State your draft preferences

[old55 23,557]

I want best available at 1, 17, 19 and 35. The chances are we'll get someone we rate in the top 20-25 at 35. Last year I believe we rated Grimes well inside top 10 and got him at 14 and would've been happy with Maric at 14 and got him at 21.

That said I'm strongly in the Watts camp and we need to assume he solves our KPF problems - he will make Miller and Newton better players simply because the opposition defence will need to go 2 and 3 up against him. I think we're good for key backs and small forwards but poor in the midfield in every area - pace, good kicking skills and ball winners. True midfielders need a decent engine - otherwise they're small forwards or backs. We'll need a spread of players to cover our midfield deficiencies - I'd be very happy if best available at 17, 19 and 35 are mids and there appears to be plenty of talent available. And yes, for the smartarses out there if BA at 17, 19, and 35 are all KPBs then I'd still take them at least at 17 and 19 anyway - we can always trade a good KPB for an excellent mid later.

51 and plus can be for needs and we need a good small back - discipline, kicking skills, pace and strong overhead for his size - with Wheels on the way out we're missing here. That's also where I think ruckmen come into the frame - I think we should add to our inventory and the chances of picking up a decent one late are good based on history. I think it's unlikley BA at at 35 and earlier will be either of these types.

1- Watts

17 - BA (hopefully mid)

19 - BA (hopefully mid)

35 - BA (hopefully mid)

51 - Small Back

60 something - Ruck project

70 something - pass, I think there's still the possibility of a reasonable pick in the PSD e.g. Meyer

[the fork 357]

Have just heard that we have been in contact with Michael Long's 17yr old relative who is in the draft this year. Can't find any details on him in a short amount of time, but have seen his name about. We have spoken to him along with 4 other clubs, so I am not suggesting we will draft him, as we have probably spoken to half the prospects, but thought I'd pass it on. He is a gifted footballer, who is going to be school prefect (or equivalent) at Melbourne Grammar next year, where it has been made known he wants to see out his schooling.

[torpedo 33]

I want best available at 1, 17, 19 and 35.

That said I'm strongly in the Watts camp and we need to assume he solves our KPF problems - he will make Miller and Newton better players simply because the opposition defence will need to go 2 and 3 up against him. I think we're good for key backs and small forwards but poor in the midfield in every area - pace, good kicking skills and ball winners. True midfielders need a decent engine - otherwise they're small forwards or backs. We'll need a spread of players to cover our midfield deficiencies - I'd be very happy if best available at 17, 19 and 35 are mids and there appears to be plenty of talent available. And yes, for the smartarses out there if BA at 17, 19, and 35 are all KPBs then I'd still take them at least at 17 and 19 anyway - we can always trade a good KPB for an excellent mid later.

51 and plus can be for needs and we need a good small back - discipline, kicking skills, pace and strong overhead for his size - with Wheels on the way out we're missing here. That's also where I think ruckmen come into the frame - I think we should add to our inventory and the chances of picking up a decent one late are good based on history. I think it's unlikley BA at at 35 and earlier will be either of these types.

1- Watts

17 - BA (hopefully mid)

19 - BA (hopefully mid)

35 - BA (hopefully mid)

51 - Small Back

60 something - Ruck project

70 something - pass, I think there's still the possibility of a reasonable pick in the PSD e.g. Meyer

Good post.

I agree wholeheartedly with the best available approach & that our midfield requires some quality kids.

Although I don't think we can assume Watts will solve our KPF problems & will make Miller and Newton better players. Miller had a great year but isn't a long term solution & Newton offers no guarantees at all. Whilst i'd welcome the addition of one or two classy mids I would be just as happy if we picked another KPF / 3rd tall with 17 or 19, such as Johnston or Shoenmakers, or one of the more versatile talls such as Trengrove, Vickery or McKernan, as unlikely as it is any of those will fall.

In our position the best player available is the best approach, whether it be a KPP, ruck or mid we have plenty of room for any of them if they are good enough players.

