best available...

[Disco Demons 92]

based on wat i've read....melb should take scully and trengove wit pick #1 and #2....this is consider to be taking the best available...which i agree... it is the best approach...melb then has pick #18....this is still a pretty good pick to have. even though it's in a 'weak' draft.

my question is...should melb continue with taking best available or try and pickup a KPP? it's obvious melb has a hole for a KPP....

ie., butcher and Morabito are both available after we take scully and tregove...who would you take?

personally...i'm now thinking we take best available with pick #18....regardless of being a midfield or power forward player....

[Disco Demons 92]

actually just read Morabito is 190cm...so i lost the point on that one...but my point is best available being a midfield vs...best available KPP....wat would you take??

sorry...

[Demon Disciple 11,190]

gotta go with a KPF with pick 18 (assuming we pick up 2 mids wit , we need one pure and simple. Sure there aren't many good quality one's out there at the moment, but some could develop nicely. Panos probably won't be around come pick 18, Griffiths going down reiterates that he is very injury prone. That leaves Carlisle, Black and Temel. I suppose that draft camp will help determine the pecking order as well, but i'd have Black, Temel then Carlisle as my choices (griffiths maybe if around come pick 35). We are still 2 months out from draft day, so lots can happen in that time.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Demon Disciple

[deanox 8,945]

best available with top picks at all times.

if you ahve the best 5 mids in the comp, it doesnt matter if you dont have the best KPP. similarly if you have two fantastic, hardworking KPFs, a lot of damage can be done with a solid mid.

that being said, you can always trade away good players for what you need later, while if you specialist pick (ie KPP, not best available) isnt as good he will not demand a higher price later.

who is more important for your team, a great player or an average player who fills a position? if you have a small forward line you play short, and kick goals from the mid. no biggy.

[e25 5]

best available with top picks at all times.

if you ahve the best 5 mids in the comp, it doesnt matter if you dont have the best KPP. similarly if you have two fantastic, hardworking KPFs, a lot of damage can be done with a solid mid.

that being said, you can always trade away good players for what you need later, while if you specialist pick (ie KPP, not best available) isnt as good he will not demand a higher price later.

who is more important for your team, a great player or an average player who fills a position? if you have a small forward line you play short, and kick goals from the mid. no biggy.

It all comes down to who you would prefer to have in your team

- Nick Reiwoldt or Justin Koschitzke OR Alan Didak/ Kayne Pettifer? Cos they were the highest rate midfield types in that draft, if thats what your list needed (in fact, Didak was rated only a goalsneak from memory so you would have settled for Pettifer or Jordan McMahon. Dylan Smith anyone?).

- Chris Judd, Luke Ball or Luke Hodge OR Graham Polak or David Hale or Luke Molan?

- A midfieler like Cooney, Walker, Sylvia, Ray or McLean OR Kepler Bradley? David Trotter?

These are the decisions you would be making if you were to draft based on type & needs, rather than the best of what's on offer.

Obviously it isn't as cut & dried as that, because the recruiting staff take into account how much better they rate those players than the ones of the preferred position.

But far too many treat it in this way when insisting we need a power forward, rather than observing that Butcher has shown himself to be quite ordinary in recent times.

[Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde 0]

imagine a side indentifying a need and over compensating for it .... let me take you back to 1998.

Richmonds need for "flashy" outside players who can link the ball up from defence to attack ...

Pick #3 - Aaron Fiora

Pick #4 - Matthew Pavlich

.. ouch.

[the_russian 17]

imagine a side indentifying a need and over compensating for it .... let me take you back to 1998.

Richmonds need for "flashy" outside players who can link the ball up from defence to attack ...

Pick #3 - Aaron Fiora

Pick #4 - Matthew Pavlich

.. ouch.

And in 04 where they wanted midfielders, taking Delidio before Roughhead, and Tambling before Buddy.

Not saying its good or bad, just an example of drafting for needs

[Toot182 7]

And in 04 where they wanted midfielders, taking Delidio before Roughhead, and Tambling before Buddy.

Not saying its good or bad, just an example of drafting for needs

In the Toiges defense, I think taking Deledio has been justified by him winning his 2nd B&F in a row. Tambling before Buddy = Unjustified...

But we say this in hindsight, what a beautiful thing it is!!!

[the_russian 17]

In the Toiges defense, I think taking Deledio has been justified by him winning his 2nd B&F in a row. Tambling before Buddy = Unjustified...

But we say this in hindsight, what a beautiful thing it is!!!

Was using it as an example that the tigers only had interest in midfielders that year, wasn't basing it on player performance since.

Their other picks that year also indicate they wanted mainly midfielders, with Danny Meyer and Dean Polo all taken in the top 20

[Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde 0]

Again, to leap to the Tigers defence in 2004.

Tambling was considered a genuine top 3 prospect pre-draft, and Hawthorn was widely expected to pick him up at #2 after Richmond took Deledio.

The Tigers were understandably wrapped to snag him at #4 at the time.