THE THIRD DRAFT

[BAMF 4,385]

You can't replace your best players. Mitch Thorp was recruited as depth for Roughhead and Franklin - how did that work out? Recruiting for depth in the first round? You can argue that you're not sold on Watts, Jurrah, and Bate and that another talented forward will be needed if they don't come on but that's an argument I would love to have.

Thorp was not recruited as depth. At the time of drafting Buddy and Roughead had not shown that they were either were going to make it.

There is no way we will be using pick 11 on a depth player.

I see what your getting at rpfc. I doubt Butcher will slide to 11. We would be massively overpaying for Griffiths, Carlisle or Panos at 11.

Ive got no idea about Black.

[DirtyDees DDC 187]

These are the thoughts I want BP to go through - he has to select, not the best tall at that stage of the draft, but a tall who would have as much potential as Watts and Jurrah.

It can take 3-5 years to develop a KPF. And it's not an exact science. Let's look at the 2006 draft. We picked Petterd at 30. Ricky's had an interrupted career so far this year because of injuries, but he showed a lot of promise against Port and Richmond. At pick 32 was a tall kid called Tippet who had serious injury issues at the time. And he came from Queensland!! He finally strung a few games together this year and he looks verry good. Adelaide had a gap in their list, so they picked a guy who had less potential than 31 other players that year.

I believe there is a core of talls this year who all show potential and are worthy of selection at 11 and 18. I also see a gap in our list of forwards in 3-5 years that i don't see in our midfield or defence. And I don't see Bate as one of the key position forwards, but i may be wrong in a big way. Bate could do some serious damage next year as a running forward.

You know the crazy thing with this draft? There is more interest in who we pick at 11, 18 and 34, than who we pick at 1 and 2.

Edited November 21, 2009 by DirtyDees DDC

[rpfc 28,733]

You know the crazy thing with this draft? There is more interest in who we pick at 11, 18 and 34, than who we pick at 1 and 2.

The interest is in the unknown.

We know who will be 1 and 2.

We don't know who will be 11, 18, and 34.

I am well aware that KPFs take longer, and their talent is harder to gauge (which is how Tippett made it to 32), but I don't see how a tall at Pick 11 having the impact we want a Pick 11 to have unless he is as talented as Watts and Jurrah.

If the best player at 11 is a KPF, by all means take him, but if he isn't, the odds are against that tall having a positive impact on our flag tilt, as opposed to another mid who we can always do with. Especially that early in the draft.

Edited November 22, 2009 by rpfc

[DirtyDees DDC 187]

I am well aware that KPFs take longer, and their talent is harder to gauge (which is how Tippett made it to 32), but I don't see how a tall at Pick 11 having the impact we want a Pick 11 to have unless he is as talented as Watts and Jurrah.

haha. '..as talented as Watts and Jurrah'. good grief. i'm glad you're not asking for too much!!

If anyone in this draft has as much potential as Watts and Jurrah, they will go a lot earlier than pick 11. Let's hope we get lucky again.

[Guest watts04]

Jurrah is a roaming third tall/flanker and 11 should be used on a tall not best available. A tall up forward and another quality ruck are two gaping holes in our list.

Watts needs someone to grow with and all the succesful teams have two big mountains up forward.

Think Brown and Bradshaw, Mooney and Hawkins, Franklin and Roughy, Kosi and Riewoldt

[hoopla 418]

Jurrah is a roaming third tall/flanker and 11 should be used on a tall not best available. A tall up forward and another quality ruck are two gaping holes in our list.

Watts needs someone to grow with and all the succesful teams have two big mountains up forward.

Think Brown and Bradshaw, Mooney and Hawkins, Franklin and Roughy, Kosi and Riewoldt

Absolutely correct ... a side with power forward options is far more likely to succeed than one without - and Watts and Jurrah are far more likely to have long successful careers if there is someone alongside them who can apply a bit of physical pressure.

