Draft:

[azabob]

Re: Draft:

One other thing to add to the discussion on Geelong. They traded their first round pick (26) to GWS for two 2nd round selections (32 and 34)
It appears to me that their planning had a lot of method in their madness and they worked out that they could use a later pick than 26 to get the player they wanted in Hamling. With the extra pick in the 2nd round they snared Kersten who was strongly touted to go in the top 30. They topped it off with Murdoch at their natural pick #48.

They obviously didn't see the need to use pick 26 on Hamling when something early in the 30's would still get the job done.
It's a good lesson in not 'reaching' for a player if you can somehow increase the value of your selections via a trade. It does however, require a lot of forward planning. It appears to me that they got an extra 2nd round selection (early) for nothing.
Love to have a chat to Neil Balme and Stephen Wells on why they traded that pick.One other thing to add to the discussion on Geelong. They traded their first round pick (26) to GWS for two 2nd round selections (32 and 34)
It appears to me that their planning had a lot of method in their madness and they worked out that they could use a later pick than 26 to get the player they wanted in Hamling. With the extra pick in the 2nd round they snared Kersten who was strongly touted to go in the top 30. They topped it off with Murdoch at their natural pick #48.

They obviously didn't see the need to use pick 26 on Hamling when something early in the 30's would still get the job done.
It's a good lesson in not 'reaching' for a player if you can somehow increase the value of your selections via a trade. It does however, require a lot of forward planning. It appears to me that they got an extra 2nd round selection (early) for nothing.
Love to have a chat to Neil Balme and Stephen Wells on why they traded that pick.

Geelong also did a similar tactic in 2009, as you say they must spend a lot of time planning and only do it if they can see value.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Draft:

Here's a stupid question (sorry I haven't been following the draft closely this year). Considering Geelong's foresight in trading a pick down if they know their choices aren't rated in the top 20 etc...

Where was Clay Smith touted to go in the draft if we didn't take him at 17?

I've heard anywhere from 30+ to not getting picked at all. This is very similar to the Christian Howard scenario. I guess I'm echoing the sentiments of some: if we're going to 'reach' every year, why not just trade the early pick for more picks down the order like Geelong do? No one wants the guys we keep picking in the first round anyway, we may as well get two birds with the one stone.

[Mitcha]

Re: Draft:

From memory Clay Smith was touted to go somewhere between 15-30.

[GVGjr]

Re: Draft:

Here's a stupid question (sorry I haven't been following the draft closely this year). Considering Geelong's foresight in trading a pick down if they know their choices aren't rated in the top 20 etc...

Where was Clay Smith touted to go in the draft if we didn't take him at 17?

I've heard anywhere from 30+ to not getting picked at all. This is very similar to the Christian Howard scenario. I guess I'm echoing the sentiments of some: if we're going to 'reach' every year, why not just trade the early pick for more picks down the order like Geelong do? No one wants the guys we keep picking in the first round anyway, we may as well get two birds with the one stone.

I think most had him somewhere between 16 and 25. The problem from what I understand is that the coach only got involved in the last week or two on the type of player he wanted or more specifically Clay Smith.

In the end, we always walk away with nearly every player we want but I think at times we pay a premium for it.

[LongWait]

Re: Draft:

I think most had him somewhere between 16 and 25. The problem from what I understand is that the coach only got involved in the last week or two on the type of player he wanted or more specifically Clay Smith.

In the end, we always walk away with nearly every player we want but I think at times we pay a premium for it.

I don't place a lot of store in the phantom draft/bigfooty group think, but for what it's worth I think that most of the regular phantom drafters had Clay Smith as top 20. On that basis we didn't reach for Smith.

Emma Quayle also indicated a few days prior to the draft that we had keen on Crozier but presumably after some intervention from the McCartneys, we then shifted our focus onto Smith. We got our man and then got another potential first round pick and supposedly the best KPD in Talia with pick 39.

[chef]

Re: Draft:

Here's a stupid question (sorry I haven't been following the draft closely this year). Considering Geelong's foresight in trading a pick down if they know their choices aren't rated in the top 20 etc...

Where was Clay Smith touted to go in the draft if we didn't take him at 17?

I've heard anywhere from 30+ to not getting picked at all. This is very similar to the Christian Howard scenario. I guess I'm echoing the sentiments of some: if we're going to 'reach' every year, why not just trade the early pick for more picks down the order like Geelong do? No one wants the guys we keep picking in the first round anyway, we may as well get two birds with the one stone.

Carlton were pretty keen and would have taken him at 22.