Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

[kruder]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

It will be very interesting how this board reacts if we take Gresham with one of our first two picks. As discussed in the podcast I have a feeling he will be there and he might be too big of a talent to turn down even though we are seriously long on players of his type.

Thoughts?

[LostDoggy]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

It will be very interesting how this board reacts if we take Gresham with one of our first two picks. As discussed in the podcast I have a feeling he will be there and he might be too big of a talent to turn down even though we are seriously long on players of his type.

Thoughts?

I reckon most will be cool with it, depending on the next pick. Gresham and Ah Chee/Rioli would test many of us.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

It will be very interesting how this board reacts if we take Gresham with one of our first two picks. As discussed in the podcast I have a feeling he will be there and he might be too big of a talent to turn down even though we are seriously long on players of his type.

Thoughts?

Massive no from me.

We already can't play all of Dahl/Mclean/Hrovat/Daniel/Honeychurch in the same side, with one and sometimes two playing VFL. To add another to that sub 180cm bunch would be list management disaster given the talent that'll still be available and our needs.

[GVGjr]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

It will be very interesting how this board reacts if we take Gresham with one of our first two picks. As discussed in the podcast I have a feeling he will be there and he might be too big of a talent to turn down even though we are seriously long on players of his type.

Thoughts?

He's a very good player so from my perspective it wouldn't be a bad thing but we couldn't add another player sub 180cm this year.
I'm still of the view it's best available with our first two picks but I would certainly prefer that we don't keep adding to the list of smaller players. To take a player like Gresham with one of our first 2 picks we would need to rate him as a top 15 selection.

One of the flaws with the best available approach is it's too easy to take small midfielders as it's a safe option as they are typically ready to play within the first two seasons. This gives the recruiter a big tick. It doesn't however build a balanced list and I think we are at that point now that we have to modify this approach and be smart about it.

[soupman]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

It will be very interesting how this board reacts if we take Gresham with one of our first two picks. As discussed in the podcast I have a feeling he will be there and he might be too big of a talent to turn down even though we are seriously long on players of his type.

Thoughts?

I really like his highlights reel and think he is a very likely Bulldog should he slip through to our picks. My gut feeling is that we will end up with two smalls with our first two picks, a tall at 30 and a real smokey at 45. Something like Gresham, Bonner, Skinner and Galloway. The overall mix is more important to me though than making sure every player meets a height criteria.

I've never been worried about too many smalls though, if they are good enough they are big enough. As long as we have a variety of body types to compensate I don't really care. Dahlhaus is a great example, despite his size I would back him in to be more effective than his opponent almost anywhere on the field. If Gresham was 188cm would anyone be worried about picking him? I doubt it despite that 10cm potentially adding nothing to his game. We have already seen that size is not an issue for any of our small guys, Dahlhaus is as good a mark as any in our side, Daniel is just as clean and dangerous as someone normal sized, Hrovats limitation is his decision making not his height, Hunter still gets the ball 30 times and uses it well.

Don't get me wrong height is important but not to the way these guys play. I'd be happy to grab another quality mid on the cheap because of a height problem that doesn't actually effect his overall game.

[stefoid]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

I really like his highlights reel and think he is a very likely Bulldog should he slip through to our picks. My gut feeling is that we will end up with two smalls with our first two picks, a tall at 30 and a real smokey at 45. Something like Gresham, Bonner, Skinner and Galloway. The overall mix is more important to me though than making sure every player meets a height criteria.

I've never been worried about too many smalls though, if they are good enough they are big enough. As long as we have a variety of body types to compensate I don't really care. Dahlhaus is a great example, despite his size I would back him in to be more effective than his opponent almost anywhere on the field. If Gresham was 188cm would anyone be worried about picking him? I doubt it despite that 10cm potentially adding nothing to his game. We have already seen that size is not an issue for any of our small guys, Dahlhaus is as good a mark as any in our side, Daniel is just as clean and dangerous as someone normal sized, Hrovats limitation is his decision making not his height, Hunter still gets the ball 30 times and uses it well.

Don't get me wrong height is important but not to the way these guys play. I'd be happy to grab another quality mid on the cheap because of a height problem that doesn't actually effect his overall game.

