2012 Draft - Who do you like?

[Bulldog Revolution]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

I agree with you SS, 100%, I guess my example was a silly one, but in the end you do take the best available at your pick, so as you say, there will be a bunch of players that are perceived equal in ability and you take the one that suits your needs.

However, if some reason there were 5 ruckman that are highly rated in the top ten, you don't just ignore them at pick 5 or 6, even though you may not need a ruckman for next season.

I kind of agree with what you are saying Bornadog, but ruck man are potentially also the exception to the rule

It seems to be almost impossible to project how Ruckmen will progress to AFL level. It could be argued that drafting ruck man from the state leagues is almost as successful as drafting them with early picks - ok perhaps a bridge too far, but Jacobs, Hudson, Giles, Jolly could all have been anyones and Josh Fraser and Kreuzer are perhaps examples of how its hard to project ruck prospects.

[Mofra]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

I kind of agree with what you are saying Bornadog, but ruck man are potentially also the exception to the rule

It seems to be almost impossible to project how Ruckmen will progress to AFL level. It could be argued that drafting ruck man from the state leagues is almost as successful as drafting them with early picks - ok perhaps a bridge too far, but Jacobs, Hudson, Giles, Jolly could all have been anyones and Josh Fraser and Kreuzer are perhaps examples of how its hard to project ruck prospects.

I'm with SS on this one - there are only rare circumstances when a ruckman taken in the first round is clearly better than his contemporaries - Nicnat may be the only example.

Even the Kreuzer selection is comparable to Cotchin at no 2 (goven a choice right now, I'd take Cotchin). Consider all the rookie rucks that have made the grade (Cox, Jolly, Mumford) and on a bang for buck basis, I'd be happy to pass on Grundy - especially cosnidering some of the hype tends to indicate he's a "tweener".

If we end up with both picks 5 & 6 after trade week, the sound of a Mayes/Stringer/Plowman type are more attractive than a Grundy in my uninformed, non-u18 watching opinion.

[Bornadog]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

I'm with SS on this one - there are only rare circumstances when a ruckman taken in the first round is clearly better than his contemporaries - Nicnat may be the only example.

Even the Kreuzer selection is comparable to Cotchin at no 2 (goven a choice right now, I'd take Cotchin). Consider all the rookie rucks that have made the grade (Cox, Jolly, Mumford) and on a bang for buck basis, I'd be happy to pass on Grundy - especially cosnidering some of the hype tends to indicate he's a "tweener".

If we end up with both picks 5 & 6 after trade week, the sound of a Mayes/Stringer/Plowman type are more attractive than a Grundy in my uninformed, non-u18 watching opinion.

Mofra, you have missed the point, and sorry for blurring with the ruckman example.

What I am saying is when you draft you go for the best available at your pick and doesn't matter what position they play. You don't say I need an outside mid and pick the next outside mid when the next best maybe say a fullback or whatever.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Mofra, you have missed the point, and sorry for blurring with the ruckman example.

What I am saying is when you draft you go for the best available at your pick and doesn't matter what position they play. You don't say I need an outside mid and pick the next outside mid when the next best maybe say a fullback or whatever.

Unless there's a massive difference you balance your list.

Best available is bullshit

[whythelongface]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Unless there's a massive difference you balance your list.

Best available is bullshit

I agree with this. The 'best available' should really be the 'best available player that meets our current needs'.

[Bornadog]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Unless there's a massive difference you balance your list.

Best available is bullshit

I agree with this. The 'best available' should really be the 'best available player that meets our current needs'.

We will agree to disagree. I would always want the best player in my team.

[Mofra]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Mofra, you have missed the point, and sorry for blurring with the ruckman example.

What I am saying is when you draft you go for the best available at your pick and doesn't matter what position they play. You don't say I need an outside mid and pick the next outside mid when the next best maybe say a fullback or whatever.

I don't think "best available" is a blanket rule, especially considering the strike rate of high-draft pick rucks, and considering our list balance.

Obviously if there is a big difference in talent, we take the best player (ie we seem ok for key backs but Plowman is rated highly for his footskills as well).

Last year we identified the type of player we wanted before the draft, the year before we simply took the best available.
Even Howard's mum wouldn't swap Howard for Clay Smith in a theoretical trade.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Even Howard's mum wouldn't swap Howard for Clay Smith in a theoretical trade.

The two are complete opposites but I don't see that much difference between the two players. Both have good qualities but both have a major flaw in their game. The flaws are just different ones.

[Mofra]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

The two are complete opposites but I don't see that much difference between the two players. Both have good qualities but both have a major flaw in their game. The flaws are just different ones.

Agree to disagree - I think Smith is miles ahead of Howard and is a certainty to play plenty of AFL at the highest level.

I remain unconvinced with Howard who seems to be a low intensity kid with good footskills who doesn't have a definate position yet (ie sounds alot like Everitt).

[whythelongface]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

We will agree to disagree. I would always want the best player in my team.

Unless there is a standout player/s the whole best player available debate is purely subjective. eg A player may go at pick 6 but not necessarily be better than the player that goes at pick 7, 8 or 9, however in the eyes of that club, the pick 6 might be a better player for their current needs.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

Agree to disagree - I think Smith is miles ahead of Howard and is a certainty to play plenty of AFL at the highest level.

I remain unconvinced with Howard who seems to be a low intensity kid with good footskills who doesn't have a definate position yet (ie sounds alot like Everitt).

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.

[Missing Dog]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

We will agree to disagree. I would always want the best player in my team.

Depends on what the coach wants. Last year McCartney wanted the best available inside mid, so we got Clay. The recruiters rated Crozier higher didn't they?

[Greystache]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

What I am saying is when you draft you go for the best available at your pick and doesn't matter what position they play. You don't say I need an outside mid and pick the next outside mid when the next best maybe say a fullback or whatever.

I get what you're saying and I agree in many cases. We reached for Walsh in 2002 because the best available in the pick #4 range were mids and we were adament we were drafting tall, as it turns out Walsh was miles off the level. In 2009 we decided we're drafting the best kicks available regardless of talent and we ended up with Howard who looks unlikely to make it.

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

Using your ruckman analogy, a club could draft the best ruckman available in the draft with an early pick because that's a needs based selection, but the best available ruckman in a particular draft could be an average prospect who just happens to be the best in a bad year.

[Bornadog]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

I get what you're saying and I agree in many cases. We reached for Walsh in 2002 because the best available in the pick #4 range were mids and we were adament we were drafting tall, as it turns out Walsh was miles off the level. In 2009 we decided we're drafting the best kicks available regardless of talent and we ended up with Howard who looks unlikely to make it.

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

Using your ruckman analogy, a club could draft the best ruckman available in the draft with an early pick because that's a needs based selection, but the best available ruckman in a particular draft could be an average prospect who just happens to be the best in a bad year.

You have said it better than I did.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: 2012 Draft - Who do you like?

I get what you're saying and I agree in many cases. We reached for Walsh in 2002 because the best available in the pick #4 range were mids and we were adament we were drafting tall, as it turns out Walsh was miles off the level. In 2009 we decided we're drafting the best kicks available regardless of talent and we ended up with Howard who looks unlikely to make it.

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

Using your ruckman analogy, a club could draft the best ruckman available in the draft with an early pick because that's a needs based selection, but the best available ruckman in a particular draft could be an average prospect who just happens to be the best in a bad year.

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.