WELCOME TO THE DEES JORDAN GYSBERTS

[Keyser Söze 0]

Right... anyway, just before we get back on topic, is there any chance you can change that damn signature?

I'm surprised it didn't subliminally cause more people to jump on the 'Best Available' bandwagon, the way it catches the eye as you scroll through a thread.

Tone down that bold, please.

I can see Jordy Gysberts being a guy who goes about his business over the course of an outstanding, yet unobtrusive career akin to Nigel Lappin.

I'm dreaming of big things for young Jordy...

[H_T 3,049]

I was thinking Scott Pendlebury myself, but I'll keep dreaming until he proves me right.

[e25 5]

I was thinking Scott Pendlebury myself, but I'll keep dreaming until he proves me right.

Joel Corey for mine, but I'll settle for one of the 3.

[Demon Jim 149]

How many decent KPFs have been drafted from outside the top 10? The big names (Franklin, Roughie, Pavlich, Riewolt, Kosi) are all top 5 picks I think. Once you get outside the Top 10, the hit rate is crap (Molan, Smith, etc).

I think this is the main reason we went for mids...

[torpedo 33]

The big names (..... Kosi)

:D

If ever there was an example of pick number pumping up a players worth Koshit is it.

[rpfc 28,734]

How many decent KPFs have been drafted from outside the top 10? The big names (Franklin, Roughie, Pavlich, Riewolt, Kosi) are all top 5 picks I think. Once you get outside the Top 10, the hit rate is crap (Molan, Smith, etc).

I think this is the main reason we went for mids...

Specious reasoning.

Mids are easier to see than talls at a young age.

Some good ones were overlooked: Tippett was pick 32. Goodes was 43. Fevola was 38. Nathan Thompson was 82. Anthony was 37.

Some bad ones were chosen early: Fraser was pick 1. Justin Longmuir was 2. Leigh Brown was 5. Livingston was 4. McDougall was 5. Angwin was 7. Polak was 4. Walsh was 4. Bradley was 6. Hansen was 3. Thorp was 6.

I would say that the best mids come from the pointy end of the draft (with notable exceptions) and the best talls come from all over the draft as their talent is harder to gauge at such a young age.

(And Molan was a Pick 9)

[H_T 3,049]

Specious reasoning. Mids are easier to see than talls at a young age. Some good ones overlooked: Tippett was pick 32. Goodes was 43. Fevola was 38. Nathan Thompson was 82. Some bad ones were chosen early: Fraser was pick 1. Justin Longmuir was 2. Leigh Brown was 5. Livingston was 4. McDougall was 5. Angwin was 7. Polak was 4. Walsh was 4. Bradley was 6. Hansen was 3. Thorp was 6.

Good examples. The Crows have certainly hit the jackpot.

[MrReims 322]

Specious reasoning.

Mids are easier to see than talls at a young age.

Some good ones were overlooked: Tippett was pick 32. Goodes was 43. Fevola was 38. Nathan Thompson was 82. Anthony was 37.

Some bad ones were chosen early: Fraser was pick 1. Justin Longmuir was 2. Leigh Brown was 5. Livingston was 4. McDougall was 5. Angwin was 7. Polak was 4. Walsh was 4. Bradley was 6. Hansen was 3. Thorp was 6.

I would say that the best mids come from the pointy end of the draft (with notable exceptions) and the best talls come from all over the draft as their talent is harder to gauge at such a young age.

(And Molan was a Pick 9)

Hmmmm, I think our hatred of the Filth clouds our judgement at times. Whilst not the best No 1 pick up of all time, he has been far from ordinary over the years. I remember conversations with my Demon mad father over wishing we had his services not that many years ago........

[rpfc 28,734]

Hmmmm, I think our hatred of the Filth clouds our judgement at times. Whilst not the best No 1 pick up of all time, he has been far from ordinary over the years. I remember conversations with my Demon mad father over wishing we had his services not that many years ago........

I saw him beat up on players in the U/18s and then he becomes this Jeff White clone, without the fantastic ruckwork pre-rule, and is ineffective and just another useless link in midfield.

Why did they get Jolly?

The answer is Fraser isn't the player they thought he would become.

