Who should we take at pick 2? Final say

[Daytripper]

I would be very dirty if we wasted a high pick on a tall backman - re Hansen. It would mean to me that we are not learning that football has changed from that of ten years ago.
Frankly I don't think he'll go top 5 as key defenders are just not needed in modern football any more. But thats just my opinion. We will see in another few days.

Selwood or Jetta for me.

We don't need a key forward (Gumbleton), we don't need a key back (they're obsolete) and we don't need a ruck (If we hadn't have drafted Ryder last year I would have said draft Leuenberger for sure).

Runners are what football is all about now.

 

[DaSawx]

what if Barry Hall kicked 1 goal in the GF?

 

[stander]

We don't need a key forward (Gumbleton), we don't need a key back (they're obsolete) and we don't need a ruck (If we hadn't have drafted Ryder last year I would have said draft Leuenberger for sure).

Runners are what football is all about now.

You said we don't need a ruck- so why even mention Leuenberger ?

 

[Daytripper]

West Coast won by keeping their gun KP player quiet.
Next time we play Sydney should we just play Winderlich on him so he can run off him all the time?

Rubbish.
West Coast won because Embley, Judd, Cousins and Kerr were more dominant than their Sydney counterparts.

Also the delivery into Hall wasn't as good - ie he couldn't take the marks in space that he was used to doing.

Again - we are only talking one point. It says something when a team nearly wins a grand final with their key forward only kicking one goal.

 

[lazyhare]

We don't need a key forward (Gumbleton), we don't need a key back (they're obsolete) and we don't need a ruck (If we hadn't have drafted Ryder last year I would have said draft Leuenberger for sure).

Runners are what football is all about now.

How can key backs be obsolete? Who will play on the CHF's/FF's if we dont have any key defenders? We've seen what happens when we tried to play someone like Soloman as a key defender, it just doesnt work. As long as there are key forwards such as Brown, Hall, Reiwauldt and Nietz going round then key backs will be an essential part of any line up.

 

[Daytripper]

West Coast won by keeping their gun KP player quiet.
Next time we play Sydney should we just play Winderlich on him so he can run off him all the time?

Da Sawx.
Thats not my post

 

[DaSawx]

I think I stuffed something up, my bad

 

[Daytripper]

How can key backs be obsolete? Who will play on the CHF's/FF's if we dont have any key defenders? We've seen what happens when we tried to play someone like Soloman as a key defender, it just doesnt work. As long as there are key forwards such as Brown, Hall, Reiwauldt and Nietz going round then key backs will be an essential part of any line up.

The only genuine contested-mark key forward these days is Brown although you could argue Tredrea is as well.
Neitz and Richo will be retiring soon and Riewoldt, Hall and Pavlich take most of their marks on their own in space.

I've mentioned this before but I'll do it again.
Name one key defender (currently playing that spot) drafted top 20 in the last 5 years. Sort of gives you an indication of what their worth is these days !!!!

Forwards get their goals from the delivery out of midfield. Midfielders (rucks included) are the most important players on the ground in the modrrn era.

 

[DaSawx]

You make some valid points, but to call Key Backmen obsolete is poor.
Reiwoldt and Gherig dominated in a game we won in the midfield, one less goal and we would have won, Fletcher was missing.
Fletcher missed both Carlton games, both we would have won if he did play.
Pavlich dominted a close game in which our midfield won or came even, as did Thompson.
If a gun KP had Richo quiet in round 21 we could have won that also, a lot of winnable games there if only the Key Forwards had a slighly less influence, the matter is compounded more with Fletcher getting older.

Sure you need a tonne of runners out there, maybe even 13 pure runners and a ruckman, but you also need 2 Key Backmen to win.

The reason's why people are after Hansen is because he is a damn good player in a position we lack at, and because we could still add two quality midfielders at 18 & 20.

The midfield weren't the main reason we lost most of those 18 games.

