Not necessarily.

I'm happy to go for a mid, but if a great tall prospect slides to 12 that should by all rights be taken earlier, wouldn't that seem a perfect outcome?

I will honestly be happy no matter who we choose, even if it's Watson.

If we pick a tall at 12 I'll be rapt because it means we think he's better than the available smalls - but history is against this happening.

True, but which pick did we use on Chip?

Different draft with different players available notwithstanding...

Either way, pick 12 is what Hawks used to get Rioli & is earlier than we took Grimes.

Good chance we'll end up with a complete gun.

Quayle seems to think there may be a few out of the box early on, with Lynch a chance to fall to our pick.

Yes, about the only thing predictable about the draft is its unpredictability. And if it's not Lynch who falls to 12, it'll be someone else.

Maybe.

Yes, about the only thing predictable about the draft is its unpredictability. And if it's not Lynch who falls to 12, it'll be someone else.

Maybe.

I have a feeling it will be Gorringe who slides. Hope Gold Coast pick him up.

I have a feeling it will be Gorringe who slides. Hope Gold Coast pick him up.

It really sucks that GC is coming in this year and not next, because if it were next year the timing of our rebuild would have been perfect.

In a regular draft we'd have pick 5 this year! That would give us one of Heppel, Polec or Gaff. All 3 of those guys are certain gun 150+ game players imo.

Unfortunately, imo this draft has about 8-9 top echelon quality players (Swallow, Day, Bennel, Gaff, Heppel, Polec, Gorringe, Atley and Lynch), which means unless one slips through we'll have to settle with a slightly less certain prospect (Darling, Smedts, Heppel, McCarthy).

We could very well still get ourselves a gem, but at pick 12 it is much less certain than pick 5

It really sucks that GC is coming in this year and not next, because if it were next year the timing of our rebuild would have been perfect.

In a regular draft we'd have pick 5 this year! That would give us one of Heppel, Polec or Gaff. All 3 of those guys are certain gun 150+ game players imo.

Unfortunately, imo this draft has about 8-9 top echelon quality players (Swallow, Day, Bennel, Gaff, Heppel, Polec, Gorringe, Atley and Lynch), which means unless one slips through we'll have to settle with a slightly less certain prospect (Darling, Smedts, Heppel, McCarthy).

We could very well still get ourselves a gem, but at pick 12 it is much less certain than pick 5

Yeah I view it that way as well. Top 10 are really good, then throw a blanket over 10 - 20.

Barry Prendergast will have a harder job this year than the last few drafts.

Pick 32 should be a decent player as well though. I'm praying that Luke Mitchell is still there, but I reckon he will be pick up around pick 27 -30.

I'm actually starting to lean towards Darling at 12 if available. I wonder if the club will have the guts to get him. I reckon they will play it safe.

"Slide" is an interesting concept.

True, but which pick did we use on Chip?

Different draft with different players available notwithstanding...

Either way, pick 12 is what Hawks used to get Rioli & is earlier than we took Grimes.

Good chance we'll end up with a complete gun.

Daniher picking for needs again, luckily it worked out.

old, get used to it. I guarantee there will be people here annoyed that we 'reached' for a player early, or elated that we picked a 'slider' on the cheap.

Apparently recruiting managers don't read BigFooty. Remember what happened when we picked Frawley in the first round?

"Slide" is an interesting concept.

it is, but imo it happens, Prospects with the talent to be top 10 picks slide 4-5 spots, and outside prospects get picked earlier than their talent would suggest, ceteris paribus.

For example, if Geelong fall in love with Isaac Smith, but are concerned he won't be available by 27, they might pick him at 15. I think another example was Robbie Tarrant being picked at pick 16 by North a few years ago. Maybe even Gysberts comes into that category, because we were worried he wouldn't last to pick 18.

Conversely, the first round in this draft might be very needs specific, especially since the Gold Coast are building a list from scratch and need certain positions filled. Certain needs based picks could result in guys rated top 10 in terms of talent, slipping down 4-5 spots in the draft order. For example, I think Cyril Rioli is a good example of that.

Surely we took Gysberts at pick 11 because we thought he was the best player available at pick 11. If there were players we rated more highly then surely we would have picked them.