If Barry Hall is on his game ( big if!), the Bulldogs will be a stronger contender in 2010 than they were in 2009

[Redleg 41,405]

Absolutely correct ... a side with power forward options is far more likely to succeed than one without - and Watts and Jurrah are far more likely to have long successful careers if there is someone alongside them who can apply a bit of physical pressure.

If Barry Hall is on his game ( big if!), the Bulldogs will be a stronger contender in 2010 than they were in 2009

I have always believed that with two good key forwards the backline opponents concentrate on them leaving flankers and mids to chip in for goals.

[45HG 1,559]

Depth does not win premierships - quality does.

[Redleg 41,405]

Depth does not win premierships - quality does.

On Grand Final day that is correct, but you will never get there in todays football with out depth either.

[45HG 1,559]

Tell that to Sydney.

[1858 285]

The issue is that we should not look to get the best KP player at 11 or 18 unless we can see that player being able to command a decent amount of football in a forward line containing Watts, Jurrah, and Bate.

Should we be applying the same predicate with respect to midfield options at 11 and 18? Assuming we get Scully and Trengove, should we just say don't bother on another mid if they don't command a decent amount of footy in a midfield of Moloney, Jones, Sylvia, Grimes, Scully, Trengove, Blease etc?

I would hope the club is not that narrow minded with respect to talent in any position when looking at the big picture.

__________________

I will run through a few arguments for going for a KPF at 11.

"We need a tall, deep target to take the pressure off Jurrah and Watts"

Now this the argument for a big lump in the square crashing packs, provide a 'release target,' and kicking the odd bag. Can Jamar do that? Can Martin do that? Can you afford to carry a player like that who doesn't have another role (ie ruckman)? Does Black have the physique for that? Does Talia?

A KPF regardless of size requires forward instincts and talent. Do you see Jamar bagging 3 or more regularly and how likely do you think it is that he will even be there on a regular basis given he is probably our #1 ruckman? Martin I doubt is a permanent option either, he still has room for improvement as a defender let alone being a forward. A makeshift player is the last thing we need up there for the next 5-10 years, we need quality.

"We need a big body to make Jurrah a 3rd tall so he can do more damage"

Just because you want him to be the '3rd tall' doesn't mean he will get the '3rd best defender' or that our midfielders will kick it to him any less. As I said before, if Pick 11 is going to make Jurrah a '3rd tall' - he better be effing good! Is there someone that good in the draft? Is Black THAT good? Is Talia THAT good?

These are the thoughts I want BP to go through - he has to select, not the best tall at that stage of the draft, but a tall who would have as much potential as Watts and Jurrah.

Even if Jurrah hypothetically did get the best defender, what better way to exploit that than to have other forward options on lesser defenders? Giving the opposition headaches is what it is all about. Then on top of injuries there is plain old bad form to contend with, there are no guarantees with any forward line.

"We need depth in our talls in case Watts, Jurrah, or Bate get injured"

You can't replace your best players. Mitch Thorp was recruited as depth for Roughhead and Franklin - how did that work out? Recruiting for depth in the first round? You can argue that you're not sold on Watts, Jurrah, and Bate and that another talented forward will be needed if they don't come on but that's an argument I would love to have.

Of course you can replace your best players. Adelaide's prime tall playing forwards are Tippett, Hentschel and Burton. They have Taylor Walker as a developing youngster to fill in (14 games) but Craig even said he is not in their best 22. Then they have 192 cm Andy Otten who I would say plays a very similar role to what Bate does at Melbourne pushing through the 50 arc and presenting or getting possesion and attacking through 50 to find a target or goal - he played 22 games this year. Also of note is their draft recruit of 196 cm Shaun McKernan who they described with "He’s strong on the lead and can also take a good pack mark, so he’s difficult to man up on". McKernan would have got more games if it wasn't for injury.

