With Trade Week about to close, it looks increasingly like we won't be making any trades. David Hale had been identified early as the player that would best fit our needs and we played our cards early (rumours contact could have been made back in July). Hale was keen but a deal couldn't be struck with the Kangaroos and the Hawks trumped us with the Brown compo pick. I loved the fact that the club knew what they wanted, offered a reasonable pick and wouldn't budge and over pay for a back up ruckman. We were also rumored to have had an interest in Sherman but it didn't go very far.

Currently our needs would appear to be a backup ruckman, a tall key forward and a running half back as priorities going into 2011.

So therefore unless a late deadline trade is made then we will be going to the draft table with Draft Picks 12, 32, 49, 66, 83, 100.

I can see us going with one of two strategies with our top 3 picks;

Half Back First

Pick 12: Billie Smedts, Brodie Smith, Blayne Wilson, Ben Jacobs and Jamie Cripps all loom as options here.

Pick 32: Calum Sinclair, Zac Fitzgerald, Luke Mitchell, Jamie Solly

Pick 49: Oren Stephenson

This will enable us to take a classy half back, who provide run and carry with good delivery by foot. Most of the top line KPF should have been taken by 32, so a speculative pick of Sinclair, Mitchell or Solly would be made. I like the idea of taking a mature KPF in Sinclair as he should be able to have a quicker impact. A mature bodied ruckman is a must to assist Jamar, Stephenson is a ready made player having put together good VFL football with North Ballarat. His recruitment will allow Gawn and Fitzpatrick to their continue development at the correct pace in the VFL.

KPF First

Pick 12: Jack Darling, Lucas Cook, Tom Lynch, Calum Sinclair, Zac Fitzgerald, Luke Mitchell, Jamie Solly

Pick 32: Jake Batchelor, Nathan Batley, Alex Browne, Ben Casley, Cameron Guthrie, Andrew McInnes, Cameron Richardson, Joel Wilkinson

Pick 49: Oren Stephenson type

Sam Day is a given to be taken Top 3 by the GC, the remaining amount of quality talls is still quite good in 2011. Most of the non-GC picks above ours are more likely to be used on midfielders; all of Essendon, Brisbane and West Coast have glaring problems here. One of Darling, Cook or Lynch will make it through to pick 12. The less polished half backs (unless theres a slider) will be left. And again Oren Stephenson or like player is important with pick 49.

Both strategies can be worked in your advantage - if your confident a Sinclair or Mitchell can develop into a quality 2nd tall then going the gun half back is ideal. Personally i think your top picks should be invested into talls - its not often you find one of the AFL's premier big men being a late draft pick (unless via F/S). Darling has an intangible quality called presence which I think we need and would he would love the big stage. A half back could be moulded from a tough midfielder Grimes style or half forward player with defensive traits, opening up the options to finding a good HB. Thats why it would more suitable to leave the HB pick until pick 32 rather than trying to speculative pick a KPF here.

Are these realistic ramblings/theories? Anyone got other strategies that could be utilized?

Redman

Best available, regardless of position is the way to go. I hope we get someone that can play in multiple positions as that seems to be required these days. Smedts for mine.

Best available. Simple.

Poll needs to include this option.

It's pointless otherwise. The question should instead be "what is our most glaring need "

Just some more confirmation by Emma Quale that this year's draft is a weakened draft, albeit a strong weakened draft.

Question: How do you view the strength of this draft compared to 2008, both in terms of the elite talents and also the depth of the first 30-40 picks? How much has the Gold Coast's priority access to the nations under 18s before this year affected the quality of this draft?

Answer: "I think he depth is fine, it’s easy to come up with 50 names that seem draftable, which is a good sign. I think the top three are standouts and then it evens out, but there are at least 20 names I’m convinced will play good senior footy, barring mishap. If the 17-year-olds that the Gold Coast signed were in this draft pool, it would be the best one I can remember, and I’m not exaggerating. Guys like Josh Toy, Maverick Weller, Luke Russell, Trent McKenzie and Brandon Matera would all be genuinely pushing for top 10 spots."

So basically, 5 of the top 10 prospects from this year's draft are unavailable bc they've been signed by GC. Add to that, Liberatore and Wallis both top 20 prospects.

Good to hear it's pretty even from pick 4-20. It means we should get a quality player at pick 12, and hopefully a second one at pick 32.

Also, I think 'best available' is way too simplistic a strategy and Prendergast has been quoted several times that he often has to operate by best available for the given position you need.