 

[Daytripper]

You make some valid points, but to call Key Backmen obsolete is poor.
Reiwoldt and Gherig dominated in a game we won in the midfield, one less goal and we would have won, Fletcher was missing.
Fletcher missed both Carlton games, both we would have won if he did play.
Pavlich dominted a close game in which our midfield won or came even, as did Thompson.
If a gun KP had Richo quiet in round 21 we could have won that also, a lot of winnable games there if only the Key Forwards had a slighly less influence, the matter is compounded more with Fletcher getting older.

Sure you need a tonne of runners out there, maybe even 13 pure runners and a ruckman, but you also need 2 Key Backmen to win.

The reason's why people are after Hansen is because he is a damn good player in a position we lack at, and because we could still add two quality midfielders at 18 & 20.

The midfield weren't the main reason we lost most of those 18 games.

One key backman - you don't need two. And I would argue that two is actually a liability.

There is not a team in the league with the exception of Brisbane that has two pure power forwards who take contested marks.

And look how they're going ?

By the way - our midfield was rubbish for most of the year. It was the reason we lost most of our games.

 

[DaSawx]

One key backman - you don't need two. And I would argue that two is actually a liability.

There is not a team in the league with the exception of Brisbane that has two pure power forwards who take contested marks.

And look how they're going ?

By the way - our midfield was rubbish for most of the year. It was the reason we lost most of our games.

Top 6 in first possessions, inside 50's & clearences, an Inside 50/Opponents Inside 50 ration compearable to good midfields such as Melbourne and Brisbane and greater than supposed younger/greater midfields of Hawthorn and Carlton and being the highest scoring team outside the 8, no the midfield wasn't rubbish, it's a myth

We lost 80-85% of our games because of lack of match ups down back, sometimes poor structure up front and at times poor kicking skills which really did improve throughout the year.

Fletcher likes to stay in the goalsquare, we still need to keep gun CHF's from winning games, Fletcher won't play forever and especially doesn't play 22 games a year either, we need to start winning games soon.

Brisbane had 3 gun Key Backmen when they won 3 flags from 4 GF's, the game hasn't changed that much since then

 

[Longy413]

There is not a team in the league with the exception of Brisbane that has two pure power forwards who take contested marks.

Quality defenders don't just stop contested marks, they stop good tall forwards getting the ball in general.

You still need tall players to mark tall players regardless of what types of marks they take. You still need to match Riewoldt for height.

Don't pigeonhole Hansen as a key defender. He can play both ends, he could probably even play on a wing on a back flank and IMO he is the second best footballer in the draft.

I'd be happy with Chad Cornes at pick 2.

 

[Daytripper]

Top 6 in first possessions, inside 50's & clearences, an Inside 50/Opponents Inside 50 ration compearable to good midfields such as Melbourne and Brisbane and greater than supposed younger/greater midfields of Hawthorn and Carlton and being the highest scoring team outside the 8, no the midfield wasn't rubbish, it's a myth

We lost 80-85% of our games because of lack of match ups down back, sometimes poor structure up front and at times poor kicking skills which really did improve throughout the year.

Fletcher likes to stay in the goalsquare, we still need to keep gun CHF's from winning games, Fletcher won't play forever and especially doesn't play 22 games a year either, we need to start winning games soon.

Brisbane had 3 gun Key Backmen when they won 3 flags from 4 GF's, the game hasn't changed that much since then

The game has changed since then especially with the new kick in rule.
Its all about speed, breaking the lines and using the ball effectively - none of our midfielders could do that and it showed.

 

[DaSawx]

The game has changed since then especially with the new kick in rule.
Its all about speed, breaking the lines and using the ball effectively - none of our midfielders could do that and it showed.

The game was quick back then, it's slightly quicker now because of the kick in rule, there's not a whole lot different, teams were still breaking lines back then.

Not every team plays that way, including us. Our midfield did will in the middle with clearences and created a lot of inside 50's while being quite accountable compared to quite a few teams, much like Collingwood, they don't break lines but still finished 5th, Sydney don't break lines either, it's not all about West Coast and Bulldogs and how they run all day.

 

[Daytripper]

Quality defenders don't just stop contested marks, they stop good tall forwards getting the ball in general.

You still need tall players to mark tall players regardless of what types of marks they take. You still need to match Riewoldt for height.

