Darren Cuthbertson said:

But they thought outside the square as you know -recruiting Dew and Rioli.

As CAC's biggest critic and a Caro lover please detail your draft wish list.

Rioli was hardly öutside the square. They wanted a small forward to complement Buddy and Roughy. They looked at the balance of their list.

For other readers of this post - I am not a critic of CAC - and I'm not a Caro lover.!!!!!!!!!!

Wish List : Scully, Trengrove, a couple of KPPs and Ball plus ANother ( made possible by the delisting of Barts!)

  Axis of Bob said:

I think that the need to address the needs of your list depends very much on how close you believe your team is to competing for a flag.

.......

Just keep on picking the most obvious talent

Well said. Best available. However if there was a chocie between Butcher and a midfielder at 11 I'd take Butcher.

It will be interesting who we pick at #11 and #18

Its also hard to predict who will be left

Both Scully and Trengove will be 1 and 2 in my book which leaves 8 players gone before our pick #11

I expect these guys to go early but who knows if some clubs are picking for needs instead of next best

Dustin Martin

Anthony Morabito

Kane Lucas

John Butcher

Ben Cunnington

Gary Rohan

Lewis Jetta

Luke Tapscott

Daniel Talia

Jake Carlisle

These 2 ruckman might go before 11 if its on a need basis for example

Nathan Vardy

Jack Fitzpatrick

My prediction is

11 Luke Tapscott

18 Jake Carlisle

  Stop: Jurrahtime said:

Well said. Best available. However if there was a chocie between Butcher and a midfielder at 11 I'd take Butcher.

The "However...." makes this sounds like " best available subject to needs"

  hoopla said:

Rioli was hardly öutside the square. They wanted a small forward to complement Buddy and Roughy. They looked at the balance of their list.

For other readers of this post - I am not a critic of CAC - and I'm not a Caro lover.!!!!!!!!!!

Wish List : Scully, Trengrove, a couple of KPPs and Ball plus ANother ( made possible by the delisting of Barts!)

Riloi -yes he was outside the square all the draftees have to be good little boys-antisocial, poor fitness and work ethic meant no one other than Hawthorn would touch him. Same with Buddy Franklin.

You are a critic of CAC and your influence was instrumental in him leaving and you are a fan of Caro's work. It's in the Caro topic some time ago.

  Darren Cuthbertson said:

Riloi -yes he was outside the square all the draftees have to be good little boys-antisocial, poor fitness and work ethic meant no one other than Hawthorn would touch him. Same with Buddy Franklin.

You are a critic of CAC and your influence was instrumental in him leaving and you are a fan of Caro's work. It's in the Caro topic some time ago.

If HighTower or anyone else for that matter, has some spare time they will work out that Mr Cuthbertson just follows my posts around

Colin Sylvia for the Brownlow

  Swampfox said:

It will be interesting who we pick at #11 and #18

Its also hard to predict who will be left

Both Scully and Trengove will be 1 and 2 in my book which leaves 8 players gone before our pick #11

I expect these guys to go early but who knows if some clubs are picking for needs instead of next best

Dustin Martin

Anthony Morabito

Kane Lucas

John Butcher

Ben Cunnington

Gary Rohan

Lewis Jetta

Luke Tapscott

Daniel Talia

Jake Carlisle

These 2 ruckman might go before 11 if its on a need basis for example

Nathan Vardy

Jack Fitzpatrick

My prediction is

11 Luke Tapscott

18 Jake Carlisle

Would be very happy if your predictions pan out Swampy! Would be happy with Carlisle at pick 18.He looks like he can take a decent contested mark and reads the play pretty well.

Ok, first things first.

LUKE MOLAN WAS NOT A DUD SELECTION - LUKE MOLAN WAS HIDEOUSLY CRUELLED BY INJURIES -AFTER- BEING RECRUITED

I don't normally resort to capitalisation, but this fact needs to be drilled into some people. The poor guy had the most appalling injury luck and it's really unfair on him as a person to keep on baggging him like he was a spud.

Second thing.

It has been widely (almost universally) acknowledged in the media and from the professionals when interviewed that you can 'throw a blanket over' draft selections from about 10 to the mid 20s. I.e. our picks. I've barely heard of a kid being rated as there around 11 who wasn't also a possible to be there at 18.

If there ever was a draft it pick for need, this is it. Especially since we already have two gun mids coming in, and even more so if Ball joins the party.

  hoopla said:

If HighTower or anyone else for that matter, has some spare time they will work out that Mr Cuthbertson just follows my posts around

Colin Sylvia for the Brownlow

Hoopla -I read nearly all the posts on Demonland. Due to your magic hands and strategic advice Colin has rejuventated his career and should poll votes if he plays like he did vs Hawthorn. Just don't take him out to Fog after curfew.

