What/Who will the Lions be looking at in this years draft???

[konstas_87]

I would like to see us get a KPP with our first pick. Not because I think that a KPP will solve our defensive problems for next year but because they are so vital, so rare and so much more injury prone. If you have a shot at a good one, as we probably will this year, then I think you should take it.

But I am not advocating a total "KPP draft". I'd like some balance. I said on another thread that 2 KPPs, 1 inside and 1 outside midfielder would be ideal. I'd also like us to take a ruckman to develop for the next 4 years.

Konstas is right though. Much depends on the Aker trade.

if we get say Miller for Aker,
he can hold up CHB, try Merrett/Mills/Roe at FB,
then maybe get 1 more KPP in the draft MAX, and a couple of really good quality runners.
you can see the difference with the high picks, they take much less time to develop in general, and we could do with a couple of those.

 

[irel]

I think Gram wanted out and we secured a trade for him so I don't think Lethal had a huge amount to do with it. We got Moody IIRC.

Gram after the trade stated that he did not ask to leave. Brisbane did not offer him a contract so he was happy to be traded to St Kilda. The team he followed in his early years. The club did not try very hard to keep him.
I can not recollect Gram indicating that he was unhappy in Brisbane.

Do you think that if Leigh wanted Gram the club would have let him go that easy?

 

[sherminator]

I am excited with what Lethal has said. I believe the club wanst to develop a fast side, like the Dogs, and with this I believe he will keep Attard, who is a runner.

Mills should be back in the side this week! Ugh! he has played well for 3 weeks in the ressies, chuck him in! The same for Attard, egh!

 

[Grimreepah]

I am excited with what Lethal has said. I believe the club wanst to develop a fast side, like the Dogs, and with this I believe he will keep Attard, who is a runner.

Mills should be back in the side this week! Ugh! he has played well for 3 weeks in the ressies, chuck him in! The same for Attard, egh!

Looks like you and Lethal are of a like mind. Maybe you'll get Jetta after all.

 

[don vito of fitzroy]

A defender is a must, especially if we lose Michael and hopefully, a new centreman.

I wouldn't mind seeing Merrett as a full back either.

 

[beatnik]

Gram after the trade stated that he did not ask to leave. Brisbane did not offer him a contract so he was happy to be traded to St Kilda. The team he followed in his early years. The club did not try very hard to keep him.
I can not recollect Gram indicating that he was unhappy in Brisbane.

Do you think that if Leigh wanted Gram the club would have let him go that easy?

hi irel,

yep, you are spot on - gram is a great running player and is one that slipped through the fingers

you could easily add him to the list of Craig Bolton, Jason Gram, Des Headland (hey, he was awesome for us)

but even that list of lost players looks alright when you stack it up against 3 consec flags right?

besides how do you think Collingwood feel about letting go Mal Michael AND Jason Roe?

peace

 

[Grimreepah]

The game has changed since Gram left the Lions. More of a running game now.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Losing Gram was a result of our strategy to go for a run of flags and keep our core group together at all costs.

 

[sherminator]

a new centreman.

Blacks the man for that, unless they wish to keep him as a follower. Than Rischitelli should become the next centre and we should draft G. Urquhart or J. Selwood who are hard-at-it contested ball winners, to play on a wing.

 

[Vidman]

I am excited with what Lethal has said. I believe the club wanst to develop a fast side, like the Dogs, and with this I believe he will keep Attard, who is a runner.

Mills should be back in the side this week! Ugh! he has played well for 3 weeks in the ressies, chuck him in! The same for Attard, egh!

To me this is all part of Leighs plan to be back on top in 2-3 years time. He's concentrated recently on KPP's as they take longer to develop. Last two drafts have been CHF and Ruck in the first round. Before that he took another in Spaander, although that didnt work out. So with the possible exception of a backman, we seem to be reasonably well set at KPPs. Now for the next couple of years he picks up midfielder/runner types who develop quicker. To me it's all part of a strategic building program that he started a couple of years ago. Hence my prediction elsewhere of challenging for a flag in maybe 3 years. I suspect that we'll trade for a backman, as he has before with Michael.

 

[irel]

To me this is all part of Leighs plan to be back on top in 2-3 years time. He's concentrated recently on KPP's as they take longer to develop. Last two drafts have been CHF and Ruck in the first round. Before that he took another in Spaander, although that didnt work out. So with the possible exception of a backman, we seem to be reasonably well set at KPPs. Now for the next couple of years he picks up midfielder/runner types who develop quicker. To me it's all part of a strategic building program that he started a couple of years ago. Hence my prediction elsewhere of challenging for a flag in maybe 3 years. I suspect that we'll trade for a backman, as he has before with Michael.

