kid that has played forward or back. If we need a KP back (and I agree we do) then we play the kid in that position.
Presti was a CHF at U18 so it can be done.

Good topic guys and some great insights.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by Murray
Figy, I don't necessarily agree that we need to select a KP back man, who has only ever played on the back line.
Would you suggest that Tarrant or Rocca could NOT play in defence if we wanted them to (I agree a total waste but for the sake of the arguement ... ).
My point is, we should go for the best tall available at #17 whether it be a kid that has played forward or back. If we need a KP back (and I agree we do) then we play the kid in that position.
Presti was a CHF at U18 so it can be done.

Good topic guys and some great insights.

Rocca has played at CHB many times and not just in a relieving capacity. He has played full games there and done fairly well. He would however be exposed by leading forwards like Tredrea and Brown. Remember, Rocca was originally a number two pick, not pick 17!

Tarrant is an outside player. Putting him at CHB would be akin to putting Leon Davis on the ball (which our sometimes stupid coach actually does with atrocious results). Would you put a receiving winger on Voss? Don't get me wrong, Tarrant isn't soft, he's just got little idea when it comes to marking/spoiling from within a pack. He doesn't need to!

Tommy Davidson is at our Club for the same reason as Tarrant and that at no stage involves him going back (although, I'd love him to prove me wrong).

I agree with you that the best available tall is what we require, but I'm putting on the covenant that we need to address a future shortcoming of our game and that is the KP defensive spots. It appears likely that one of the best available talls will be a KP defender and that we should not for a second blink at the fact that they have spent most of their time in defence. I think it's a stupid attitude to take.

Naturally, I are making assumptions on availability, but:

If we are confident that Morrison is over his injuries, isn't injury prone and is the best available tall, then get him.

From reports on Stewart, he's a loose cannon. Can be the best tall in the entire draft one minute, then crap the next.

If one of Mundy or Gayfer slipped through, I would take one of them over Stewart. We can't afford a "maybe" when our defensive future looks so bleak.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by FIGJAM
We can't afford a "maybe" when our defensive future looks so bleak.

You are exaggerating.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by hotpie
You are exaggerating.

I mean "KP defensive" future.

Name me one person who will be able to accompany Presti in a top line key defensive position in 2006.

Tex is the only one I think is quick enough and he has more question marks than the Riddler!!

 

[hotpie]

Walker and one of the two Clokes could do the job more than adequately. Walker is only 20 years old (the Clokes are still learning also) - you are being extremely harsh to write him off so easily. In 2006 Wakelin could still be playing anyway!!

Yes we need to recruit a tall, preferably one who can defend, but its not time to press the warning button just yet.

I repeat, Figgy - you are exaggerating.

 

[Nic]

Is Cloke III a forward or back? Or, gasp, both??

I can't remember, is all.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by hotpie
Walker and one of the two Clokes could do the job more than adequately. Walker is only 20 years old (the Clokes are still learning also) - you are being extremely harsh to write him off so easily. In 2006 Wakelin could still be playing anyway!!

Yes we need to recruit a tall, preferably one who can defend, but its not time to press the warning button just yet.

I repeat, Figgy - you are exaggerating.

Cam Cloke will be a player, but with similar constraints to J-Clo IMO.

I haven't written Walker off, it's just he's as raw as they come and he was a definite "pick 70 hopeful". I have my fingers crossed on both hands.

As for exaggerating, technically you could argue that every aspect of our team is well covered into the future. I just think this is one aspect of our spine (ie. one of the five or six most important positions on the ground) that requires the most immediate attention. Just the way I see it via my crystal ball!

Either way, if we do get the best available tall, there's every chance that it'll be a key possie defender anyway!!

 

[MarkT]

I think Cameron can play CHB. Sure he ha s a lot to prove but he looks likely to me. 2006 is a reasonable timeline IMO. He won't be super quick but at his height who is? He won't be up against the racehorse CHF's any more than the opposition would play a similar bloke on Tarrant. You always need some options unless you have the absolute gun Pavlich types which we won't have. We'll have Presti, J.Cloke, C.Cloke, Davidson (hopefully but he has a lot to prove as well), Walker (I agree about the many question marks). That lot actually have a good mix of types IMO. Much depends on who improves though. If you add Fraser to the mix as the switch player it starts to look good. Fraser is a player who will be able to alternate betwenn any key position, the ruck and a tall onballer/winger within a year or two. Of course as with the other players, it all depends on the opposition. Don't ignore Clement in the mix either.

Personally I would much rather recruit forwards and have too many. They are gold in the trade market and they are far more versatile as a rule. If we had a FF we could use Tarrant as a serious weapon up the ground and we'd have great flexibility with Fraser and hopefully Davidson. If we run short of key defenders, trading forwards will but you one.

The kids that play up forward earlier play their generally because they are better and they learn to be more attacking. Look at guys like Holland and Lucas. They are basically also ran forwards who move back and become players all of a sudden.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by Nic
Is Cloke III a forward or back? Or, gasp, both??