Only if he is going to be very, very good, or pretty good, but also fast.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

I really like his highlights reel and think he is a very likely Bulldog should he slip through to our picks. My gut feeling is that we will end up with two smalls with our first two picks, a tall at 30 and a real smokey at 45. Something like Gresham, Bonner, Skinner and Galloway. The overall mix is more important to me though than making sure every player meets a height criteria.

I've never been worried about too many smalls though, if they are good enough they are big enough. As long as we have a variety of body types to compensate I don't really care. Dahlhaus is a great example, despite his size I would back him in to be more effective than his opponent almost anywhere on the field. If Gresham was 188cm would anyone be worried about picking him? I doubt it despite that 10cm potentially adding nothing to his game. We have already seen that size is not an issue for any of our small guys, Dahlhaus is as good a mark as any in our side, Daniel is just as clean and dangerous as someone normal sized, Hrovats limitation is his decision making not his height, Hunter still gets the ball 30 times and uses it well.

Don't get me wrong height is important but not to the way these guys play. I'd be happy to grab another quality mid on the cheap because of a height problem that doesn't actually effect his overall game.

The decision to draft him has nothing to do with Gresham as a player. He can certainly play and looks great value in the 20's for a side, there are plenty of quality smalls in the league - we actually have more than most - which is why it'd be ridiculous for us to add another. All it does is force one of them out (probably Hrovat or Daniel) which doesn't improve our side a great deal overall, even if Gresham is better than those two (not saying he is).

It would be madness to ignore what we already have. We can't fit Gresham in because we've forced our own hand over the last 3-4 drafts. At some point we're going to have to pass on the super safe selection and pick somebody who can address some issues with our list.

[soupman]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

The decision to draft him has nothing to do with Gresham as a player. He can certainly play and looks great value in the 20's for a side, there are plenty of quality smalls in the league - we actually have more than most - which is why it'd be ridiculous for us to add another. All it does is force one of them out (probably Hrovat or Daniel) which doesn't improve our side a great deal overall, even if Gresham is better than those two (not saying he is).

It would be madness to ignore what we already have. We can't fit Gresham in because we've forced our own hand over the last 3-4 drafts. At some point we're going to have to pass on the super safe selection and pick somebody who can address some issues with our list.

To me the overall mix of the draft is the important thing. If we brought Gresham in along with two talls and a half back that would be fine. I agree it would be madness to ignore what we already have, but recruiting someone like Gresham in itself isn't madness, as long as the other picks are used appropriately.

BTW unrelated but according to a certain other forum Zaine Cordy is now at 196cm and gained some weight.

[kruder]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

To me the overall mix of the draft is the important thing. If we brought Gresham in along with two talls and a half back that would be fine. I agree it would be madness to ignore what we already have, but recruiting someone like Gresham in itself isn't madness, as long as the other picks are used appropriately.

BTW unrelated but according to a certain other forum Zaine Cordy is now at 196cm and gained some weight.

He looked bloody tall in that pic the other days. Its only early but the kid needs to learn to keep his feet, hopefully this will come with conditioning over the next few preseasons. Has has plenty of talent though I remember one mark when he was going back with the flight against an Essendon oppenent for Footscray it was very impressive.

Back to Gresham though looks easily a top 15 talent in this draft, I'm on the fence with him due to our list but looks every bit an AFL player for mine.

[The Doctor]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Reuben Williams, a lions academy player, has been linked to us by the AGE.

[GVGjr]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Reuben Williams, a lions academy player, has been linked to us by the AGE.

I had him as one of the players I was interested in. I like the way he takes the game on.

[kruder]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

I had him as one of the players I was interested in. I like the way he takes the game on.

Has a bit of JJ flair looks a talent.

[GVGjr]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

Has a bit of JJ flair looks a talent.

Yes, a good comparison.

[Cyberdoggie]

Re: Best Available vs Players that suits our needs?

I had him as one of the players I was interested in. I like the way he takes the game on.

That part does look good, although with a 2 minute review of a youtube video of his, he seemed to turn the ball over a lot.

I think the video showed every one of his touches against NSW/act and just about every kick was a bomb floater to a pack or straight into a nsw defender. also got caught with the ball and seemed slow on decision making to get out of congested areas.

I really hope this isn't the norm and not an accurate reflection because i'd like to see him succeed.

[The Doctor]

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.