2012 Draft - Who do you like?

[Mofra]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Drafting by type is very dangerous if that type available is a player who's exposed form is considerably inferior to other players available.

You'd be happy with inside mids at 5 & 6, and 2nd & 3rd rounds as well as Lachie Hunter as long as they're the best available?

Given the marginalities of difference between players of different types, I can't say such a narrow approach would really be in out best interests. Noting what our list needs is a little different than "reaching" for a particular type of player.

[Greystache]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

You'd be happy with inside mids at 5 & 6, and 2nd & 3rd rounds as well as Lachie Hunter as long as they're the best available?

Given the marginalities of difference between players of different types, I can't say such a narrow approach would really be in out best interests. Noting what our list needs is a little different than "reaching" for a particular type of player.

If they are clear standouts over the other players available at comparable picks then yes, if not then balancing the selection needs to considered. Selecting a player who gets delisted in 2 years becuase he was an outside mid and we wanted pace hurts more than selecting someone that becomes a good AFL player but might be similar to others you already have.

Having said that it's not that often that one player stands out so much over others at a specific pick, but reaching for a skillset is very risky.

[Greystache]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Walsh could have been OK if not for all his injuries, he was always going to be a top 10 pick. If we wanted a midfielder we could have always taken Faulkner ...

Howard was a bit similar to Tambling - dominated at a very low level but how do you know how good they are until they've been tested? That was always a risky pick.

Walsh was a very average footballer, we reached hoping he'd develop late but it was a big reach. He wasn't able to hold down CHF at B grade amateurs level straight out of the AFL system, and ended being a solid player as an outside midfielder.

Faulker? How is he relevant? He was selected at pick 17. The next player selected was Jarrad McVeigh.

Howard didn't dominate anything, he got drafted so early based on some good late under 18 SANFL form, Tambling was an All Australian

[Desipura]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Walsh could have been OK if not for all his injuries, he was always going to be a top 10 pick. If we wanted a midfielder we could have always taken Faulkner ...

Howard was a bit similar to Tambling - dominated at a very low level but how do you know how good they are until they've been tested? That was always a risky pick.

This is totally inaccurate. There were always concerns about Walsh's lack of intensity well before he was drafted.
Injuries is just an excuse. If he was that good, why didnt another club draft him after we delisted him?
What level of footy did Howard dominate, SANFL seconds? Hardly a good guide.

[Mofra]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

If they are clear standouts over the other players available at comparable picks then yes, if not then balancing the selection needs to considered. Selecting a player who gets delisted in 2 years becuase he was an outside mid and we wanted pace hurts more than selecting someone that becomes a good AFL player but might be similar to others you already have.

Having said that it's not that often that one player stands out so much over others at a specific pick, but reaching for a skillset is very risky.

I think that's where we have a misunderstanding - taking needs into consideration doesn't necessarily mean reaching for a particular type which is a completely different kettle of fish.

If it's lineball between a ruckman (eg Grundy) and a high-forward/mid with excellent footskills (ie Mayes), I'd expect us to take Mayes even if most rate Grundy as a 1% better footballer.

[LongWait]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

As with most things in life, in sports talent selection there are few absolutes.

"Best available" and "best fit for needs" are probably both factors in each selection decision. Clubs will attribute relative importance to each from draft to draft and even within the one draft from selection to selection. I think in practice it is usually a case of most clubs striking a balance which is rarely fixed at any time.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Walsh could have been OK if not for all his injuries, he was always going to be a top 10 pick. If we wanted a midfielder we could have always taken Faulkner.

As others have already said, Walsh always had concerns prior to drafting and these were emphasized when he got into the AFL system.

He struggled in Werribee's reserves.

It was a terrible draft though.

[anfo27]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

I agree on Howard but I'm not convinced about Smith either. I don't think anyone who kicks it that poorly can ever be a top liner.

Jobe Watson was a shocking kick not so long ago & through hard work has improved. I have my doubts on Clay to but if Clay can work his butt off, then maybe he can improve his kicking like Jobe has done.

[GVGjr]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

You'd be happy with inside mids at 5 & 6, and 2nd & 3rd rounds as well as Lachie Hunter as long as they're the best available?

Given the marginalities of difference between players of different types, I can't say such a narrow approach would really be in out best interests. Noting what our list needs is a little different than "reaching" for a particular type of player.

I have a vastly modified version on this and lets face it no club sticks 100% to the best available concept anyway.

To me, if you believe a player will be a star or is clearly better than the needs based player then you stick with the best available.
This will most likely only be for the first round selections.

For all other selections the needs based player receives a lot more scope.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Thought about the draft at length last night. The most sensible thing from Melbourne's perspective is they give GWS pick 3 for Pick 1 in the minidraft. The rules state they can't be forced to use 4 or 13 on Viney which means they automatically then bank Viney at 24. If they don't do this they risk having to use 3 on Viney when this way they don't have to. They can guarentee to bank 4 top 15 picks by doing this.

That gives GWS 1 and 3, Gold Coast 2 and Melbourne 4. GWS probably take Grundy or Plowman at 3 (fills the need), Whitfield and Toumpass probably 1 and 2. I'd therefore be inclined to offer pick 6 for the 2nd minidraft pick if I was the club to get either Hogan or Martin who both fill needs areas. Then use pick 5 on best available.

[Maddog37]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Good, common sense post. But father son bidding is done prior to the draft so if GWS bid on Viney then Melb have a choice to make as I understand it. Or is minidraft done defore father son?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Thought about the draft at length last night. The most sensible thing from Melbourne's perspective is they give GWS pick 3 for Pick 1 in the minidraft. The rules state they can't be forced to use 4 or 13 on Viney which means they automatically then bank Viney at 24. If they don't do this they risk having to use 3 on Viney when this way they don't have to. They can guarentee to bank 4 top 15 picks by doing this.

That gives GWS 1 and 3, Gold Coast 2 and Melbourne 4. GWS probably take Grundy or Plowman at 3 (fills the need), Whitfield and Toumpass probably 1 and 2. I'd therefore be inclined to offer pick 6 for the 2nd minidraft pick if I was the club to get either Hogan or Martin who both fill needs areas. Then use pick 5 on best available.

Are you taking the piss?

FFS. F/S bidding comes first, you can't just trade away all your picks and take a F/S with a fourth rounder!

How many times do we have to go over this?

[divvydan]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Not sure how the club rates him but maybe using #6 to get MD #2 and Jed Anderson (who is a GWS zone option), perhaps also using our 2nd rd pick. I know he's already returned home from GWS once as a kid (was 18 in Feb) but he appears to be very keen to give it another go anywhere in the AFL. Small at 178cm but a good left foot kick and can kick goals as well, playing in midfield.

[GVGjr]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Not sure how the club rates him but maybe using #6 to get MD #2 and Jed Anderson (who is a GWS zone option), perhaps also using our 2nd rd pick. I know he's already returned home from GWS once as a kid (was 18 in Feb) but he appears to be very keen to give it another go anywhere in the AFL. Small at 178cm but a good left foot kick and can kick goals as well, playing in midfield.

Anderson would be a good addition. If we can get him into the mix I think it's worth considering.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Are you taking the piss?

FFS. F/S bidding comes first, you can't just trade away all your picks and take a F/S with a fourth rounder!

How many times do we have to go over this?

Your sentiment is fair the crap you've wrapped around it is not. I've gone over it exactly once. At 7000+ posts perhaps you've done it a couple more.

Better for us that I'm wrong although I still doubt GC will
bid which leaves Melbourne in a pretty good position.