DEMONS EYE FOUR MAIN DRAFT HOPEFULS

  Quote

Four players remain in the mix for Melbourne's No. 1 draft pick, with Sandringham ruckman Tyrone Vickery the late-season contender.

I'm glad the door is open on Rich and Vickery. The trade week will determine who we take at one. Vickey sounds fantastic to me and would be happy to get him, having said that Watts looms as a great pick as well. It sounds slightly absurd but there is the possibility that the club happy with the progress and/or potential of our forwards/rucks and go with Rich to deliver them the ball?

Looking forward to seeing what happens to Prismall also. I know it's essentially rumor but he would be a great pick up via the PSD.

that is absurd if the club is happy with the progress of our forwards/rucks we are in big trouble (apologies to PJ who is a good player but will never be "A" grade)

I see a lot of people on Bigfooty saying if we draft Vickery they will be [censored].

Well i can guarantee you if we do i will not be one of those people as i think the Kid will just be as good if not better than some of the other three fancied names.

Draft Camp will tell a lot. Trade week will tell more...

It's not about our needs, its about taking the best available. how many times does it have to be said.

lets have a look at the 2001 draft, if we picked the best key position player back then we would have picked up Graham Polak and passed up on judd or hodge.

in 2002, we would have picked up Tim Walsh(now delisted) instead of Jared Brennan, Wells or Goddard

in 2003, we would have picked up Kepler Bradley or Fergus Watts instead of Cooney.

in 2004, the best key forward potentially ever was picked up

in 2005, josh kennedy or Beau Dowler would have been picked up instead of Marc Murphy

in 2006, Gumbleton would have been picked up before Gibbs

Hopefully this is enough evidence to suggest that you should always pick up the best available before taking a risk on Key position talent. Gumbleton, Dowler, Walsh, Bradley, and Kennedy all had expectations to be great players, like Jack Watts does now. what makes people think he is going to be any different to the above top 5 picks that have turned out to be nothing special?(and don't just tell us Watts' strengths because all of the players above were thought to have star potential at the time

  Bates Mate said:

that is absurd if the club is happy with the progress of our forwards/rucks we are in big trouble (apologies to PJ who is a good player but will never be "A" grade)

So you have the inside word on Mc Namara, Spencer and Maric?

You saw no improvement from Miller, you see no potential in Newton or no heart from the news that he is working harder than ever before.

Incase you didn't realise Jamar defied expectations this year and played some good games.

Bate, Dunn and Sylvia are done and dusted are they Mate?

You see Garland coming this year did you Mate? Heard that he might play up forward in the future?

Drafting isn't about next year, it's about the future.

Open your eyes.

  Freak said:

what makes people think he is going to be any different to the above top 5 picks that have turned out to be nothing special?(and don't just tell us Watts' strengths because all of the players above were thought to have star potential at the time

What makes you think that Daniel Rich is such a sure thing? The same argument can be applied

  Neita3000 said:

What makes you think that Daniel Rich is such a sure thing? The same argument can be applied

Exactly... Everyone has potential and no one knows for sure who will fulfill that potential till they actually start playing AFL games

Not sure who it's going to be, still feel it's Wattswe don't need another player like Rich, we need a fast midfielder

Ah Yes! About time Vickery has been brought into the mix. I have been calling his number for quite a while now. And I know alot of you are sick of hearing it....

But his number is No. 1!

Rich is obviously a star in the making , but it's always a danger taking an interstate kid , when there is plenty of talent in Victoria . If we want a midfielder is he that much better than Ziebell , Sidebottom etc. After putting in the development work there i always the possibility of " I wanna go home " . eg , Judd , Headland , O'Keefe , Warnock , and many others over the years .

Here we go..here we go..now Vickery is in the spotlight.

Next there will be someone saying take Vickery and get Watts next year if he doesn't nominate, on the back of 4 or less wins next season.

It will be Watts.

