WELCOME TO DEMONLAND - JORDIE MCKENZIE

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

A KPP who can win the game off his own boot is so freakin' rare, you're never ever going to get him at the 80th+ position in the draft. It's why the likes of Roughead, Franklin, Nick Riewoldt and Brown (and Watts) were all taken very early in their drafts. The vast majority of other 'good' forwards are assisted by dominant midfields. Teams with mediocre forward lines can win flags -- Geelong and West Coast are cases in point. I don't think I've ever seen a team with a [censored] midfield win a flag. In 2008, West Coast and Melbourne had [censored] midfields, and we all saw how that worked out.

We've taken two very talented forwards in Watts and Jurrah as high priorities in the drafts. If we come out in a few years time and still have no gun key forwards, it will be due to sheer bad luck and nothing else. We've got our gun key forwards. We need to stack up with an elite (I'd settle for competent) midfield now.

Well said Nasher!

[Stigga 25]

No I'm not. They're only better players in hindsight. Cox and Rutten were just speculative rookie listings who have turned out to be AA players in key positions.

The point I'm making is that I would have liked to have seen us make a speculative choice on a tall with our 1st pick in the Rookie draft.

McKenzie is a SPECULATIVE acquisition, who could SPECULATIVELY become the next Brett Kirk.

We may have done well!!!!!!!

[TheVoice 33]

A KPP who can win the game off his own boot is so freakin' rare, you're never ever going to get him at the 80th+ position in the draft.

The vast majority of other 'good' forwards are assisted by dominant midfields.

We need to stack up with an elite (I'd settle for competent) midfield now.

So what makes you think we are getting elite midfielders at 80+ with the likes of Jordie McKenzie and Rhys Healey. What can they bring to the table as far

as contributing to a premiership midfield. If its dominant midfields you want then take your chances at the top end of the national draft and leave the

speculative picks in the rookie draft to players who no one was prepared to take a chance on but yet offers that sparkle of something different. e.g.

Sibosado.

[montasaurus 0]

McKenzie is a SPECULATIVE acquisition, who could SPECULATIVELY become the next Brett Kirk.

We may have done well!!!!!!!

He sounds like he has the drive to be exactly that, but if he does turn out to be the next brett kirk - TEACH HIM HOW TO KICK NOW!

[Mick 1]

Are you suggesting that the type of player selected is irrelevant?

No that's not what I'm suggesting. But what I am suggesting is that advising the club that they "should have taken a tall" when there might not have been any deemed good enough to ever make it and make our list better is ludicrous. The chances of any of these players making it are slim, so you have to select the ones the recruiters think have the BEST CHANCE of becoming a good AFL player.

As to the premiership question, did you miss the West Coast, Sydney, Port Adelaide and Geelong premierships in recent years? Even Adelaide in 97 and 98. All of them had major deficiencies in their spines!! And that's just over the last 10 years off the top of my head!

[Axis of Bob 11,853]

Name me the key forwards that were picked in the rookie draft. Name me the AFL standard key forwards that were picked up in the rookie draft.

I suggest that a quick look through this list would show you that key forwards of any note are able to show their talent at junior level first, as demonstrated by the short list.

To my knowledge there are only 3 AFL standard key forwards on a list that have come from picks higher than pick 40: Brad Miller, Daniel Bradshaw and Cameron Mooney. And there are no AFL standard key forwards on a list that were picked up after pick 60 (including preseason and rookie drafts).

Key defenders (specifically full backs) are different in how they end up getting on an AFL list. Glass was a first round draft pick. Rutten was a key forward that they turned into a full back as a rookie, Hudghton was a 21 year old, Scarlett was father son, Lake/Harris was a 20 year old late pick, Presti was a first rounder, Wakelin was delisted, Michael was a rookie, Merrett was a 2nd round pick, Thornton was a rookie, Egan was a mature late pick, Croad was pick 3, Firrito was a rookie, Garland was a 3rd rounder, Martin was PSD, Carlile was a rookie, Thursfield was a rookie, Barry was a midfielder turned full back.