  On 10/10/2010 at 12:02, E25 said:

Best available. Simple.

Poll needs to include this option.

It's pointless otherwise. The question should instead be "what is our most glaring need "

^This.

GC are going to have an awesome team around the same time we are peaking. I can't believe we have waited all this time now some fresh faced manufactured fad is going to be a major threat. Livid.

  On 11/10/2010 at 05:23, nostradeemus said:

GC are going to have an awesome team around the same time we are peaking. I can't believe we have waited all this time now some fresh faced manufactured fad is going to be a major threat. Livid.

Yes i agree to a point, but at least The Finals are played at the MCG, our home ground-and if we are to be a great Team, nobody should be allowed to beat the MFC when we play the 'G. B)

Do it for Jimma Demons..This should become an MFC mantra for at least the next 25 years.

None of the above, Billie Smedts can 4 of the positions listed on the poll. 3 of them extremely well. He's my pick.

  On 11/10/2010 at 06:38, Deez Nutz said:

None of the above, Billie Smedts can 4 of the positions listed on the poll. 3 of them extremely well. He's my pick.

I can't see him playing as a KPF or KPB in the AFL. I see him as a HBF or mid, that's 2 by my count, unless you're including 'ruck' as well.

I've voted for a half back, as in a midfield size type player who has exceptional skills that suited becoming,, an elite mid-sized attacking defender, to play on those troublesome small/mediums... Like a Smedts or similar who is there. Obviously it goes without question you apply the best available Tag to this equation, but with the emphasis on that half back running defender issue.

I DO Hope we can fill the Key defensive post,,, But by drafting Key Forward Talls,, some of which may not make it forward,,, But May turn out to be excellent Key Backs.

  On 10/10/2010 at 12:02, E25 said:

Best available. Simple.

Poll needs to include this option.

It's pointless otherwise. The question should instead be "what is our most glaring need "

It's not that simple.

In previous drafts I would have agreed with you, but this draft is different.

We have built a strong list containing plenty of potential in the majority of positions, and this is hopefully the last time we have a good first round pick as we move up the ladder.

This is a good oppotunity to finish off the list and cover all bases.

By taking best available we might not fix the holes, and the only way would be to fix it via trade - and that seems hard to do these days.

Lets say a Gorringe is marginally the best available - is taking another developing ruckman the best option for the list when we have Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Spencer already in those positions?

Or a small forward when we have Wonna, Maric, Bennell, Jetta?

We will still need another key forward won't we? and will someone trade us a good one when we are knocking on the top 4? you'll be relying on another side having too many and us having something they want.

To add the fact that the draft is quite even and doesn't have the depth of top end talent of 08/09 then getting someone we need is a more logical move.

If a pure gun somehow slides that far, then sure best available.

But otherwise its finishing your list off and stratgizing the best way to do it...

a key forward for mine. completing the spine. wasn`t strauss or blease drafted with a back flank in mind?

pick 12 has to be Darling. just watched his 2009 state champs highlights, is just what we don't have. big body, agressive (we seriously are lacking in this department) , plays tall, good shot for goal and can take a grab. can also go into the middle and play a bit like Pav. Watts, Jurrah and Darling are the perfect tall options, all quick and mobile and complement each other well. throw in petterd, aussie, bennell, sylvia, tapscott, bate as well as dunn and we will have a pretty exciting forward line

  On 11/10/2010 at 01:09, sylvinator said:

Just some more confirmation by Emma Quale that this year's draft is a weakened draft, albeit a strong weakened draft.

Question: How do you view the strength of this draft compared to 2008, both in terms of the elite talents and also the depth of the first 30-40 picks? How much has the Gold Coast's priority access to the nations under 18s before this year affected the quality of this draft?

Answer: "I think he depth is fine, it’s easy to come up with 50 names that seem draftable, which is a good sign. I think the top three are standouts and then it evens out, but there are at least 20 names I’m convinced will play good senior footy, barring mishap. If the 17-year-olds that the Gold Coast signed were in this draft pool, it would be the best one I can remember, and I’m not exaggerating. Guys like Josh Toy, Maverick Weller, Luke Russell, Trent McKenzie and Brandon Matera would all be genuinely pushing for top 10 spots."

So basically, 5 of the top 10 prospects from this year's draft are unavailable bc they've been signed by GC. Add to that, Liberatore and Wallis both top 20 prospects.

Good to hear it's pretty even from pick 4-20. It means we should get a quality player at pick 12, and hopefully a second one at pick 32.