Sheesh, what a wealth of riches to have at your disposal. I know who's shoes I would prefer to be in if Melbourne left their future up to just Watts, Jurrah and Bate. If anything, Adelaide shows that if the tall players emerge then you can accomodate them quite effectively.

If we had the development record of say Adelaide then I would have more faith in our ability to take say a 34, 50 pick tall and turn them into a dangerous forward but I am not that confident. The club has hinted at a tall which suggests they believe our forward line is not yet complete/adequate for the future. Logic suggests we have a better chance of getting a good forward at 11 than at later picks. I understand the appeal in getting a mid at 11 in the event of being the best player but what happens if the club then prioritises 18 as a KPF? 18 is less likely to be as good a forward as what 11 would command (in principle) so over all we may be no better off and we get a lesser player to fill in a position of apparent need which does not bode well. I think at 34 or 50 we'd be wasting our time almost at Newtonian levels.

I think the draft and how we go about it is far too complex for us to come up with rules/predicates on how to go about it. I am not necessarily pro mid or pro tall at 11 I am pro common sense based on our direction and I think the club has a better graps of our needs and strategies going forward than any of us. Even "best available" is no clear option without weighing up all factors. A Butcher/Black/Talia could help us immensely up forward just as another great mid could be useful to add to our stocks. None of us ultimately know how much the club rates the top couple of talls relative to the rest of the pack or for that matter any mids that slide so we don't know how much importance they place on getting in at 11 regardless of best available.

Worry not and leave it to BP.

[rpfc 28,733]

Some of you are missing my major points.

- Just because you say so, that does not mean Jurrah can be made into a 3rd option. He is our best forward at the moment and will receive the greatest attention. Black or Talia or whoever can't be 'just another option' for Jurrah to be relegated. Does that sink in to anyone?

- With Watts and Jurrah in the 50, who is good enough from the talls that we might take at 11 to divert the attention of our mids streaming through the middle. If you say that that player is depth then you are wasting a 1st round pick on depth, if you say that that player will be the third tall I would say we are wasting a first round pick on a third tall, and that he would have to be better than Bate.

I am going to watch Sunday Night so I will be back later if anyone wishes to discuss this further.

[1858 285]

Your major points are based on rigid assumptions which miss the point IMO. I understand what you are getting at but I don't follow the strict mechanics of it - too simplistic for mine.

- Just because you say so, that does not mean Jurrah can be made into a 3rd option. He is our best forward at the moment and will receive the greatest attention. Black or Talia or whoever can't be 'just another option' for Jurrah to be relegated. Does that sink in to anyone?

Not sure what others think rpfc but I think your scenario could hold true next year, after that who knows? As I said previously, that isn't necessarily a major concern straight off the bat. If Jurrah cops the best defender then there isn't too much we can do about it except try and exploit it with more quality forward options. Also the more options you have, the more likely that you can get an opposition making changes with their match ups. If we just stick with say Jurrah, Watts and Bate as our future forward line we'll become predictable and more often than not Jurrah will cop the best defenders. In any event, what does it really matter if there isn't a talented enough forward to relegate Jurrah from being our most "dangerous" forward? As long as we get a good quality forward who compliments the others and the team that is all that matters. Jurrah's talent is a bonus to our side not a barrier, I don't see how we can waste pick 11 simply because the player in question may not be more dangerous than him straight off the bat. Again, same arguement with midfield - if we can't get a mid with pick 11 who cops a better tagger than Scully or Trengove are we wasting that pick? (sounds moronic I know but that is what you are more or less implying in a forward line context).

- With Watts and Jurrah in the 50, who is good enough from the talls that we might take at 11 to divert the attention of our mids streaming through the middle. If you say that that player is depth then you are wasting a 1st round pick on depth, if you say that that player will be the third tall I would say we are wasting a first round pick on a third tall, and that he would have to be better than Bate.

You don't ask for much lol. Perhaps ring up BP for an expert analysis.