But the likelihood of picking an AFL standard key forward in the rookie draft is, to this point, zero.

We have an identified need for AFL standard inside midfielders on our list. We have taken two kids with upside who are able to win the inside footy at stoppages and use it with good vision. We have a poor midfield and we are trying to bring in versatile running players into the side. We have the makings of a good spine, with key defenders (Rivers, Garland, Warnock, Frawley, Martin) and key forwards (Watts, Jurrah, Miller, Newton, Bate). In a successful side you don't need many key position players. The game is won through our ability to dominate the midfield, and in order to do that you need a lot of them. It's not 1975 anymore!!

The reason we were a clear 16th in inside 50s was sure as hell not becasue of our key position players!!

[Nasher 33,617]

So what makes you think we are getting elite midfielders at 80+ with the likes of Jordie McKenzie and Rhys Healey. What can they bring to the table as far

as contributing to a premiership midfield.

Because there's still a slim chance you'll get a serviceable or even good midfielder in the rookie draft. There's toss all chance of getting an even half reasonable forward in the rookie draft unless you're extremely lucky. Robbo is about the only good key forward (and he only loosely fits that description) I can think of that has ever come out of the rookie draft.

[H_T 3,049]

Well said Mick.

edit: - and for that matter AOB and Nasher.

[DeeBest 13]

To my knowledge there are only 3 AFL standard key forwards on a list that have come from picks higher than pick 40. And there are no AFL standard key forwards on a list that were picked up after pick 60 (including preseason and rookie drafts).

How about Justin Westhoff? Not quite a rookie lister but a very late draft pick IIRC (perhaps pick 71 or 73). Nick Gill? Brad Fisher (picked in the 70s)?

You can check the stats Bob, but I reckon two of that three would kick on average more goals than Miller. If Miller counts as an "AFL standard forward" in your view, then I'd allow the above to go through.

[Axis of Bob 11,853]

I originally had Westhoff in my list, but removed it at the last minute. He's only played a year and a bit of AFL footy, but I'll include him for the sake of the argument. He was drafted as a mature age player and is still very skinny. Brad Fisher, on the other hand, I think is more of a running flanker than a key forward which is why he wasn't considered. Nick Gill is not an AFL standard key forward, as much as I love watching him play. He's also been drafted 3 times and delisted twice, and I certainly don't think that Gill is a player we should be aspiring to draft with a rookie pick.

Still, none of those came from the rookie list (unless you count Gill when he was drafted the second time to the Roos).

[mo64 5,881]

I was also proposing that we should have picked up a ruckman in the rookie draft. If either Jamar or Johnson get injured, or lose whatever form they have, Spencer would need to be elevated or Meesen plays as a 2nd ruckman. And if if Jamar and Johnson both go down, god help else!!!!

Now Bob, try doing a similar excercise with ruckmen picked up in the Rookie draft.....

[Axis of Bob 11,853]

I wasn't addressing the issue with ruckmen. Sibosado is not a ruckman.

Ruckmen can come onto the list from anywhere. It's my belief that the more skill a player needs, the less likely you are to find them late in the draft. So ruckmen and full backs are more likely to be successful being picked late in the draft than key forwards etc.

Oh, and if you are trying to rookie a ruckman as injury cover then you are barking up the wrong tree. And since you wanted to punt on talls with 'X-factor', how many ruckmen do you know with 'X-factor'??

[DeeBest 13]

Brad Fisher, on the other hand, I think is more of a running flanker than a key forward which is why he wasn't considered.

I concede that, but I rate Fisher more than I do Miller, but I'm not a Miller fan.

Is there really a lot of difference between where Fisher gets his footy and where Miller gets his? Fisher averaged 7.19 marks a game this year, Miller averaged 7.32. Admittedly the contested marks would be a better stat, as would a marks inside 50 stat but I havent got those.