Also, I think 'best available' is way too simplistic a strategy and Prendergast has been quoted several times that he often has to operate by best available for the given position you need.

I have had a real hard look at this draft- and in my opinion for the picks we have- 12,32, 49 & now 52.. we should get some great draftees.Seems to have a real lot of taller picks which we can risk few re 49 & 52.. The early ones should be best two players ..just hope it holds up for our draft 52.. that is why we ley Kyle go today -- first 52 should be ok..will be interesting might pick up an experienced player..for this pick.

some good solid points you got there redman... I'm thinkin KPF, hopefully snatch up Tom Lynch at 12 or yeah otherwise Darling

  On 11/10/2010 at 09:38, jayceebee31 said:

I have had a real hard look at this draft- and in my opinion for the picks we have- 12,32, 49 & now 52.. we should get some great draftees.Seems to have a real lot of taller picks which we can risk few re 49 & 52.. The early ones should be best two players ..just hope it holds up for our draft 52.. that is why we ley Kyle go today -- first 52 should be ok..will be interesting might pick up an experienced player..for this pick.

Agree with that approach jc.

Could be that the club has a fair indication as to what/who may be available around 49 & 52 and were prepared to let Cheney go on that basis.

Sadly to bl00dy Hawthorn

  On 11/10/2010 at 09:42, Deemolition Man said:

some good solid points you got there redman... I'm thinkin KPF, hopefully snatch up Tom Lynch at 12 or yeah otherwise Darling

Darling over Lynch. Lynch looks as though he plays a similar game to Jack Watts (not just cause of his hair), same type of player. we don't need 2 jack watts, we need someone who will compliment him, offer what he dosen't and vice-versa

If Darling has the size and aggressivness that has been mentioned then please bring him on we need a coupla mongrels in this still soft (but improving)list.Harsh call i no calling us soft,but we've never had a real toughnut with presence since.......well i can't really remember sorry. No disrespect to any of our present or past players,yes we have had plenty of tough hard as nails footballers, but no enforcer types. Maybe i'm just to old school.

I think Darling will slide and wont be worth the pick at 12. I think we will go best available.

It will be interesting to see who GC pick up since they have 7 picks before us. Will they just go best available? or will they draft for needs?

Lynch looks like the tall who could get through to us, if not I see us taking any of the midfielders that slip through. Another question is, will Matt Burgan do a phantom draft for us Dees this year? Would be interesting to see who he thinks we will pick up.

  On 11/10/2010 at 09:13, redman said:

It's not that simple.

In previous drafts I would have agreed with you, but this draft is different.

We have built a strong list containing plenty of potential in the majority of positions, and this is hopefully the last time we have a good first round pick as we move up the ladder.

This is a good oppotunity to finish off the list and cover all bases.

By taking best available we might not fix the holes, and the only way would be to fix it via trade - and that seems hard to do these days.

Lets say a Gorringe is marginally the best available - is taking another developing ruckman the best option for the list when we have Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Spencer already in those positions?

Or a small forward when we have Wonna, Maric, Bennell, Jetta?

We will still need another key forward won't we? and will someone trade us a good one when we are knocking on the top 4? you'll be relying on another side having too many and us having something they want.

To add the fact that the draft is quite even and doesn't have the depth of top end talent of 08/09 then getting someone we need is a more logical move.

If a pure gun somehow slides that far, then sure best available.

But otherwise its finishing your list off and stratgizing the best way to do it...

Nooooooo... It is that simple.

Best available is subjective and also weighted based upon how much you value certain players' roles and positions on the field.

This will be balanced differently based on needs, but not completely governed by them.

And has it occurred to anyone that the thread title is incorrect?

This is the 2010 draft we are discussing.

Great OP redman.

Its really all going to come down to how highly Prendergast rates the key forwards left for pick 12 compared to the mids. Its obvious if there were 2 players of the exact same ability we would take the KPF, but thats not likely to be the case.

Im leaning towards Darling at this point - not because hes a KPF, but because he's got presence and X factor - and I think he will be the best player available at our pick.

Darling is a bit more of a gamble than a couple of the mids, but he has the potential to be alot better as well imo. He still played very well at this years champs despite some earlier injury setbacks - and go watch a vid on his 2009 efforts. Get him into an AFL system and he could end up the bargain of this draft.

  On 11/10/2010 at 06:47, Demon Disciple said:

I can't see him playing as a KPF or KPB in the AFL. I see him as a HBF or mid, that's 2 by my count, unless you're including 'ruck' as well.