Although I think 11 could snare quite a good KPF, it isn't just about who but about how many. Redundancy is a great thing, if two forwards are ineffectual then maybe the third will bob up and so on. Trying to play guessing games about who our mids will kick the ball to without any context of game plan, personnel, opposition, game day variables such as certain players being blanketed, form of players etc strikes me as a very trivial excercise. It is also something that may not be easily answered until we get a full year under the belts of 2 or 3 key forwards. I think your assertions are very short sighted and I think in my previous post I gave a good example of how a greater group of quality forwards can compliment each other (and develop) rather than plucking rules out of nowhere about how he has to be better than him etc.

I realise rpfc your post was addressing many other posters as well so I didn't take your post personally.

[rpfc 28,733]

Not sure what others think rpfc but I think your scenario could hold true next year, after that who knows? As I said previously, that isn't necessarily a major concern straight off the bat. If Jurrah cops the best defender then there isn't too much we can do about it except try and exploit it with more quality forward options. Also the more options you have, the more likely that you can get an opposition making changes with their match ups. If we just stick with say Jurrah, Watts and Bate as our future forward line we'll become predictable and more often than not Jurrah will cop the best defenders.

So Watts and Jurrah will become stale and predictable? Like Franklin and Roughead? Brown and Fevola?

And for there to be multiple options, the choices have to be near enough in quality to attract the attention of the ball that would normally go to the 1st option. Cameron Cloke was another option in Carlton's forward line, but that didn't mean that 1) the midfielders kicked it too him over Fevola, or 2) that he would be good enough to take advantage of the same delivery.

We are only talking KPFs here - not the entire forward line. We have plenty of smaller options to compliment Jurrah, Watts, and Bate. There is your variety should you need it.

In any event, what does it really matter if there isn't a talented enough forward to relegate Jurrah from being our most "dangerous" forward? As long as we get a good quality forward who compliments the others and the team that is all that matters.

I think Jurrah is good enough to be the most dangerous forward, for a decade, in a flag...

I am ridiculing those that think there is going to be a talent at Pick 11 who will relegate Jurrah to a 3rd tall. Pick 11 will be the third tall, or the 4th tall, if you are willing to invest Pick 11 on a 3rd tall or a 4th tall then by all means, but I can see the sense if BP isn't willing to invest Pick 11.

Jurrah's talent is a bonus to our side not a barrier, I don't see how we can waste pick 11 simply because the player in question may not be more dangerous than him straight off the bat. Again, same arguement with midfield - if we can't get a mid with pick 11 who cops a better tagger than Scully or Trengove are we wasting that pick? (sounds moronic I know but that is what you are more or less implying in a forward line context).

That is not my argument at all. And it certainly isn't moronic. I am saying that if his perceived potential is that he could be as good ad Jurrah and Watts then pick him up. But if he isn't then we are spending Pick 11 on a third tall, who may also be a speculative pick (I have said before that if the best player available is a KPF then of course we take him). Midfielders are different; you need more good mids than good KPFs, and they are easier to spot at draft age. These variables make recruiting mids easier than recruiting talls. It is as simple as that.

Although I think 11 could snare quite a good KPF, it isn't just about who but about how many. Redundancy is a great thing, if two forwards are ineffectual then maybe the third will bob up and so on. Trying to play guessing games about who our mids will kick the ball to without any context of game plan, personnel, opposition, game day variables such as certain players being blanketed, form of players etc strikes me as a very trivial excercise. It is also something that may not be easily answered until we get a full year under the belts of 2 or 3 key forwards. I think your assertions are very short sighted and I think in my previous post I gave a good example of how a greater group of quality forwards can compliment each other (and develop) rather than plucking rules out of nowhere about how he has to be better than him etc.

