Get Rich Quick

[Guest Chopper]

geez i'd love McKinley- hopefully via trade cos i think he resigned for 2 with the eagles when wecould secure a deal last trade week

i reckon we could even schnag a deal with freo like our pick in the 50's for robbie warnock..cos we'd just say, well, its either that or we'll take him psd #1 and you get nothing cos he wants to come to us (if he does)..so then they;d take the pick 50 deal. It's happened a few times with clubs that have the bargaining power with # 1 psd pick

Robbo and McKinley are too similar.

We see the same problem at Fremantle with Pavlich and Tarrant. One dominates, the other is a wasted talent.

[H_T 2,941]

Robbo and McKinley are too similar.

What are the similarities I say? What has McKinley released a cover Rock Album too?

Robbo is an Umpa-Lumper compared to McKinley. One has a huge leap, the other not so huge.....

[Axis of Bob 10,310]

Richmond last 5 years draft history (ie, since 2003)

2003

N. Brown (Trade - pick 6)

A. Gilmour - pick 21 - Traded Holland

T. Roach - 37 (f/s)

D. Jackson - 53

B. Hartigan - 70

S. Tuck - 73

A. Raines - 76

S. Fletcher - 79

K. Archibald - 81

B. Marsh - PSD

L. Weller - PSD

2004

T. Simmonds - A. Fiora

Deledio - 1

Tambling - 4

Meyer - 12 - Ottens

Pattison - 16 - Ottens

D. Polo - 20

L. McGuane - 36

D. Limbach - 52

M. Graham - 65

T. Knobel - PSD

2005

P. Bowden (Trade - 56)

J. Oakley-Nicholls - 7

C. Hughes - 24

T. Casserly - 40

2006

G. Polak (Traded + 8 for 13)

J. Riewoldt - 13

S. Edwards - 26

D. Connors - 56

C. Peterson - 60

A. Collins - 73

K. Kingsley - PSD

2007

M. Morton (Trade - 35)

J. McMahon (Trade - 19)

T. Cotchin - 2

A. Rance - 18

D. Putt - 51

D. Gourdis - PSD

Hawthorn last 5 years draft history (ie, since 2003)

2003

D. Jacobs (Trade - pick 6 ie, Rawlings and Veale)

T. Croad (Trade - pick 10)

H. Miller - 25

Z. Dawson - 41

M. Ball - pick 51 - Traded Harford and Johnson

D. Scott- PSD

2004

Roughead - 2

Franklin - 5

Lewis - 7 + B. Nixon - 37 + 10 - Thompson

T. Murphy - 21

M. Little - 26 - Thompson

S. Taylor - 53

2005

X. Ellis - 3

B. Dowler - 6

G. Birchall - 14 - Hay + Lonie

M. Bailey - 18 - Hay + Lonie

B. Muston - 22

2006

M. Thorp - 6

B. Renouf - 24

J. Morton - 33 - Everitt

J. Kennedy - 40 (fs)

G. Moss - 56

J. Thurgood - PSD

2007

C. Rioli - 12

B. Whitecross - 29

S. Dew - 45

Players on list before these drafts:

Richmond -

J. Bowden

M. Coughlan

C. Hyde

K. Johnson

C. Newman

K. Pettifer

M. Richardson

J. Schulz

G. Tivendale

Hawthorn -

C. Bateman

T. Boyle

C. Brown

R. Campbell

T. Clarke

S. Crawford

L. Hodge

R. Ladson

S. Mitchell

M. Osborne

M. Williams

[Axis of Bob 10,310]

This information can be read many ways. However, as I was doing it, it occurred to me that it wasn't so much the type of player that Richmond and Hawthorn targetted, but more to the point it was how often they succeeded. The infamous Buddy/Tambling draft does not show as much about the type of player that was drafted, but the fact that Franklin is a star and Tambling is a struggler. Nobody asks why Richmond chose Deledio over Roughead, because Deledio is a better player despite people using the same argument about Buddy and Tambling.

Another thing is that Hawthorn have a far, far, far superior group of older players than Richmond (ie, those that were already there before 2003). Bateman, Crawford, Hodge, Mitchell, Ladson and Osborne are the foundation of a very good midfield, with Hodge and Mitchell both stars and Crawford a Brownlow medallist. They had no talls that weren't very, very flawed or too old, so they traded them out and picked up new ones.

