Whats our bigger issue?

[Dazza]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

I have no issue with the Howard and Tutt selections. On team balance. We made the right call.

Probably going to get shot down for this. But IMO taking Smith this year wasn't the right call more so than Howard or Tutt. Granted he's going to be a good player. But on team balance it didn't make much sense.

Mckenzie made much more sense to me.

[jeemak]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

I have no issue with the Howard and Tutt selections. On team balance. We made the right call.

Probably going to get shot down for this. But IMO taking Smith this year wasn't the right call more so than Howard or Tutt. Granted he's going to be a good player. But on team balance it didn't make much sense.

Mckenzie made much more sense to me.

You need to look at the Smith selection in light of who we will be losing over the next couple of years. Cross and Boyd will be gone, leaving Wallis, Liberatore and Smith to fill their places. Prior to taking Smith we also saw a hole in this area after Ward's departure.

Those looking at our midfield and saying we're top heavy for grunt using it as a reason for not drafting Smith are extremely short sighted. Sure, we need to add more outside run and carry to our midfield over the next draft, though there wouldn't be much point in having these types of players on our list if we didn't have sufficient means of winning the hard ball to feed them.

[Bornadog]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

Look at Jack Watts, .

What a mistake Melbourne made with not picking Nic Nat.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

I have no issue with the Howard and Tutt selections. On team balance. We made the right call.

Probably going to get shot down for this. But IMO taking Smith this year wasn't the right call more so than Howard or Tutt. Granted he's going to be a good player. But on team balance it didn't make much sense.

Mckenzie made much more sense to me.

Jeemak summed up the strategy pretty well. Plus -- this year's draft is supposed to be a proclaimed super draft. Thus, better quality players will be available -- particularly with our earlier picks. It'll be easier to pick one or two skillful mids with these picks, than it would have been last year.

Clay was the safe option -- and a pretty good one at that IMO.

Smith and Libba are going to be really tough, inside players for the future. Hopefully Wallis develops too -- it'd be a solid core.

What a mistake Melbourne made with not picking Nic Nat.

Yep -- and on so many levels. Nic Nat from a marketing perspective would have been huge for Melbourne, let alone his ability to impact games from day one, let alone his continual and rapid rise.

They'd have to be worried about Watts' progress. He looks like Jarrad Grant -- anything but a key position player, and he's got no pace.

[stefoid]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

There is a bees dick difference between 7 games and 15 games played 3 years in, taking different teams requirements and injuries and what not into account, it means essentially the same thing -fringe players just starting to earn their place in the side.

[Sedat]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

Yep -- and on so many levels. Nic Nat from a marketing perspective would have been huge for Melbourne, let alone his ability to impact games from day one, let alone his continual and rapid rise.

They'd have to be worried about Watts' progress. He looks like Jarrad Grant -- anything but a key position player, and he's got no pace.

I would take Watts off Melbourne in a heartbeat. His disposal by foot around the ground is almost as elite as I've seen from a big man since Chris Grant was playing. He is also a very good decision maker with ball in hand. He could, and should, develop into a very good lead-up half forward as his endurance level continues to improve. But he will never be the key forward gorilla that Menbourne drafted him for.

[Greystache]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

Jeemak summed up the strategy pretty well. Plus -- this year's draft is supposed to be a proclaimed super draft. Thus, better quality players will be available -- particularly with our earlier picks. It'll be easier to pick one or two skillful mids with these picks, than it would have been last year.

Clay was the safe option -- and a pretty good one at that IMO.

Smith and Libba are going to be really tough, inside players for the future. Hopefully Wallis develops too -- it'd be a solid core.



Yep -- and on so many levels. Nic Nat from a marketing perspective would have been huge for Melbourne, let alone his ability to impact games from day one, let alone his continual and rapid rise.

They'd have to be worried about Watts' progress. He looks like Jarrad Grant -- anything but a key position player, and he's got no pace.

He may lack in a few key areas, but Watts was one of the quickest non-indigenous players ever to attend the draft camp. Based on their testing Watts is quicker than Grant.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

I would take Watts off Melbourne in a heartbeat. His disposal by foot around the ground is almost as elite as I've seen from a big man since Chris Grant was playing. He is also a very good decision maker with ball in hand. He could, and should, develop into a very good lead-up half forward as his endurance level continues to improve. But he will never be the key forward gorilla that Menbourne drafted him for.

He doesn't play like a big man though. I agree his skill and decision making is sound, but there are mids and small/medium forwards that will do it better than he does -- especially in the half forward lead-up role.

From an opposition standpoint, his height is irrelevant. You could play a Hargrave or Murphy type on Watts, and they'd murder him on the rebound. He's never going to get a big, lumbering player that he can 'burn' off (eg. a Markovic type). He'll attract those quick medium defenders (Murphy, Hargrave, Morris or O'Brien for eg).

He may lack in a few key areas, but Watts was one of the quickest non-indigenous players ever to attend the draft camp. Based on their testing Watts is quicker than Grant.

He has never shown it on the football field IMO. I'd be surprised if he was half as quick as Grant. He's certainly agile and he's not dead slow, but I don't think I would describe Watts as a player with pace.

Watts = a better version of Everitt.

[BulldogBelle]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

I think going forward. If we are drafting tall forwards with low picks they need to have aggression and arrogance. For mine skills and athleticism are less important for a big man.