I find it a little odd to pencil in a 'small back' as a draft requirement. As you say, small forwards / backs are often just mids with a small engine. Plenty of experienced midfielders play out their twilight years in a back pocket & the way small forwards play these days they are often taken by someone you wouldn't normally consider a 'small back' anyway, ie Mackie, Brown or even Garland. I cannot even recall a player for the Hawks or Cats you would consider a traditional 'small back', Cats in particular have a very tall defence & both teams often rotate their mids through a back pocket. Have you got any potential draftees in mind that play that position? If we pick up 3 mids like you hope what is to say one of them will not develop into a defender? Plus we have Bartam & Cheney.

I agree with picking up another ruck project late in the draft if we don't nab one of the better prospects early on.

I do not think we should use our last pick either, it would need to be someone we really rate not purely speculative.

[e25 5]

Have just heard that we have been in contact with Michael Long's 17yr old relative who is in the draft this year. Can't find any details on him in a short amount of time, but have seen his name about. We have spoken to him along with 4 other clubs, so I am not suggesting we will draft him, as we have probably spoken to half the prospects, but thought I'd pass it on. He is a gifted footballer, who is going to be school prefect (or equivalent) at Melbourne Grammar next year, where it has been made known he wants to see out his schooling.

There was quite a bit about this young lad in the Cyril Rioli part of the story in Emma Quayle's book The Draft.

A preview can be found in the Reading In The Dark thread.

[old55 23,557]

Although I don't think we can assume Watts will solve our KPF problems & will make Miller and Newton better players. Miller had a great year but isn't a long term solution & Newton offers no guarantees at all. Whilst i'd welcome the addition of one or two classy mids I would be just as happy if we picked another KPF / 3rd tall with 17 or 19, such as Johnston or Shoenmakers, or one of the more versatile talls such as Trengrove, Vickery or McKernan, as unlikely as it is any of those will fall.

I know what you're saying but I'd still prefer 3 mids - midfield wins flags.

I find it a little odd to pencil in a 'small back' as a draft requirement. As you say, small forwards / backs are often just mids with a small engine. Plenty of experienced midfielders play out their twilight years in a back pocket & the way small forwards play these days they are often taken by someone you wouldn't normally consider a 'small back' anyway, ie Mackie, Brown or even Garland. I cannot even recall a player for the Hawks or Cats you would consider a traditional 'small back', Cats in particular have a very tall defence & both teams often rotate their mids through a back pocket. Have you got any potential draftees in mind that play that position? If we pick up 3 mids like you hope what is to say one of them will not develop into a defender? Plus we have Bartam & Cheney.

Small back is different from midfielder, engine is less important but overhead strength is a must. Pace is also a must. Bartram's kicking is not good enough and Cheney's too unknown. Frawley is most likely and he's a taller version like you note at Geelong. I think leaving out Wojcinski hurt Geelong in the GF btw.

[Bails 0]

There was quite a bit about this young lad in the Cyril Rioli part of the story in Emma Quayle's book The Draft.

A preview can be found in the Reading In The Dark thread.

is it Anthony Long?

[Bails 0]

1- Watts

17 - Johnston/ Brown if Johnston is not available

19 - Shoenmakers

35 - Zaharakis

51 - Sibosado/Tom Hill if Sibosado not available

60 - Tom Allwright (guessing)

70 - Jamie Sheehan (guessing)

[e25 5]

is it Anthony Long?

You know, I think i've got my wires completely crossed & i'm talking about someone entirely different... OR i read it elsewhere but can't remember.

I can't even remember the kid's name, but i don't think that was it.

[Bails 0]

You know, I think i've got my wires completely crossed & i'm talking about someone entirely different... OR i read it elsewhere but can't remember.

I can't even remember the kid's name, but i don't think that was it.

that is definitely his name and you definitely dont have your wires crossed....

[the fork 357]

is it Anthony Long?

Quite sure that's his name.

[torpedo 33]

I know what you're saying but I'd still prefer 3 mids - midfield wins flags.

I agree & I certainly won't be disappointed if we pick up two mids with 17 & 19, especially if there is a Swift or a Blease in the mix, the best player available has to take precedence though.

Small back is different from midfielder, engine is less important but overhead strength is a must. Pace is also a must. Bartram's kicking is not good enough and Cheney's too unknown. Frawley is most likely and he's a taller version like you note at Geelong. I think leaving out Wojcinski hurt Geelong in the GF btw.

