KPF should not be a priority in this draft

[green_machine 36]

Where did this formulated opinion that we do not have enough talls come from? Was it the fact that our forward line was rubbish this year and last? If that is the reason for the groundswell of opinion do you think our rubbish forward line was because of a lack of power forwards? or do you think the fact that with 40 inside 50s for a game any forward line is going to struggle?

The argument we should direct 11 & 18 on a KPF to my mind is foolish. There are at most 20-30 excellent talls in the game. Some sides have none (Melb, Rich, Coll, Syd, Kang, Ess) others have excellent talls in the backline but nothing up forward (Geel, WB, Adel) and others go the other way. Across all the teams there are no teams with top notch backmen and top notch forwards, but more to the point with only 20 top-line KPPs in the game it means that each draft only contributes at most 2 of these great KPP. Every year dozens of picks go towards talls, so your chance of getting a genuine top line KPP from the draft per tall picked is less than 10%. If we direct picks 11 & 18 towards a tall the chance of getting a top line KPP might be 20%, that means that 80% of the time we get at best a couple of NQR (good but not top line) talls.

WB needs NQR talls, Coll needs NQR talls but Melbourne does not need any more NQR talls. Our tall stocks are surprisingly well placed for depth with our 5th best tall and 10th best tall beating 90% of other clubs. Do the exercise of rating other teams talls vs Melbourne and it is pretty clear that Melbourne has depth in "Good" height.

For the sake of argument

Melb's best talls are Warnock, Frawley, Garland, Bate, Rivers, Jamar

Geelong's best talls are Scarlet, Harley, Mooney, Blake, Hawkins

Do you really think that the worst two out of Melbourne talls are worst than Blake & Hawkins. Personally I would take both PJ and Miller over those two and I do not even have them in our top 5. Of the top five teams last year only StKilda and potentially Adelaide had better depth talls than melbourne. We do not lack talls. This is wrong! I am not even sure we lack KPP, both Bate and Frawley more than hold their own against the average KPP and Warnock & Jamar are servicable.

This whole idea of needing to go KPP in the draft because we lack KPP is just herd mentality driving collective decision making. The continual repetitive statements that we should get a tall because we need a tall is frankly embarrassing. We need another genuine power forward. Agreed! The only teams that do not need a genuine power forward are Bris and St Kilda. Do we want to direct our picks to gamble on getting a top line power forward then the answer is No. It is No because unless they are top-line KPP they will not force their way into our team. Our depth of good talls means that we should not gamble on trying to get a top line power forward. Someone like WB should gamble because their outcomes are

10% top-line power forward. GREAT.

40% Good tall option. GREAT

50% dud. Not so good.

Melbourne on the hand gets a failure 90% of the time because if we do not hit pay dirt the pick is wasted.

[Gooner 9]

Whilst Geelong doesn't have a great supply of talls, their strength is a fantastic midfield and a top quality backline. Even they've got two talls up forward who are decent in Mooney and Tomahawk.

Contrast that to St Kilda and Hawthorn, and their style is based around two quality talls up forward. Whilst it's possible to win things without talls if you've got a brilliant midfield, in reality, we're going to need a couple of talls in compete with the top teams in a couple of years.

Bate isn't going to be the imposing full forward that we need, and whilst Watts could turn out to be a quality tall, I see him more as a CHF, and therefore we need a tall to be a full forward.

[Jarka 767]

Nice opening post & fwiw I agree.

[Footynut 302]

Thanks for a well put thought provoking post GM. I have been musing this point for some time. It feels like on this board alot of people are talking up all the tall forwards. But the question is, in this draft being compromised, where will the talls that are being talked up rate comparitive to other years. You are quite right most years even drafts that were great we haven't seen a huge amount of depth of great talls drafted.

IMO the only 2 that are anywhere close to being worth any early pick are Butcher and Talia it would seem all others from a KPP are a big punt.

There are good reasons also why we would do this. One is structure the ability to stand tall and be a target but also being able to take the Best back and split packs to bring others into the game in the forward line is something we do not have at all. Bate is a lead up player, as is Miller, even Robbo wa too small to provide this option. But that would be about it. Every other player would be a punt. I guess the other question to consider is the fact our ability to find a great power forward in future drafts is going to be almost zero and therefore this is our last chance to punt in a draft that we hold the cards.

The other way we could go is to go with pick 11 and 18 for tapscott or stevens type players. If these guys turn out we may see more immediate performance and in turn we may have more quality to trade for a kpp down the track if needed which it would seem the only other way to get one.

