Weaver mock draft

[The Old Dark Navy's]

What nagging doubts? There are no players in this draft who have "done everything at the junior level", at least not to the extent that I think you mean it. Its a pretty even draft. So the reason he should be the #1 pick is because no one in the draft has his combination of size, athleticism and potential. In fact, its not even close.

And nobody in the draft has Murphy's combination of ball skills, inside ball getting ability, outside linking and finishing ability.

Size wise, Ryder is not the tallest. He would be the most athletic tall though. Potential is in the eye of the beholder. Potential is an intangible. At this age, they all have limitless potential ... potentially speaking.

Regardless, you are unable to defend your original assertion that Ryder is a stand out number one were it not for his aboriginality. He simply doesn't get enough of the ball to have the influence on a game a number one should have ...... yet.

 

[Silvagnis]

Even the most impressive first year players struggle to have an impact in every game, and if you're playing as starting ruck-rover you need to do that. I can't see him being an immediate relacement for Kouta as you suggest he will be.

I meant the year after Kouta's retired and Hurn would be a perfect fit with his body and kicking to replace him in the middle IMHO.

 

[pieman1]

How has Marc Murphy gone from being the only only homerun selection, to now being a part of a strategy to draft a KPP (was pick 8 and athletic, tall, might be better down back) and a midfielder?

I agree with ODN's first post that we've been badly burnt before with going for talls over the best player with our early picks.Murphy and Hurn will do just fine as they are probably as good as any footballer in this draft regardless of position.

Hurn will be a walk up start to replace Kouta as ruck-rover next year who is on his last legs.I hope the club are content to wait to get a genuine number 1 KPP like Thorp/Hansen/Gumbleton next year, rather than recruiting one to fill a need or a strategy.

Tell me what happens if the Blues take two midfielders this year and Bryce Gibbs is a consensus No 1 pick next year? Murphy and a KPP player makes much more sense.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

How has Marc Murphy gone from being the only only homerun selection, to now being a part of a strategy to draft a KPP (was pick 8 and athletic, tall, might be better down back) and a midfielder?

I agree with ODN's first post that we've been badly burnt before with going for talls over the best player with our early picks.Murphy and Hurn will do just fine as they are probably as good as any footballer in this draft regardless of position.

Hurn will be a walk up start to replace Kouta as ruck-rover next year who is on his last legs.I hope the club are content to wait to get a genuine number 1 KPP like Thorp/Hansen/Gumbleton next year, rather than recruiting one to fill a need or a strategy.

At what point do you stop being gunshy about big men though? You've got to draft one at some point, and Kennedy is as good as any of those players. The reports of this draft's weakness have been greatly exaggerated.

Last year, this draft was looked at as a strong looking draft, because Mitch Clark was being touted as a #1 pick, Travis Varcoe was Top 5, Beau Muston Top 10 at least, and I remember at one point hearing Grae Grant as a high pick. However, disappointing seasons and injuries by those particular players and the draft appears to be weaker.

The same thing will likely happen next year, and at least a couple out of Gibbs, Jetta, Riewoldt, Selwood, Hansen, Houli, Thorp, Gumbleton and whoever else is being touted as a top pick will have lacklustre years, and the draft won't end up the superdraft that it appears to be now.

Josh Kennedy is as good a big man as any you'll find. If he was in the draft last year, he would've been right up there with Roughead and Franklin in terms of contention. Hell, last year's draft was called shallow and weak, and it's looked to be one of the better drafts in recent times so far.

Josh Kennedy is NOT Luke Livingston. Carlton could do a lot worse than picking him up.

I don't even want you to pick him. I want you to pick Marc Murphy so Collingwood takes Xavier Ellis. I know we'd pick Murphy if given the chance, but I would rather have Ellis.

However, this suggestion that Murphy is God, and that Josh Kennedy doesn't stand up to him is just a result of the hype he's been getting as #1.

This year, overall, with biases aside, I believe that Marc Murphy=Xavier Ellis=Shannon Hurn=Josh Kennedy=Patrick Ryder.

I think that those 5 are all relatively equal in terms of talent and value.

