Weaver Phantom Draft III (2004)

[Ants]

You did alright with Essendon. You mentioned with our first pick we'd take the last remaining fast midfielder, well that happened to be Monfries.

You got Lee spot on.

Slattery wasn't mentioned, but 2 out of 3 aint bad.

And we got Jolley and Bain as rookies. We did pretty well with the 2004 draft I think.

 

[cfc05]

Carlton drafting Russell first round must of come as a shock to you aswell then weaver, u had him third round. Doubt your views would of changed at all now?

 

[Weaver]

Who was your biggest surprise in last years draft? Either who got in or who was left out?

I had Andrew Swallow top-20 for much of the year and he wasn't taken. A lad called Tim Hill who was a quick wingman vanished off the face of the earth.

Williams going so high was a surprise. Also Matt Little in the top-30. Lynden Dunn at 15 was very early. I don't rate Matt Rosa at all so seeing him taken might have been the biggest surprise.

When weighing up players I often wonder how much an award boosts a player up the draft list. Does a coaches award influence you much, or nomination in the TACAA Team? To me it doesn't really change my opinion of the player, but it seems to make all the difference to others.

The Coaches award is respected, the Morrish Medal is a dead-set joke. The TAC team can be hit and miss with lots of the good players missing half the games because of school footy, Championships, trials and International games. They normally sneak guys like Deledio and Jones in anyway.

The All-Australian team has become a pretty good guide. There was a time when it was entirely picked on form. That meant there were always some rovers in it who were never going to be picked up. Leigh Conway this year should have made the team on form. But now they sort of 'fudge' things to favour the guys who are likely draft picks. Most of the elligable All-Australians will be taken this year.

Archibald for instance I think was picked up on the basis of his CV rather than any form he had exhibited.

Athleticism, his status as an Under-16 AIS player and the fact that playing in Canberra he was a lot rawer than some of the others and so might have had more room for improvement. Dud player, but none-the-less a good late-round pick.

 

[Weaver]

Carlton drafting Russell first round must of come as a shock to you aswell then weaver, u had him third round. Doubt your views would of changed at all now?

Shock isn't the word. Most times guys can jump around 20 places without it really even attracting attention. I was certainly surprised but the other way to think of it is he moved from 4-5th on the ruck-rover list to second, and a club decided to recruit that type of player earlier than I guessed they would.

 

[Jeffers]

I'm very glad Grundy fell to us in the rookie draft instead of top 10.

Very exciting prospect for us and may get opportunities next year.

 

[GoOsH1]

Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

Ah well, I had it on very good source that he was going first round....and just about all phantom drafts had him going in first round.

I knew he was always going to West Coast, but they took a chance and let him slip to Rookie draft, so they took him in that instead....no real hassle.


How about I put my house on that he is promoted to the senior list this year or the next.....

we didn't have a first round pick last year (we traded it as part of the stenglien deal), so how you could be sure he'd go first round AND be sure he'd go to west coast is beyond me.

 

[GoOsH1]

Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

Wood certainly willNOT be available at 12

hehe it's amazing how sure we get about where players will and won't be picked up. It's such a lottery, it really is impossible to say.

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

I don't rate Matt Rosa at all so seeing him taken might have been the biggest surprise.

First of all thanks for both this mock draft and the 2005 one. But can I ask why you don't rate Rosa? I don't have a stong opinion of him either way myself. Is he too outside? Too weak? A poor kick?

 

[GoSarge]

Well done Weaver. In hindsight, you did pretty well with Adelaide's picks, although according to you, we got ourselves some bargains. In hindsight, how do you think Adelaide have faired ?

Adelaide –
8 – Meesan
24 – Van Berlo
28 – Chad Gibson
40 – Ivan Maric
56 – Chris Knights
Rookie (but now delisted) – Ryan Nye

16. John Meesan (Richmond) - Richmond might gamble that the teams choosing between pick 9 and 16 won't want a ruckman. They will be nervous about Saints at 17 though, and so will have to take Meesan here. Meesan is less athletic than Wood and DeLuca and probably more similar to Stafford who they need to replace soon. Meesan might be a little more developed and a little readier to play than some of the others.

28. Nathan Van Berlo (Adelaide) - He had an outstanding draft camp, is a leader and can play across half-back and in midfield. Perhaps Stenglein has burnt Adelaide's fingers and they may be nervous. They really have to strengthen that midfield though

17. Ivan Maric (St Kilda) - Brooks and Knobel might be the answer, they may feel they need another ruck option. I doubt the top-3 will be available but Maric might fit the bill. Steve Foster is more mobile and could pinch-hit at CHB. The other option might be to get a running defender like Swallow to replace Voss. A key defender like Toovey could also appeal. Tough choice.

32. Chris Knights (Geelong) - Hasn't played much as a HBF but I think he would be ideal in the role and could step into the Darren Milburn sort of roles. His stocks have been falling all year but he certainly has plenty of quality. Could really be a later round bargain. They may see JD Smith as a direct replacement for Moloney.

On the fringes

Ryan Nye (C) - another ho-hum centreman who lacks a little pace but is solidly built.

 

[theorangeapple]

First of all thanks for both this mock draft and the 2005 one. But can I ask why you don't rate Rosa? I don't have a stong opinion of him either way myself. Is he too outside? Too weak? A poor kick?

There was a rumour going around that we rated Rosa at 7 and Le Cras at 15. Apparantly that came from somone who spoek directly to our recruting staff.

I was also suprised we took Matty at 29. He wasnt mentioned much in the pre draft banter and I was sceptical when I saw him at preseason training however he was excellent in the WAFL this year. FInished 3rd in the Peel best and fairest playing in the middle of a poor side. He got 14 posessions on debut which also isnt a bad effort. He consistantly averaged around 25 posessions for Peel this year.

He does have some deficiencies in his game. He is not quick over the first few metres which is his biggest problem. I heard that he was very outside when drafted, I think that call was alittle harsh. While he isnt an extractor, he does get the hardball if needed. His work at Peel demanded it. One thing Rosa does do, is find the footy. His kicking doesnt look pretty but gets the job done.

Having said all that, if he doesnt put weight on then he wont be an AFL player. At 189cm and such good endurance, he would be a very handy player if he could get close to a strong AFL body. I think he would get more power for his acceleration also if he could add some muscle to his skinny legs.

 

[Weaver]

First of all thanks for both this mock draft and the 2005 one. But can I ask why you don't rate Rosa? I don't have a stong opinion of him either way myself. Is he too outside? Too weak? A poor kick?

A talented player, but purely a forward of the ball receiver who gets it fed to him and then kicks well ... when there isn't much pressure. Blake Caracella mark 2, just not quite as good.

 

[theorangeapple]

A talented player, but purely a forward of the ball receiver who gets it fed to him and then kicks well ... when there isn't much pressure. Blake Caracella mark 2, just not quite as good.

From what I have seen of him this year, he has played a much more pure midfield rover role. He has player out of the middle and has not been able to play forward of the ball due to Peel really struggling (which is a good thing in a way). THe problem for me isnt that he is more of a reveiver, its just that he doesnt have the penetration you would like a receiver to have. From what I saw this year, he was a completely different sort to Caracella who plays along the flanks/wings more and is more creative. Rosa is more prolific at finding the ball and this year anyway, plays rover 100min per game.