The draft.

[chef]

Re: The draft.

Don't realy get how you can lump Twomey/Lower together; Lower was pretty seriously good for the most part this year.

As per Skinner, I agree that the punt was worth it had we made it much later on, but it sounds very much like the Howard pick in that we made it for the wrong reasons (i.e: got strong armed into it by the wants of other clubs)

Wasn't he rated the best available at our pick according to our recruiter?

[lemmon]

Re: The draft.

Admittedly I know very little about underage talent apart from the profiles floating around but any chance of Elliot Kavanagh slipping to our pick? Seems a rounded footballer

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: The draft.

Don't realy get how you can lump Twomey/Lower together; Lower was pretty seriously good for the most part this year.

As per Skinner, I agree that the punt was worth it had we made it much later on, but it sounds very much like the Howard pick in that we made it for the wrong reasons (i.e: got strong armed into it by the wants of other clubs)

I assumed we were talking about the Lower from North Melbourne who got delisted?

I wouldn't mind the one from Fremantle, though!

Agree with you that our philosophy to drafting is wrong. We shouldn't be picking players based on what other clubs are going to do. Howard might still be OK, but Menzel and Fyfe are guns.

[GVGjr]

Re: The draft.

Admittedly I know very little about underage talent apart from the profiles floating around but any chance of Elliot Kavanagh slipping to our pick? Seems a rounded footballer

I think he is regarded as a top 12 pick so it would need to be a slip for him to land around our selection. Maybe injuries might scare a team or two off.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The draft.

Let's play Lower instead of Libba!!!
Great for the long term development of our list!!
Our recruiting guys seem to have done a great job considering their lack of resources.

[hujsh]

Re: The draft.

Let's play Lower instead of Libba!!!
Great for the long term development of our list!!
Our recruiting guys seem to have done a great job considering their lack of resources.

Why would Libba miss out when there's a vacancy with Ward leaving?

I don't know anything about Lower but if he can be a good player get him and let guys like Wallis earn their spots.

[GVGjr]

Re: The draft.

Let's play Lower instead of Libba!!!
Great for the long term development of our list!!
Our recruiting guys seem to have done a great job considering their lack of resources.

I don't think too many will dispute that at all and the Lower comment wasn't a reflection of what the recruiting team has done nor a comment about Libertore however, if I'm reading it correctly it was more focused towards the Skinner selection.

Most people here acknowledge the fine efforts of the recruiting team (it's hard not to with all the emerging talent on the list) but I suppose some question why players not on the elite pathway are selected before those who are?
It doesn't mean that the recruiting shouldn't look outside of players that come through the normal channels but it's always looked at a bit more closely.
Skinner had more than his share of injuries this year and most will be patient but probably him being played so early in the season against the Swans created an unfair level of expectation on him in what should have been nothing more than a development year.

[mjp]

Re: The draft.

I don't think too many will dispute that at all and the Lower comment wasn't a reflection of what the recruiting team has done nor a comment about Libertore however, if I'm reading it correctly it was more focused towards the Skinner selection.

Agree...not sure what Liber had to do with my comments about Lower...I was talking about the selection of Skinner at pick 80 and suggesting that there were still other options available...maybe Twomey wasn't a great example given he has just been delisted (although I remain convinced he has something to offer) but Lower would have played games for us this year - and would next year as well.

Most people here acknowledge the fine efforts of the recruiting team (it's hard not to with all the emerging talent on the list) but I suppose some question why players not on the elite pathway are selected before those who are?

This is my main issue...we just seem so determined to prove we are cleverer than everyone else by selecting guys who are a little left of the dial. It almost seems to be a direct plan of our team - maybe it is that we know we dont have the resources of others therefore we aren't going to compete with the other clubs...rather we are going to stand alone with a focus on 'different' players and requirements to everyone else...

As to the other comment that we 'need forwards' - wasn't Saad a much, much surer bet than Skinner? I don't know the ins and outs or whether we made an offer for him or whatever, but he would have seen a far surer bet than Skinner to me.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: The draft.

As to the other comment that we 'need forwards' - wasn't Saad a much, much surer bet than Skinner? I don't know the ins and outs or whether we made an offer for him or whatever, but he would have seen a far surer bet than Skinner to me.

Agree with this. I was really disappointed we didn't have a crack at Saad. I feel as though we need a foil for Dahl. To have Jones and one of Roughead/Panos/Hill, Grant and Dahl, another quick player like Saad would have worked well. A 'similar' version to Carlton's Betts and Garlett duo.

At the moment, we have no clear second tall and no other quick smalls to play forward.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The draft.

This is my main issue...we just seem so determined to prove we are cleverer than everyone else by selecting guys who are a little left of the dial. It almost seems to be a direct plan of our team - maybe it is that we know we dont have the resources of others therefore we aren't going to compete with the other clubs...rather we are going to stand alone with a focus on 'different' players and requirements to everyone else...

