Picks 9 and 16 revisited

[GVGjr]

Dalrymple has indicated we got pick 6 and 7 in our rankings on draft night meaning we got Naughton at pick 9 and Richards at pick 16 when we rated them so much higher than a few other sides. This fits our best available approach for drafting in the early rounds but I'd like to hear peoples opinion on why we would over look a forward like Darcy Fogarty in favour of a defender in Naughton?

What would be the key reasons we would have Naughton ahead of Fogarty?

Onto Richards, it's been mentioned that the otherwise very punctual Richards was 25 minutes late to an interview with Carlton due to an issue with his car. This may have been a huge factor in Carlton selecting O'Brien ahead of him which suits us great. Dalrymple also indicated that he wasn't confident that Richards would be available at 16 in face he was pessimistic but of course luck worked our way.

Just a bit speculation but I'd like to hear who our WOOF members think might we have taken if Richards was gone before 16? Would it be Higgins, L.Fogarty, Murphy, Ballard, Naish or others?

Just on Murphy, Collingwood were said to be considering him at pick 6 if Stephenson was gone and yet still got him with their next pick at 39. Given the different ways recruiters rank players it would appear some teams walked away with good results.

[jazzadogs]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

Dalrymple has indicated we got pick 6 and 7 in our rankings on draft night meaning we got Naughton at pick 9 and Richards at pick 16 when we rated them so much higher than a few other sides. This fits our best available approach for drafting in the early rounds but I'd like to hear peoples opinion on why we would over look a forward like Darcy Fogarty in favour of a defender in Naughton?

What would be the key reasons we would have Naughton ahead of Fogarty?

Onto Richards, it's been mentioned that the otherwise very punctual Richards was 25 minutes late to an interview with Carlton due to an issue with his car. This may have been a huge factor in Carlton selecting O'Brien ahead of him which suits us great. Dalrymple also indicated that he wasn't confident that Richards would be available at 16 in face he was pessimistic but of course luck worked our way.

Just a bit speculation but I'd like to hear who our WOOF members think might we have taken if Richards was gone before 16? Would it be Higgins, L.Fogarty, Murphy, Ballard, Naish or others?

Just on Murphy, Collingwood were said to be considering him at pick 6 if Stephenson was gone and yet still got him with their next pick at 39. Given the different ways recruiters rank players it would appear some teams walked away with good results.

You'd have to think that out top five ranked were the top 5 on the night, but with Dal it's hard to tell. Surprising that it means Clark, Coffield and Stephenson were ranked behind Naughton and Richards. Not sure many would support that view.

I must say for all the talk of it being a deep draft, I would argue it was more of an even draft with decent prospects but no standouts. After the top 10 it did really even out talent wise and I think that's why there were a few 'sliders'.

[GVGjr]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

You'd have to think that out top five ranked were the top 5 on the night, but with Dal it's hard to tell. Surprising that it means Clark, Coffield and Stephenson were ranked behind Naughton and Richards. Not sure many would support that view.

I must say for all the talk of it being a deep draft, I would argue it was more of an even draft with decent prospects but no standouts. After the top 10 it did really even out talent wise and I think that's why there were a few 'sliders'.

I read many times that many regarded it as a weak draft but I think your assessment is close to the mark. Missing the standouts at the top end but clubs getting players they liked in the mid range and beyond.

Back to the questions with the OP, what do you think might have tipped the scale for Naughton over D.Fogarty and who do you think we might have taken if Richards had gone?

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

I wonder if there was a perceived go home factor with Forgarty as a number of clubs passed him over and there doesn’t appear to be any additional risk to selecting him compared to a few others in that range.

If we rated Naughton 6 and Richards 7, that means we likely had them ahead of Stephenson, Clark, Coffield, Fogarty who were all very well creeentialed players who had demonstrated runs on the board. If we accept that Stephenson was rated lower because of medical concerns and Fogarty for go home factor, we still rated Clark (versatile dual sided player) and Coffield (quick and generally regarded as the best running defender) below Richards. Sydney ranked Ling as a running defender above Richards (like us, they’ve a good record over recent years drafting in this 10-25 range).

It’d be very interesting to see who was on our talent list and how we ranked them.

I’m very happy to back these kids in and think they can have long careers, but if we’d ended up with pick 6 and 7 and selected the same players and passed on the names above, would we be as content as we are?

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

who do you think we might have taken if Richards had gone?

Based on the talk we’d taken a needs based approach to our talent list we’d surely have gone for a running defender.

Clark, Coffield, Ling and at a stretch O’Brien we’re off the table. Is Stoddart the next best fit on the draft board who ended up going at 53? Or would we have flipped the needs based approach Grant spoke of and gone for someone different?