I can't remember, is all.

I think he's a ruckman.

On another thread somebody said he was 2000cm tall - so at 20metres tall he would definitely be used at the centre bounces.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Nic
Is Cloke III a forward or back? Or, gasp, both??

I can't remember, is all.

I hope he is a ruckman. A 200+cm Cloke frame is what we need on our list. If he can ruck then any KPP ability is a bonus. If he was good enough to be a KPP as well as ruck then a third round pick will be highway robbery.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by hotpie
so at 20metres tall he would definitely be used at the centre bounces.

at 20m he'll be used as a whole bloody team.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by MarkT
at 20m he'll be used as a whole bloody team.

He'd struggle at ground level, I'd imagine.

 

[Rival_V]

Well look at it this way.

We are looking to pick up a tall in the first round.

So are Geelong, Port and Adelaide (all pretty much definite).

Then there are the likes of West Coast, Sydney, Western Bulldogs, St Kilda and Essendon who could very well go for a tall in the first round.

The likes of Chaplin, Watts, Bradley and Hall will already be gone by our first pick.

After that bunch of guys, there are the likes of Morrison, Gayfer, Mundy who would be worth the pick No. 17.

Then there are the likes of Pettigrew, Spencer, and Stewart.

There ain’t exactly a surplus of quality talls to go around but what’s new with that.

It should be interesting.

 

[Murray]

T-Clo is about 194 cm and is a forward, not that it matters that much IMO.
Lucas is a prime example of a forward who can play great footy at CHB.
I agree that we should go for the best tall available, having said that I understand Mundy is considered to be a very good defender and would be a ready made FB/CHB.
I still think Davidson will be used at CHB so as to ease him into the team.
I also agree that C-Clo will be a key position backman.
I am still not sure about Tex, IMO he is a definate maybe.
I think Figgy is correct in that we need to get our defence right but I don't think it is as serious (yet) as Figgy says.
Wakes will be gone after his current 2 year deal, Presti has 5 years at least, Jimmy the same as does Lonie and BJ. So I think we only need to cover the eventual loss of Wakes or any serious injuries to the others. The other young defenders coming along are all an added bonus.

 

[Rival_V]

Originally posted by Murray
I understand Mundy is considered to be a very good defender and would be a ready made FB/CHB.
I still think Davidson will be used at CHB so as to ease him into the team.
I also agree that C-Clo will be a key position backman.
I am still not sure about Tex, IMO he is a definate maybe.

Murary,

Mundy is most likely never going to be a permanent KPP due to his frame, height and the way he plays his natural game. At AFL level he will most likely play on leading forwards due to his athleticism.

Pinch hitting KPP at best unless his body fills out.

Although I could see him slotting into Presti's role of taking the 'leading' forward with Presti moving to Wakes current role of taking the taller, stronger opponents further down the track IF he puts on weight and of course IF we draft him.

Indecently that somewhat contradicts what I had previously said about him being a 'Pinch hitting KPP at best'


BTW, I disagree C-Clo (most probably will be a forward/ruckman due to his mongrel, height, kick and lack of pace) and Davidson (the flanks are the way to ease talls into AFL).

I agree on Tex however. He is still very, very raw (talent wise) but his potential upside is huge. Remeber, he is still learning the role of being a KPP because he was played (mostly) ruck in his years before joining Collingwood.

When/If he learns to use that body, look out.

 

[Murray]

R_V
Thanks for the inside info on Mundy.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by Murray
I think Figgy is correct in that we need to get our defence right but I don't think it is as serious (yet) as Figgy says.

All's I'm saying is, that I (along with many of you) went through some of the Shaw years with Mark Richardson as our one and only key defender.

Recently, we have enjoyed some relief with Wakes and Presti doing very well.

My concern is, that we haven't really invested anything into our backline...for as long as I can remember. I'd love to say Presti was drafted as a "play both ends" player, but he wasn't. We expected him to be a FF/CHF and threw him back (successfully) when we realised he was a spaz in those positions.

What I genuinely bloody want, is a Matthew Bloody Scarlett. Regardless of how 'servicable' Cam-Clo, J-Clo, Walker etc. is going to be, they wont ever be class. You can always balance the pockets and flanks in terms of classy or workhorse midfielders, but you're always kind of stuck with a workman-like tall. I just think class talls are worth investing in and that our backline is the area it needs this injection.

If there isn't a 'class KP defender available at our pick (or in the whole draft) then so be it...just get a bloody tall!!

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by FIGJAM
All's I'm saying is, that I (along with many of you) went through some of the Shaw years with Mark Richardson as our one and only key defender.

I went through the Hafey years with Picken and McCormack our ex forward turned key defenders. McCormack FWIW broke McKenna's Assumption College goal kicking records. He turned out to be a very sold FB for a long time for us.