The good teams don't really have a bloke that plays that possie week in week out though, they've got your versatile players that can play down there like Campbell Brown, Mackie, Woji, Rooke & then mids that often play down there too like Bartel, Ladson, Osborne... I don't think its the type of position you fill with any one player these days, its a week to week proposition. If we develop tough, versatile players like Bailey says he wants to do & develop a strong midfield with depth I think it is the type of position that will sort itself out. Petterd & hopefully Grimes are blokes with the courage & skill to play that role, not so sure about the toughness & overhead strength though.

[old55 23,557]

not so sure about the toughness & overhead strength though.

Need to be strong overhead in case they get dragged to the last line.

[furious d 464]

For small backs we've got Bartram, Bell, Pettard, Wheatley and Whelan. Cheney and McNamara are developing and Bruce, Buckley, Green, Frawley, Garland and Jmac, even Grimey are all possibilities to play as small defenders at some point this year. 14 not enough for you Old55? You must've loved CAC all he ever drafted was flankers. Forget defenders, we've got plenty of them. I'd like to see Green used more as the creative defender running off half back this year, should be his full time position IMO.

Best available is a load of crap! Last I checked draftee's don't come tagged with their position in the running order of talent. Stop the draft at any point after the first few and ask all 16 recruiters who"s best available out of what's left and you'll get at least 10 different answers. Best available is what got us in this mess in the first place. Take pick 17 for example. Say McKernan and Yarran are both available. I'd take McKernan even if I thought Yarran was slightly better as a footballer. KPP's and Rucks are less common than mids, flankers and pockets, this needs to be considered. And before you start screaming "Molan" at me, let me answer it with Rioli, the hawks wouldn't have won the flag this year without him. I'm not suggesting we take say a Redden before a Yarran because we need a ruckman, but if 2 players are similarily rated in terms of ability we MUST take talls before smalls and forwards before defenders.

I'd be stoked if we picked 3 talls with our first 4 picks, 2 KPF's and a ruckman. Watts with 2 of Mckernan, Trengove, Lisle, Roughead, Cornelius, Shoenmakers or Brown, maybe even Redden though he could possibly still be there for our fifth pick. Look at ouir list, there is a gaping hole where our key forwards should be. I like Miller and defended him when the knives were out a year ago but he's nowhere near good enough to carry our forward line on his own. Newton hasn't shown anything yet, Robbo isn't a KP and his leap will probably be diminished by his achilles injury and Master Bate isn't a CHF no matter how hard we hope and wish he was. I hope Casey's got a few decent tall forwards because they won't be getting much help from us.

My dream draft:

1. Watts- love everything I've heard about the kid. Seems to have the fire in his belly and a good head on his shoulders. If we don't take him I'll be very disappointed.

17. Swift- could be the steal of the draft if he falls to us. Either way there should be some quality mids still available here. Speed and good disposal are the qualities we want in whoever we get here.

19. McKernan or Trengove- someone's got to slip, if it's either of those 2 we'll be getting a bargain

35. Roughead- If he's still there he'd be a fantastic pickup. I've got Monday off next week and if all this comes true I'll need it, cos I'll be partying like it's 1999 again.

[Freak 100]

What I think it will be, not what i wantit to be:

pick 1 - Watts

pick 17- Nick Suban

pick 19- Jordan Roughead

[Axis of Bob 11,801]

I can see where old's going with this with regards to small defenders. Our current defenders are not high quality enough, especially with their disposal. The way Bailey is trying to have the side play it requires clean and precise ball movement from defence. Our current defenders were drafted to play a different game plan than what Bailey wants them to play. Wrecker is our best small defender with good disposal and it is no surprise that he was very good in that role for Bailey. On the other hand players like Bell and Bartram who were good for Daniher were exposed for their poor disposal (Bartram) or awareness (Bell). Wheatley played as a running defender and had one of his best seasons to date because he can run and kick the ball.

To say that Geelong had no small defenders is a lie, with players like Milburn, Wojcinski, Hunt and, for large part of the year, Scarlett. Hawthorn have a plethora of small defenders, such as Brown, Birchall, Ladson, Guerra, Hodge (late in the year) and these players were the driving force behind their GF victory.

