Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

[Sedat]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

On top of that, if this is a very strong draft, maybe Scotty Clayton has his eyes on a smoky, ala Lake (#71). We'd also be happy with that, IMO.

Strong doesn't necessarily mean it's a deep draft. Maybe the first 30-40 picks are quality but there is not much left thereafter to enthuse? Can anyone clarify if this draft goes deep because Fantasia was clearly very happy to have nabbed another 2nd rounder and didn't seem to be enthused about the depth at the lower reaches. This talk could be spin as was alluded to earlier.

[Scraggers]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

Personally I think it is. Even though only 2 are live we still 3 picks all up and will look to rookie probably 3 players. Next year we will be having a big change in our list.

Aker has already confirmed it will be his last year. Eagleton won't be renewed (very early call but Im confident I'll be right.) If Wight doesn't improve he will definitely be gone. Welsh is a good chance to retire next year. I imagine Johnno will play 2 more years but there is a chance that he will hang up the boots. I'm sure I have missed 1 or 2 more potential retirees and this doesn't even look at people like O'Shea and other young guys who have had some time on the list without making any inroads.

You make a valid point ... but my fears come next year; as the majority of these players retire is the same year GC17 get the first 94 picks in the draft, leaving us with pick no. 137 and 2,348 ... we want to build a list that will combat this loss of talent / experience etc. Therefore i think this PSD and draft is the one to be active ... there is a reason that every club wanted to keep their no. 1 pick

[LostDoggy]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

Judging by what Ace said the Bulldogs had already told him in November they wanted to pick him up this year - don't we have another two father son's next year as well?

[Scraggers]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

Judging by what Ace said the Bulldogs had already told him in November they wanted to pick him up this year - don't we have another two father son's next year as well?

Yep ... a young Wallis and a young LIbba ... plus there is also the prospects of Braedon Jones through the NSW/ACT rookies list

[GVGjr]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

The fact is we have 3 picks. Not sure how we can see ourselves having only 2 "live" picks.

One of the picks is already committed to so that leaves just two live picks for draft day.
Drafting just 3 players this year seems a bit short of the mark.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

One of the picks is already committed to so that leaves just two live picks for draft day.
Drafting just 3 players this year seems a bit short of the mark.

We're still getting three 17yo's onto our list.

I suspect this thread has more to do with the entertainment value of speculating who we will take and then finding out who we end up with!

[Bulldog Revolution]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

One of the picks is already committed to so that leaves just two live picks for draft day.
Drafting just 3 players this year seems a bit short of the mark.

Its bizarre given its a supposedly strong draft and we have used 5 picks the last two years

Are you wanting a recycled needs backup with the last pick GVG or another kid?

[GVGjr]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

Its bizarre given its a supposedly strong draft and we have used 5 picks the last two years

Are you wanting a recycled needs backup with the last pick GVG or another kid?

Ideally another youngster.

[Bornadog]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

Why are we saying we only have two live picks left? Is it a statement from the club?

According to the AFL Website:

Western Bulldogs
Offloaded Ray, but could not secure the tall forward they wanted, despite showing some interest in Hawthorn's Tim Boyle. Have already committed their first draft pick to ruckman Ayce Cordy under the father-son rule.

Draft picks: 14 (Ayce Cordy), 31, 32, 64, 80, 96

[GVGjr]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

Why are we saying we only have two live picks left? Is it a statement from the club?
According to the AFL Website:

Western Bulldogs
Offloaded Ray, but could not secure the tall forward they wanted, despite showing some interest in Hawthorn's Tim Boyle. Have already committed their first draft pick to ruckman Ayce Cordy under the father-son rule.

Draft picks: 14 (Ayce Cordy), 31, 32, 64, 80, 96

Two reasons:
1) What Fantasia said
2) Based on how many players have been moved on so far. Unless there is more to go we can't select more.

If they move some more on then yes we can draft more players.

[The Underdog]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

Two reasons:
1) What Fantasia said
2) Based on how many players have been moved on so far. Unless there is more to go we can't select more.

If they move some more on then yes we can draft more players.

Although we've moved on 4, are we only able to pick up 3 replacements due to West being a full veteran?

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

Although we've moved on 4, are we only able to pick up 3 replacements due to West being a full veteran?

Correct. West is replaced by a rookie.

[Sedat]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

I'm happy to have only 3 picks in the ND, seeing as they are all in the first 2 rounds. Our recruiting dept has studied the form intimately, and they are on record as saying they are only interested in 3 selections - I'll bow to their better judgement.

Happy also to have 5 rookie positions available on our list, which is where we can take a punt or two on some speculative talent. If Shaw and Mulligan are retained as rookies, that leaves us 3 selections in the rookie draft (assuming we choose not to retain 'Handbrake' Henry White).

Alternately, I'd also be perfectly happy to delist Cam Wight, possibly promote Mulligan and still have 3 selections in the rookie draft. The value of pick 64 compared to the rookie draft is marginal at best, as whoever Clayton invariably selects late is someone that only Clayton is interested in and would be available to rookie (assuming they are not bottom age and therefore ineligable to nominate for the rookie draft). Sadly the Eagle is under contract, so there is little or no benefit in delisting him and paying him out.

With regard to 2009, correct me if I'm wrong but the only compromise to next year's crop is the loss of 3 months at the bottom age end? If that's the case, there are no Gold Coast concession picks per se, so the wooden spooners will still get pick 1 and so on. It gets all rather murky in 2010, but by that stage we might possibly have a couple of quality father-sons coming through the system, which would be perfect timing in a draft year that Gold Coast virtually owns in the first 25 picks.

We've drafted some quality youth in the last 3 years that are developing nicely on our list, so I'm happy with the composition of our list with regard to future seasons. We aren't age top-heavy, and our better performing players are all still on the right side of 27 - only Aker finished top 10 in our B&F outside this age bracket. List-wise, we are well placed for the next 3 years at least.

[The Underdog]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

Alternately, I'd also be perfectly happy to delist Cam Wight, possibly promote Mulligan and still have 3 selections in the rookie draft.

While no fan of Cam I'm not sure I understand the point of this move. Most who've seen Mulligan play (rather than those of us who've just fallen in love watching him train) agree that he's more than a year away from senior footy. Why not just leave him as a rookie for another year when we'll still be able to promote him if he's come on as we'd hoped. If we were to delist Wight, I would imagine it'd only be to add a 4th pick in the national draft or because someone came up in the PSD, not to promote a rookie.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Re: Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

I don't understand how the philosophy works.

Westy gets a tap on the shoulder but Eagle, Skipper and Wight, who aren't even worth licking the feet of Westy, clog the list like fatty deposits in the circulatory system of a heart attack victim.
I much prefer this scenario.
Skipper and Wight are delisted. Eagleton get's talked into retiring.

Westy gets a years grace for his selfless and noble efforts for the dogs over 300+ games.
EVEN IF HE DOESN'T PLAY A SINGLE GAME.

A legendary warrior gets the respect he deserves and the system gets flushed out for new picks.