Schoenmakers or Johnston

[Carn dees 108]

Hey guys.

Although it seems this as being my first post it isn't because my account got deleted.

But its all good.

Just wondering what people thought about comparing Shoenmakers and Lewis Johnston.

IMO both talented tall forwards and hoping we take one with our pics 17 or 19.

Just want to no out of the two if both available who would you take.

Thanks guys.

[Golgothan 0]

Almost no chance that Johnston will be around at pick 17, if he is we'd be crazy not to pick him. He's the 2nd best KP forward in the draft after Watts and is unlikely to be overlooked by all of North, Crows, Sydney & Geelong who will all have some interest in a key forward.

Schoenmakers is a different type of player, more of a lead up CHF. He should be available at 19 and i'd hope we consider him. It'll depend on who slides

[dee-luded 2,958]

Hey guys.

Although it seems this as being my first post it isn't because my account got deleted.

But its all good.

Just wondering what people thought about comparing Shoenmakers and Lewis Johnston.

IMO both talented tall forwards and hoping we take one with our pics 17 or 19.

Just want to no out of the two if both available who would you take.

Thanks guys.

I love Shoenmakers game, but it's fairly close to Watts mobile style, where L Johnstone is more a power forward who I think can develope into a Neitz like style. So to me the combination of Watts (HF), + Johnstone (FF), would a great balance of complementary talents.

I think Shoenmakers will be a very creative Half Forward/Tall Midfielder, utility.

[Carn dees 108]

ok thanks to both above

Supose i add cornelius to the mix?

Personally i rate schoenmakers higher?

what are peoples thoughts, i just hoping we get the best kpf available at the time.

[H_T 2,941]

Schoenmakers, Johnston should go earlier than Schoenmakers. 'Schoey' would complement Watts. Then again so would Tom Lynch..

[Neita3000 37]

Schoenmakers, Johnston should go earlier than Schoenmakers. 'Schoey' would complement Watts. Then again so would Tom Lynch..

Tom Lynch is Matthew Bate literally reincarnated.

[45HG 1,539]

Tom Lynch is Matthew Bate literally reincarnated.

MATTHEW BATE IS DEAD?!??!

[alpha33 277]

If available @ 17 I would take Johnston in a heartbeat.

[Nasher 33,244]

MATTHEW BATE IS DEAD?!??!

He apparently died about 18 years ago

[Golgothan 0]

Supose i add cornelius to the mix?

Personally i rate schoenmakers higher?

what are peoples thoughts, i just hoping we get the best kpf available at the time.

Cornelius is an interesting one and one player who i'm most interested in where he gets drafted, he's hard to pin down, could be anywhere from about pick 10 to pick 40.

He's hard to nail down in a position really, he has one of the best sets of hands of any player in the draft pool and he's a decent set shot for goal. If he can play KP then he could be anything, but lots of people compare him to Brad Fisher but slightly better (which i think is pretty fair) and they don't think he'll be much more then a 3rd tall. Even in an interview he referred to himself as a 3rd tall! Not keen on us drafting him at 19 because of these queries.

As i said, Johnston is likely to be gone. McKernan may slide, Lynch, Brown, Cahill could all be consider as well as Schoenmakers. One that people haven't mentioned to much of is Lisle, can play at either end & he's a monster of a kid with a great mark, if it's a choice of those listed i'd expect the 3 main considerations to be McKernan, Schoenmakers & Lisle.

[dee-luded 2,958]

Cornelius is an interesting one and one player who i'm most interested in where he gets drafted, he's hard to pin down, could be anywhere from about pick 10 to pick 40.

He's hard to nail down in a position really, he has one of the best sets of hands of any player in the draft pool and he's a decent set shot for goal. If he can play KP then he could be anything, but lots of people compare him to Brad Fisher but slightly better (which i think is pretty fair) and they don't think he'll be much more then a 3rd tall. Even in an interview he referred to himself as a 3rd tall! Not keen on us drafting him at 19 because of these queries.