Your assertion is correct and well made Kpp that are great are rare as hens teeth. I would ask you then based on your theory what MFC's dream draft should look like in your opinion.

[H_T 3,043]

We do not lack talls. This is wrong!

- green_machine

Formulated opinion or Forumulated opinion ?

Fwiw I have only picked one KPP out of 11,18. I'm not really a fan using two KPP on them, as you'll note in another thread I'm eyeing another mid at pick 18. See Closest to pin thread.

When you're comparing Melbourne's talls to others, you've listed basically the backline and haven't really focused on the forward line - I don't really consider Bate a tall by the way, because he doesn't really play "tall". Others such as PJ and Miller are frustrating.

We may not lack talls as you put it, but we lack a quality tall forward in my opinion.

I think it comes down to how well you want our side to be. I hope for a future dominant midfield with good many options up forward to finish the business with a more than capable backline that can keep the opposition to low scores.

edit: When I say we lack a quality tall forward, Newton is not the answer, and I believe Watts and the likes of Jurrah will need help; make the forward line more multi-dimensional.

Edited November 13, 2009 by High Tower

[Footynut 302]

Agreed HT I think we are on the same page. I wonder where BP sits. Would still love to hear GMs dream draft.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

That's one of the all-time great spin posts I've seen. And while I agree with basically none of your statistical analysis, I applaud it anyway for being what an OP should be.

FWIW, Look at the dogs. They're bereft of talls, and it's costing them in a big way.

As a squad we have great KP defenders, but we're lacking a 60-goal forward. We have a few players that show signs, like Watts and Jurrah, but we're not there yet, and we still have depth to recruit.

And while you're right about the delivery being poor, I don't think that you can attribute our poor attack to that alone. The players never made good space (except Bate) to be the kind of targets you need as a midfielder. Even Jurrah didn't (he didn't need to ).

In other words, yes the delivery was crap, but so were the forwards. We need a handful of talls, as Newton, Dunn, maybe Miller would probably not make many other clubs' lists at this point in time.

[Ryan Dee 140]

Where did this formulated opinion that we do not have enough talls come from? Was it the fact that our forward line was rubbish this year and last? If that is the reason for the groundswell of opinion do you think our rubbish forward line was because of a lack of power forwards? or do you think the fact that with 40 inside 50s for a game any forward line is going to struggle?

The argument we should direct 11 & 18 on a KPF to my mind is foolish. There are at most 20-30 excellent talls in the game. Some sides have none (Melb, Rich, Coll, Syd, Kang, Ess) others have excellent talls in the backline but nothing up forward (Geel, WB, Adel) and others go the other way. Across all the teams there are no teams with top notch backmen and top notch forwards, but more to the point with only 20 top-line KPPs in the game it means that each draft only contributes at most 2 of these great KPP. Every year dozens of picks go towards talls, so your chance of getting a genuine top line KPP from the draft per tall picked is less than 10%. If we direct picks 11 & 18 towards a tall the chance of getting a top line KPP might be 20%, that means that 80% of the time we get at best a couple of NQR (good but not top line) talls.

WB needs NQR talls, Coll needs NQR talls but Melbourne does not need any more NQR talls. Our tall stocks are surprisingly well placed for depth with our 5th best tall and 10th best tall beating 90% of other clubs. Do the exercise of rating other teams talls vs Melbourne and it is pretty clear that Melbourne has depth in "Good" height.

For the sake of argument

Melb's best talls are Warnock, Frawley, Garland, Bate, Rivers, Jamar

Geelong's best talls are Scarlet, Harley, Mooney, Blake, Hawkins

Do you really think that the worst two out of Melbourne talls are worst than Blake & Hawkins. Personally I would take both PJ and Miller over those two and I do not even have them in our top 5. Of the top five teams last year only StKilda and potentially Adelaide had better depth talls than melbourne. We do not lack talls. This is wrong! I am not even sure we lack KPP, both Bate and Frawley more than hold their own against the average KPP and Warnock & Jamar are servicable.

This whole idea of needing to go KPP in the draft because we lack KPP is just herd mentality driving collective decision making. The continual repetitive statements that we should get a tall because we need a tall is frankly embarrassing. We need another genuine power forward. Agreed! The only teams that do not need a genuine power forward are Bris and St Kilda. Do we want to direct our picks to gamble on getting a top line power forward then the answer is No. It is No because unless they are top-line KPP they will not force their way into our team. Our depth of good talls means that we should not gamble on trying to get a top line power forward. Someone like WB should gamble because their outcomes are

10% top-line power forward. GREAT.

40% Good tall option. GREAT

50% dud. Not so good.