Going over heavily trodden ground here but we had Smith for depth - how did that work out? Hawthorn drafted Thorp knowing full well that there was no place for him in the side, all things being equal (no injuries, trades, 'Carey-like infractions' etc. from Roughhead and Franklin), and now he is training with us. Is Newton depth?

Would the opposition play guessing games with Newton in our forward line?

Pick 11 will no doubt be better than Newton and he may well turn into a productive forward, but I am simply asking the question - would you prefer the lesser player at Pick 11 - a 3rd tall in the forward line - or would you prefer the best midfielder available at that stage of the draft?

(Again, I stress, if the best player available at 11 is a KPF then there is no argument from me on recruiting him)

Edited November 22, 2009 by rpfc

[H_T 3,049]

Firstly, I think rpfc has raised a very good thread topic of which we can discuss the pro's and cons with respect to pick 11 and/or 18 for the Mfc. Despite it being an irritation.

I'm concious of the fact that we need to develop an A-class midfield if we want to contend for a flag. Which mind you, is the ultimate aim/goal of a football club. Or it should be. (However, we won't go there because this was all well covered in a popular thread earlier in the year - ref:Hannibal) .

I must admit of I have swayed to and from midfielder and KPP for our 3rd pick. (pick 11). For some time.

I keep coming back to a variety of aspects which bug me from time to time, I feel like I am on an endless swinging pendulum. KP, mid, Kp, mid, Kp, mid ....on and on and on.

I can certainly see rpfc's view on the topic, and it certainly firmly solidifies my belief of obtaining an A-class midfield.

With respect to the KPP point of view, these are the factors that go through my mind, which sway me (in no particular order): -

a/ Newton delisted

b/ Miller ?

c/ next few compromised drafts

d/ Martin ?

e/ No ruck that can go forward and kick goals - Jamar questionnable..

f/ upcoming compromised drafts

g/ still have Strauss & Blease in the wings for mid(s)

h/ Drafting Scully & Trengove

i/ expect to draft other mids with pick 18,34, ...50?

j/ upcoming compromised drafts

k/ we have 1,2,11,18,34,50, PSD#1....hell one of them has to be a KP, doesn't it ?

These are the aspects of what I think from the "Go-mid" at pick 11...(no particular order)

a/ We have Watts & Jurrah

b/ Try Garland or Martin if need be to go forward

c/ Bate had a pretty good year up forward, mobile option who would relish with Watts & Jurrah in the 50.

d/ We need an A-class midfield

- this comes to me more often than anything

e/ Throw Jamar into 50 or alternate Jamar and Martin in the forward 50/ruck

f/ We've got Sylvia, Green & Morton who can help out, what the f%$k do I want another KP for ?

g/ FCS let's get the midfield right !

At the end of the day, this is pretty much what I am telling myself now: -

The issue is that we should not look to get the best KP player at 11 or 18 unless we can see that player being able to command a decent amount of football in a forward line containing Watts, Jurrah, and Bate.

Just on this, I thought 1858 raised a good counter argument on the "flipside", that being the same issue could be made for the best midfielder at 11, commanding a decent amount of football in the midfield containing the likes of Scully, Trengove, Moloney, Blease, Jones, Sylvia, Morton, Davey,..etc.

I conclude that I would really like to see the Mfc develop an elite midfield group to challenge all other contenders. If we get this right, we're right in the game. We have great hopes in Liam Jurrah and Jack Watts, Bate who can play a very important cog, we have good mid-sized forwards in Green, Sylvia, perhaps Morton and small forwards who can create damage...Jetta, Wonaeamirri, Davey.

Which ever way the FD decide on the day regarding pick 11 (& 18) to whichever player gets called, I think they will consider them the best available. I can't wait.

[1858 285]

So Watts and Jurrah will become stale and predictable? Like Franklin and Roughead? Brown and Fevola?

My, you really are getting ahead of yourself. Liam Jurrah 9 games, Jack Watts 3 games.