 

[Weaver]

Congrats Weaver, on all your hard work.

Just out of interest, how did you track against your phantom draft last year?

Last year

I found most of the names ... the order is out of whack (of course). Some I think I might be proven right on (eg Monfries top-10), some will be completely wrong. Some of the ones I got wrong (eg Jackson, Swallow, Toovey) should go this time round.

36/60 drafted.
9/60 rookie listed (Thursfield and Pearce look OK)
7/60 back this year (Redden, Jackson, Toovey, Swallow, Delmenico, Neaves, M.Lynch). A couple should be picked up.
8/60 wrong (Bartlett, Richardson, Gilham, Foster, Hill, Barling, May, McLeay) - although I'd expect to see Barling rookie listed this year.

So close to a pass.

 

[Silvagnis]

Tell me what happens if the Blues take two midfielders this year and Bryce Gibbs is a consensus No 1 pick next year?

Who said we were going to finish last next year? I'd be happy to overlook Gibbs if there's go home risk for Thorp or Hansen who don't have that problem

Murphy and a KPP player makes much more sense.

Makes more sense to draft the best footballers early IMHO and Wisbey had Hurn at 1.

 

[Silvagnis]

At what point do you stop being gunshy about big men though? You've got to draft one at some point, and Kennedy is as good as any of those players. The reports of this draft's weakness have been greatly exaggerated.

The goss is Carlton were after a tall with pick 1 but have realised Murphy is too good to pass on.And as ODN pointed out we drafted Hartlett last year and we may draft Spangher with pick 20 this year.

 

[YAKUZA]

Really? Well, perhaps you can enlighten us all as to why Patrick Ryder isn't the clear cut #1 pick? Or are you just all talk?

It's not about me or talk or any other excuse you want to use to change the fact that you, by your former post and particularly the one above, are clearly implying that if Ryder was white he would be the #1 pick. Shame on you!

 

[Weaver]

brilliant work Weaver - just with Ryder - ive never seen him play but by the sounds of him - is he just a 197cm Lance Franklin who plays in the ruck? slim , good build?

I think some of the comparisons to Franklin and Goodes are a little lazy and are as much about all being aboriginal. Franklin is more wingman of flanker. Goodes was quite a dynamic junior and won the medal in the TAC grand final playing as a goal-kicking CHF in a one-off freak performance.

If anything I'd compare Ryder to John Barnes or Troy Simmonds. Not really a key position player, but guys who can get 18-20 touches playing in the ruck and getting around the ground. He has a bit of a leap like Jeff White, and White typically struggles up forward, but gets the ball around the ground.

 

[pieman1]

Check out the odds at Sportsbet for the spoon in 2006, Carlton are very short odds, I'm putting my money on it and that would make Bryce Gibbs a Carlton player.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Check out the odds at Sportsbet for the spoon in 2006, Carlton are very short odds, I'm putting my money on it and that would make Bryce Gibbs a Carlton player.

Every year the reigning wooden spooner is the favourite to get it again. When was the last time a team went back to back spoons?

 

[Silvagnis]

Check out the odds at Sportsbet for the spoon in 2006, Carlton are very short odds, I'm putting my money on it and that would make Bryce Gibbs a Carlton player.

A fool and their money are easily parted!

 

[coasting]

It's not about me

Its all about you and it always is.

 

[Weaver]

Hey Weaver how do you rate Sam Elliott and Shane Neaves?

Neaves is a bit of a plodder and as I have said a couple of times, I don't think there will be much shopping for ruckmen this year. The batch is weak and clubs loaded up last year. Can see the likes of Banjanin, Neaves and T.West going through to the rookie draft.

I think far fewer rovers are drafted in any year than people might realise. Elliott for mine is a bit scrapy, his tackles don't stick, he doesn't get as stuck in as someone like Yeomans and hies kicking is good not great. The draft is not the be all and end all. I'd suggest almost as many rovers come off the rookie list as get drafted ... it is just the nature of the position.

