The draft.

[Missing Dog]

Re: The draft.

Did we jump at shadows with Skinner by selecting him in the main draft after hearing whsipers other clubs were interested despite our original intentions to rookie list him?

Even though we rated him should we have just bit the bullet and acknowledged that if another club wanted to pick him up via the draft than we would simply look at alternatives instead of not wanting to miss out and therefore taking him earlier than we had intended?

It appears that we were more keen to not miss out on a talent we had indentified as opposed to actually selecting him on his merits.

[Missing Dog]

Re: The draft.

I get that recruiting is about projecting - I do. But do we really need to project midfielders? There are heaps of options there already...I like Markworth fine - but if everyone is saying we need to use our first round pick to get him then can't we let him be a tweener for someone else? Mids who can run - yes, win their own ball as well, but seriously break lines - are what we need to pick. Why go with someone from a limited footy background who played primarily as a forward?

Projecting midfielders at a first round pick is not ideal by any means, but i'm not suggesting we pick him up based on whether or not he can develop into a midfielder. My comment was he could develop there, not that we would or should develop him as a midfielder. He's a very good forward that could play the role Murphy used to play. He delivers the ball inside the forward 50 pretty well, an area we have been fairly poor in. He will be of value to us.

I'd pick others ahead of Markworth, but I'd still be happy if we happen to pick him up.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The draft.

Defensive??
Just don't rate negative opinions based on hindsight with little understanding of our list.

[The Coon Dog]

Re: The draft.

Defensive??
Just don't rate negative opinions based on hindsight with little understanding of our list.

Crimmo, its hard to know what you're talking about if you're referring to someone's previous post & don't quote it.

[mjp]

Re: The draft.

Defensive??
Just don't rate negative opinions based on hindsight with little understanding of our list.

Wooooo. I will cop the 'little understanding of our list' but don't start with the hindsight stuff. There is nothing I have said here now that I didn't say on draft day...pretty confident everyone will back me up.

As an aside, why is your understanding of our list so much greater than mine?

[Go_Dogs]

Re: The draft.

Defensive??
Just don't rate negative opinions based on hindsight with little understanding of our list.

Every draft selection will get looked at in hindsight, that is simply the nature of the beast. Whether or not Skinner was the right selection for us will become clearer over the next 12 months, but you are right in that he potentially addresses a need in our list. He's a mid/tall sized forward, has some tricks/exciting traits and doesn't mind the defensive stuff.

We now have Grant, Jones, Panos, Hill and Skinner along with Cordy and Roughead who can play as tall forwards. Jones should become a good player, but the others still have a lot of work in front of them to become 200+ game players. The pool of talent is good though, so hopefully we can develop at least 3/4 of these guys into 200 gamers.

I'm not convinced about the 'little understanding of the list' comment. We seem to have need across just about every area, as we did last year. Balancing the needs of the list with identifying the best talent over the past couple, and next couple, of seasons is going to be a very important. We have lost and will lose the mainstays who perform consistently week in, week out. We need elite, A grade players. We also need guys who can play their role week in, week out. We need at least 3+ players from each draft who can transition into AFL footy and become long-term players.

Geelong and Collingwood have their fair share of A grade players, but they also have a very strong tier underneath them.

The point being made, in my opinion, is that sometimes a "safe/boring" selection, like a Nick Lower, can help a side and give immediate impact. He probably won't ever win a game off his own boot, but he'll do a job and give it everything to make the most of his opportunity. He isn't a great example for us, because he isn't the type of player we need - but I think the theory behind selecting the "safe/boring" type has its share of merit.

[BulldogBelle]

Re: The draft.

Every draft selection will get looked at in hindsight, that is simply the nature of the beast. Whether or not Skinner was the right selection for us will become clearer over the next 12 months, but you are right in that he potentially addresses a need in our list. He's a mid/tall sized forward, has some tricks/exciting traits and doesn't mind the defensive stuff.

We now have Grant, Jones, Panos, Hill and Skinner along with Cordy and Roughead who can play as tall forwards. Jones should become a good player, but the others still have a lot of work in front of them to become 200+ game players. The pool of talent is good though, so hopefully we can develop at least 3/4 of these guys into 200 gamers.

I'm not convinced about the 'little understanding of the list' comment. We seem to have need across just about every area, as we did last year. Balancing the needs of the list with identifying the best talent over the past couple, and next couple, of seasons is going to be a very important. We have lost and will lose the mainstays who perform consistently week in, week out. We need elite, A grade players. We also need guys who can play their role week in, week out. We need at least 3+ players from each draft who can transition into AFL footy and become long-term players.