But when it comes to goals - Fisher's played 91 careers games for 118 goals. Miller has played 110 games for a career total of just 60 goals. I know which "key forward" I'd rather have.

Westhoff goes in. Nick Gill - well I agree he may not be "AFL standard" at times, but he was still a better late pick than many cos he's actually played AFL for Adelaide. As you acknowledged many late selections dont even do that.

The other argument, I think we are thin when it comes to ruck stocks. Good ruck stocks especially. And the club even acknowledged it when they presented their case to Robert Warnock. Yet it wasn't a major draft priority. Perhaps we'll just have to trade for one next year.

[Axis of Bob 11,853]

I rate Fisher. I think he's a great player and rate him well above Westhoff and Gill. I don't think he's a key forward in the same way that I don't think Ryan O'Keefe is a key forward. If you want me to remove Miller as being AFL standard then it's fine. I don't care who is in or out, as the detail of each specific player is not the focus of the comment. The focus is the rarity of key forwards that make it in the rookie draft.

The other point, as we've discussed before, is that simply playing games of AFL football isn't necessarily the best way to judge whether a draft pick has made it or not.

I have made no comment about whether or not I thought we should look for a ruckman in the rookie draft. I simply said that drafting a ruckman in the rookie draft as cover against injury and other short term issues is the wrong way to look at it. These issues are separate.

[e25 5]

One other thing -

Back on Topic: Just found out I know young Jordie & his older brother Tom, as both of them used to get a lift up from Terang with my cousin for Falcons training, then would get dropped at my house & I'd give them a lift onwards. Haven't seen the kid in 2 years though.

FWIW I only ever knew him as my cousin's mate Jordan, but was a very respectful & smart kid, seeemed to know his footy. Comes from a good family & they are all cross country & marathon runners.

Definitely no Sibosado-like question marks with this kid, just a very hard runner & really puts in, just like in the scouting report.

My uncle has just told me he struggled all last year with hip problems, but he's completely over it now.

All the best to young Jordie.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,387]

Date of birth: 21/6/90

Height: 186cm

Weight: 71kg

Club: Geelong Falcons

Bio: A medium midfielder with good aerobic capacity, McKenzie is a versatile player who can win his own ball both inside and outside, and can also play defensive roles on a tall.

His name is McKenzie. That says it all! He might turn out as good as Bob McK.

[hoopla 418]

It seems that the main argument against picking a tall is that quality talls are hard to find.To me that's all the more reason to put a few on the rookie list. The fact that 4 out of every 5 talls won't make it is an argument for trying 5 - not an argument for trying none.

I've tended to use the term "talls" and KPP's . I also mean "rucks" and "strong bodies". Don't tell me that Geelong and Hawthorn don't have more height and weight on their list than we do ...and don't tell me that players like Bate, Garland, Rivers and Frawley have the muscle to protect our midfielders.

I keep seeing Butcher's name crop up as our salvation. How are we going to get him when GC 17 has all the early picks?

We've devoted 9 of our last 11 draft picks to midfielders. .... that ought to be enough to boost our running power. At the end of last season we had to play Holland and White to give our team some balance. Well we've lost them - and Carroll and Neitz - and we haven't tried to replace their height and weight. Too often over the last decade , we've looked small. I had hoped that we would have used this last uncompromised draft to redress that.

Anyway ... I must be positive ... we've got Spencer and Zomer down there - and besides we're not going to get any long term injuries!

By the way,the three best ruckmen Melbourne have recruited in the last ten years have been rookies - Jolley,Simmonds and Jamar - and two of them have proved excellent players. Who are the two best ruckmen in the AFL now? Cox and Sandilands - both rookies.

[H_T 3,049]

But when it comes to goals - Fisher's played 91 careers games for 118 goals. Miller has played 110 games for a career total of just 60 goals. I know which "key forward" I'd rather have.