Look at Jack Watts, Jarrod Grant and Everitt as an example.

All the skills and athleticism in the world but it isn't translating into being good players at the moment.

Need the arrogant brutes like Franklin, Hurley and J.Reiwoldt. You could add Butcher to this group soon.

^^^^

This

And until Grant develops the endurance to make consistent, repeated and sustained efforts throughout the game he isnt going to be a game changer or kick > 40 goals per season

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

Is he? compared to 5 or 6 picks in the first round that have come on quickly, well yeah.

Comapred to the other picks before and after him, he is about on course.

Have a look at the first round, ( which we had the 2nd last pick of) and tell me how many of those guys are more than fringe players for their teams? not many.

And you could name a player or two at Tutts pick (31) that you might rather with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I am pretty happy with a guy who is quick, a long booming kick and a chance to play midfield for us this year. Just what we need!

You are setting yourself up for disapointment if you expect every 1st/2nd round pick to become best 22 players within 3 years of being drafted.

Most sensible thing I've read.

[Dazza]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

[/B]


^^^^

This

And until Grant develops the endurance to make consistent, repeated and sustained efforts throughout the game he isnt going to be a game changer or kick > 40 goals per season

Even average types with arrogance and aggression like Mooney would be better to take than the skilled and athletic talls IMO.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

Most sensible thing I've read.

How many years do you think is reasonable then? Genuine question. Sure it's all fine to say that you can't expect every 1st/2nd round pick to contribute within 3 years (although I disagree with non-talls), but you do expect them to start contributing at some point, yeah?

What's that point?

It's an important question because every year you keep a non-contributor on the list you are both paying for someone who may never make it, and conversely, also have to pay the opportunity cost of NOT having someone else on the list that may very well make it (and the number of rookies we've had that has made it suggests that EVERY spot on the list counts).

--

ps. For sake of argument, my rule of thumb is roughly 2 years for non-talls and 4-5 years for talls. I'm not saying they have to become superstars in that time, but to at least start contributing and showing something, even if it is dominating the VFL. If a non-tall is not showing something in his first couple of years on a list I argue strongly that unless something dramatically changes (maturity, etc.) he's not going to make it, and you may as well replace them with a good mature-age player because you're going to get more output in the meantime. Talls get a couple more years, but even then they should be showing an upward trend from year to year.

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

How many years do you think is reasonable then? Genuine question. Sure it's all fine to say that you can't expect every 1st/2nd round pick to contribute within 3 years (although I disagree with non-talls), but you do expect them to start contributing at some point, yeah?
-

ps. For sake of argument, my rule of thumb is roughly 2 years for non-talls and 4-5 years for talls. I'm not saying they have to become superstars in that time, but to at least start contributing and showing something, even if it is dominating the VFL. If a non-tall is not showing something in his first couple of years on a list I argue strongly that unless something dramatically changes (maturity, etc.) he's not going to make it, and you may as well replace them with a good mature-age player because you're going to get more output in the meantime. Talls get a couple more years, but even then they should be showing an upward trend from year to year.

It is a bit like asking how long is a piece of string. But as you mention in your second paragraph I would say roughly 4-6 years for talls and 2-3 years for non talls. But then there will be other players who are not worth persisting with for various other reasons: off field stuff, attitude etc. etc.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

Bigger issue is midfield. As has been mentioned we lack some real class and polish in finishing. I'm not going to say our forward problems are solved, but we had 10 goals on the board early in second so it did function in patches. It's just going to need time to develop. Another injection of draft talent is required for a year or two, but I didn't leave the game devastated today. If the year is spent filtering the list then so be it.

The midfield is definitely the key and at present we lack class, skill, pace and depth in this area. We were slaughtered by the WCE out of the middle with Priddis a standout. Griffen is our only midfielder apart from Cooney who is capable of breaking the lines. Boyd is a ball magnet but doesn't hurt the opposition. Liberatore and Smith will be good additions in the midfield. Picken is our only tagger and is honest as they come but tends to struggle against class midfielders. I would prefer to see Cross played in defence where he does his best work. Wood looks better suited with his dash as a winger and could be a handy addition further afield. Dahlhaus because of his speed could become an elite midfielder. The top 4-5 teams are all powerful in the midfield and this is where we need to get a lot better in order to move up the ladder.

[jeemak]

Re: Whats our bigger issue?

The midfield is definitely the key and at present we lack class, skill, pace and depth in this area. We were slaughtered by the WCE out of the middle with Priddis a standout. Griffen is our only midfielder apart from Cooney who is capable of breaking the lines. Boyd is a ball magnet but doesn't hurt the opposition. Liberatore and Smith will be good additions in the midfield. Picken is our only tagger and is honest as they come but tends to struggle against class midfielders. I would prefer to see Cross played in defence where he does his best work. Wood looks better suited with his dash as a winger and could be a handy addition further afield. Dahlhaus because of his speed could become an elite midfielder. The top 4-5 teams are all powerful in the midfield and this is where we need to get a lot better in order to move up the ladder.

Cross would get an absolute pasting against either quick forwards or strong and talented medium forwards. I agree that he is good at reading the ball coming in to assist other defenders and takes marks with courage, theough being accountable for a man for the entire game requires athleticism he doesn't have.

Wood needs to develop in defense. It will take a while though, and we need to bite the bullet and accept there will be some pain along the way. He needs to take more care with disposal by foot and by hand, and that's my major concern with him.