Richmond had Richo, Bowden and Johnson, plus a bunch of honest battlers. They had very little talent and next to nothing to trade out for picks. You can see this by the fact that they had 7 picks over pick 70 in 2003. But the other thing is that they kept missing with their early picks. Picks like Tambling (4), Meyer (12), Pattison (16), Oakley-Nicholls (7) have hurt them, because they are in the age group where they should be starting to be really good players.

So I would conclude that Hawthorn started with a much better list, then made fewer mistakes with early picks so they now have a better list. Richmond were stuffed, then made stuff ups and are only now starting to rise the ladder. I don't think that it necessarily makes a big difference what type of player you pick up, as long as they become a good player.

Look at Geelong's first round draft picks since 2000: Bartel (8), Mackie (7), Tenace (7), Varcoe (15), Selwood (7) and Taylor (17). There's nothing overly special about these players, but they haven't really missed too often. Taylor is the only tall, and the best two of those players (Bartel and Selwood) are just averagely paced, clean and efficient midfielders. Nothing amazing. Funnily enough, the two that have struggled the most (Tenace and Varcoe) and the ones that are a bit flashy and pacy.

What I think this shows us is that you don't need to take a risk with early picks, you just need to get it right. It doesn't matter what type of player you pick up, as long as they become good players. That's why my leaning is towards Rich, because there is very little doubt that he will be a really good player. I don't want to risk not getting a really good player (Rich) because we want to take a risk that a different type of player could might also be really good. It's too important to stuff up.

[torpedo 33]

What I think this shows us is that you don't need to take a risk with early picks, you just need to get it right. It doesn't matter what type of player you pick up, as long as they become good players.

Nail. Head.

Great post.

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,349]

I want Rich. I want to see him lining up at the G' in round 1 next year and doing a Rhys Palmer.

I don't have the patience for a project player in Watts.

A midfield of Rich, Jones, McLean with Bruce, Davey, Dunn, Junior and Moloney as our secondary options sounds great to me.

Draft a key position player at 17 or 19. There will plenty available.

[tooly 0]

If we traded picks 17 & 19 would we get a top

10 pick.

[sylvinator 96]

If we traded picks 17 & 19 would we get a top

10 pick.

In this draft you could throw a blanket over players form pick 8-25...

we wouldn't get a top 8 pick for pick17 and 19, and therefore we should just keep them and pick good players

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Funnily enough I'm warming to the idea of picking up Naitanui as a forward.

[Mousey 47]

Funnily enough I'm warming to the idea of picking up Naitanui as a forward.

LOL have you said that like every day?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

LOL have you said that like every day?

Probably. I think I'm trying to get it through my head. At the end of the day, I think I will be happy with whoever Melbourne pick up.

[dee-luded 2,958]

This information can be read many ways. However, as I was doing it, it occurred to me that it wasn't so much the type of player that Richmond and Hawthorn targetted, but more to the point it was how often they succeeded.

What I think this shows us is that you don't need to take a risk with early picks, you just need to get it right. It doesn't matter what type of player you pick up, as long as they become good players. That's why my leaning is towards Rich, because there is very little doubt that he will be a really good player. I don't want to risk not getting a really good player (Rich) because we want to take a risk that a different type of player could might also be really good. It's too important to stuff up.

Thanks 'axis', a great post.

[dee-luded 2,958]

If we traded picks 17 & 19 would we get a top

10 pick.

It's not about getting the highest pick you can get 'cause that pick may be the one to FAIL.

the best way is to get as many top 28 picks in this draft as possible,, as this draft has great depth.

[dee-luded 2,958]

Funnily enough I'm warming to the idea of picking up Naitanui as a forward.

Yep, his work seen on the you tube as a forward looked interesting, BUT I still worry big time about his lack of foot skills to pass the ball to teammates & or kick on the run.

Give me Rich, or Vickery if we trade down our pick with Freo, or Jack Ziebell.

Would also like Tom Lynch at around 15 - 20 if available with another pick.

[Luck Lucy 0]

Rich's team Subiaco today won its way into the WAFL grand final with a win over West Perth. Naitanui's team Swan Districts won the first semi final and will play in next week's Preliminary Final. Apparently, both were prominent today as was Nick Nat's teammate Yarran who booted three goals.