  Freak said:

It's not about our needs, its about taking the best available. how many times does it have to be said.

lets have a look at the 2001 draft, if we picked the best key position player back then we would have picked up Graham Polak and passed up on judd or hodge.

in 2002, we would have picked up Tim Walsh(now delisted) instead of Jared Brennan, Wells or Goddard

in 2003, we would have picked up Kepler Bradley or Fergus Watts instead of Cooney.

in 2004, the best key forward potentially ever was picked up

in 2005, josh kennedy or Beau Dowler would have been picked up instead of Marc Murphy

in 2006, Gumbleton would have been picked up before Gibbs

Hopefully this is enough evidence to suggest that you should always pick up the best available before taking a risk on Key position talent. Gumbleton, Dowler, Walsh, Bradley, and Kennedy all had expectations to be great players, like Jack Watts does now. what makes people think he is going to be any different to the above top 5 picks that have turned out to be nothing special?(and don't just tell us Watts' strengths because all of the players above were thought to have star potential at the time

The point is Freak, and you refuse to aknowledge it, Rich is NOT clearly the best available. There is NO clear standout #1 pick. None of those players you mention was ever considered a potential #1, Watts is. Your "evidence" is irrelevant. Then you gloss over the fact that Buddy was picked up at 5, you would have taken Deledio Freak, and Tambling I bet. Anything but a kpp because they're risky. Molan was a long time ago, get over it.

The fact is we have needs everywhere, Kpp's, mids and rucks are all a priority. The only one of those 4 I don't really want is Naita. He's the biggest risk and wears the YM curse, please stay on him YM. Vickery could be a smoky, does he play CHF or FF when playing forward? My preferred order atm is Watts, Vickery, Rich, Naita, but I won't make up my mind till after the camp results.

i don't acknowledge it because it's not true. rich is the best available. taking away the fact that we desperately need a key forward and the fact that he is from Western Australia he is the best player in the draft and most experts know this. no-one is disagreeing with it, but like most, the experts think we will go against the best available principle and pick on needs. i.e Watts

At the end of the day if we didn't have any needs and both rich and watts were victorian, Watts would not even be in contention.

  Freak said:

At the end of the day if we didn't have any needs and both rich and watts were victorian, Watts would not even be in contention.

That is your silly opinion Freak. Which holds no weight.

He would certainly still be in contention. He was named best player of the U18 competition wasn't he?

  Freak said:

i don't acknowledge it because it's not true. rich is the best available. taking away the fact that we desperately need a key forward and the fact that he is from Western Australia he is the best player in the draft and most experts know this. no-one is disagreeing with it, but like most, the experts think we will go against the best available principle and pick on needs. i.e Watts

At the end of the day if we didn't have any needs and both rich and watts were victorian, Watts would not even be in contention.

Watts was labelled the #1 pick pretty much halfway through the season. At that stage it wasn't clear Melbourne was going to finish on the bottom of the ladder. West Coast and Fremantle were all challenging seriously for the 16th position.

http://www.afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/tab...px?newsId=68501

  Freak said:

i don't acknowledge it because it's not true. rich is the best available. taking away the fact that we desperately need a key forward and the fact that he is from Western Australia he is the best player in the draft and most experts know this. no-one is disagreeing with it, but like most, the experts think we will go against the best available principle and pick on needs. i.e Watts

At the end of the day if we didn't have any needs and both rich and watts were victorian, Watts would not even be in contention.

Who are these experts and where can I read their opinions? I've read plenty who've said Watts is probably the best fit for us out of a very even top 3, but not one "expert" who claims Rich is far and away the #1 pick. If it's not in your head give me names.

I don't think any of us are in a position to judge who the best available player is, since all it is is an individual opinion. I hear on the radio last night that West Coast will take Naitanui if they had pick 2, and they need to build up their midfield again too. If true, perhaps West Coast don't rate him as the best available talent. Stephen Wells, Geelong's recruiting manager, stated that if he had pick 1 he'd take Watts.

To come on here and just tell everyone that he is the best player, when there is no proof of that (just your opinion) is arrogant and misleading.

I could make an argument that if we're picking solely on type that we should take Rich first before Naitanui, Watts and Vickery.