As i said, Johnston is likely to be gone. McKernan may slide, Lynch, Brown, Cahill could all be consider as well as Schoenmakers. One that people haven't mentioned to much of is Lisle, can play at either end & he's a monster of a kid with a great mark, if it's a choice of those listed i'd expect the 3 main considerations to be McKernan, Schoenmakers & Lisle.

Everyone seems to think that each draft will supply all our needs in one year.

Our forward needs will take at least another 2 drafts to relieve, (we need a quick small forward like a Cyril Rioli, a mobile power forward like Butcher, next year,. a quick inside/outside mid)

If we can take Watts, Shoenmakers, & Redden, We will go a long way this draft to set us up, with the '09 draft to complement these boys, we'll go a long way to building a powerfull list.

[Golgothan 0]

Everyone seems to think that each draft will supply all our needs in one year.

Our forward needs will take at least another 2 drafts to relieve, (we need a quick small forward like a Cyril Rioli, a mobile power forward like Butcher, next year,. a quick inside & outside mid)

Where did i say that this years draft was going to supply all of our needs? Or did you just quote me for no reason & make a loosely related statement? Obviously we won't be able to fill all of our needs from one draft and it's probable that we'll have some similar & some different needs next year.

I think that with our first 4 picks we should draft with a best available basis but considering needs, which if you know much about the top 30-40 or so kids those players are more then likely to be midfielders or key forwards, which both happen to be needs of MFC.

[Keepin up with the Joneses 48]

Where did i say that this years draft was going to supply all of our needs? Or did you just quote me for no reason & make a loosely related statement? Obviously we won't be able to fill all of our needs from one draft and it's probable that we'll have some similar & some different needs next year.

I think that with our first 4 picks we should draft with a best available basis but considering needs, which if you know much about the top 30-40 or so kids those players are more then likely to be midfielders or key forwards, which both happen to be needs of MFC.

If we select the best available, I hope that next week, we see Watts, McKernan and Shoenmakers in red and blue.

This would be genuinely exciting!

Please note, there will also be 1 or 2 juicy selections next year.

[dee-luded 2,958]

Where did i say that this years draft was going to supply all of our needs? Or did you just quote me for no reason & make a loosely related statement? Obviously we won't be able to fill all of our needs from one draft and it's probable that we'll have some similar & some different needs next year.

I think that with our first 4 picks we should draft with a best available basis but considering needs, which if you know much about the top 30-40 or so kids those players are more then likely to be midfielders or key forwards, which both happen to be needs of MFC.

Loosely related statement, 'Golgothan'. I am just picking up on a perceived attitude for this draft where it sounds to me that some people want some talls (which I personally don't rate that well), ahead of other needs.

Jarryd Redden/Phil Davis, IMO > Lisle/Roughead/Cornelious/.

[Golgothan 0]

Loosely related statement, 'Golgothan'. I am just picking up on a perceived attitude for this draft where it sounds to me that some people want some talls (which I personally don't rate that well), ahead of other needs.

Jarryd Redden/Phil Davis, IMO > Lisle/Roughead/Cornelious/.

I understand your sentiment, some people want our first 4 picks to be 2 fowards, a ruck & a mid, because they're our needs, but don't put me in that category, i'm just discussing players suggested by other posters.

I think our first 4 picks(not just 3) should be best available, but you always have to have some consideration towards needs, if we take Watts & another KP forward then i wouldn't think we'd go for a 3rd tall forward at 19. If the best available players at 17 and 19 are both midfielders then i want us to take both of them, not take a lesser player because he fills a greater need. Same with pick 35, say we've got 2 forwards & a mid before that, i don't want us to think we have to take a ruckman, if Roughead & Redden are gone and there are other players in different positions we rate higher then Clarke, Stanley & Hill(which is quite likely), then i'd hope we'd take the best available on our list, then go for the needs from 51 onwards.

Redden better then Roughead i wouldn't argue with too much, i'm a fan of Redden. I'd take Davis over Cornelius ten days a week, Lisle is a bit closer but Davis is still higher on my list. Davis is a good chance to go before 17 though, so i haven't really considered him much, but i'd be stoked to get him.