Melbourne on the hand gets a failure 90% of the time because if we do not hit pay dirt the pick is wasted.

Thumbs up.

You pick the player who is going to better the teams performance no matter what type of player.

[Ryan Dee 140]

Can someone find the % of goals from inside 50's?

This would be the best stat to see how effective our forward line is.

[H_T 3,043]

There are at most 20-30 excellent talls in the game. Some sides have none (Melb, Rich, Coll, Syd, Kang, Ess) ..........

Our depth of good talls means that we should not gamble on trying to get a top line power forward.

Thought I would re-visit. So we've gone from having no excellent talls to having a depth of good talls... .

Care to differentiate ?

edit: If excellent means 'stars', it would make sense.

Edited November 13, 2009 by High Tower

[godees 861]

Thought I would re-visit. So we've gone from having no excellent talls to having a depth of good talls... .

excellent, i.e. stars, does not equal good. we have a lot of good talls but no star talls.

Another point is that a forwardline doesn't need to have a lots of good tall forwards to be effective. IMO we only really need one good tall forward (watts hopefully), who can work with our undersized talls (jurrah, Bate), smalls (wonna, maric, petterd), and other types we can rotate through (Green, Sylvia, Bruce, DUnn, morton). Plus the possibility of moving Garland up forward, pending his recovery. IMO that makes for a pretty dynamic forwardline.

So yes, we probably could do with another KPP forward, but it is not urgent and we should be going best available (at least at 11, 18 is fair game i guess).

[Diablo Deemon 220]

MFC don't need any KPF's

Give me Dunstall and Brereton - 5 premierships

Give me Brown and Lynch - 3 premierships

Give me Ablett and Brownless - Over 1400 goals between them

Give me Hall and O'Loughlin- Premiership

Even Lynch and Hansen who are average won a premiership

Kosi, Riewoldt

Brown, Fev

Neitz, Schwarz

Lyon, Neitz

Jakovich, Bennett

The teams with the 20-30 quality/excellent KPF's kick the goals win the games and win premierships

MFC wants premierships they'll take the best player at the best pick according to need

once we have fulfilled the obligation to an underperforming midfield KPF's are absolutely necessary.

It's no good having a star midfield if there's no one to kick it too.

In a side there are 5-7 players who play key position out of a side of 22 that's between 22-31% of a team

The GC because they are building a side from the bottom up currently have 12 players out of 23 or 52% of their side is listed above 190cm which is approx

the shortest you'd need to be to play KP.

Of the 2008 draft the top 10 50% were KPP

of the 2007 the top 10 drafted 60% were above 190cm

Of the 2006 the top 10 drafted 50% were above 190cm

If you don't think 11 and 18 shouldn't be a priority for KPP/tall above 190cm you're off your rocker.

[furious d 464]

It's difficult to find elite mids too, we haven't had one since Robbie Flower. Do you think we should bypass Scully and Trengove?

The club has stated on numerous occasions that it'd like to recruit a tall forward, but what would they know. I'd also like to point out that Quinten Lynch and Cameron Mooney are premiership full forwards. We don't necessarily need a star KPF, hopefully we've already got one. All we need is a servicable player with a big body to compliment Watts. We're much more likely to find someone that fits that description at 11 or 18 than 34 or 50, because as you say quality big men are hard to find.

[Gooner 9]

It's a massive risk not to take a tall forward.

Whilst Geelong and West Coast have won a flag without a top quality full foward, they're the only sides of the last decade to do so. They were only able to win a flag without a quality full forward because they had sensational midfields. I hope that our midfield could rival that of West Coast or Geelong, but it's a massive risk to not recruit a forward because we're assuming our midfield will be enough to get us through.

[Bay Riffin 1,474]

Of course we need a big bodied key forward. We will be competing with Hawthorn when our time comes and they have Buddy and Roughhead.

We must get at least a strong body preferably at full forward who can play that role.

It's a must especially as Watts has shown he can play on ball for stints, so it would be useful to have a big bloke to kick to.

[The Chazz 4,077]

It's difficult to find elite mids too, we haven't had one since Robbie Flower. Do you think we should bypass Scully and Trengove?

The club has stated on numerous occasions that it'd like to recruit a tall forward, but what would they know. I'd also like to point out that Quinten Lynch and Cameron Mooney are premiership full forwards. We don't necessarily need a star KPF, hopefully we've already got one. All we need is a servicable player with a big body to compliment Watts. We're much more likely to find someone that fits that description at 11 or 18 than 34 or 50, because as you say quality big men are hard to find.

Stef Martin?

