I hope this kid has lots of upside. Like most posters I know very little about him except what is posted on team boards.

Just looked up Quigley's mock draft on BigFooty. For what it's worth he was not a big wrap for Gysperts, Fitzgerald or Gawn.

Gysperts: Turns the ball over too much. Not good defensively

Fitzpatrick: Kicking hit or miss. Drops easy marks. Inconsistent. Skinny frame that may not fill out.

Gawn: Low possessions, poor endurance

Some other info on Gysperts and Fitzpatrick below.

http://www.afldraftinfo.com/2009/10/jordan...svic-metro.html

I sure hope the football dept know more than these guys assessments. The FD must know something about Gysperts that is specia.....l to take him at 11 ahead of Tapscott and Talia.

Quigley had Steven Hill at 32 in his phantom draft last year... enough said

...

Sorry, which AFL club does Quigley work for as a recruiter..?

Talia? Black?

Enough supporters whinge about Lynden Dunn mk I; we hardly need a clone.

ks never a truer word spoken...

One thing, I'll never understand is why recruiters think that versatility is a good thing.... The only player in the comp that offers versatiliy is pavlich and Bradshaw.

Paul Chapman, Robert Murphy, Alan Didak, Adam Goodes, Colin Sylvia ...

I'm still enjoying that we could have selected anyone BUT we went for Gysberts. Doesn't quite make sense to me, but it still has me chuckling

http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?show...=18465&st=0

Check this thread for why we picked how we picked and why we didn't select Talia at 11.

One thing, I'll never understand is why recruiters think that versatility is a good thing. A player can only play one position at a time!!! Why do recruiters think that a 'jack of all trades, MASTER OF NONE' player is helpful. Whilst most players can rest up forward, the best players are those that SPECIALISE in 1 position. Selwood, Lenny Hayes, Dal Santo, Sam Mitchell, Bartel, Judd etc are all pure midfielders. As soon as you start trying to aim for versatility you end up getting an average player on every aspect of the ground. Scarlett, Rutten, Glass, Fletcher etc all offer no versatility. The only player in the comp that offers versatiliy is pavlich and Bradshaw.

It's a pretty obvious answer. Keyser gave you the main point.

The other great thing about players being able to play in multiple positions is that is creates a lot of head aches for opp. coaches and their match-ups.

The coach has already highlighted this a number of times this season. Even when he first started, he talked about developing players so that they could play in multiple positions.

And Judd can play forward, too.

I read and laughed this morning in the HUN where they have graded each clubs draft.

Apparently we got an A, North and Syd got A+, I sure hate the HUN sometimes...

How the hell is that possible when we recruited to the best 2 players by far?

Im sure 15 other clubs would have swapped their drafts for ours in a heartbeat...As for the other clubs I did think North had a great draft as did the Cats given their picks were quite low....

15 other clubs would have swapped their drafts for Scully!

Geelong and Essendon in my opinion recruited "best available" with there picks and looked too have got lucky too time will tell...... never a big wrap for Fitzpatrick saw him play a bit over the TAC cup carnival didn't stand out too me but the FD watch 99% more junior footy than me. Gysberts don't know anything about and Gawns anyones guess but Scully, Trengove and Tapscot should be huge winners for us..

I'm still enjoying that we could have selected anyone BUT we went for Gysberts. Doesn't quite make sense to me, but it still has me chuckling

Me too. I quite like this selection. I had him in my sights at 18 among a couple of others (Bastinac & Colyer), but I'm wrapped we got Gysberts and Tapscott at 18. End result: Pure joy.

edit: no tissues though !

I agree, I was staggered to read that Collingwood did as well as us by getting Ball. As you say we got the best two players in the draft, by far, and all the other clubs picked over what was left. Essendon got the 6th best rated Mid but got the same mark as we did, go figure.

Collingwood has done well for instant success, with ball & Jolly, but after the next 3 years that plus will be drying up & we will be coming into power.