As for who is the best of that lot, I would personally find it very hard to make a distinction. I suspect that most recruiting managers would also find it difficult to separate them purely based on talent, as each of the players is so different. Rich is a classy and damaging midfielder, Naitanui the freak athletic ruckman, Vickery is the man mountain pure footballer and Watts is a highly athletic goal kicker with freakish ball skills.

I could easily make an argument that each is the best available.

Rich is the best available because of his ability to use the ball cleanly in contests. Plus he is a very good player who is highly damaging and is well developed already.

Watts is the best available because he has a rare combination of athleticism, ball skills and decision making skills that are seldom found in a player with his height. He was the best performed player in the carnival despite having to balance his football with elite basketball and has enormous scope to improve.

Naitanui is the best available because his athleticism and height, combined with his contested ball winning, tackling and competitiveness in the contests, give him the tools to take the game to levels that were never though possible. He may be a risk but the upside makes him the best available.

Vickery is the best available because he is the prototype of the modern ruckman but with far better skills, footy smarts and athleticism. He is big, has a frame that will make him a man mountain and aggression for the contests. Plus he can play forward if required and is still far from his peak after recovering from knee surgery.

I could just as easily make arguments why they shouldn't be number one.

  Goose said:

http://www.afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/tab...px?newsId=68501

My hunch is that Watts nominated because the demons are going to pick him no. 1. Let's cross our fingers he turns into a gun CHF and when we go to the footy we've got a strong, tall, big marking, long kicking, pack busting Demon to watch rip other sides apart. Hope springs eternal!!

  Freak said:

It's not about our needs, its about taking the best available. how many times does it have to be said.

lets have a look at the 2001 draft, if we picked the best key position player back then we would have picked up Graham Polak and passed up on judd or hodge.

in 2002, we would have picked up Tim Walsh(now delisted) instead of Jared Brennan, Wells or Goddard

in 2003, we would have picked up Kepler Bradley or Fergus Watts instead of Cooney.

in 2004, the best key forward potentially ever was picked up

in 2005, josh kennedy or Beau Dowler would have been picked up instead of Marc Murphy

in 2006, Gumbleton would have been picked up before Gibbs

Hopefully this is enough evidence to suggest that you should always pick up the best available before taking a risk on Key position talent. Gumbleton, Dowler, Walsh, Bradley, and Kennedy all had expectations to be great players, like Jack Watts does now. what makes people think he is going to be any different to the above top 5 picks that have turned out to be nothing special?(and don't just tell us Watts' strengths because all of the players above were thought to have star potential at the time

Most confusing post ever.

What do you mean "we". In those drafts most of the guys were gone before Melbourne's first pick, and in other cases you seem to be talking from the perspective of different clubs altogether

  Eastie Boyz said:

Most confusing post ever.

What do you mean "we". In those drafts most of the guys were gone before Melbourne's first pick, and in other cases you seem to be talking from the perspective of different clubs altogether

What he's saying is that had we had the first pick in every single one of those years, with a "pick the best key position player" mindset, we would only have picked up one good player (Lance Franklin in'04). To me it's actually a great post, and it highlights just how important it is to pick up the best player available, particularly early in the draft.

Guys,

This is all great conjecture and helps build excitement, but watts is all done, especially after today!

Some chance of us trading for a pick to get Vickery, thats the only way we'll get him..

  Nudge said:

Guys,

This is all great conjecture and helps build excitement, but watts is all done, especially after today!

Some chance of us trading for a pick to get Vickery, thats the only way we'll get him..

That's why Davey will be the one to go for Pick 5!

What is your suggestion to get that 2nd pick?

  Chook said:

What he's saying is that had we had the first pick in every single one of those years, with a "pick the best key position player" mindset, we would only have picked up one good player (Lance Franklin in'04). To me it's actually a great post, and it highlights just how important it is to pick up the best player available, particularly early in the draft.

Ah yeah. That'd make sense.

Personally I still think there's room for drafting on needs. If two players are relatively equal but one is a bitter slower but tougher you might prefer him over the bloke who's a touch quicker but a tad soft (depending on what you were after).

If the Dees were after a key forward and there was one who was rated 70/100 I'd have no problem with taking him over a 80/100 on-baller