I don't think Stef is going to be our number 2 ruckman, just a big bloke that can swing in there if need be. We will have 2 key ruckman for most games, then Stef can fill in when the on-ground ruck is out of position.

I'm believe the opinion that you need a KPF to win a flag - just look at the Dogs, they haven't had one since Chris Grant (but didn't have a good team around him), now they have a handy team good enough to win a flag, but no key forward.

For me, the jury is out on any of the KPP in this draft. If there isn't much difference between the KPF's and VArdy, I'd take Vardy before any of them.

[Disco Demons 92]

Even they've got two talls up forward who are decent in Mooney and Tomahawk.

cough

mooney is a very average forward who gets the ball delivered laces out in front everytime by elite midfield....Tomahawk is ok...but hasn't really lived up to what they thought he would.

Steve johnson played 16 games and kicked 39 goals....VS cam mooney 21 games and 41...that's your full forward vs goal sneak

Mattew Lloyd would have kicked 100 plus a season at the cats...

[green_machine 36]

My point was less about how useful a KPF would be... A top KPF would be great, but rather about our ability to speculate in the draft to try and get one. A 60 goal KPF is great but in the past decade their has been how many of them... maybe ten.... Fev, Brown, Hall (?), Richo (?), Riweolt, Franklin, Roughhead, Pav and in any given year maybe 5 score more than 60 goals.

Yet as Diablo pointed out over 50% of top ten picks are 190 cm or above and could play KPF and presumably the trend extends backwards in drafts. What that tells you is people keep picking talls and they do not magically become a franchise KPF. My point is that if we pick tall and get a PJ or a Garland or a Dunn which is a pass mark for picks 11 or 18 then we are no better off. If we go a midfielder and we get a Jones or a grimes or a green or a bruce or a moloney which also represents a pass mark then that midfield running player will contribute to our premiership. We have enough serviceable players over 190 on our list, in fact we have an excess of them which is a blessing.

In regards to my preferred options at 11 & 18 in the draft, I do not have any. I have not seen any under 18 football live and nor have I interviewed any potential draft picks so I am not going to speculate based off highlight clips that Player A has loaded of himself onto the internet. Whoever Melbourne picks I will support.

Perversely if Melbourne selects a tall we are better of selecting a Newton type, who has the potential to make it big but probably will not make it all, rather than selecting a Bate sort who will succeed but probably not as a true KPF. Another good tall just will not help at this point. For the record I think Bate is great and at my work when the Judd trade was being talked about, he was the few I put on the table as untouchable.

[Roost It 1,434]

Our realistic Tall forward options aside from Watts are Miller, Martin and Garland. I will always applaud Miller for his endeavour but is he good enough to help us win a Premeirship? Martin, a chance but will possibly play a role in various positions. Garland, if he plays again he's just not got the size we need to support our other forwards. If our young midfield fulfills it's slated Potential then what I think we need is a big bodied KPF such as Butcher who can either mark the ball and kick the goal or knock over 2 opponents trying, allowing Watts, Jurrah, Bate, Sylvia, Davey and co. to seal the deal. Personally I'm hoping we land Butcher at 11.

I think Green Machine makes a good case but I disagree. The lineup we now have would relish a KPF such as Butcher.

I also think that in 4 to 5 years time Watts will be a very big lad and teemed with a Butcher and flanked by the likes of Jurrah, Bate, Maric, Wonaemirri, Morton and others would make us nigh on unbeatable.

Unleash Hell Demons.

[The Big Ticket 94]

Can someone find the % of goals from inside 50's?

This would be the best stat to see how effective our forward line is.

From memory, ours is actually pretty good. The last two years, we've been a HUGE way back in the amount of inside 50's we get, compared to other teams. I think 2008 was a record low. This will no doubt improve next year, with all the highly rated mids getting plenty of game time.

Drafting talls shouldn't be a priority, but if a decent KPP was available at 11 or 18, we should take it. Reading through BF, most are saying Black is likely to be drafted by us at 11, but most think he's definitely not the best available kid at pick 11.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Our realistic Tall forward options aside from Watts are Miller, Martin and Garland. I will always applaud Miller for his endeavour but is he good enough to help us win a Premeirship? Martin, a chance but will possibly play a role in various positions. Garland, if he plays again he's just not got the size we need to support our other forwards. If our young midfield fulfills it's slated Potential then what I think we need is a big bodied KPF such as Butcher who can either mark the ball and kick the goal or knock over 2 opponents trying, allowing Watts, Jurrah, Bate, Sylvia, Davey and co. to seal the deal. Personally I'm hoping we land Butcher at 11.