  Distance Demon said:

Ok, first things first.

LUKE MOLAN WAS NOT A DUD SELECTION - LUKE MOLAN WAS HIDEOUSLY CRUELLED BY INJURIES -AFTER- BEING RECRUITED

I don't normally resort to capitalisation, but this fact needs to be drilled into some people. The poor guy had the most appalling injury luck and it's really unfair on him as a person to keep on baggging him like he was a spud.

Second thing.

It has been widely (almost universally) acknowledged in the media and from the professionals when interviewed that you can 'throw a blanket over' draft selections from about 10 to the mid 20s. I.e. our picks. I've barely heard of a kid being rated as there around 11 who wasn't also a possible to be there at 18.

If there ever was a draft it pick for need, this is it. Especially since we already have two gun mids coming in, and even more so if Ball joins the party.

Well I'll agree with you on both counts

- on Molan because it is the decent thing to do [ even though CAC himself later admitted it was a mistake]

- on picking for need because you are absolutely right in our current circumstances!!

I don't believe "best available" is as simple as ranking draftees from 1 to a hundred and something and taking whoever is highest remaining on your list with the next pick. There'd come a point in every draft where it gets difficult to seperate kids and word has it that that point comes early this year. When the talent is difficult to seperate, you go with a need if it's an option.

BP pretty much confirms it in this article, http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/pick...f-1225791860759

"We certainly haven't locked down the type of player we are going to pick at No. 11. We are just rating and ranking the draft. If it's comparable talent we will go to the need," Prendergast said

If someone BP rates highly slips to 11, I have no doubt we'll take them regardless of what type of player they are. If a KPP is in a mix of players we consider to be pretty equal, we'll take the KPP.

If we end up with a small at 11 we should definately go tall with 18. There should be a few available who are considered to be around the mark.

  hoopla said:

The "However...." makes this sounds like " best available subject to needs"

Yes but I think that unless there was a player like Rohan or Cunnington to slide, Butcher would be better than any midfielder available, if he was there at pick 11.

I'm trying to imagine the conversation at our draft table ...

Chris Connolly: Now Bazza, you know we need a strong contested marking KP - pick one at 11.

Barry Prendergast: Yes agree Connolls but Sydney and Port picked the two I rate at 6 and 9 and now there's only flakey ones left and the fact that they picked KPs has let one of the mids I really rate slip through

CC: Doesn't matter, we've got to take a KP no matter what and anyway I read on BigFooty that you could throw a blanket over the lot of them from 10 to 25. Just pick one.

I think something alarmingly similar to that might have happened in 2001 - well not the BigFooty part but ...

CC and BP are not going to fall for that. BP has said he'll pick for need only if he thinks the players are equal.

The same argument applies at 18 - the later you get in the draft, the more you can take a risk, but we shouldn't be taking risks with 1st round selections.

  old55 said:

I'm trying to imagine the conversation at our draft table ...

Chris Connolly: Now Bazza, you know we need a strong contested marking KP - pick one at 11.

Barry Prendergast: Yes agree Connolls but Sydney and Port picked the two I rate at 6 and 9 and now there's only flakey ones left and the fact that they picked KPs has let one of the mids I really rate slip through

CC: Doesn't matter, we've got to take a KP no matter what and anyway I read on BigFooty that you could throw a blanket over the lot of them from 10 to 25. Just pick one.

I think something alarmingly similar to that might have happened in 2001 - well not the BigFooty part but ...

CC and BP are not going to fall for that. BP has said he'll pick for need only if he thinks the players are equal.

The same argument applies at 18 - the later you get in the draft, the more you can take a risk, but we shouldn't be taking risks with 1st round selections.

That used to happen on the Essendon table when Sheeds was around

Has anybody seen David Astbury play?

Maybe a likely pic up at pic 34.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...32/default.aspx

PS: Didnt want to start new thread.

  Carn dees said:

Has anybody seen David Astbury play?

Maybe a likely pic up at pic 34.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...32/default.aspx

PS: Didnt want to start new thread.

Bleeds red and blue.

  Distance Demon said:

Ok, first things first.

LUKE MOLAN WAS NOT A DUD SELECTION - LUKE MOLAN WAS HIDEOUSLY CRUELLED BY INJURIES -AFTER- BEING RECRUITED

I don't normally resort to capitalisation, but this fact needs to be drilled into some people. The poor guy had the most appalling injury luck and it's really unfair on him as a person to keep on baggging him like he was a spud.