Don't pigeonhole Hansen as a key defender. He can play both ends, he could probably even play on a wing on a back flank and IMO he is the second best footballer in the draft.

I'd be happy with Chad Cornes at pick 2.

Choosing the best available in Ryder last year has got us into the predicament we currently are in when it comes to this draft. I like Paddy and think he will be a decent player but we really should have gone small. Surely the recruiting department knew of the talls coming through in 2006 and in next seasons draft.

Lee, McPhee, Bradley, Johns, Laycock - thats a good mix of tall players that will be around for a while yet.
And maybe we could fluke a key tall defender later in subsequent drafts like a Matt Maguire etc.

Why would you not want to follow the recruiting and playing philosiphies of West Coast, Adelaide, Sydney, Bulldogs ?
Thats the way football is going. Wallace knows this too and is gradually steering Richmond in the same direction and I think Malthouse is starting to get the idea too.

Small and quick are the future.

Sticking your head in the sand and continuing to draft key position players might be romantic but romanticism doesn't win football matches.
Thats all I want for this football club.

 

[Barts]

The game has changed since then especially with the new kick in rule.
Its all about speed, breaking the lines and using the ball effectively - none of our midfielders could do that and it showed.

Do you realise Hansen is not slow?

Some facts about the draft.

Hansen, Gumbleton, Thorp, Sellar, Leuenberger. They are the good talls in this draft.

Compare that with the good group of onballers in this draft. There are about 15 of these.

We have picks 18 and 20 where we can and imo, will pick up a very good on baller, maybe two if we are lucky.

The talls after these 5 are probs below the level of these onballers. They are only going in the top 20 due to getting picked on a want basis.

I think we need 3 more quality onballers and 2 quality KPP's over the next 2 years to cover the bases. Take 1 and 2 of these this year. And depending on our year, im confident we can get a good tall and small next year. (A. Maric thanks sheeds)

Lloyd and Lucas have 4 to 6 more years left. Over that period im sure we can compensate for those losses with some KPP's coming through.

Ive never been convinced of our drafting of midfielders and backs, but we know how to find a kid who can play KPP forward. We always have had good KPP forwards.

 

[DaSawx]

Why would you not want to follow the recruiting and playing philosiphies of West Coast, Adelaide, Sydney, Bulldogs ?
Thats the way football is going.

Sydney and Adelaide are not quick teams at all, just well coached with smart players, they don't break the lines the wway West Coast and Bulldogs do, yet they still win 15 games

 

[Longy413]

The game has changed since then especially with the new kick in rule.

And the game will change again.
It's not about having the best midfield, it's about having an evenly balanced team.

Sydney two grand finals, with an even spread of midfielders and quality tall players.

West Coast went from runners-up to premiers because of an improvement in their FF, an AA full back and a key position player in Hunter that could play at both ends.

Choosing the best player available with your early picks gives us an even chance at getting an even list.

Choosing the best available in Ryder last year has got us into the predicament we currently are in when it comes to this draft.

What predicament are we in?

We have a side with a quality forward line, an improving midfield that is competitive and a poor defence.

And maybe we could fluke a key tall defender later in subsequent drafts like a Matt Maguire etc.

Fluke a tall defender?
Maguire was drafted in the early 20's, he wasn't fluked.

Why would you not want to follow the recruiting and playing philosiphies of West Coast, Adelaide, Sydney, Bulldogs ?

What philosiphpies are they?
They are all different.

West Coast with their first pick in the last six drafts have drafted McDougall (pick 5), Judd (pick 3), Paul Johnson, Waters (pick 11), Rosa (20+), Hurn (8).

Each time I'm sure they considered they were drafting the best available player. They also picked up two talls among that lot and a half back flanker.

Sydney have traded away picks for Richards, Chambers, Davis, Everitt, and Jolley.

Three ruckmen, a KPP and a small forward.

Bulldogs recently have drafted Walsh, Williams, Cooney, Power, Higgins with their first picks. Two KPP's, a half back flanker and two midfielders.