Yes they will add in further years & so will we.

The thing we want to avoid in the next 3 years or so is free agancy. We won't be a financial powerhouse at that point, & I believe would find it hard to compete with the AFL powerhouses.

We'll have a strong list in full flight by 2012/13.

On SEN this morning Liam Pickering could not believe we didn't take Talia at 11. He thought he was the next best player outside the top 10.

If Pickering is Talia's manager as has been suggested, it's very interesting if he bagged US for not taking Talia at 11 but didn't mention the team that passed him up at 12. Could it be that Talia was more keen to come to us than to them, despite supporting them? Or that Pickering himself was more dirty that Talia was passed up by us rather than them? It's been said on other threads that several of the young draftees, knowing what a great young side we're getting together for the future, were keen to come to us.

The only player in the comp that offers versatiliy is pavlich and Bradshaw.

David Hille. Paddy Ryder, Brett Deledio, Jarad Waite, Brad Johnson, Luke Hodge, Cale Morton for starters.........

If Pickering is Talia's manager as has been suggested, it's very interesting if he bagged US for not taking Talia at 11 but didn't mention the team that passed him up at 12. Could it be that Talia was more keen to come to us than to them, despite supporting them? Or that Pickering himself was more dirty that Talia was passed up by us rather than them? It's been said on other threads that several of the young draftees, knowing what a great young side we're getting together for the future, were keen to come to us.

Its more a case of Pickering flapping his gums on SEN. I wouldn't worry reading things into it that clearly weren't intended.

It's all about perceptions isn't it, the perception that the media has as opposed to the perception the recruiters have.

Some of these kids may seem to be "great gets" by the media but the reality is they were picked up late because the recruiters at other clubs didn't want them.

The Media feel that the recruiters got it wrong because they didn't agree with them and mark the clubs accordingly.

Exactly. The whole rate the draft is a waste of space. We'll know in the fullness of time. I doubt any recruiters woke up the next day thinking "gee we buggered that up didn't we".

the reason we got an A was purely because we picked up Gysberts. THe grading system is based on who you got with what pick. We could have picked up anyone at 11 but used it on Gysberts who was rated a 20-ish pick. His skills don't seem to be that good but has a good handball. His height for a midfielder is good too. I'm a little unsure about his kicking though. I'm surprised we didn't pick up Tapscott at 11.

One thing, I'll never understand is why recruiters think that versatility is a good thing. A player can only play one position at a time!!! Why do recruiters think that a 'jack of all trades, MASTER OF NONE' player is helpful. Whilst most players can rest up forward, the best players are those that SPECIALISE in 1 position. Selwood, Lenny Hayes, Dal Santo, Sam Mitchell, Bartel, Judd etc are all pure midfielders. As soon as you start trying to aim for versatility you end up getting an average player on every aspect of the ground. Scarlett, Rutten, Glass, Fletcher etc all offer no versatility. The only player in the comp that offers versatiliy is pavlich and Bradshaw.

http://www.afldraftinfo.com/2009/10/jordan...svic-metro.html

Did you write this?

lol, that's awesome. Nah, I didn't write that..I haven't even read it until now. I guess, i'm not alone on this one. If we didn't pick Tapscott I would be totally [censored] off but we got him at 18 which was great.

Who conquered the world? There have been many claims of who in fact conquered the world. Predominately, Christians believe that it was Alexander The Great . However, the Muslims on the other hand claim it was it Zulkarnain. Well in the Islamic teachings and ancient scriptures including one of the most read, regarded and most common book in the world, The Quran it is collated that it was Zulkarnain however there were numerous Zulkarnains hence which one would be the one that conquered the world?

So people what are your views and believes on who conquered the world and also what are your thought towards the opposition.

Define conquering the world! This would be a subjective opinion wouldn't it ?

I think the Demons were defnitely conquering the world in the 1950's!