Maybe we could slip the fast ones some cash to run slow at the draft camp.

Or not get off the ground in the vertical leap test..lol

have we got spare cash? Might have to dip into the Debt demolition funds....joking

I also know someone who played against Watts, and he reckons he is by far the best player he has played against (only plays TAC cup though, so only against victorians)

My mate played as a direct tagger on Watts.

He said the only thing that put Jack ahead of any other kids was his ability to find space. He's very evasive for a big man.

He also said that Jack has no motor, no tenacity at the contest and doesnt tackle.

My mate played as a direct tagger on Watts.

He said the only thing that put Jack ahead of any other kids was his ability to find space. He's very evasive for a big man.

He also said that Jack has no motor, no tenacity at the contest and doesnt tackle.

Im guessing Watts was playing in the Midfeild that match if he had a tagger on him.

No tenacity and no tackling are things that can be easily fixed. Im sure once he gets some muscle on him he will be fine.

It's like when there were all those question marks over buddys aggressiveness and his dedication to his football. Watts will be a star.

My mate played as a direct tagger on Watts.

He said the only thing that put Jack ahead of any other kids was his ability to find space. He's very evasive for a big man.

He also said that Jack has no motor, no tenacity at the contest and doesnt tackle.

Here it is again, I've mentioned this before with no takers but this issue isn't going away. There is a question mark over Watts desire for the hard stuff, and that is a big query. There's no point in having a Key Forward who is unwilling to tackle and put his body on the line, every successful gun forward has these attributes and I'm not convinced a player can learn them.

The number one pick is not set in concrete.

Here it is again, I've mentioned this before with no takers but this issue isn't going away. There is a question mark over Watts desire for the hard stuff, and that is a big query. There's no point in having a Key Forward who is unwilling to tackle and put his body on the line, every successful gun forward has these attributes and I'm not convinced a player can learn them.

The number one pick is not set in concrete.

Vickery for No. 1

The number one pick is not set in concrete.

Maybe not, but it's drying.

Here it is again, I've mentioned this before with no takers but this issue isn't going away. There is a question mark over Watts desire for the hard stuff, and that is a big query. There's no point in having a Key Forward who is unwilling to tackle and put his body on the line, every successful gun forward has these attributes and I'm not convinced a player can learn them.

Brendan Fevola, Michael Newton are a couple that spring to mind and have been criticised for these characteristics. Brendan Fevola is learning. Are you convinced now?

For those of you who are unconvinced of the argument that a great tall forward is more important than a great onballer, look at the Bulldogs in the Prelim. They were, and are, crying out for a CHF or FF to straighten them up.

They don't want another Cooney, they want a tall forward target. Will Minson is great at a pinch, but he is ruckman pretending to be a forward.

You could argue that Geelong has no dominant forward but they have a midfield of Ablett, Ling, Corey, Selwood, and Chapman. If we could pick up Rich and 3 or 4 others of his ilk then, yes, great midfielders can drive a flag tilt.

If Rich and Watts are pretty even, and by all accounts they are, we just have to go tall.

Brendan Fevola, Michael Newton are a couple that spring to mind and have been criticised for these characteristics. Brendan Fevola is learning. Are you convinced now?

Fevola? Bad example, he loves hurting other people, his problem is that he sulks when thigns don't go his way, completely different to the query over Watts.

Convinced? Hardly, confused with your example is a better description.

For those of you who are unconvinced of the argument that a great tall forward is more important than a great onballer, look at the Bulldogs in the Prelim. They were, and are, crying out for a CHF or FF to straighten them up.

They don't want another Cooney, they want a tall forward target. Will Minson is great at a pinch, but he is ruckman pretending to be a forward.

You could argue that Geelong has no dominant forward but they have a midfield of Ablett, Ling, Corey, Selwood, and Chapman. If we could pick up Rich and 3 or 4 others of his ilk then, yes, great midfielders can drive a flag tilt.

If Rich and Watts are pretty even, and by all accounts they are, we just have to go tall.

The argument is flawed though because no two players are ever the same.

The decision shouldn't be made on the position they play, it's just plain stupid to do that. Remember Molan? A top 10 pick in the greatest draft and we blew it because we wanted to fill a certain position, we didn't take the best available.

The argument is flawed though because no two players are ever the same.