Adelaide have drafted Watts, Meeson and Douglas in the last three drafts (post the Carey trade) with their early picks. A KPP a ruck and a midfielder.

Thats the way football is going. Wallace knows this too and is gradually steering Richmond in the same direction and I think Malthouse is starting to get the idea too.

Richmond is doing now what he was doing at the Dogs. It didn't work then.

Sticking your head in the sand and continuing to draft key position players might be romantic but romanticism doesn't win football matches.
Thats all I want for this football club.

It's not romantic, it's football. We have a weakness, we have a kid who can run all day, is super athletic, has Mark Harvey style courage, is tall, can play midfield, forward or back. He's a damn good football and can fill a number of positions.

That's not romantic, that's identifying football talent that can improve our list.

 

[Daytripper]

Do you realise Hansen is not slow?

Some facts about the draft.

Hansen, Gumbleton, Thorp, Sellar, Leuenberger. They are the good talls in this draft.

Compare that with the good group of onballers in this draft. There are about 15 of these.

We have picks 18 and 20 where we can and imo, will pick up a very good on baller, maybe two if we are lucky.

The talls after these 5 are probs below the level of these onballers. They are only going in the top 20 due to getting picked on a want basis.

I think we need 3 more quality onballers and 2 quality KPP's over the next 2 years to cover the bases. Take 1 and 2 of these this year. And depending on our year, im confident we can get a good tall and small next year. (A. Maric thanks sheeds)

Lloyd and Lucas have 4 to 6 more years left. Over that period im sure we can compensate for those losses with some KPP's coming through.

Ive never been convinced of our drafting of midfielders and backs, but we know how to find a kid who can play KPP forward. We always have had good KPP forwards.

Never said he was slow.
But he's not going to play midfield, is he ?

Look, you can sell me on Gumbleton or Thorp at pick 2. I won't be overly happy but it will do.
Sellar is just Ryder in a different skin so he is surplus and Leunberger doesn't fill our needs unfortunately.

However if we pick Hansen after finally getting a pick in the top 5, it would be verging on gross incompetance as far as I'm concerned. Firstly, it would be stupid because they are obsolete and secondly we have basically admitted that Bradley is a failure.

 

[Longy413]

However if we pick Hansen after finally getting a pick in the top 5, it would be verging on gross incompetance as far as I'm concerned. Firstly, it would be stupid because they are obsolete and secondly we have basically admitted that Bradley is a failure.

West Coast have Glass and Hunter.
Port have Wakelin and Cornes.
Essendon of 2000 had Fletcher and Wellman.

Hansen would be our Hunter/Cornes/Wellman.

But he doesn't just play back, he's not just a defender. He can play forward and he can play in attack.

Drafting Hansen means nothing of Bradley, other than there are opportunities for him to play further up the ground.

Adelaide had Rutten, Bock, McGregor, Hart, Bassett on their list in 2006.

 

[footy_paul]

selwood will turn out to be a superior midfielder and future captain.

 

[Daytripper]

And the game will change again.
It's not about having the best midfield, it's about having an evenly balanced team.

Sydney two grand finals, with an even spread of midfielders and quality tall players.

West Coast went from runners-up to premiers because of an improvement in their FF, an AA full back and a key position player in Hunter that could play at both ends.

Choosing the best player available with your early picks gives us an even chance at getting an even list..

Sydney - quality tall players ???
Who - they've got Hall and ummm thats about it. And Hall takes most of his marks on his own anyway.
West Coast went from runners up to premiers because Kerr played the full game in 2006 and not 35 minutes like he did in 2005. Lets not over-analyse it.

What predicament are we in?

We have a side with a quality forward line, an improving midfield that is competitive and a poor defence.

Quality forward line - agree but would like another crumbing forward.

Improving midfield - we have no one who breeaks the lines and who hurts the opposition with their delivery. Dyson or Lovett potentially can fill this void but without this type of player our midfield is pretty threadbare and has a sameness to it.

Poor defence - disagree.
We have Fletcher (good for another 3 seasons), potentially Lucas next season, McPhee, Bradley, Lee, Nash, McVeigh, Welsh, MJ and NLM. We've got defenders for all types of scenarios.
Would like a runner who breaks the lines off half back. Thats it really.