If I am an AFL club why spend a pick on Lonergan, Iles, Kiel, Elliott, Hurley, Hocking, Bowes, Mills, Hurley, Adams, Nicholls, Jack, Phillips, Bowe, Clifton etc when none has really stood out from the crowd. Might as well wait and see, not as though there is a shortage of canidates in any year.

With so few places available for rovers you have to make a decision. I have decided to go for Murphy, Varcoe, Jones, Douglas, Hooper, White, Davies, Simpkin and Dunne - and that is probably one or two too many.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Every year the reigning wooden spooner is the favourite to get it again. When was the last time a team went back to back spoons?

I've been trying to point this out for weeks now, but don't expect to get a response.

Only once in the past 6 years has a team that was even in the bottom 4 the year before won the Wooden Spoon, and that was Richmond last year.

However, I have yet to hear anyone backing anybody but Essendon, Hawthorn, Collingwood or Carlton to win the Wooden Spoon.

The statistical and historical likelihood is that some team will come out, have some shocking injuries, and generally play quite poorly, and end up taking the spoon out.

 

[coasting]

Josh Kennedy is as good a big man as any you'll find.

I think thats a little over the top. I think what makes him attractive is that he is a very safe pick, he is already a good size and that he can already do alot of things that can be expected of him at AFL level. He is plug and play but I wouldn't yet compare him with the elite talls of the AFL. Doesn't quite have the x-factor or upside of other prospects.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

I think thats a little over the top. I think what makes him attractive is that he is a very safe pick, he is already a good size and that he can already do alot of things that can be expected of him at AFL level. He is plug and play but I wouldn't yet compare him with the elite talls of the AFL.

Well no, I mean in terms of pre-draft, he's as good a prospect as any.

I did qualify that before you took it out of context.

 

[newstkildafan]

Casserley will not go at 34 definitley not worth it, lucky to make state 18s.Alot of better players out there

Gonna have to dissagre about seal not being a big possesion winner, think he would of been in wa top 3 possesion winners for carnival this year and when he played colts always got 20 plus possesions.

BUT WELL DONE TOP EFFORT

Agree with you totally about seal. He was a top possession winner while playing colts, and certainly good enough to gain half a dozen votes in his clubs B/F for leaque.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Adelaide has 6 ruckmen on their list. Even when Clarke retires and if Meesen opts out we still have 4. Two of them (Maric and Griffin) have come on in leaps and bounds this year. Maric was a bee's proverbial from getting a game for the Crows this year.

Just about the only thing Crows don't need is a ruckman. A key forward, a key defender and midfielders.

 

[coasting]

Well no, I mean in terms of pre-draft, he's as good a prospect as any.

I did qualify that before you took it out of context.

No, I know what you meant. If he was as good as any previous AFL prospect (in the history of the draft) he would be the clear cut #1 pick, which he isn't.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

No, I know what you meant. If he was as good as any previous AFL prospect (in the history of the draft) he would be the clear cut #1 pick, which he isn't.

Again, I qualified it as saying he was as good as Roughead and Franklin last year, and at this point, looks as good as any of the guys next year.

But you can keep selecting one tiny bit of what I'm saying if it's too much trouble to read the whole post.

 

[Lingsface]

Part of it is having runs on the board, and at the moment, Ryder has some flaws in his game, probably bigger than other players.

.

Ryder has a few runs on the board.
AIS
State 16 18
All Australian 18s

so has got the runs on the board at top level, both carnivals have been awesome.

 

[coasting]

Again, I qualified it as saying he was as good as Roughead and Franklin last year, and at this point, looks as good as any of the guys next year.

I wasn't having a go at you. I agree with everything you have written. You talk alot of sense. It just seemed like an odd thing to say. I would say that Roughead is probably a good comparison for JK. I think they are quite similar players. In comparing the 2006 players, I think Gumbleton will end up a better prospect than JK, although of course its too early to tell.

 

[coasting]

Ryder has a few runs on the board.
AIS
State 16 18
All Australian 18s

so has got the runs on the board at top level, both carnivals have been awesome.

And in 16s he played as a forward, which some people seem to be forgetting.

 

[andrew_embley]

nice job Weaver