However, I think the role of a small defender is changing somewhat. With teams zoning as much as they do, disposal is more important for a small defender than the ability to lock someone down. Defenders are not as often found one out as they used to.

That said, having some quality small/medium defenders is certainly something that, I agree, we should look to. Perhaps not necessarily early in the draft, but I certainly wouldn't ignore it. Especially with our desire to move the ball precisely from defence.

[old55 23,557]

For small backs we've got Bartram, Bell, Pettard, Wheatley and Whelan. Cheney and McNamara are developing and Bruce, Buckley, Green, Frawley, Garland and Jmac, even Grimey are all possibilities to play as small defenders at some point this year. 14 not enough for you Old55? You must've loved CAC all he ever drafted was flankers. Forget defenders, we've got plenty of them. I'd like to see Green used more as the creative defender running off half back this year, should be his full time position IMO.

Best available is a load of crap! Last I checked draftee's don't come tagged with their position in the running order of talent. Stop the draft at any point after the first few and ask all 16 recruiters who"s best available out of what's left and you'll get at least 10 different answers. Best available is what got us in this mess in the first place. Take pick 17 for example. Say McKernan and Yarran are both available. I'd take McKernan even if I thought Yarran was slightly better as a footballer. KPP's and Rucks are less common than mids, flankers and pockets, this needs to be considered. And before you start screaming "Molan" at me, let me answer it with Rioli, the hawks wouldn't have won the flag this year without him. I'm not suggesting we take say a Redden before a Yarran because we need a ruckman, but if 2 players are similarily rated in terms of ability we MUST take talls before smalls and forwards before defenders.

I'd be stoked if we picked 3 talls with our first 4 picks, 2 KPF's and a ruckman. Watts with 2 of Mckernan, Trengove, Lisle, Roughead, Cornelius, Shoenmakers or Brown, maybe even Redden though he could possibly still be there for our fifth pick. Look at ouir list, there is a gaping hole where our key forwards should be. I like Miller and defended him when the knives were out a year ago but he's nowhere near good enough to carry our forward line on his own. Newton hasn't shown anything yet, Robbo isn't a KP and his leap will probably be diminished by his achilles injury and Master Bate isn't a CHF no matter how hard we hope and wish he was. I hope Casey's got a few decent tall forwards because they won't be getting much help from us.

My dream draft:

1. Watts- love everything I've heard about the kid. Seems to have the fire in his belly and a good head on his shoulders. If we don't take him I'll be very disappointed.

17. Swift- could be the steal of the draft if he falls to us. Either way there should be some quality mids still available here. Speed and good disposal are the qualities we want in whoever we get here.

19. McKernan or Trengove- someone's got to slip, if it's either of those 2 we'll be getting a bargain

35. Roughead- If he's still there he'd be a fantastic pickup. I've got Monday off next week and if all this comes true I'll need it, cos I'll be partying like it's 1999 again.

Right and how many of your 14 would you back to stop Rioli?

Yes different recruiters rate players differently - that's where you've got to back yours and his ranking, that's the art and science of recruiting. It stands to reason that KPFs and mids naturally come higher in the ranking than KPDs and small backs because the latter would be the former if they were good enough.

How many KPFs do we need compared with how many midfielders? McLean is the only mid better than good ordinary player and he can't get on the park. A team has maximum 2-3 KPFs and a midfield rotation of at least 10 in the 22. That means for every KPF you need to draft 4 midfielders. Back Watts in as the KPF and then give me 3 midfielders.

[furious d 464]

I can see where old's going with this with regards to small defenders. Our current defenders are not high quality enough, especially with their disposal. The way Bailey is trying to have the side play it requires clean and precise ball movement from defence. Our current defenders were drafted to play a different game plan than what Bailey wants them to play. Wrecker is our best small defender with good disposal and it is no surprise that he was very good in that role for Bailey. On the other hand players like Bell and Bartram who were good for Daniher were exposed for their poor disposal (Bartram) or awareness (Bell). Wheatley played as a running defender and had one of his best seasons to date because he can run and kick the ball.

