Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Big big day for us. It's getting close now.

Our team is on the surge and we need to nail this draft to take the next step to a sustainable period of success.

Good luck Dogs.

It's funny how as each draft approaches, we all stress the importance of doing well out of it, but you sense that if we nail this draft then given our list as it stands we'll lock ourselves in the top 4 for a number of years.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Teams that have really successful eras tend to nail a few drafts in a row, building an extended crop that come through together. In a funny way, with such a good crop of under 22s, it kind of increases the stakes each year. A golden era awaits. Very toey about now.

[Bornadog]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Did we go best available, or did we meet needs?

[comrade]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Did we go best available, or did we meet needs?

Collins fits both criteria.

Dunkley may also, as Dal is huge on him it seems.

Adams was a needs pick.

Williams is a smokey that could go either way.

[Bornadog]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Collins fits both criteria.

Dunkley may also, as Dal is huge on him it seems.

Adams was a needs pick.

Williams is a smokey that could go either way.

Just read that is about what Dal said.

[stefoid]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

We went with best available in Dunkley - hes the reason we decided to split pick 11. Collins being next best available with one of those split picks was a lucky and unexpected result.

Isnt it funny that had we successfully traded for needs we would have Lobbe now and neither Dunkley or Collins.

[comrade]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

We went with best available in Dunkley - hes the reason we decided to split pick 11. Collins being next best available with one of those split picks was a lucky and unexpected result.

Isnt it funny that had we successfully traded for needs we would have Lobbe now and neither Dunkley or Collins.

We'd have Lobbe plus Roughy, Minson and Campbell on the list. Too many similar types.

Another bullet dodged, after missing out on the likes of Lonergan & Bate from years past.

[GVGjr]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Did we go best available, or did we meet needs?

I'm nearly convinced like that the 'best available' approach we say we take is a furphy. We see needs and draft in clusters. If our first 3 selections were each actually 5 spots earlier I'm tipping we would have come away with the same players.

[Rocket Science]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

We went with best available in Dunkley - hes the reason we decided to split pick 11. Collins being next best available with one of those split picks was a lucky and unexpected result.

Isnt it funny that had we successfully traded for needs we would have Lobbe now and neither Dunkley or Collins.

Just on that, unsure if covered anywhere on here but am reliably informed a deal for Lobbe was actually agreed to by both clubs however the player was uncontactable while travelling during a critical window which ended up nixing the deal.

Silver linings.

[Twodogs]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

We were going to hand over pick 11? So lucky for US.

[Mofra]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Just on that, unsure if covered anywhere on here but am reliably informed a deal for Lobbe was actually agreed to by both clubs however the player was uncontactable while travelling during a critical window which ended up nixing the deal.

Similar to media reports - article reported that both clubs agreed, Lobbe agreed in principle but a medical couldn't be arranged in time as he was in Vietnam.

[Remi Moses]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

A pick had to come back the other though.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

I'm nearly convinced like that the 'best available' approach we say we take is a furphy. We see needs and draft in clusters. If our first 3 selections were each actually 5 spots earlier I'm tipping we would have come away with the same players.

Tend to agree. Best available is a very intangible kind of a term - it's never purely about player talent. I think we go for best available under the given set of circumstances - why would anyone ever do anything other?