Maybe but maybe not. I've seen him running around in a local league near my place and while he has had the occasional day out he has had some ordinary ones that could only be attributed to basic skill errors. Of course I never saw him pre draft so I'm not sure what to compare the 2009 model to, but I haven't seen anything that would make him anymore than a very good park footballer. Maybe it is the injuries and lack of training that did it but I'm still unconvinced that he would have made it if he was 100%.

  Distance Demon said:

Ok, first things first.

LUKE MOLAN WAS NOT A DUD SELECTION - LUKE MOLAN WAS HIDEOUSLY CRUELLED BY INJURIES -AFTER- BEING RECRUITED

I don't normally resort to capitalisation, but this fact needs to be drilled into some people. The poor guy had the most appalling injury luck and it's really unfair on him as a person to keep on baggging him like he was a spud.

The fact that Molan was struck by injuries is beside the point.

The fact is, in a 'Superdraft,' we decided to draft for needs and we got it horribly wrong.

Old is, as usual, right.

  old55 said:

I'm trying to imagine the conversation at our draft table ...

Chris Connolly: Now Bazza, you know we need a strong contested marking KP - pick one at 11.

Barry Prendergast: Yes agree Connolls but Sydney and Port picked the two I rate at 6 and 9 and now there's only flakey ones left and the fact that they picked KPs has let one of the mids I really rate slip through

CC: Doesn't matter, we've got to take a KP no matter what and anyway I read on BigFooty that you could throw a blanket over the lot of them from 10 to 25. Just pick one.

I think something alarmingly similar to that might have happened in 2001 - well not the BigFooty part but ...

CC and BP are not going to fall for that. BP has said he'll pick for need only if he thinks the players are equal.

The same argument applies at 18 - the later you get in the draft, the more you can take a risk, but we shouldn't be taking risks with 1st round selections.

The fact is that it is all a matter of guesswork - and the evidence is that a large pool of players are just about equal. Picks #11 and # 18 might be early picks - but they are also our last chance to put a bit of muscle on to list.

We should stop using 2001 to justify a policy which ignores need. If we did make a mistake then - it was in overlooking Brian Lake and failing to put Luke Molan through a properly tailored development program. There will be a couple of talls with potential out there - and we need to make sure we find them.

  hoopla said:

The fact is that it is all a matter of guesswork - and the evidence is that a large pool of players are just about equal. Picks #11 and # 18 might be early picks - but they are also our last chance to put a bit of muscle on to list.

We should stop using 2001 to justify a policy which ignores need. If we did make a mistake then - it was in overlooking Brian Lake and failing to put Luke Molan through a properly tailored development program. There will be a couple of talls with potential out there - and we need to make sure we find them.

I'd like us to get a contested marking KP too but only if he's worthy. All I'm trying to do is illustrate that there's a very real and reasonable scenario where we might pick up 4 mids with our first 4 picks.

If we do end up with 3 mids or 4 mids then I can understand why and I wont be crying to mummy and tearing my hair out like all those on this forum who demand a KP no matter what. Please yourself, but don't ask me to pass the tissues if it pans out that way ....

  old55 said:

I'd like us to get a contested marking KP too but only if he's worthy. All I'm trying to do is illustrate that there's a very real and reasonable scenario where we might pick up 4 mids with our first 4 picks.

If we do end up with 3 mids or 4 mids then I can understand why and I wont be crying to mummy and tearing my hair out like all those on this forum who demand a KP no matter what. Please yourself, but don't ask me to pass the tissues if it pans out that way ....

If it pans out that way - and BP has done a good job - then there must be a freakish dearth of tall 18 year olds with potential playing footy this year.

  old55 said:

I'd like us to get a contested marking KP too but only if he's worthy. All I'm trying to do is illustrate that there's a very real and reasonable scenario where we might pick up 4 mids with our first 4 picks.

If we do end up with 3 mids or 4 mids then I can understand why and I wont be crying to mummy and tearing my hair out like all those on this forum who demand a KP no matter what. Please yourself, but don't ask me to pass the tissues if it pans out that way ....

I know youtube highlights aren't a lot to go on but I thought Jack Carlisle could fit these requirements and he seems to be able to take a decent contested mark ! Reads the play pretty well too.

What do others that are a bit better informed think ? Could be a good pick up at 18 if he lasts to that pick? I thought he looked a bit better than Talia who seemed to play a bit more of a link man role out on his own a fair bit.

Ive seen him play live twice in the grand final he did barely nothing and in the other game he had no influence in the game.

The reason people are interested in him is his possible upside and athleticism.

If available at pick 18 id take him. But i think there would be much better at 11 than him even if it is a mid.

On talia if he was available at 11 i would be very happy with him.

Reminds me of Watts in his highlights exept less of a leading forward more of his mobility and marking for a big man, he was played as a defender though.