Agree with your point about disposal AoB, that's why I'd like to see Green used exclusively in defense this year. Bell has 1 year left on an AFL list unless he can seriously improve this year and I expect Bartram to be competing for the run with role that he did so well pre injuries. Wheels, Wheat, Green, Frawley and Garland can play small with Riv, Martin, Garland again and Warnock as the talls.

We picked up 2 bottom age small defenders last year, I don't see any room on our list for more small defenders while we have no forwards to speak of, bugger all speed in the midfield, and possibly the worst ruck division in the league. Defenders are the least of our problems

[furious d 464]

Right and how many of your 14 would you back to stop Rioli?

Yes different recruiters rate players differently - that's where you've got to back yours and his ranking, that's the art and science of recruiting. It stands to reason that KPFs and mids naturally come higher in the ranking than KPDs and small backs because the latter would be the former if they were good enough.

How many KPFs do we need compared with how many midfielders? McLean is the only mid better than good ordinary player and he can't get on the park. A team has maximum 2-3 KPFs and a midfield rotation of at least 10 in the 22. That means for every KPF you need to draft 4 midfielders. Back Watts in as the KPF and then give me 3 midfielders.

I'd back Wheels in, maybe Pettard. There's only so many spots on a list old55. If we have 30 small defenders that can't beat Rioli do we keep drafting them? There's other positions to fill. I wouldn't draft anymore small defenders until some of the underperforming one's we are currently stuck with are delisted.

So Matty Scarlett is only down back because he's not good enough to play forward? Do you really believe that?

We currently have 1 and a half KPF's on our list. Not our 22, OUR LIST! And Miller is the 1, a year ago I would have been shouted down for even suggesting that. So by my count we have 10 mids per KPF, still well short of your 1 to 4 quota.

I understand what you're saying about our lack of quality in the midfield and among our small defenders but it's far far worse when you look at our tall forwards and rucks.

[Axis of Bob 11,801]

Nobody is saying that we should be going for small defenders with our early picks. You won't be able to pick up a speedy, skillful midfielder with pick 51, nor will you be able to pick a dominant power forward at 51. These are the sorts of picks you can use to get a small defender. I would like us to, like old55, pick 1 KPF and at least 2 midfielders in our first 4 picks. The other pick I'd use on either a 2nd KPF or 3rd midfielder. After that I'd be more inclined to look at a raw ruckman and a small defender. That's how I'd do it. I'd actually probably look at someone like Klemke at either 35 or 51.

If you look at Hawthorn they actually set up their entire win through the quality of their small defenders. I don't rate, at this stage, either of the bottom age small defenders we drafted last year. Cheney is tough, a good kick, honest and accountable - but really is not quick, which is a real problem if he's going to play as a 'lock down small'. McNamara has pace, is also a very good kick and a nice small defender's size. Unfortunately he plays like a tall defender with his suspect agility, but is too small to do that. Whelan is clearly our best small defender and I struggle to see us replacing him with players from our current list.

[Hannabal 4]

I'm not sure anyone drafts 'small backs' anymore. They draft the Ash Smiths of this world as reasonably tall and fast running backs that hurt on the rebound. Cheney was a poor selection imo. The best backs are quite tall, fast and can lock down smalls. But I'm probably being a pedant, Old, as your definition of 'small back' is probably the same as mine for an agile fast tallish back. They're really 'defensive utilities'.

I'll probably have egg on my face, but I'm convinced that one of Blease, Sidebottom, Swift, or McKernan will be available at 17. Whoever is the one available out of that quartet I'd take. I reckon McKernan would be too good to pass up even if notionally one would like a mid.

Fwiw, my first round:

1. Melbourne – Jack Watts (VIC)

2. West Coast – Nicholas Naitanui (WA)

3. Fremantle – Daniel Rich (WA)

4. Port Adelaide – Hamish Hartlett (SA)

5. Essendon – Chris Yarran (WA)

6. Carlton – Michael Hurley (VIC)

7. Brisbane – Jack Ziebell (VIC)

8. Richmond – Tyrone Vickery (VIC)

9. North Melbourne – Lewis Johnston (SA)

10. Adelaide – Jackson Trengove (VIC)

11. Collingwood – Stephen Hill (WA)

12. Sydney – Shaun McKernan (VIC)

13. St Kilda – Sam Blease (VIC)

14. Western Bulldogs – Ayce Cordy (VIC)

15. Geelong – Tom Swift (WA)

16. Hawthorn – Phil Davis (SA)

No doubt it's wishful thinking, but I have Sidebottom at 17.