What strategic plan?

Matthews said:"I'm not sure where we are as a footy club because we have never been able to get our players on the field to find out,"

Looks to me like he's managed by the seat of his pants because he's had to. Injuries, (long term), destabilising upheavals such as Aker, Mal, earlier than expected retirements Leppa, perhaps Voss etc...
No strategic plan there that I can see. His comment about looking for runners is clear indication there has never been a strategic plan other than to retain as much as a possible of the established players. Leigh's comments come two years too late. Leigh and others at the club failed to see where footy was heading, therefore now trying the quick-fix solution looking for ready made runners to step straight into the side.

All I can say it will be an interesting post season for the Lions. I stand by my prediction that the list will be severely culled and players such as Michael, Hadley, Brennan, Beau and few others may be at other clubs next year?
Nothing should surprise.

 

[Grimreepah]

Leigh's comments come two years too late.

If we had runners now, but no key position players, wouldn't we be in a worse position seeing that KP players take longer to develop?

Leigh and others at the club failed to see where footy was heading

If you are talking about the rule changes, I think you're being a bit harsh on the coaching staff for not predicting them. I put it to you, where is footy heading now? What will be the next rule changes that the AFL introduces?

 

[POBT]

The whole "where footy is heading" thing is a furphy IMO. Watch the way St Kilda played on Friday night with 3 key forwards and a pretty fair-sized utility in Hammill. Look at the way we played with Brown up forward. Players were happy to take the opposition on and then kick long to a contest, knowing that there were strong marking targets there. Richmond did it against Calrton. Freo are doing the same.

There are different teams playing different styles of footy, as there always have been and always will be. The smart coaches align the style of footy with the team's attributes. Western Bulldogs play the running game but they get away with it not only because of their speed, fitness and great foot skills but also because they have 2 of the best extractors in the game. St Kilda play long and direct footy, similar to us in our good years. West Coast play what I call "space footy" where the goal seems to be to create space at every opportunity, whether by disposal, running or team set-up - somewhat similar to Port did in the premiership years. Adelaide play incredibly accountable footy with a few guys having a 'licence'. Sydney play a different sort of accountable footy again.

There's no such thing as modern footy. There are modern innovations and different rule changes which affect the success of some tactics but at the end of the day, if you have big forwards, kick it long. If you have a quick midfield, run the pill. If you are exceptionally skilled, use those skills as much as possible. Nothing has changed dramatically.

If people think that the club has not planned for the future then that is ridiculous. The planning may not work but that doesn't mean that they haven't planned. For example, we drafted Spaanderman and Garner to play KPs. For one reason or another, neither has developed as we would have liked. But that is recruiting error, not a lack of planning and every club has recruiting errors. Talking about "classy runners", the talk from WA when we drafted Ash McGrath was that he was Peter Matera material. As it turned out, he was a back/forward pocket. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I agree there was a concerted decision in 2002 to keep the list together. But that would have applied for 2002 and maybe 2003. The rebuilding would have then begun. Just because the place wasn't swept clean of anyone over 28 doesn't mean that we didn't rebuild and plan for the future.

Again, I go back to the Cam Wood example. The amount of people who criticised the club for taking a ruckman with its first pick was astounding. But the club's succession planning would have told them that they would need a replacement for Crackers in around 2007/8 and that a ruckman would take 3/4 years to develop. They may not have had designs to take one with their first pick but when a good one was available, they went for him. People are now realising the benefit of that decision, a full two years after it was made. Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[irel]

If we had runners now, but no key position players, wouldn't we be in a worse position seeing that KP players take longer to develop?

If you are talking about the rule changes, I think you're being a bit harsh on the coaching staff for not predicting them. I put it to you, where is footy heading now? What will be the next rule changes that the AFL introduces?

I am not arguing that we should have taken runners at the expense of KPP's.
Far from it. I am stating the obvious, that there has never been a strategic plan other than to win as many premierships with the established players. Nothing wrong with that. I'll take three premierships in a decade always. Therefore the risk is that players don't get turned over as frequently and the club is less prepared for the changes in direction football may take.