Edited December 2, 2009 by rpfc

[Keyser Söze 0]

Hmmmm, I think our hatred of the Filth clouds our judgement at times. Whilst not the best No 1 pick up of all time, he has been far from ordinary over the years. I remember conversations with my Demon mad father over wishing we had his services not that many years ago........

Really? As much as people criticize Fraser I still think he's overrated.

He should be able to do a lot more with the attributes he is lucky enough to possess. He doesn't.

(and he looks like Lauren Jackson)

Edited December 1, 2009 by Keyser Söze

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

Key defenders are generally available later in the draft, however it is only the very rare case where a really good key forward has not been selected early. The following is a list of proper AFL tall forwards and where they were drafted (2009 lists - please forgive me but I'm doing the draft pick numbers off the top of my head because I can't be stuffed so if you find any glaring problems let me know):

Adelaide - Tippett (30s),

Brisbane - Brown (F/S), Bradshaw (50s)

Carlton - Fevola (38*)

Collingwood - Rocca (2), Anthony (37)

Essendon - Lloyd, Lucas (both top 5), Hurley (5)

Fremantle - Pavlich (4), McPharlin (10)

Geelong - Mooney (50s), Hawkins (F/S)

Hawthorn - Franklin (5), Roughead (3)

Kangaroos - Petrie (20s)

Melbourne - Watts (1), Robertson (rookie)

Port Power - Tredrea (zone selection)

Richmond - Richardson (F/S), Reiwoldt (13)

St Kilda - Reiwoldt (1), Koschitzke (2)

Sydney - Hall (11), Goodes (43)

West Coast - Kennedy (4)

Bulldogs -

* Players denoted by an asterisk were selected as 17 year olds when clubs were only allowed to select one 17 year old in the draft. Hence it is not a true reflection of where they sat in the draft pool in that year.

Looking at that list of 26 key forwards, 4 of these were father son or zone selections. They were Richo, J Brown, Hawkins and Tredrea and I don't think it is unlikely that these players would have been outside the top 5 in their draft years. However I won't include those players in these figures, it's just important to note.

11 of the remaining 22 were top 5 selections.

3 were first rounders (not in the top 5) - Hall, McPharlin and Jack Reiwoldt. So 3 out of 26 AFL standard key forwards were taken in the first round after pick 5.

Only 1 rookie. Only two second rounders in Petrie and Tippett, and both of those were originally ruckmen who have been converted into big forwards.

Of those remaining there were 2 third rounders and 2 fourth rounders, although all of these players were selected a long, long, long time ago before the drafting science was very developed.

I think what it says is that key forwards generally come in the top 5, but after that it's an absolute crapshoot. Very interesting is the lack of key forwards to come from the rookie list. It all goes to indicate that key forward talent is quite obvious so all of it gets taken early. And if a key forward is not worth a top 5 pick then it probably isn't worth wasting a first or second round pick on them because the likelihood of success is very low.

[Demon Jim 149]

Key defenders are generally available later in the draft, however it is only the very rare case where a really good key forward has not been selected early. The following is a list of proper AFL tall forwards and where they were drafted (2009 lists - please forgive me but I'm doing the draft pick numbers off the top of my head because I can't be stuffed so if you find any glaring problems let me know):

Adelaide - Tippett (30s),

Brisbane - Brown (F/S), Bradshaw (50s)

Carlton - Fevola (38*)

Collingwood - Rocca (2), Anthony (37)

Essendon - Lloyd, Lucas (both top 5), Hurley (5)

Fremantle - Pavlich (4), McPharlin (10)

Geelong - Mooney (50s), Hawkins (F/S)

Hawthorn - Franklin (5), Roughead (3)

Kangaroos - Petrie (20s)

Melbourne - Watts (1), Robertson (rookie)

Port Power - Tredrea (zone selection)

Richmond - Richardson (F/S), Reiwoldt (13)

St Kilda - Reiwoldt (1), Koschitzke (2)

Sydney - Hall (11), Goodes (43)

West Coast - Kennedy (4)

Bulldogs -

* Players denoted by an asterisk were selected as 17 year olds when clubs were only allowed to select one 17 year old in the draft. Hence it is not a true reflection of where they sat in the draft pool in that year.