The decision shouldn't be made on the position they play, it's just plain stupid to do that. Remember Molan? A top 10 pick in the greatest draft and we blew it because we wanted to fill a certain position, we didn't take the best available.

So would you say that the Bulldogs and Tigers in taking Griffen and Tambling, thought they were taking the best players instead of possibly filling a key forward postion with Franklin?

I'm not having a dig at your post, just pointing out that if you went through the drafts history, there would be many cases you could find in which to argue on which side of the fence you sit in regards to drafting stratedgy.

The argument is flawed though because no two players are ever the same.

The decision shouldn't be made on the position they play, it's just plain stupid to do that. Remember Molan? A top 10 pick in the greatest draft and we blew it because we wanted to fill a certain position, we didn't take the best available.

I don't think that's a fair comparison for people to keep raising. Molan was never rated a top 10 talent going into the draft. Pre-draft he was projected to be a late second, or more likely third round selection. His toughness was one aspect that elevated him in Danihers eyes (wasn't Camerons recommendation at this pick overuled by ND?), so using Molan as an example is counter intuitive to your initial reservation on Watt's toughness.

Watt's is rated a genuine top 5 talent going into a strong draft. He is coming in with runs on the board that Molan, as a speculative pick, just did not have. It is not often that we have a chance to nab a quality KPP, and that is the opportunity we are facing now.

I would be curious to know which player CAC would have selected instead of Molan. Dal Santo maybe?

The argument is flawed though because no two players are ever the same.

The decision shouldn't be made on the position they play, it's just plain stupid to do that. Remember Molan? A top 10 pick in the greatest draft and we blew it because we wanted to fill a certain position, we didn't take the best available.

Who was Molan even to?

Kevin Sheehan was completely shocked at our selection if I remember correctly.

I don't accept that it's just plain stupid, because you're analogy is just plain stupid.

Deledio and Franklin, great talents in the same draft. Who would you take?

They both have talent but Franklin is more valuable to his team and their chances of winning a flag. Deledio is the best midfielder in the team but cannot be a catalyst for success to the extent that Franklin can.

Therefore, go tall.

So would you say that the Bulldogs and Tigers in taking Griffen and Tambling, thought they were taking the best players instead of possibly filling a key forward postion with Franklin?

I'm not having a dig at your post, just pointing out that if you went through the drafts history, there would be many cases you could find in which to argue on which side of the fence you sit in regards to drafting stratedgy.

'Best available' is subjective and as we all know opinions can differ greatly. Using the bulldogs as an example they identied Griffen as the one they wanted, they thought he was the best behind Delidio, interestingly the Hawks rated Roughead over franklin as well, so going by your example and with 20/20 hindsight to back me up they were all wrong.

If Prendergast (or however you spell it) picks Watts because he thinks he is the best available then I have no problem with that, however if we pick up a kid purely based on the position he plays then I'll be pretty upset.

Actually they took Roughie because they thought the Tigers would take him if they took Franklin first, but then hoped the Tigers would pick Tambling ahead of Franklin (which they did)

I don't think that's a fair comparison for people to keep raising. Molan was never rated a top 10 talent going into the draft. Pre-draft he was projected to be a late second, or more likely third round selection. His toughness was one aspect that elevated him in Danihers eyes (wasn't Camerons recommendation at this pick overuled by ND?), so using Molan as an example is counter intuitive to your initial reservation on Watt's toughness.

Watt's is rated a genuine top 5 talent going into a strong draft. He is coming in with runs on the board that Molan, as a speculative pick, just did not have. It is not often that we have a chance to nab a quality KPP, and that is the opportunity we are facing now.

I would be curious to know which player CAC would have selected instead of Molan. Dal Santo maybe?

You misunderstand why I mentioned Molan, he was picked because he played a certain position, ie a KP, rather than his ability. A mistake that has cost us greatly. Also this wasn't the pick that ND overruled CAC on, can't remember which one but it was mentioned on this site a little while ago and it wasn't this one.

Who was Molan even to?

I have no idea what you mean here

Kevin Sheehan was completely shocked at our selection if I remember correctly.

I don't accept that it's just plain stupid, because you're analogy is just plain stupid.

CAC picked up a player based on positional reasons rather than 'best available' in the strognest ever draft, a decision that will continue to hurt us for another 5 or so years. Now that's stupid.