Should I also mention that Hawthorn still have Dowler as a tall who will probably get more game time next year and that Brisbane actually preferred to keep Bradshaw?

And for there to be multiple options, the choices have to be near enough in quality to attract the attention of the ball that would normally go to the 1st option. Cameron Cloke was another option in Carlton's forward line, but that didn't mean that 1) the midfielders kicked it too him over Fevola, or 2) that he would be good enough to take advantage of the same delivery.

We are only talking KPFs here - not the entire forward line. We have plenty of smaller options to compliment Jurrah, Watts, and Bate. There is your variety should you need it.

With all due respect, if you are using Cameron Cloke to build your case around then I can't take the case seriously. A complete hack.

rpfc, whilst I understand your angle here you seem to be presenting extreme cases to create a scenario which simply isn't worth worrying about.

I also realise we are talking kpfs not the entire forward line but over the long haul Jurrah, Watts, and Bate is one tall short (npi) and the club seems to think similarly.

I think Jurrah is good enough to be the most dangerous forward, for a decade, in a flag...

I am ridiculing those that think there is going to be a talent at Pick 11 who will relegate Jurrah to a 3rd tall. Pick 11 will be the third tall, or the 4th tall, if you are willing to invest Pick 11 on a 3rd tall or a 4th tall then by all means, but I can see the sense if BP isn't willing to invest Pick 11.

Yes, I understand your point, there may be a few posters with unrealistic expectations of what pick 11 could get us (relatively speaking) and making calculations that put that pick as potentially our most prominent forward is probably misguided. Having said that, there are still no guarantees, we may get that big body player or at least something close to perform an anchor role. At the end of the day though I don't see any connection between this and whether the player is worthy of pick 11 or not which I think is what you were hinting at in your OP.

If a tall is good enough to be picked at 11 and will make our forward line better then Jurrah's relative value doesn't matter even if we have illusions of grandeur. A third tall gets a third tall defender so we make the most of the situation. I think the club will be after a good tall, without worrying too much if it is a 1st, 2nd or 3rd. Jurrah is a freak (KOTD as you said) and Watts was a #1 pick so the odds of getting a kpf at 11 or 18 in a shallow draft that eclipses them is not only unlikely but immaterial.

That is not my argument at all. And it certainly isn't moronic. I am saying that if his perceived potential is that he could be as good ad Jurrah and Watts then pick him up. But if he isn't then we are spending Pick 11 on a third tall, who may also be a speculative pick (I have said before that if the best player available is a KPF then of course we take him). Midfielders are different; you need more good mids than good KPFs, and they are easier to spot at draft age. These variables make recruiting mids easier than recruiting talls. It is as simple as that.

Firstly the "moronic" comment was not aimed at you, it was tied in with my anaology which was correct in principle but because I was comparing players in the same draft (who can be compared clinically by draft pick) it stood to reason that 1,2 would be better than 11 (it was a digression).

If the likely tall candidates at pick 11 prove to be "speculative" after all the research the club has done then I doubt they would pull the trigger but I don't see why you have used the word "speculative" when suggesting that we could be using pick 11 for a third tall. There is no reason to make such a connection.

"Midfielders are different; you need more good mids than good KPFs" - I can't see anyone disagreeing with that. I think it is fair to say we will have more good mids than good kpfs, especially if we invest the other pick of 11/18 in a mid. I still see this comment as dodging the principle of my point of comparing the midfield though - the principle is the same.

I think that is a fair comment about mids being easier to pick than talls but where do we draw the line? If we don't go tall at 11 then we go down a notch (maybe 2 good talls mised) to 18. If not 18 then we jump to 34, it fast gets to the point where we have missed the boat on filling such an (apparently) important requirement.

Going over heavily trodden ground here but we had Smith for depth - how did that work out? Hawthorn drafted Thorp knowing full well that there was no place for him in the side, all things being equal (no injuries, trades, 'Carey-like infractions' etc. from Roughhead and Franklin), and now he is training with us. Is Newton depth?