*My assertion of one of the above being available at 17 crumbles if Hawthorn take a mid at 16.

[furious d 464]

Nobody is saying that we should be going for small defenders with our early picks. You won't be able to pick up a speedy, skillful midfielder with pick 51, nor will you be able to pick a dominant power forward at 51. These are the sorts of picks you can use to get a small defender. I would like us to, like old55, pick 1 KPF and at least 2 midfielders in our first 4 picks. The other pick I'd use on either a 2nd KPF or 3rd midfielder. After that I'd be more inclined to look at a raw ruckman and a small defender. That's how I'd do it. I'd actually probably look at someone like Klemke at either 35 or 51.

If you look at Hawthorn they actually set up their entire win through the quality of their small defenders. I don't rate, at this stage, either of the bottom age small defenders we drafted last year. Cheney is tough, a good kick, honest and accountable - but really is not quick, which is a real problem if he's going to play as a 'lock down small'. McNamara has pace, is also a very good kick and a nice small defender's size. Unfortunately he plays like a tall defender with his suspect agility, but is too small to do that. Whelan is clearly our best small defender and I struggle to see us replacing him with players from our current list.

3 mids? we should rename ourselves the Melbourne dwarves.

This draft is touted as the superdraft for talls, something we are seriously lacking in and that takes longer to develop. If we pick 3 mids in our top 4 we deserve to be shizen.

[Diablo 1]

3 mids? we should rename ourselves the Melbourne dwarves.

This draft is touted as the superdraft for talls, something we are seriously lacking in and that takes longer to develop. If we pick 3 mids in our top 4 we deserve to be shizen.

Welcome to 2008, year of the dwarf. The game is dominated by midfielders. If your midfielders are good, they'll damn sure make your forwards and backmen look good too. There are exceptions of course... Buddy, Scarlett, Watts (hopefully)... but the game is won and lost in the middle. And unfortunately, a few gritty midfielders aside, our midfield is, to use your phrasiology, shizen. We need a serious injection of pace and skill.

Having said that, I expect that 17, 19, and possibly even 35 should all be used on the best player available, no questions asked.

[Roost It 1,434]

Right and how many of your 14 would you back to stop Rioli?

Yes different recruiters rate players differently - that's where you've got to back yours and his ranking, that's the art and science of recruiting. It stands to reason that KPFs and mids naturally come higher in the ranking than KPDs and small backs because the latter would be the former if they were good enough.

How many KPFs do we need compared with how many midfielders? McLean is the only mid better than good ordinary player and he can't get on the park. A team has maximum 2-3 KPFs and a midfield rotation of at least 10 in the 22. That means for every KPF you need to draft 4 midfielders. Back Watts in as the KPF and then give me 3 midfielders.

I'd take 3 talls and 1 mid and a ruckmen with pick 51, then target mids next year as the talls will need an extra year to develop. Personally I think with the addition of Grimes Maric and Morton are mids can wait. We have no quality big men, not one. Miller's not bad and PJ's ok but after that there's noone. It's talls for mine.

Watts

Swift

Cornelius/Mckernan

Roughhead

[Roost It 1,434]

We picked up 2 bottom age small defenders last year,

Is McNamara small, I thought he was around the 190 mark?

[drdrake 3,163]

We have a few arguements here, do we draft to kick goals, stop goals or create goals. Firstly we have no high quality tall forwards, our only high quality goal kicker is around 30 and snapped his achilles this year, therefor we need to draft at least 2 tall forwards, but we should draft 3. Outside quick midfielders required, ruck, small defenders however you can only address so many holes in your list in one year.

So I would draft

1. Watts

17.Tall Forward

19. Midfielder

35. Midfielder

51. Tall Forward

Last pick Defender

To hard to pick names, if Swift is around at 17 get him or else the eagles will and get a Tall forward with the next pick. I like Lisle I saw him play a couple of times and IMO was Vic Metro's second best forward behind Watts.

On defenders I think Grimes will be the quality defender/playmaker that we need back there, couple of years though.