Despite all the talk for needs based in our rankings, Dal came out post draft and said we went best available...

I don’t know if we’re deliberately confusing but I’ve got no idea what we do.

[always right]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

Very happy with Richards. Two words......hits targets.

[Twodogs]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

Very happy with Richards. Two words......hits targets.

Two words........Thank God!

[ratsmac]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

I haven't really followed the who's who in the potential draftees too much this year so my opinion is limited. But looking at our list I would have thought a medium forward (Stringer and Crameri replacement) and a quick midfielder with neat foot skills would be our biggest needs. We used our first two first round picks on defenders, an area of the ground we seem to have positions filled.

I thought Darcy Fogarty was a no brainer at pick 9. No doubt we would have spoken to him and must have seen something that dropped him down the list because talent wise he looked the perfect Stringer replacement to me.

Coffield was gone by our first pick and he seemed a nice romantic pick being close mates with Lipinski and also being a Bulldogs supporter, but I think we still would have taken Naughton ahead of him had he still been available. Naughton looks to play a lot like Jake Lever and maybe Jake Carlisle, two players linked to us at times, so we finally may have the type of player we were after.

Richards might be that neat user future midfielder type we need. He played as a running defender in the TAC so that part of his game is already developed/developing which is a good base for a good midfielder I think. But in saying that he could be purely a defender. Time will tell.

I am very pleased with our selections even though I thought D Fogarty would of been nice.

[chef]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

For me, we really need a quality KPD and Naughton looks a real no brainer. Will fit perfectly into our backline once developed and matured a little. I don't rate Collins or Roberts much, Morris only has a year left, Adams can't stay fit and Trengove will probably be pinch hitting a lot in the ruck. Naugnton, Young and Cordy should complement each other going forward over the next few seasons. Great get.

Richards slipping so far is a real bonus and also he plays in a position thats a pretty big cog for a Bevo run team. Will get a few games next season IMO. Another great get.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

When we try to work out who Dal and team do an don't take, the hardest thing to factor in is all of the non-footy/athletic profile stuff. Interviews, personality testing etc play a big part in the evaluation process and we can really only guess at how the various candidates stack up. For all we know a Fogarty or whoever may have been highly rated othr than interviewing poorly.

[Raw Toast]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

Good questions GVGjr.

I can't comment on Fogarty, but I suspect that our 'best available' mantra is nuanced by an assessment of what we value as a team in terms of the style we want to play.

Viewed through that lens, Naughton fits the profile of players that we've mainly been targeting in free agency and trade periods for a little while under Beveridge. Intercept marking is pretty vital for any team these days, but especially for the way Beveridge wants us to operate. Wood has been unlocked for that role, but Beveridge wants a number of talls, or semi-talls who can play the angles and allow us the flexibility to put an extra player into the midfield, allow our half-back flankers to roam forward aggressively, and/or have a spare down back who consistently shuts opposition attacks down. From what I've read, I really like this selection.

Richards also fits our style, as a back flanker who can defend, win the ball, and then can break the game open by both running with the ball and kicking. While clearly one-sided, his vision and ability to hit the long and short passes on the 45, look ideal for the way we want to play. If he has a good pre-season I can see him playing a lot next year, because that combination of pace and kicking is so vital for us. I wouldn't be surprised if he and Suckling form a bit of a partnership - if either is given space by the opposition they might tear them apart on the rebound.

I also don't think it's an accident that we're starting to load up on left footers. Beveridge will have seen how effectively Hawthorn did that. It's only one factor among many (and Naughton has kicking issues, though it generally gets to a decent place), but I can see it being a tie-breaker in the case of players like Richards.

[Smads57]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

Re the non selection of Fogarty with picks 9/16...has it something to do with the perception that Dal likes players on the 'up' (i.e. improving rapidly over the last half of a season), so Naughton (17 yo) and Richards fitted that 'requirement' more so than Fogarty who may have been deemed to have plateaud somewhat given his average 2017 season (versus his 2016 season)??

[GVGjr]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

Re the non selection of Fogarty with picks 9/16...has it something to do with the perception that Dal likes players on the 'up' (i.e. improving rapidly over the last half of a season), so Naughton (17 yo) and Richards fitted that 'requirement' more so than Fogarty who may have been deemed to have plateaud somewhat given his average 2017 season (versus his 2016 season)??

I think there is something to that Smads but if we were confident we could get him right he should have a slightly higher ceiling than Naughton.

[Dry Rot]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

If the Pies had taken Naughton, what would our two picks have been?

[GVGjr]

Re: Picks 9 and 16 revisited

If the Pies had taken Naughton, what would our two picks have been?

Based on the commentary from Dalrymple Richards was the next on the list. Not sure if he had Stephenson ahead of Naughton but for some reason I doubt it.