This will be Rich's second WAFL grand final and he's only 18 years old. The experience against men is swinging my mind towards chosing Rich or Naitanui rather than Watts.

[Guest Chopper]

I was originally a fan of drafting Rich. The truth though, Is that we need a forward. Jack Watts. Shown enough promise coming through the ranks to suggest he will be a quality KPF. It would just be murder to the MFC if we overlooked him. He may not become the player Rich will but you have to accomodate to what your team needs.

Id be happy with Blease at 17, and Zaharakis/Johnston at 19.

[Geddy Lee 582]

The new video of Peel vs Swans has Naitanui jumping over an opponent to take a mark. It's scary.

http://www.lmsc.com.au/media/docs/Swans_v_Peel_R23.wmv Right click save as, it's at the end.

I'm glad I'm not in BP position.

[Red and Blue Flame 142]

1. Watts

?-??

17- blease

19- Zaharakis

we need another top 20 pick

[Jarka 767]

Rich is no certainty to become an elite player, in fact of the top 3 I believe there is more of a question mark on him rather than Watts or Naitanui, I also rate Hartlett higher than him but that's a different topic altogether.

Rich is a big strong kid who is a good long kick, but he hasn't got the explosive pace that most of the elite mids have these days. There's also a big question mark about his ability to handle a heavy tag, but he main concern is how he is going to adapt to playing agains others who are at least as strong as he is. Right now his biggest asset is his strength, and this wins him alot of the ball. Next year this advantage is going to be taken away from him, does he have the footy nous to overcome this? He could easily be the next Sylvia and not the next Kerr.

It appears that people are rating Rich higher simply because he is a midfielder and there's this belief that they are more of a chance to succeed, this is wrong. Evaluating this current top 3 by looking at previous draft results is a pointless exercise.

[Freak 100]

or the fact that he is proven against men

[Geddy Lee 582]

Rich is no certainty to become an elite player, in fact of the top 3 I believe there is more of a question mark on him rather than Watts or Naitanui, I also rate Hartlett higher than him but that's a different topic altogether.

Rich is a big strong kid who is a good long kick, but he hasn't got the explosive pace that most of the elite mids have these days. There's also a big question mark about his ability to handle a heavy tag, but he main concern is how he is going to adapt to playing agains others who are at least as strong as he is. Right now his biggest asset is his strength, and this wins him alot of the ball. Next year this advantage is going to be taken away from him, does he have the footy nous to overcome this? He could easily be the next Sylvia and not the next Kerr.

It appears that people are rating Rich higher simply because he is a midfielder and there's this belief that they are more of a chance to succeed, this is wrong. Evaluating this current top 3 by looking at previous draft results is a pointless exercise.

Rich: could become the next Syliva, because he might not have the strength or desire to cut it against AFL players.

Watts: could become the next Syliva, because he might not have the strength to cut it against AFL players.

Naitanui: could become the next Syliva, because he might not have the skills to cut it against AFL players.

Every pick is a risk, big deal. Hartlett is good but isn't exceptionally quick either and Rich is a much more prodigious kick of the football IMO.

[Freak 100]

ur 2nd point is flawed as sylvia does have the strength.

[Geddy Lee 582]

ur 2nd point is flawed as sylvia does have the strength.

Sylvia had the strength amongst boys, hasn't worked hard enough to become a consistently good AFL player.

According to various [censored] hyperbole floating around the Internet, Watts and Rich are men amongst boys and there are question marks over their desire, particularly Rich. Naitanui has question marks over everything.

Blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda We'll select Watts anyway so we can say anything we like and it won't matter.

[Freak 100]

correct. and in 5 years we will be saying 'i wish we had a key forward' again.

[Jarka 767]

Sylvia had the strength amongst boys, hasn't worked hard enough to become a consistently good AFL player.

According to various [censored] hyperbole floating around the Internet, Watts and Rich are men amongst boys and there are question marks over their desire, particularly Rich. Naitanui has question marks over everything.

Blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda We'll select Watts anyway so we can say anything we like and it won't matter.

Where has this ever been mentioned? Watts is a skinny underage kid playing in the U/18's, I have no idea how you managed to come to this cnclusion

Does this count as a [censored] hyperbole floating around the internet?