The recruiting philosophy with the early picks has been to take the best available, not necessarily KP players. To make a reasonable assessment of the success of this strategy one needs to take at minimum ten years view.

My philosophy on recruiting with early (1st and 2nd) draft picks is "you always take the best available" if that happens to be a KP than that's a bonus. Over a period of 3-5 years the list should be reasonably balanced. Also my philosophy is you stack the list with KP players because they take longer to mature and the %'s of getting a good one are much lower. I disagree with Leigh on the KP issue. I don't think we have enough, especially as I don't rate Pask and Mills as players that can win us a premiership. I feel that we need to recruit two more Rucks or at least one and elevate Lenny Clark if he is good enough. Keating and Beau's time is up.

I agree with Leigh, our list does not have "leg speed" and needs to be topped up at the draft and trading table, however it can not come at the expense of "speed of mind".

Also, the change of kick-in rules alone has not made the game quicker. It has had a contribution but a natural growth of the game to a more professional set up, more scientific recruitment and many other contributing factors have impacted on the speed of the game.

I also strongly believe that Chris Judd has had a profound impact on our game and how it is played. He is the complete package and therefore every club is assessing their list and their players using Judd as a benchmark. The Lions not excluded.

The two years too late is a criticism of Leigh letting go of Gram. My view has never changed from the moment that the decision was made. It has been stated by me at the time of the decision and many times subsequently that Gram above all, will bite us severely. We need Gram more than ever NOW.

Leigh needs to take the blame for his error rather than state the bleeding obvious "we need running players".

 

[POBT]

Gram after the trade stated that he did not ask to leave. Brisbane did not offer him a contract so he was happy to be traded to St Kilda. The team he followed in his early years. The club did not try very hard to keep him.
I can not recollect Gram indicating that he was unhappy in Brisbane.

Do you think that if Leigh wanted Gram the club would have let him go that easy?

No question he was a loss but this seems to suggest that Gram wanted more opportunities.

Meanwhile, Brisbane Lions' first draft choice from 2001, Jason Gram, has asked to be traded back to a Melbourne club. Gram, 20, has struggled for senior games in his two seasons in Brisbane and has told the club he wants more opportunities.

But, the Lions believe his desire to return to Victoria is also a factor.

The Age from 2003

FWIW, I also recall seeing an interview with Gram where he mentioned that his attitude wasn't great in Brisbane.

Not discounting that he would be an automatic selection but I'm not convinced that we shafted him.

 

[POBT]

The recruiting philosophy with the early picks has been to take the best available, not necessarily KP players. To make a reasonable assessment of the success of this strategy one needs to take at minimum ten years view.

My philosophy on recruiting with early (1st and 2nd) draft picks is "you always take the best available" if that happens to be a KP than that's a bonus. Over a period of 3-5 years the list should be reasonably balanced.

Irel, other than the Gram stuff (valid, particularly as you have been consistent in your criticism), I'm not sure what your issue is. You say that the policy should be "best available" but at the same time state the Brisbane's philosophy has been "best available". Haven't they been doing what you suggest?

FWIW, I'm not sure how much store I place in Lethal's comments from the other day. I don't think that we'll change from the "best available" policy. What the difference might be is in who the recruiters see as the best available and the general consensus on forums like this. Dale Thomas is a classic example and from what I have seen, the recruiters got it 100% right. If there is a Dale Thomas in this year's draft, I'd be happy to take him, even if it means that we don't get a Thorp or Hansen, provided that the decision is made on the basis of best available.

 

[irel]

Riska, Power and others have battled home sickness and lack of perceived opportunities. In Gram's situation the club did not make a concerted effort to keep him. Had we made the same effort we made with O'bree and Gram still departed than I will understand loosing him. In this instance the club rolled over meekly because he was not rated as a player worth persevering with.
I can recall reading an article where Gram said that he was prepared to stay in Brisbane if he was offered a contract.

 

[irel]

Irel, other than the Gram stuff (valid, particularly as you have been consistent in your criticism), I'm not sure what your issue is. You say that the policy should be "best available" but at the same time state the Brisbane's philosophy has been "best available". Haven't they been doing what you suggest?

FWIW, I'm not sure how much store I place in Lethal's comments from the other day. I don't think that we'll change from the "best available" policy. What the difference might be is in who the recruiters see as the best available and the general consensus on forums like this. Dale Thomas is a classic example and from what I have seen, the recruiters got it 100% right. If there is a Dale Thomas in this year's draft, I'd be happy to take him, even if it means that we don't get a Thorp or Hansen, provided that the decision is made on the basis of best available.