As to the other comment that we 'need forwards' - wasn't Saad a much, much surer bet than Skinner? I don't know the ins and outs or whether we made an offer for him or whatever, but he would have seen a far surer bet than Skinner to me.

This this this this this.

To use stockbroking parlance, we keep picking up penny stocks that may have potential to go gangbusters, but don't load up on quality blue chip stocks that you build a portfolio around, so we have a bunch of gambles that pay off (Dahlhaus etc.), a whole bunch that just go bust, and end up without a solid 'core' -- thus a completely unbalanced portfolio.

Sure you need the two or three 'speculative' picks that will take your team from A to A+, but you need to build your list around sure things rather than gambles, or you just end up with a completely inconsistent list from year to year without any solid players from your 6th - 18th spots on your list. I would go so far as to say that our top two picks every year HAS to go on as certain a prospect as can be ascertained at that age. If the draft is determined to be 'shallow', then trade for solid young performers. Over time you will build a far more consistent and high-performing team than by simply gambling, and if you're lucky and a couple of your later picks come on, then you have your premiership list.

The way we're going we're as likely to end up with a bottom 4 list as a top 4 one.

[Mitcha]

Re: The draft.

This this this this this.

To use stockbroking parlance, we keep picking up penny stocks that may have potential to go gangbusters, but don't load up on quality blue chip stocks that you build a portfolio around, so we have a bunch of gambles that pay off (Dahlhaus etc.), a whole bunch that just go bust, and end up without a solid 'core' -- thus a completely unbalanced portfolio.

Sure you need the two or three 'speculative' picks that will take your team from A to A+, but you need to build your list around sure things rather than gambles, or you just end up with a completely inconsistent list from year to year without any solid players from your 6th - 18th spots on your list. I would go so far as to say that our top two picks every year HAS to go on as certain a prospect as can be ascertained at that age. If the draft is determined to be 'shallow', then trade for solid young performers. Over time you will build a far more consistent and high-performing team than by simply gambling, and if you're lucky and a couple of your later picks come on, then you have your premiership list.

The way we're going we're as likely to end up with a bottom 4 list as a top 4 one.

Bit hard to get our hands on what you call "quality Blue chip stocks" when we haven't had many early picks recently due to relatively high ladder finishes. And remember Cordy, Libba and Wallis cost us our early picks in their respective drafts. Just be happy that our recruiting team have been able to nail some low end selections lately.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The draft.

Bit hard to get our hands on what you call "quality Blue chip stocks" when we haven't had many early picks recently due to relatively high ladder finishes. And remember Cordy, Libba and Wallis cost us our early picks in their respective drafts. Just be happy that our recruiting team have been able to nail some low end selections lately.

No question Clayton's (and more recently Darymple's) late picks, especially in the rookie draft, have been excellent, but I'll just cut and paste something from another thread here (thanks to Dancin' Douggy). These are some of the picks we've had in the top 11 since 2000. Quite a few early picks there that we decided to go 'left-field speculative' on -- too clever by half. These selections are the ones that would have been the solid foundation that our Dahlhauses and other speculative rookie successes could have been the cream for, rather than us still relying on our '99 draftees (and Coons, Lake and Griff) to be the 'core' in 2011/2012.

10 J. McMahon.
4 Tim Walsh,
4. Farren Ray,
6. Lochlan Veal (read J. Rawlings)
(still hurts to think what a disaster that whole draft was when you add pick 19 for Koops, a pick Freo used to get Mundy)
6. Tom Williams
11. Shaun Higgins
11. Andrejs Everitt
5. Jarrad Grant

[Greystache]

Re: The draft.

He also left out Power (10) and Faulkner (18).

[Missing Dog]

Re: The draft.

Our record with these indigenous flashy players is woeful, both with keeping them and getting them to reach their full potential. Thorne, Hill, Lynch, Stack etc. I really don't want us going for these flashy types like Manson or Skinner later in the draft. Have we even hit one yet? I'd much rather we look at a few mature aged players like Dwyer or someone else. Save the flashy players for the rookie draft if we must.

[mjp]

Re: The draft.

Bit hard to get our hands on what you call "quality Blue chip stocks" when we haven't had many early picks recently due to relatively high ladder finishes. And remember Cordy, Libba and Wallis cost us our early picks in their respective drafts. Just be happy that our recruiting team have been able to nail some low end selections lately.

I don't agree those three picks cost us. If we didn't think they were worth it, we shouldn't have taken them...simple as that.

I wonder - could you tell me for just a second where Geelong have finished over the last few years and how you think their first round picks are going?

Not everything has to come back to the Cats of course, but you have to admit they keep finishing on top and it doesn't matter when they pick - they pick well.