Deledio and Franklin, great talents in the same draft. Who would you take?

They both have talent but Franklin is more valuable to his team and their chances of winning a flag. Deledio is the best midfielder in the team but cannot be a catalyst for success to the extent that Franklin can.

Therefore, go tall.

Here we go again

No one knew how the players were going to turn out, at the time Deledio appeared that he was going to be a once in a generation type, Franklin had query marks over his attitude (not his agression at the ball mind, just his commitment). So far history shows the Hawks made the right choice, eventually, hell they passed on Franklin with their first pick as well. But you're making this judgement knowing how they turned out, we don't have that luxury. That's why you take the best available with a first round pick, it's even more important for a top 3 pick, you just can't gamble with it, it's far too important.

No two players are the same, it's far too simplistic to even suggest that this is the case.

Actually they took Roughie because they thought the Tigers would take him if they took Franklin first, but then hoped the Tigers would pick Tambling ahead of Franklin (which they did)

So they took Roughead first and 'hoped' that the tigers wouldn't take the player that they really wanted.

Yeah, a real strong argument there

Maybe not, but it's drying.

Do you really want a player with our first pick who doesn't like to tackle and avoids body contact?

Do you really want a player with our first pick who doesn't like to tackle and avoids body contact?

I don't agree with your assertions.

And yes, I want him. He's the class player of the draft.

Anyway, we will all know in the fullness of time. But anybody that makes those assertions about a skinny kid that was 16 six months ago does him a disservice. That said, I've seen him live 3 times and I don't share those views. I've seen him put his body on the line and make tackles. He will be a fabulous footballer.

But go on. Knock yourself out trying to put down a young talent that the best recruiters rate highly. I'm sure you'll be vindicated.

I don't agree with your assertions.

And yes, I want him. He's the class player of the draft.

Anyway, we will all know in the fullness of time. But anybody that makes those assertions about a skinny kid that was 16 six months ago does him a disservice. That said, I've seen him live 3 times and I don't share those views. I've seen him put his body on the line and make tackles. He will be a fabulous footballer.

But go on. Knock yourself out trying to put down a young talent that the best recruiters rate highly. I'm sure you'll be vindicated.

Nice try, but you won't win playing that game with me.

As I've already stated several times I haven't seen alot of him and these observations have come from people who have - guys who have played with him, talent scouts and opposition coaches. I've raised the query because if we are going to invest a number one pick in him we have to be 100% certain. If you think this is wrong then I'm glad you're not in charge of our recruiting, we have to get it right with this one.

If the qestion marks are proved to be inaccurate then I'm all for taking him, but right now there are far too many with this belief to just ignore it. I realise though that someone as arrogant as yourself wouldn't understand this concept, your undying belief in your own view forbids you to even consider your own perspective.

Molan was drafted as the toughest footballer in the TAC. He was more like a J. Brown mould in size and tuffness. If that explains it. I thought it was a good choice at the time. Even got Grinter's No. 14. Melbourne lacked that type of player and still does. Miller looked promising but has fallen away. Molan was just damn unlucky with injury! Who is too know this. We seem to struggle or be unlucky with CHF players. The OX cut down with injury. Molan could'nt even get on the park with injury.

So they took Roughead first and 'hoped' that the tigers wouldn't take the player that they really wanted.

Yeah, a real strong argument there

That's exactly what they did.

Took Roughead at 2 because they knew Richmond would take him with their pick at 4 if they didn't.

Can't find it but it was in the Herald Sun about a fortnight ago. They had an interview with Hawthorn's recruiting guy

That's exactly what they did.

Took Roughead at 2 because they knew Richmond would take him with their pick at 4 if they didn't.

Can't find it but it was in the Herald Sun about a fortnight ago. They had an interview with Hawthorn's recruiting guy

eastieboyz is correct.

I have no idea what you mean here.

My original point was that if they are even in talent, go for the KPP.

You said - That's what we did with Molan - And I replied "Who was Molan even to?".

Molan was picked because he was a tough KPP and went far higher than his talent should have allowed. He was not even in talents to those picked immediately after him.

Watts and Rich are even in talent, as far as can be discerned at such an early stage of their careers, and I would go for the bloke who is 194cm tall and is a CHF or FF in the making.

It is not the Molan decision all over again.