Read it again. I have no problem with the club's policy on recruiting. It is not a criticism of the club's philosophy. I have supported the "best available" My post was in response to Vidman's claim of a strategic plan being at the core of our recruiting strategy and also addressing some of Ripahs response to my post.

 

[MCGBEAST]

Here's a smokey for you guys to consider. Theres a kid called Brad Kelleher playing in the VFL who I believe would be an excellent acquisition for the Lions in 2007. Was expected to be drafted in 2005, but was somehow overlooked. Kelleher is 188cm and 86 kg, very quick on the lead, has a super strong physique and can kick the ball as well as anyone on the Lions senior list. He played well for VicMetro in the Australian championships last year, was named as full back in the TAC cup team of the year and invited to Canberra draft camp where he excelled in the vertical leap category. Kicked 42 goals for Eastern Ranges in the TAC Cup in half a season, and has performed well at Box Hill this year in the VFL. Kelleher has just turned 19 and IMO has potential for the future. Interested in knowing your opinions on this player and whether or not you agree that he would be a useful player for the Lions.

 

[irel]

Here's a smokey for you guys to consider. Theres a kid called Brad Kelleher playing in the VFL who I believe would be an excellent acquisition for the Lions in 2007. Was expected to be drafted in 2005, but was somehow overlooked. Kelleher is 188cm and 86 kg, very quick on the lead, has a super strong physique and can kick the ball as well as anyone on the Lions senior list. He played well for VicMetro in the Australian championships last year, was named as full back in the TAC cup team of the year and invited to Canberra draft camp where he excelled in the vertical leap category. Kicked 42 goals for Eastern Ranges in the TAC Cup in half a season, and has performed well at Box Hill this year in the VFL. Kelleher has just turned 19 and IMO has potential for the future. Interested in knowing your opinions on this player and whether or not you agree that he would be a useful player for the Lions.

Hi Brad.

 

[Vidman]

What strategic plan?

Matthews said:"I'm not sure where we are as a footy club because we have never been able to get our players on the field to find out,"

Looks to me like he's managed by the seat of his pants because he's had to. Injuries, (long term), destabilising upheavals such as Aker, Mal, earlier than expected retirements Leppa, perhaps Voss etc...
No strategic plan there that I can see. His comment about looking for runners is clear indication there has never been a strategic plan other than to retain as much as a possible of the established players. Leigh's comments come two years too late. Leigh and others at the club failed to see where footy was heading, therefore now trying the quick-fix solution looking for ready made runners to step straight into the side.

All I can say it will be an interesting post season for the Lions. I stand by my prediction that the list will be severely culled and players such as Michael, Hadley, Brennan, Beau and few others may be at other clubs next year?
Nothing should surprise.

I have no proof whether they have a strategic plan or not. By there drafting it just seems to me that they have been drafting to a plan. Simply because they kept taking KPP, when i've been screaming out for a midfielder. Now all of a sudden he states we're after running midfielders. To me as KPP take say 2-3 years longer to develop than runners, they should all be peaking about the same time. I was inferring that to me this looks like a plan, but I guess the gabba 'cone of silence' will keep us in the dark forever.

 

[MCGBEAST]

I imagine we will take one of the big three KPP players. (Gumbelton, Hansen and Thorp.).

I sure wouldnt mind a gun midfielder like Gibbs or Selwood though.

Here's a smokey for you guys to consider. There's a kid called Brad Kelleher currently playing in the VFL who I believe would be good value for the Lions in 2007. Kelleher was expected to be taken in the 2005 draft but was somehow overlooked. He is 188cm and 86 kg...represented VicMetro in the 2005 Australian Championships, was named at full back in the TAC Cup team of the year and performed well in the vertical leap category at the Canberra draft camp last year. He is very quick on the lead, has a very strong physique and can kick the ball as well as anyone on the Lions senior list. Also has performed well for Box Hill in the VFL this year and IMO has potential for improvement in the coming years. Given that the Lions may be losing a few gun players at the end of the year, I believe Kelleher could be a good acquisition for the Lions in 2007. Interested to know your opinions on this player.