Would the opposition play guessing games with Newton in our forward line?

Pick 11 will no doubt be better than Newton and he may well turn into a productive forward, but I am simply asking the question - would you prefer the lesser player at Pick 11 - a 3rd tall in the forward line - or would you prefer the best midfielder available at that stage of the draft?

(Again, I stress, if the best player available at 11 is a KPF then there is no argument from me on recruiting him)

Again, I think you are presenting an arguement which could just as equally be applied to the midfield or defence. Midfield options (for depth or other) can turn out just as bad. We tend to lament kpf failures more for some reason probably because their lack of impact can be more profound.

When Thorp was drafted in 2006 Hawthorn not only had Roughead and Franklin (2004) but Dowler (2005) and I doubt they drafted Thorp thinking they didn't have a spot for him - I think the timing was just bad for Thorp that the main 2 took off so well the next year. I don't know their rationale but to suggest that they picked him for the sake of it is just convenient assumption, I think there is a case that they still wanted the option. Watch Dowler take off next year inspite of the other 2 targets.

Newton was insurance more than anything and failed because he sucked, all the more reason to make sure we get some quality up forward. If pick 11 or 18 is used in this measure then fine by me. I think the average Dees supporter was playing guessing games with Newton this year, even from 10 meters out.

If the best available mid at 11 is a far better player (general acquisition to the team) then I would expect the mid to be picked up but I have never argued against that. I have simply stated that I disagree with your assertions about how good the kpf option has to be at 11 or 18 (relative to our best current forward) to be of value to our forward line and worthy of the particular pick. I also think you are stereotyping the role that a third tall would play in our side and how our coach and mids would use them.

FWIW I think come draft day I would end up making similar opinions as you rpfc with how to go in the draft based on the options at each pick but I just don't buy all this 3rd tall caper. I sound like I am rallying for a kpf at pick 11 with all of this but that is not strictly the case.

Edited November 22, 2009 by 1858

[beelzebub 23,382]

An issue for mine in al of this is time and availability.

Going forward ( npi ) there , as result of compromised drafts, will be fewer picks with which to pick up any talls ( or anyone for that matter). Talls, and inparticular KPP take longer to getup and going to the best efforts so you need to get them whilst you can, when you can. We have quite a few players who are either mids of mods in waiting. We need to seriously look at teh best avail talls with 11 and 18 ( th eBall thing aside )

[rpfc 28,733]

If the best available mid at 11 is a far better player (general acquisition to the team) then I would expect the mid to be picked up but I have never argued against that. I have simply stated that I disagree with your assertions about how good the kpf option has to be at 11 or 18 (relative to our best current forward) to be of value to our forward line and worthy of the particular pick. I also think you are stereotyping the role that a third tall would play in our side and how our coach and mids would use them.

I have already stated that I would prefer 'affirmative action' for tall players in another thread.

But I just am getting fed up with posters positing 'Pick 11 - Best Available Tall.' That is a recipe for overlooking a talent because of a perceived need that may change over time.

Hawthorn overlooked Selwood for Thorp.

Something they didn't need to do at all.

FWIW I think come draft day I would end up making similar opinions as you rpfc with how to go in the draft based on the options at each pick but I just don't buy all this 3rd tall caper. I sound like I am rallying for a kpf at pick 11 with all of this but that is not strictly the case.

Then Pick 11 is going to have to be an enormous talent.

[beelzebub 23,382]

But I just am getting fed up with posters positing 'Pick 11 - Best Available Tall.' That is a recipe for overlooking a talent because of a perceived need that may change over time.

No its not...its a recipe for just that...finding decent talls. A team is made up of more than just requirements for mids etc. You do need talls.

"perceived need that may change over time" how is it either percieved..its real...you need them.. Change over time.. you always need talls.