Fluke a tall defender?
Maguire was drafted in the early 20's, he wasn't fluked.

Fine. Lets use pick 18 or 20 on a defender if we must.
Just not pick 2.

What philosiphpies are they?
They are all different.

West Coast with their first pick in the last six drafts have drafted McDougall (pick 5), Judd (pick 3), Paul Johnson, Waters (pick 11), Rosa (20+), Hurn (8).

Each time I'm sure they considered they were drafting the best available player. They also picked up two talls among that lot and a half back flanker.

Sydney have traded away picks for Richards, Chambers, Davis, Everitt, and Jolley.

Three ruckmen, a KPP and a small forward.

Bulldogs recently have drafted Walsh, Williams, Cooney, Power, Higgins with their first picks. Two KPP's, a half back flanker and two midfielders.

Adelaide have drafted Watts, Meeson and Douglas in the last three drafts (post the Carey trade) with their early picks. A KPP a ruck and a midfielder..

Of the players mentioned, how many are playing in the seniors and what positions do they play.
Surprisingly nearly all midfielders or ruckmen.
And not a key position defender amongst them.

Richmond is doing now what he was doing at the Dogs. It didn't work then.



It's not romantic, it's football. We have a weakness, we have a kid who can run all day, is super athletic, has Mark Harvey style courage, is tall, can play midfield, forward or back. He's a damn good football and can fill a number of positions.

That's not romantic, that's identifying football talent that can improve our list.

He may improve our list but he's not going to improve our team - if that makes sense.

 

[Daytripper]

West Coast have Glass and Hunter.
Port have Wakelin and Cornes.
Essendon of 2000 had Fletcher and Wellman.

Hansen would be our Hunter/Cornes/Wellman.

But he doesn't just play back, he's not just a defender. He can play forward and he can play in attack.

Drafting Hansen means nothing of Bradley, other than there are opportunities for him to play further up the ground.

Adelaide had Rutten, Bock, McGregor, Hart, Bassett on their list in 2006.

Lets not forget he also could become a Graham Polak as well.

 

[Longy413]

Sydney - quality tall players ???

O'Loughlin, Barry, Ball (2005), Doyle........

Who - they've got Hall and ummm thats about it. And Hall takes most of his marks on his own anyway.

That's probably because there is a shortage of quality tall defenders.

West Coast went from runners up to premiers because Kerr played the full game in 2006 and not 35 minutes like he did in 2005. Lets not over-analyse it.

So Glass didn't improve?
Hunter and Lynch weren't two of their biggest improvers of the year?

Improving midfield - we have no one who breeaks the lines and who hurts the opposition with their delivery. Dyson or Lovett potentially can fill this void but without this type of player our midfield is pretty threadbare and has a sameness to it.

We've also drafted Winderlich, Dempsey, Stanton to do these things.

Would like a runner who breaks the lines off half back. Thats it really.

Have another tall defender and McPhee and NLM are able to do that more often. It's what they do best.

Fine. Lets use pick 18 or 20 on a defender if we must.
Just not pick 2.

We can midfielders there too.

Of the players mentioned, how many are playing in the seniors and what positions do they play.
Surprisingly nearly all midfielders or ruckmen.
And not a key position defender amongst them.

Doesn't matter, your whole point is you want to follow their strategy and implied they target midfielders. You want a midfielder at two. How many are playing senior footy and what positions they player are irrelevant. These clubs are drafting as many talls as they are mids with early picks.

You want to overlook a kid that could be a marquee player for the club, a supreme talent. For a dime a dozen midfielder/small forward. I can't have it.

Lets not forget he also could become a Graham Polak as well.

And Jetta could be the next Shane Harvey. That's the fun of recruiting.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Good points all round.

I'd be happy with any of Selwood, Gumby, Hansen or Leuy.

Which of these players would have the biggest impact next year?

I would say either Selwood or Hansen. Selwood as a midfielder/hbf would be very servicable in his first year like Marc Murphy. Hansen would be a very good third tall who could read the play and play some decent footy.