 

[MCGBEAST]

Here's a smokey for you guys to consider. There's a kid called Brad Kelleher currently playing in the VFL who I believe would be good value for the Lions in 2007. Kelleher was expected to be taken in the 2005 draft but was somehow overlooked. He is 188cm and 86 kg...represented VicMetro in the 2005 Australian Championships, was named at full back in the TAC Cup team of the year and performed well in the vertical leap category at the Canberra draft camp last year. He is very quick on the lead, has a very strong physique and can kick the ball as well as anyone on the Lions senior list. Also has performed well for Box Hill in the VFL this year and IMO has potential for improvement in the coming years. Given that the Lions may be losing a few gun players at the end of the year, I believe Kelleher could be a good acquisition for the Lions in 2007. Interested to know your opinions on this player.

Note also... Kelleher kicked 42 goals for the Eastern Ranges in half a season in the TAC Cup...thus has proven that he can play at both ends equally well. At AFL level, would probably make an excellent midfielder and/or flanker.

 

[POBT]

Read it again. I have no problem with the club's policy on recruiting. It is not a criticism of the club's philosophy. I have supported the "best available" My post was in response to Vidman's claim of a strategic plan being at the core of our recruiting strategy and also addressing some of Ripahs response to my post.

That to me is strategic. To identify that your entire list needs reinvigorating over a 5 year period and identify "best available" as the way to achieve that reinvigoration. A lack of strategy would be demonstrated by a less consistent approach. Contrast that with the 2000 strategy where the club identified that the list as a whole was good enough but for a height deficiency and went out and got Mal and Pikey when perhaps they could have gotten youngsters instead. To me, an allegation that the club drafts without strategy is a criticism of the club.

I still don't really understand your criticism of the club other than on Gram but your point is taken on him and the club's lack of energy in securing him. I agree that he is what exactly we need. The fact remains though, there is a substantial leap between Lethal ditching him and him wanting to return home and the club not standing in his way. If he had (self-admitted) attitude problems when he was up here, it may explain why the club did not work so hard to secure him. IMO, the proof is in the trade - Gram was pick 19 with 2 years and 2 games under his belt. We got pick 23 for him. We didn't get burnt by that.

 

[irel]

That to me is strategic. To identify that your entire list needs reinvigorating over a 5 year period and identify "best available" as the way to achieve that reinvigoration. A lack of strategy would be demonstrated by a less consistent approach. Contrast that with the 2000 strategy where the club identified that the list as a whole was good enough but for a height deficiency and went out and got Mal and Pikey when perhaps they could have gotten youngsters instead. To me, an allegation that the club drafts without strategy is a criticism of the club.

Where did you find this 5 year strategic plan to reinvigorate the list via a "best available" method? I stated, I agree and support the "best available" principle with the top two picks. My contention is that this is not as a result of some "Strategic Plan" but a recruiting philosophy which has proven to stand the test of time. As always there will be hits and misses but overall it has been successful. Where is the criticism of the club?

The club will review the list come end of seson and make decisions wheather I, or anyone else likes them or not. No problem with that.
No strategic plan could have forseen the events of season 06 nor the possibility that a discarded player can "Reinvegorate" themselves at another club. It has now been identified that we need runners. No disagreement there. Let's go and trade, recruit for suitable players. Don't think that's been as a result of some strategic plan when even Leigh himself has stated that he is not sure where we are as a footy club because we have never been able to get our players on the field to find out.

I can not possibly see how team lists can be managed soloely via a strategic plan. It's a movable, flexible entity that needs prompt and sometimes urgent response to the demands of the internal and external environments. The environment can be impacted in many ways, such as change in rules, injuries, retirements, upheavals etc...

I still don't really understand your criticism of the club other than on Gram but your point is taken on him and the club's lack of energy in securing him. I agree that he is what exactly we need. The fact remains though, there is a substantial leap between Lethal ditching him and him wanting to return home and the club not standing in his way. If he had (self-admitted) attitude problems when he was up here, it may explain why the club did not work so hard to secure him. IMO, the proof is in the trade - Gram was pick 19 with 2 years and 2 games under his belt. We got pick 23 for him. We didn't get burnt by that.

Agree with your argument. My contention is we had the running type player in our midst but made an error in judgment letting him go. And yes if the club does show lack of energy in securing him it does imply that Leigh has ditched him. No different to the Moody re-signing at the moment. The club appears to be showing a lack of energy in securing a running type player that is already on our list. However as supporters we rarely have the full facts. S hit happens. Mistakes happen. I did not agree with the Logan delistment but understand that hard decisions need to be made. Some will work out OK, others will not. Life moves on.