You go shopping with a basket of components needed. There arent that many decent ones this year. But youd overlook them..for why.

As is a possible scenario... first two picks are locked on mids. Quire possible Ball may be taken with 18..... so if not some sort of promising tall at 11...when ?

[rpfc 28,733]

No its not...its a recipe for just that...finding decent talls. A team is made up of more than just requirements for mids etc. You do need talls.

"perceived need that may change over time" how is it either percieved..its real...you need them.. Change over time.. you always need talls.

You go shopping with a basket of components needed. There arent that many decent ones this year. But youd overlook them..for why.

As is a possible scenario... first two picks are locked on mids. Quire possible Ball may be taken with 18..... so if not some sort of promising tall at 11...when ?

Well, I will throw it back and say if we have got Scully or Trengove at 1, and Ball at 18, why not go for this despeartely needed KPF at Pick 2?

That way you can be sure to get the best KPF in the draft.

But you won't want to do that, because there is a talent (in fact a few talents) that are above that 'best KPF in the draft' at Pick 2.

That is the mindset that I wish to maintain with Pick 11.

That is all.

[hoopla 418]

An issue for mine in al of this is time and availability.

Going forward ( npi ) there , as result of compromised drafts, will be fewer picks with which to pick up any talls ( or anyone for that matter). Talls, and inparticular KPP take longer to getup and going to the best efforts so you need to get them whilst you can, when you can. We have quite a few players who are either mids of mods in waiting. We need to seriously look at teh best avail talls with 11 and 18 ( th eBall thing aside )

I'd like to think we would all agree with that - unless of course we assume that there will be no talls of AFL quality available after pick 10.

The whole debate really depends on your assumptions. "If there is a gun midfielder".... "if we assume that Jurrah does x or y"....

I'll make two assumptions

1. There is not going to be a lot to choose between the shorts, mids and talls available after pick 10

2. Our current crop of young mids - plus Scully and Trengove - will all develop as we hope they will.

On this basis - we need to look seriously at two talls with picks 11 and 18.

Change these assumptions if you wish

Edited November 23, 2009 by hoopla

[old55 23,687]

That is all.

Stop making sense

[beelzebub 23,382]

Well, I will throw it back and say if we have got Scully or Trengove at 1, and Ball at 18, why not go for this despeartely needed KPF at Pick 2?

That way you can be sure to get the best KPF in the draft.

But you won't want to do that, because there is a talent (in fact a few talents) that are above that 'best KPF in the draft' at Pick 2.

That is the mindset that I wish to maintain with Pick 11.

That is all.

come on youre better than that.... dont give any one here crap about using either 1 or two on a KPP as you know yourself thats spurious. Those two are the stand out in the draft..for any criteria. You yourself are focussing on 11. Im addressing that too. Theres a basket load of mids at or around the same mark that could go anywhere from say 6 to 20. Our first opportunity to get a non mid is ...11. . its doubful that the same quality of tall compared to mid will be around at 18. Thats where the issue lays.

[rpfc 28,733]

come on youre better than that.... dont give any one here crap about using either 1 or two on a KPP as you know yourself thats spurious. Those two are the stand out in the draft..for any criteria. You yourself are focussing on 11. Im addressing that too. Theres a basket load of mids at or around the same mark that could go anywhere from say 6 to 20. Our first opportunity to get a non mid is ...11. . its doubful that the same quality of tall compared to mid will be around at 18. Thats where the issue lays.

No I am happy with that post.

Like with picks 1 and 2, we should have the mindset to get the standout player in the draft left at pick 11.

If he happens to be a mid, tall, backman, protestant, whatever...

BP may rate a particular mid that he thought would go in the top 10, and take him at 11. It's hardly a spurious scenario, in fact, I think it is highly plausible.

And I am OK with BP getting the best player, rather than the best, tall player.

But that is just me.

[beelzebub 23,382]

so RPFC,just when would you be trying to find any talls ?