Looking at that list of 26 key forwards, 4 of these were father son or zone selections. They were Richo, J Brown, Hawkins and Tredrea and I don't think it is unlikely that these players would have been outside the top 5 in their draft years. However I won't include those players in these figures, it's just important to note.

11 of the remaining 22 were top 5 selections.

3 were first rounders (not in the top 5) - Hall, McPharlin and Jack Reiwoldt. So 3 out of 26 AFL standard key forwards were taken in the first round after pick 5.

Only 1 rookie. Only two second rounders in Petrie and Tippett, and both of those were originally ruckmen who have been converted into big forwards.

Of those remaining there were 2 third rounders and 2 fourth rounders, although all of these players were selected a long, long, long time ago before the drafting science was very developed.

I think what it says is that key forwards generally come in the top 5, but after that it's an absolute crapshoot. Very interesting is the lack of key forwards to come from the rookie list. It all goes to indicate that key forward talent is quite obvious so all of it gets taken early. And if a key forward is not worth a top 5 pick then it probably isn't worth wasting a first or second round pick on them because the likelihood of success is very low.

Thx AOB, I'm feeling vindicated. This was my exact assertion when I posted last night.

[Keyser Söze 0]

...

Wayne Hughes pretty much said the same thing today in the Hun when justifying Carlton's pick of Lucas over a KPP, so I'd say you're in... uh... informed company. Can't say 'good' though.

We rated Kane Lucas higher than any of the tall players left in the draft at pick 10 as John Butcher had already gone to Port Adelaide. You will find the draft full of tall players taken first round who didn't work.

In reality the best talls go very early in the draft like Nick Riewoldt, Buddy Franklin, Jarryd Roughead and Justin Koschitzke.

[rpfc 28,734]

Thx AOB, I'm feeling vindicated. This was my exact assertion when I posted last night.

That's great, but the 'hit rate' is as crap in the top 10 than it is outside the top 10. Molan, Fraser, Longmuir, Thorp, Brown, Livingston, McDougall, Hansen, Angwin, Polak, Walsh, and Bradley were all talls taken in the top 10. They are all failures.

Talls are just harder to read when they are in their teens.

[torpedo 33]

That's great, but the 'hit rate' is as crap in the top 10 than it is outside the top 10. Molan, Fraser, Longmuir, Thorp, Brown, Livingston, McDougall, Hansen, Angwin, Polak, Walsh, and Bradley were all talls taken in the top 10. They are all failures.

Talls are just harder to read when they are in their teens.

From my understanding, the main point of AoBs post was that the best tall forwards go top 5 and after that its a gamble.

Your post refers to the top 10 and several players that were picks 6-10 and never tall forward prospects, so its hardly a decent counter-argument.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

I'm talking specifically about tall forwards. Tall forwards require a different skill set to ruckmen or key defenders.

Ruckmen generally fall into various categories, but generally the more mobile and skillful a ruckman appears to be at 18 the earlier the pick people will use on them. So aggressive tap ruckmen will generally develop later as their bigger bodies start to give them an advantage (such as Jolly, Sandilands, Spencer, etc) will generally go in the rookie draft because when they are you they just look like gangly, aggressive, uncoordinated duds. But the more mobile and less physical players (like Kreuzer, Fraser, Ryder etc) get pick up in the top half dozen players and start to perform at AFL level much earlier.

Tall defenders tend to take time to develop as well, so usually get taken a bit later. You can pick up good key defenders anywhere in the draft and many are actually failed key forwards. Examples are Harris/Lake, Rutten, Hudgton, Presti (who was a failed forward), Warnock, Frawley, etc. They're a real mixed bag, but the common element is the time taken to develop (even Scarlett needed lots of time).

Key forwards need time at AFL level, but their ability is far more obvious. They need skill, speed, size, good hands, innate talent and, most of all, the ability to be simply too good for their direct opponent. These are obvious and recruiters are getting pretty good at picking this. So if a key forward is missing something then they don't go top 5, which means that they just aren't likely to be good enough to be a dominant key forward at AFL level.

Also, rpfc, you have mentioned several players that have missed out for reasons other than talent:

Molan - early retirement due to injury

Fraser - has made it and is a ruckman

Longmuir - early retirement due to injury

Thorp - injury and attitude

Brown - poor selection because he didn't have the speed require to be an AFL key forward. Still has played over 150 games.