Surely we took Gysberts at pick 11 because we thought he was the best player available at pick 11. If there were players we rated more highly then surely we would have picked them.

Probably right. hard to know the thought process of recruiters unless you're at the table making the decisions

Probably right. hard to know the thought process of recruiters unless you're at the table making the decisions

There's only one definitive order and that's the actual draft order on the day.

Everyone who thinks about it from Barry Prendergast all the way down to E25 has an order, but none of them is definitive.

There's no such thing as a "slider" because every team that picked before the pick where the player was ultimately taken had the opportunity to pick him.

There is such a thing as a "bolter" because some recruiter may rate someone much higher than everyone else and pick them earlier. For example if jcb31 picked Serhat Temel at 12 this year.

rpfc will insist that a "slider" can occur if every pick above him is a "bolter" and he'll be right.

rpfc will insist that a "slider" can occur if every pick above him is a "bolter" and he'll be right.

Nah, he wouldn't be.

They're kids picked over and over again by pundits and once by those with the most stake.

There are only 'bolters' and 'sliders' years after the fact when you know, and it's not subjective, that that player was worth, or not worth, the investment made.

HUN had a piece this morning suggesting Tom Lynch will make it to 12.

Probably right. hard to know the thought process of recruiters unless you're at the table making the decisions

You're both right. We actually took Gysberts at 11 because we didn't think he would be available at 18 (if my memory serves me correctly, Port had pick 16 and we knew they wanted him, and Geelong had pick 17 or something and they also wanted him). So we might not have thought he was the best pick 11, but we did think that as a combo of 11 and 18, we would be doing best with Gysberts at 11.

HUN had a piece this morning suggesting Tom Lynch will make it to 12.

Suggested Gorringe as well. Speculative yet possible.

HUN had a piece this morning suggesting Tom Lynch will make it to 12.

I have a friend in the recruiting caper who I respect, and when I asked who he thought Melbourne would take with pick 12 he said Lynch.

Don't know if he was taking the p!ss but I think he's in a position where he would know and I believe him.

Hells

what about this guys pace? I think he came last in a sprint test, that is a worry imo

So we might not have thought he was the best pick 11, but we did think that as a combo of 11 and 18, we would be doing best with Gysberts at 11.

I find that very difficult to believe - it defies logic.

If we rated Player X at 11, Gysberts later than 11 let's say best case 12 and Player Y later still let's say best case 13

You're saying that 11:Gysberts(12) plus 18:Player Y(13) is better than 11:Player X(11) and 18:Player Y(13) - no way!

The only way that could possibly make sense is if Player X was certain to be available at 18 and we'd get 11:Gysberts(12) and 18:Player X(11)

Occam's Razor says we picked Gysberts at 11 because we rated him next best.

Yeah, without a chalkboard full of equations to prove it, I think logic dictates that we rated Gysberts higher than anyone else at pick 11.

We may have thought the general consensus of other clubs had him rated lower, but at the same time we knew that lower rating was still before pick 18 (for at least some clubs).

But we rated Tapscott ahead of Gawn, who we desired to take at 18 for needs.

Tapscott was that much better than Gawn in our view, that we were willing to take the risk that he might not get to 34.

Perhaps not. IIRC we wanted to take Gawn at 18 last year but thought he'd get through to 34 so we took Tapscott knowing he wouldn't. That way we got Tapscott and Gawn and not Gawn + ?.

It's a gamble because you never know who the opposition are going to take and it's much more relevant wnen you have close picks, like we do at the end of this draft.

Did we genuinely rate Gawn ahead of Tapscott?

If so then it's the exception case I described above.

It's a very risky ploy - I wouldn't do it but then I am risk averse.

Edited November 17, 201014 yr by old55

Did we genuinely rate Gawn ahead of Tapscott?

If so then it's the exception case I described above.

They were pleasantly surprised Tapscott hadn't gone before 18 IIRC. Whether one was rated higher than the other I'm not sure. But I gather the club thought Gawn was more a chance to get to 34 (probably by way of assessing all probabilities via the BP matrix*). And every chance that Tapscott would soon go if they didn't snap at 18.

*Plucked from oblivion.

I've always had a soft spot for Lynch, and liked him from early on... Fingers crossed, if he slides. He could be ours. Looking forward to tomorrow