He is only 18, hasn't even played in the AFL yet, but you have already seen enough to know he can't play those positions at AFL level?

  On 11/10/2010 at 09:38, jayceebee31 said:

I have had a real hard look at this draft- and in my opinion for the picks we have- 12,32, 49 & now 52.. we should get some great draftees.Seems to have a real lot of taller picks which we can risk few re 49 & 52.. The early ones should be best two players ..just hope it holds up for our draft 52.. that is why we ley Kyle go today -- first 52 should be ok..will be interesting might pick up an experienced player..for this pick.

That might be the best strategy if you think there is some real depth in talls and hoping one lasts late might enable us to get what we are after. I remember with Gawn and Fitzpatrick - they were both targets but at pick 35 or whatever they felt Gawn was less likely to be around at 51(?) so it can come down to there research on what other clubs are thinking aswell. But gee I hope your right re: KP depth.. would open up our options.

  On 11/10/2010 at 14:16, E25 said:

Nooooooo... It is that simple.

Best available is subjective and also weighted based upon how much you value certain players' roles and positions on the field.

This will be balanced differently based on needs, but not completely governed by them.

And has it occurred to anyone that the thread title is incorrect?

This is the 2010 draft we are discussing.

But by going best available each time your not building your list correctly. You could list the 150 players in order of ability using the subjective opinions of the recruiting team, and mark them off as they are taken. That could leave you with 5 ruckman or 5 midfielders if the cards fall that way - the draft has to be looked at more in-depth than just simply best available.

Clubs will research what other clubs are doing, the players current & potential ability, their personailties and how that will affect the group, the players onfield role and the likelihood that another club might take the same player if you risk him to your next pick. They will target certain players at certain picks, because they are building a team with many requirements. Future drafts will also play a role, last year they didn't take a KP player at pick 11 when everyone else thought they would. BP would have known the depth of KP in this draft would be better so Gysberts was taken. In 2012 the club will know that Jack Viney will be coming to the club - would you recruit multiple midfielders in 2011 knowing that? If you think theres no strategy then your not giving our recruiting staff enough credit.

  On 11/10/2010 at 18:09, Demon 16 said:

Great OP redman.

Its really all going to come down to how highly Prendergast rates the key forwards left for pick 12 compared to the mids. Its obvious if there were 2 players of the exact same ability we would take the KPF, but thats not likely to be the case.

Im leaning towards Darling at this point - not because hes a KPF, but because he's got presence and X factor - and I think he will be the best player available at our pick.

Darling is a bit more of a gamble than a couple of the mids, but he has the potential to be alot better as well imo. He still played very well at this years champs despite some earlier injury setbacks - and go watch a vid on his 2009 efforts. Get him into an AFL system and he could end up the bargain of this draft.

D16, I like Darling for the same reasons - he's been described as a aaron hamill type player and while he might not end up a out and out superstar that role could be vital. Throw in a bit of agression and he could be just what we need. Its just something that would complement our other forwards imo.

The whole mystery around draft day makes it so interesting....

  On 11/10/2010 at 14:16, E25 said:

Nooooooo... It is that simple.

Best available is subjective and also weighted based upon how much you value certain players' roles and positions on the field.

This will be balanced differently based on needs, but not completely governed by them.

And has it occurred to anyone that the thread title is incorrect?

This is the 2010 draft we are discussing.

With it becoming increasingly likely (and some say definately) that Jack Viney will

a) be an MFC F/S selection in 2012 and

B) at the very least (on current performances) a very good midfielder

has the FD factored that into their thinking for this (and next) years draft strategy?

Would that actually give them the impetus (is that correct spelling???) to lean towards taking a calculated risk on a KPF at Pick 12?

I disagree with you E25 when you say carte blanche that it has to be best available.

Needs is absolutely a very strong factor in the decision.

I think it is a combination of both. And with the likely addition of Viney in a couple of years, i think (and hope) that we look at our need for another key tall over another midfielder.

Mids and medium sized players are a dime a dozen, big KPP's are like gold and with our draft positioning only getting later (with our continued improvement) this might be our last legitimate opportunity to have a relatively early crack at a quality young tall.

Your theory is what Richmond followed a few years ago (Tambling) against Hawthorn (Franklin). I would much prefer a risk on a Franklin (read KPP) even if at the age of 18 he wasn't rated as good a player as Tambling (read mid/medium sized player).

Bigger picture approach IMO.

Also.

If there is a kid with the name Jack then we should also take him.

It's looking good for my son in the 2026 national draft.....