Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Weaver Phantom Draft III (2004)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Weaver
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

So Weaver, could you please tell me who you think are the best KP's that would be available for Sydney?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

EB_Tiger said:
Mate you the tool Newb. I will be taking your car and house off you thankyou very much.

I have it on VERY GOOD UNDERSTANDING that he will not fall past Brisbane in the first round. I can tell you all for sure.

If not, ban me.
Click to expand...

BANNED :eek:
 
Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

There's always one idiot who will drag an old post up - makes things nice and confusing to read if you go by the titles on the front page.
 
Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

How wrong they were about Eckermann!!!! pick 51
 
Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

JeNnO_powerfreak_21 said:
How wrong they were about Eckermann!!!! pick 51
Click to expand...


We were all very wrong. I think most people though he would be well and truely gone by pick 20. Most likely Pies pick 10.

In hindsight, I think we underestimated his height problem.
 
Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

Yeah, It makes you think if there will be anyone like that this year?
 
Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

Tom Williams went at 6, weaver had him at 46.

Just shows you how tough it is to pick something like this.

Notice that 3 of the 5 people the Dogs drafted where not on your list, and that Toovey who you had at 20odd was not even drafted.

As i said, all these who will go where are useless because we are not the people who Draft.
 
Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

To be fair by draft time it was generally accepted williams would go top 10, this was done after trade week...Fancy Grundy/Kirkby not being picked up until the rookie draft.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

JeNnO_powerfreak_21 said:
Yeah, It makes you think if there will be anyone like that this year?
Click to expand...


I have a feeling Ellis might drop further than people think. Nothing like 51 but I think he could slide to around pick 8.

Players that slide generally are really small, top age or big bodied. Obviously there are exceptions.

Taller, athletic flanker/midfielder types seem to go higher than people estimate. Egan, Russell are examples.
 
Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

theorangeapple said:
I have a feeling Ellis might drop further than people think. Nothing like 51 but I think he could slide to around pick 8.

Players that slide generally are really small, top age or big bodied. Obviously there are exceptions.

Taller, athletic flanker/midfielder types seem to go higher than people estimate. Egan, Russell are examples.
Click to expand...
why would ellis then?
 
Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

What_The? said:
Tom Williams went at 6, weaver had him at 46.

Just shows you how tough it is to pick something like this.

Notice that 3 of the 5 people the Dogs drafted where not on your list, and that Toovey who you had at 20odd was not even drafted.

As i said, all these who will go where are useless because we are not the people who Draft.
Click to expand...

I quite respect Weaver's work, but he didn't manage to pick any of the Saints selections in his top 60. Admittedly only one player they picked came from the U18's but surely Andrew McQualter rated a mention.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

Syd Kennets said:
To be fair by draft time it was generally accepted williams would go top 10, this was done after trade week...Fancy Grundy/Kirkby not being picked up until the rookie draft.
Click to expand...

I suppose there are a few things I should say in my defence :)

Williams is an example of a player having a fan. The Dogs wanted him. No one could accurately predict where he'd go because he didn't go on talent or performance - the kid couldn't kick for a start. A guy like Pendlebury could be the same this year. Top 10 or at 45 - just depends if one club has seen something they like and jump early.

As for Grundy - I am stil suprised. I saw him at FB one year and thought he was superb at CHF in the next. His recovery is superb and he presents well. Perhaps the reports from his junior coaches were bad? Perhaps he interviewed badly, had an injury or clubs thought he had some 'issues'? I can't begin to guess because I don't see the reports, testing and interviews that the clubs do. I don't get to shake hands with the players like the clubs do and look them in they eye. Those personal qualities are probably the most important part of making it - and I can only guess what type of person they are by how they play.

Kirkby sort of makes sense. It is a fine line between backing your own judgement and being stubborn. Kirkby was a popular player on these boards and I kept moving him up. When he was missed I told myself of for not having the courage to leave him out. In the previous year a lot of us had thought Will Gayfer would be taken but he wasn't. Kirkby was similar, an immobile guy who relies on pack marking.

I'd imagine a lot of the amateurs who post here have gone through the same learning process. Gayfer + Kirkby = no one predicting that Adam Prior or Rees Thomas will be taken.

As for getting correct picks for clubs. I doubt even a club itself could predict a draft accurately and they have a lot more info. The moment one pick is wrong the chances are the rest of them are going to be off as well.

Also I think some of those who are newish to draft watching are a bit hung-up on the value of a pick. Personally I think "pick 20, pick 40, rookie list - what's the difference".

Enckerman might have fallen to 50+ but he was still within the group of 6-7 rovers taken. With 50 or more rovers to sift through getting a correct name is hard work regardless of what spot he goes.
 
Ghost of Punt Road said:
not that I am one to critisize since your work is greatly appreciated, but I couldn't see Pattison on the list. Did I miss him?
Click to expand...

No he wasn't there ... and I'll stick with that :)

In fairness I think Richmond didn't recruit him as a CHF. They recruited him as a ruckman. I didn't rate him amongst the top CHFs and I didn't rate him against the top ruckmen.

But it is an example of a player who suits a system. Richmond want to run and be mobile. Wallace wanted a tall-ruck-rover type in the middle like Darcy or White. Pattison fits that role and that's why they took him, a junior Simmonds.

Ryder is a similar player this year. Some clubs who like playing that system would love to get him. Melbourne would walk over burning coals for him, ideal replacement for Jeff White.
 
Re: Weaver Phantom Draft III

missionpossible said:
Lenny* how is the accomodation shortage going.
Click to expand...

:) 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..... :p
 
With regards to Pattison, it certainly can't be easy trying to pick 'em all!

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

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.

Archibald for instance I think was picked up on the basis of his CV rather than any form he had exhibited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom