THE THIRD DRAFT

[rpfc 28,733]

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

Not in the first round (unless they are the best player).

If you want to be speculative (and I realise that you are being only slightly speculative by taking a tall at 11) then go and find a Tippett at 34 (he was chosen at 32) or a Jack Anthony (chosen at 37 - although he is a [censored] but I digress).

And I am sure that 50 will be spent on Thorp or a untried tall.

[beelzebub 23,382]

This the whole point...as per your sig ( ) its a weakend selection. The value somewhat doubly dilluted by numbers and the overrall quality of talls. There is say for instance no Watts this year.

KPP are in essence all speculative so consider it in itself any more so at 11 or otherwise. This is more about available opportunites in this draft and when we can make use of them. .

What say you take you mids til 34 and we take Daw

[rpfc 28,733]

This the whole point...as per your sig ( ) its a weakend selection. The value somewhat doubly dilluted by numbers and the overrall quality of talls. There is say for instance no Watts this year.

KPP are in essence all speculative so consider it in itself any more so at 11 or otherwise. This is more about available opportunites in this draft and when we can make use of them. .

What say you take you mids til 34 and we take Daw

I am not that familiar with the kids outside the best 20 or so, so I am not the person to ask about who to take at 34 or 50.

We can take the gamble at 11, and that would be fine, but I want everyone to understand that the gamble might see a very good mid being overlooked for a tall that might never reach the heights they have placed on him (relegating Jurrah to 3rd tall, providing a decade long target out of the square, etc).

[beelzebub 23,382]

Its all speculative in some fashion.. No guarantees.. Some bring young thing could get the dreaded Op and so on. Theres an element or two of godd fortune ( or not ) associated with all picks. On a even field though I thin we will be remiss not to take a tall at 11 given that there will be suat of the same cailbre come 34 assuming we do take Ball at 18.. if no Ball.. then why not look at another mid there.. as there are more mids than talls..

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

rpfc's argument about picks 1 and 2 is very relevant and you should attempt to argue against that. If you want the 2nd/3rd/4th best tall forward in the draft at pick 11 because you don't know where else we'd find them, then why don't we use pick 1 or 2 on the best tall in the draft, and pass on Trengove? Let's say that you want a big power forward combination the likes of Buddy/Roughy or Riewoldt/Kosi. Each of these were top 5 draft picks. Should be not then use one of picks 1 or 2 on them?

Also, will anyone available at pick 11 be better able to play a role in the forward line than Morton, Jurrah, Bate or Martin? Or even Garland?

And what sort of role would you expect the new tall forward to play at AFL level? A pack buster? Because if that's the case then you're probably only really looking at Butcher or Griffiths, with the former only being available to us with pick 1 or 2 and the the latter requiring his own full time sports doctor and probably being available at 18.

Geelong have been able to win two flags in the last 3 years (should have had 3) with Cameron Mooney as their number 1 forward and very limited impact from any other key forward. You will argue that this is because they have a wonderful midfield that creates opportunities for their numerous other forwards that shares the load and doesn't rely on a big marking forward, and that due to our lesser standard midfield we won't be able to do that. How do you think Geelong got a star midfield? They did it by drafting midfielders with first round picks, because their talent is more obvious and you don't waste as many picks on rubbish. Bartel, Corey, Selwood, Kelly, Varcoe and Mackie are all first round picks, with only Taylor and Ottens (who was traded for, albeit after being drafted with pick 2 in 1997) being talls first round, although both were brought to the club as mature age players so there was less risk.

Geelong just kept building up the talent until it had so much that it just overwhelmed teams. If we get speculative with a good first round pick like pick 11 then we are lessening our chance to put more talent on our list. We already have a more potent key forward than Geelong, after drafting Watts. If they can win 2 flags with Mooney as their main forward then I think we'll be just fine without having to ignore obvious talent in order to speculate on talls.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Axis of Bob

[1858 285]

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

I should hope that pick 11 is worthy of pick 11 (within the club's strategy).

[beelzebub 23,382]

Here in lies the folly of some arguments.. its not about taking the best tall..its about getting the best tall at an available juncture.. Absolute rubbish to suggest 1 and2 need to be defended as that was never the premise of the ask.. it was purported that 11 be taken for best available.. not particularly the best tall . Or as was put...tall for talls sake.

Some of us have leanings towards just that , taking the best Tall at that pick.., ( not the best tall period ). we need Tall stocks just as much as any other varietal.

[rpfc 28,733]

Here in lies the folly of some arguments.. its not about taking the best tall..its about getting the best tall at an available juncture.. Absolute rubbish to suggest 1 and2 need to be defended as that was never the premise of the ask.. it was purported that 11 be taken for best available.. not particularly the best tall . Or as was put...tall for talls sake.

Some of us have leanings towards just that , taking the best Tall at that pick.., ( not the best tall period ). we need Tall stocks just as much as any other varietal.

And a few of us don't want to overlook the better talent, just because he is a mid.

All will be revealed on Thursday.

[buddha82 12]

rpfc, i realise you're talking more about a theoretical issue (don't pick best tall, take best player no matter the position), but in practice, the reality of this years draft, i don't think the argument matters.

you wouldn't take any of the available talls over Scully/Trengove at 2 because they aren't worth it. that's readily accepted. if Watts/Natanui were in this years draft then yes you might think about it. but they're not, Scully and Trengove are head and shoulders above the rest so you take them.

if melbourne had pick 3 would they then take the best KP? yes I think they would. but we don't, we have pick 11. by pick 11, which mids will be there who you think will be of sufficient quality to take over Butcher (although I doubt he'll slide that far)/Black/Talia/? in my opinion there's no one, as they will have been picked by then. by all means, if Rohan or Cunnington or Martin slipped through then go for it, but I think they'll be well gone by then. the only one i could potentially see sliding might be Jetta, who i wouldn't be too upset if we took anyway. so i think when people are saying pick best available tall, i think most are saying that because they believe the available talls will be better than the available mids.

also you say the KPF has be of sufficient quality to take out one of Jurrah/Watts/Bate. by that logic doesn't the midfielder we pick up have to be better than Scully/Trengove/Grimes/Jones/Moloney/Morton/Davey? And that's not even including Blease & Strauss.

i don't think there will be a player of that quality available at 11, hence why i believe we should go with a tall. as any recruiter always says, if you've got two players of equal ability, go with the need. and we need talls more than more mids.

Edited November 23, 2009 by buddha82

[rpfc 28,733]

i don't think there will be a player of that quality available at 11, hence why i believe we should go with a tall. as any recruiter always says, if you've got two players of equal ability, go with the need. and we need talls more than more mids.

I have said it before - I would applaud 'affirmative action' for tall players.

But I don't want, should the situation arise, the less talented player over the more talented player - simply because of his height.

If BP sees someone slide out the top ten then he should take him, regardless of his height.

As an aside, I am not saying you always pick best available for every round of the draft. I am saying pick 'best available' in the first round.

Edited November 23, 2009 by rpfc

[buddha82 12]

As an aside, I am not saying you always pick best available for every round of the draft. I am saying pick 'best available' in the first round.

so to answer my question, who do you believe will be available at 11 that will be better than the talls that are likely to be there? which mids would you expect to be available at 11?

[rpfc 28,733]

so to answer my question, who do you believe will be available at 11 that will be better than the talls that are likely to be there? which mids would you expect to be available at 11?

I'm not an expert on the draft, but if BP saw Melksham, Jetta, Bartlett, or JMP as a better talent than Black, Talia, or whoever, then I would say pick the best kid.

You may come back at me and adjudge those players to be equal in talent to those 4 mids and you have won the argument. However, I have said if they are equal then by all means pick the tall player. If they are not equal then pick the best talent.

[hoopla 418]

I'm not an expert on the draft, but if BP saw Melksham, Jetta, Bartlett, or JMP as a better talent than Black, Talia, or whoever, then I would say pick the best kid.

You may come back at me and adjudge those players to be equal in talent to those 4 mids and you have won the argument. However, I have said if they are equal then by all means pick the tall player. If they are not equal then pick the best talent.

Surely this is nothing more than a theoretical debate.What exactly is "equal talent"?.... and how do you determine that midfielder "x" has more talent than KPF "Y"?

In reality once you get past the first couple of picks - the assessment of relative "talent" is so subjective that you have to factor the "type of player" into your equation. It seems to me that is exactly the approach that BP is taking - and he has strongly hinted that we're looking at talls for picks 11 and 18.

[1858 285]

he has strongly hinted that we're looking at talls for picks 11 and 18.

Does that mean looking at getting 2 talls with 11 and 18 or looking at getting 1 tall with either 11 or 18?

[old55 23,687]

As an aside, I am not saying you always pick best available for every round of the draft. I am saying pick 'best available' in the first round.

The BF $2000 thread has us taking a mid in only 8/120 phantoms so it's impossible

[dee-luded 2,959]

The way I see it, we need a tank up forward. Griffiths or Butcher would do nicely because they have the size to crash packs and do damage, and really good athleticism. I'd love to see one of them playing out of the goal square and wreaking havoc in the forward half of the ground. That would allow Watts, Jurrah and Bate to rove and run their opponents ragged.

I reckon Griffiths will be available around the 3rd round.

There'll be others if you want someone just to crash packs.

Many of the Talls will learn to spread the packs as they progress.

[rpfc 28,733]

The BF $2000 thread has us taking a mid in only 8/120 phantoms so it's impossible

Well, that's it then...

[Darren Cuthbertson 0]

Surely this is nothing more than a theoretical debate.What exactly is "equal talent"?.... and how do you determine that midfielder "x" has more talent than KPF "Y"?

In reality once you get past the first couple of picks - the assessment of relative "talent" is so subjective that you have to factor the "type of player" into your equation. It seems to me that is exactly the approach that BP is taking - and he has strongly hinted that we're looking at talls for picks 11 and 18.

Then according to your 'theoretical debate' no Luke Ball then?

[titan_uranus 25,042]

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?

"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.

"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.

Good post.

This is where I stand on this subject. We shouldn't be taking Talia/Black/Carlisle if the only reason for taking them is that they are KP players. If there is a midfielder available at 11 that BP thinks is better than any of those players then we should take the mid.

Watts, Jurrah, Bate, Green for a few years, possibly Martin, Jamar pinch hitting, maybe even Garland, and then Wonaeamirri, Maric, Jetta and possibly Davey should hopefully combine well.

[rpfc 28,733]

Well, I found the thread.

Got tied into a Demonland 'let's have a look at the talls we won't pick because we should have listened to rpfc when he said that getting the best available kids is the way to go early in the draft' thread.

Gawn and Fitzpatrick can develop into the 'big lump' in the square. Fitzpatrick has 2 inches on Talia and Black, and Gawn has 5 inches on those two.

At their height Talia and Black were never going to be anything more than a 3rd option behind Watts and Jurrah.

Geelong has a midfield that grew up together and now our midfield has an enormous amount of talent from the past three drafts - Morton, Grimes, Maric, Blease, Strauss, Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, and Tapscott. That's picks 1, 2, 4, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 21 invested in the middle of the ground.

Remember - it's the midfield stupid.

[H_T 3,049]

*Golf clap*

[titan_uranus 25,042]

Well, I found the thread.

Got tied into a Demonland 'let's have a look at the talls we won't pick because we should have listened to rpfc when he said that getting the best available kids is the way to go early in the draft' thread.

Yeah what happened there? Your poll's gone as well.

[45HG 1,559]

This type of thing is best done on one's own in a room with some tissues at one's side

[H_T 3,049]

It only took 19 words, but it was way too much information.

[Akum 2,660]

This type of thing is best done on one's own in a room with some tissues at one's side

No doubt about it though - rpfc with help from AoB and others beat all-comers hands down