I think Green Machine makes a good case but I disagree. The lineup we now have would relish a KPF such as Butcher.

I also think that in 4 to 5 years time Watts will be a very big lad and teemed with a Butcher and flanked by the likes of Jurrah, Bate, Maric, Wonaemirri, Morton and others would make us nigh on unbeatable.

Unleash Hell Demons.

I don't think Martin will play a variety of roles. At the moment, sure, while we are/were losing games, he was probably the best one to experiment with. I think now that we are looking at winning more games, Bails will try and keep him up forward. He proved this year that he can take a pretty strong, contested mark, this trait will only get better as he gets older and stronger. I think you will find in 2-3 years, Stef Martin will be our big body full forward.

Personally, in 3 years time, I would love to see Watts in that CHF role that can have an impact in the midfield, and have Martin as FF, then drop Watts back to FF while Martin roams around 50m out. I don't think Butcher will get that big to be able to be the big full forward that people expect him to be, but who knows, trying to figure out what kids will develop and which ones wont is a bit of a lottery. That said, it's obvious with Martin's body that he will be a big body when he stops growing.

[Roost It 1,434]

I don't think Martin will play a variety of roles. At the moment, sure, while we are/were losing games, he was probably the best one to experiment with. I think now that we are looking at winning more games, Bails will try and keep him up forward. He proved this year that he can take a pretty strong, contested mark, this trait will only get better as he gets older and stronger. I think you will find in 2-3 years, Stef Martin will be our big body full forward.

Personally, in 3 years time, I would love to see Watts in that CHF role that can have an impact in the midfield, and have Martin as FF, then drop Watts back to FF while Martin roams around 50m out. I don't think Butcher will get that big to be able to be the big full forward that people expect him to be, but who knows, trying to figure out what kids will develop and which ones wont is a bit of a lottery. That said, it's obvious with Martin's body that he will be a big body when he stops growing.

I thought the same thing earlier in the year. Now I think he could well end up as a mobile second ruckman who can play forward or back as needed. I reckon this is the role the club has in mind and I think he'd be very good at it. I don't think he's going to become what you hope. John Butcher's the bloke we want and I'll keep saying that until he proves me wrong, then I'll be either glad he became a dud at Port or be gutted when we trade him for pick 40 in a weak draft.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I thought the same thing earlier in the year. Now I think he could well end up as a mobile second ruckman who can play forward or back as needed. I reckon this is the role the club has in mind and I think he'd be very good at it. I don't think he's going to become what you hope. John Butcher's the bloke we want and I'll keep saying that until he proves me wrong, then I'll be either glad he became a dud at Port or be gutted when we trade him for pick 40 in a weak draft.

Martin has very good balance, can turn well and can kick a goal, he is a good mark and will get better at it when he has a bit more experience. I would hate to see him used as a ruckman and get beaten about every week. He has the potential to be a quality forward.

We have a number of players that can kick goals such as LJ, Wonna, Morton, Sylvia, Green, Bate and sometimes Miller, we also have a fairly big guy in Dunn who imo should be tried in the forward line and not in the middle. I reckon we could be wasting a valuable pick if we take a tall at 11 and would rather have Tapscott, who can kick goals, Melksham or Lucas. If you rely on a power forward in modern football you risk losing your scoring capacity if he is injured.

[rpfc 28,384]

We need good players, not depth.

There is no point going for KPF at 11 or 18 unless the bloke is going to be good enough to demand the footy in a forward line where the mids will be going to Watts and Jurrah.

He better be a bloody good prospect...

[Little Goffy 14,521]

I'm a big fan of having the maximum variety of avenues to goal, so that no single player is critically important.

If Riewolt had been injured for the Saints finals campaign, would they have made it past the Bulldogs, lets alone Geelong?

But even Gary Ablett Jnr doesn't define the whole hopes of Geelong. He's very handy, no doubt. But there's another Brownlow medallist in there, and Corey Enright was equal winner of the club best and fairest.

So my perspective is, maximise the number of midfielders who can rotate forward or forwards who can contribute to the midfield (Sylvia, Green, Trengove, Bate, Davey, hopefully Maric and Blease, and if I had my way in the draft, Moore). Plus a couple of genuiely 'special' athletic forwards like Watts and Jurrah, ideally with a bit of heavy contested marking power in the mix - my reason for looking at Griifiths. I also like Griffiths precisely because he represents a win-loss scenario rather than a middle of the range situation - either the injuries will screw his career, or he'll deliver the underlying talent and strength that has recruiters saying he'd be top ten if not for the injuries.

Key forwards is quality over quantity, always.