Geelong and Collingwood have their fair share of A grade players, but they also have a very strong tier underneath them.

The point being made, in my opinion, is that sometimes a "safe/boring" selection, like a Nick Lower, can help a side and give immediate impact. He probably won't ever win a game off his own boot, but he'll do a job and give it everything to make the most of his opportunity. He isn't a great example for us, because he isn't the type of player we need - but I think the theory behind selecting the "safe/boring" type has its share of merit.

These are exactly the types of players we should be targetting

Also add the following criteria:

- A < 19 year old who has performed strongly perhaps at senior level against men in the SANFL or WAFL - not one who has only played against other boys
- Have consistently performed well playing for their state in a football carnival against other 'A' prospects
- Have a burning desire to succeed and a great attitude towards constant improvement ie a Boyd/Cross type hunger
- A footballer, and not an athlete - someone who has been conditioned through a TAC Cup, SANFL, WAFL etc club/competition and whose body wont be shocked by the level of training required at AFL level

Safe/Boring should be our approach

[LostDoggy]

Re: The draft.

The point being made, in my opinion, is that sometimes a "safe/boring" selection, like a Nick Lower, can help a side and give immediate impact. He probably won't ever win a game off his own boot, but he'll do a job and give it everything to make the most of his opportunity. He isn't a great example for us, because he isn't the type of player we need - but I think the theory behind selecting the "safe/boring" type has its share of merit.

Exactly.

Of your 22.5 players on the day, if you have 15-18 solid, boring, consistent AFL level players and a handful of stars, you will win most games. The problem is in having 6-8 stars, then a huge hole. Or in our case, 2-3 stars, 3-7 AFL level players (that we call stars because there's no one above them on our list), and a whole bunch of inconsistent players, left-field project types or long-shots.

It's nigh-impossible to get a list full of Cooneys (which is what we seem to be trying to do). It's a pretty straightforward business getting a list full of Pickens, Hudsons and Lowers, which would be incredibly competitive and will definitely follow instructions (so you can build a consistent gameplan around them). The Dahlhauses (and Boyds and Morrises) will come along if we have a good development program, but if you turn your list upside-down trying to unearth 'superstars' out of left-field every year you'll end up hollowing out your team in the meantime.

ps. What's the benefit of getting mercurial types anyway? Even some of the best of them (Cyril) are pretty inconsistent, and for every Stevie J. you'll get 200 Josh Hills. Give me a team full of Corey Enrights and Craig Boltons over a team of Liam Jurrahs or Daniel Motlops any day.

[Cyberdoggie]

Re: The draft.

I guess every club wants a player they can market to their members after the draft each year. In recent years more than ever this is a focus, especially for our club for some reason (ie Aker, Hall, Libba/Wallis, Skinner).

I know it's the coaching staff and recruiters that have the say but really it feels a bit like they have a directive to select something that can be marketed, ie a big name or an x factor each year. We saw it all last year after the draft, each club was extensively scrutinized by the media on each selection, recruiters were almost put on trial to justify each pick and how they are all going to be fantastic and how lucky/happy we were to get them at that pick.
We picked Skinner and instantly likened him to Liam Jurrah because he was the next big thing, we wasted no time in setting up that photo in NZ where he is leaping Michael Jordan style in the air. Honestly if we were serious about this kid, perhaps we would have sheltered him a little from all this to begin with in order to make the transition easier, but no we plastered him across cyberspace as the next Liam Jurrah before he had even played a game, and of course as the year went on he found it more difficult.

I really hope we don't do the same thing with some kid we draft this year, although i know it will happen because people want to know everything about them.

[Desipura]

Re: The draft.

The information given to me was that we are looking at a tough inside midfielder with our 1st pick.

[Throughandthrough]

Re: The draft.

The information given to me was that we are looking at a tough inside midfielder with our 1st pick.

You mean like Callan Ward?

[KT31]

Re: The draft.

You mean like Callan Ward?

[Bornadog]

Re: The draft.

We must take the best available at pick 17, no matter if that is an inside mid or ruckman or half forward flanker. We need to unearth the next A grader (somehow).

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: The draft.

The information given to me was that we are looking at a tough inside midfielder with our 1st pick.

I've heard we are looking at a fast outside midfielder

[Desipura]

Re: The draft.

I've heard we are looking at a fast outside midfielder

Well you have heard the opposite to me.