These stats don't really tell the real story. Miller has spent a fair amount of games down back. On the likes of Barry Hall, J.Brown, etc. I don't think Fisher has done that.

Fwiw, I don't consider Brad Fisher a "key forward" anyway. He doesn't hold a "Key post" position in his side for a start.

[Mick 1]

I think the discussion is getting a little off topic talking about individual players, types of players they are and where they've been picked. All it really shows is that any type of player can come from a rookie list pick but the ones who make it (of any player type) are rare.

I would have loved us to pick up a ruckman too but only if there was one deemed good enough. If a gun ruckman ends up coming from a pick after Jordie McKenzie, and Jordie doesn't make it himself, then I'll agree with others that we made a mistake and should have taken Ruckman A. But saying we should have taken a ruckman or a key position player full stop is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go. You need to use your rookie picks wisely to turn any players you can into AFL footballers and any of them that make it are a bonus.

[hoopla 418]

I would have loved us to pick up a ruckman too but only if there was one deemed good enough. If a gun ruckman ends up coming from a pick after Jordie McKenzie, and Jordie doesn't make it himself, then I'll agree with others that we made a mistake

OK Mick that is fair enough.

I'll qualify your conclusion slightly :"If a gun ruckman ends up coming from a pick after Jordie McKenzie, then I reckon we've made a mistake even if Jordie does come through - because we need big men more than we need midfielders " We will only need Jordie if the midfielders we have recruited in the last two years don't come through - which means we've stuffed up anyway!

Nothing against Jordie - I hope he is a gun - and I'll be cheering him on at Casey( ..... and beyond..?)

[Roost It 1,434]

Maybe it's as simple as the club recruiting the best available talent with each pick. I'd say Sibosado is a poor man's Jurrah so why pick both if Mckenzie is available and the club deems him a better player and prospect. From what I gather Mckenzie and Healey are ball getters with reasonable speed, good skills and lots of endeavour. If you look at our ball getters we don't have an abundance of fit, injury free ball getters on our list so really the club should be applauded for not taking the player with "potential" but rather the players with the attributes this club needs. I was deinitely in the "recruit KPP" group pre draft, but I never wanted the club to pick them if they weren't anygood. We've got a good list in the making with a coach who most believe can get the job done. Good times ahead.

[hoopla 418]

At rookie list level - you are only ever going to get "potential"

Jordie is a potential midfielder, Sibosado is a potential key forward.Browne is a potential ruckman.

If we had two or three proven key forwards and a strong group of young ruckmen, then I'd be pleased that we'd taken the potential midfielder.

Time will tell. Good luck Jordie

[John Dee 445]

Jeez guys, I am a Melbourne supporter; I have my stickers, I will get them on the car at the weekend.

The Melbourne recruiting department is employed to recruit players to the club. Anyone they recruit to the club gets my support. Anyone they didn't recruit, because they passed him or were gazzumped, is not a Melbourne player and does not get my support.

I will place my implicit trust in the recruiting team, and move on.

[montasaurus 0]

Jeez guys, I am a Melbourne supporter; I have my stickers, I will get them on the car at the weekend.

The Melbourne recruiting department is employed to recruit players to the club. Anyone they recruit to the club gets my support. Anyone they didn't recruit, because they passed him or were gazzumped, is not a Melbourne player and does not get my support.

I will place my implicit trust in the recruiting team, and move on.

Well said. BTW how good do the new stickers look!

[Deeoldfart 8,065]

Jeez guys, I am a Melbourne supporter; I have my stickers, I will get them on the car at the weekend.

The Melbourne recruiting department is employed to recruit players to the club. Anyone they recruit to the club gets my support. Anyone they didn't recruit, because they passed him or were gazzumped, is not a Melbourne player and does not get my support.

I will place my implicit trust in the recruiting team, and move on.

Precisely! .... and undeniable 'undeeniable'.