Livingston - athletically gifted, but didn't have the talent to be an AFL key forward. But there weren't many selections after that who worked.

McDougall - as with Livingston, but also lacked ticker.

Angwin - headcase

Polak - headcase

Walsh - injuries and intensity

Bradley - ruckman in a rubbish draft.

If you look at those selections, there are very few who just weren't good enough. But that's not the point and I don't want you to get distracted in a side argument like this.

By only citing specific examples rather than doing a proper analysis of talls v midfielders v flankers in the top 5 (I said top 5, not top 10) you are not able to get a proper picture. I was doing the exercise to determine that we were likely to be pissing into the wind if we selected a key forward with picks 11 or 18, because very few of them end up getting to AFL standard. We have almost as much chance with a 3rd/4th round pick as we do with a pick between 6 and 20.

However, there are many midfielders drafted between 6 and 20 who become very good/exceptional players at AFL level. This is because, IMO, they don't directly have to beat their opponent one on one like a key forward does so their minor flaws are not exposed anywhere near as much by an opponent.

We need to use our resources well, and drafting key forwards with high first round picks has historically been a disaster.

[Eastie Boyz 0]

How about we just say the higher the draft pick the more likely they are to be "good" regardless of position?

Common sense really

[grazman 7,451]

We need to use our resources well, and drafting key forwards with high first round picks has historically been a disaster.

Spunj, you had me at "hello". Two words... Nick Smith.

[Guest fatty]

I'm talking specifically about tall forwards. Tall forwards require a different skill set to ruckmen or key defenders.

.....................

We need to use our resources well, and drafting key forwards with high first round picks has historically been a disaster.

You have a very scientific approach to the game which kind of perplexes me.

Why can’t a tall forward develop a skillset to adapt to become a key defender?

Why wouldn’t you look at a game of football and determine who was best on ground and then make a decision from that.

Are there so many misses in the draft because its being over-analysed, because player X always turns left and player Y jumps too early and player Z smokes too much weed?

Watching schoolboy football, its not hard to see who is a cut above the rest.

I have no idea what you see.

[Whispering_Jack 30,575]

All I can say is that he must be good if BomberBlitz is still running the Jordan Gysberts interview on its home page a week after the draft.

[old55 23,687]

Watching schoolboy football, its not hard to see who is a cut above the rest.

Unfortunately it's not that simple.

Morrish medallists do not automatically go on to become AFL stars, in fact some don't play AFL at all.

http://www.afl.com.au/Season2007/Awards/Mo...70/Default.aspx

Even All Australian U18s and Larke medallists are not certain stars

http://www.afl.com.au/Season2007/News/News...px?newsId=12911

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_National_...8_Championships

It will be interesting to track the AA U18 talls from the past few years:

2005: Lucy, Bower, Hughes, Kennedy

2006: Thorp, Hansen, Gumbleton, Hawkins

2007: Rance, Collier, Walker, Cornelius

2008: Hurley, Lisle, Johnston, Watts

2009: Wilson, Talia, Darling, Panos

[H_T 3,049]

All I can say is that he must be good if BomberBlitz is still running the Jordan Gysberts interview on its home page a week after the draft.

You had me wondering WJ. So I had to have a look....was interested to read the following in that interview: -

BB: Which footballer do you think you think you are most like on field?

JG: I think Scott Pendlebury, because we both are tall inside and outside midfielders who are good in traffic and use the ball well.

BB: Who do others say you play like?

JG: Jack Grimes from the Melbourne Football Club.

- BomberBlitz

Scott Pendlebury was a player I likened him too.

One of the concerns I had reading that interview were that his groins played up on him this year.

Edited December 2, 2009 by High Tower

[45HG 1,559]

He plays like WHO?!?

[H_T 3,049]

Grimes ?

You're going to have a good day today on reading that...aren't you ?

[45HG 1,559]

Grimes, Jack Grimes. Yum. Two Jack Grimes'

After a few frothies during the draft, when his name was read out I decided I didn't like him (Gysberts?) but then as a group we decided it'd take about 2 kicks in the big league for me to like him. As it turns out, it won't even take that.