Potential 2011 Draft Strategies

[e25 5]

The question relates to specifically pick 12.

With first round picks You should always go best available.

Later picks can be used to fulfill list needs.

Obviously, as inhabent already stated, the needs will influence which player is deemed to be the "best", but it is not the sole influencing factor.

You wouldn't pass up Judd for Koschitzke.

You simply wouldn't, even if you already had Ablett, Hayes and Pendlebury.

[Deemolition Man 0]

The question relates to specifically pick 12.

With first round picks You should always go best available.

Later picks can be used to fulfill list needs.

Obviously, as inhabent already stated, the needs will influence which player is deemed to be the "best", but it is not the sole influencing factor.

You wouldn't pass up Judd for Koschitzke.

You simply wouldn't, even if you already had Ablett, Hayes and Pendlebury.

Agreed "you wouldn't pass up Judd for Koschitzke"... However if Judd or Riewoldt* was the option I think as a general consensus it would be fair to say Judd would be classed as "Best Available". IMO In our current position, I would choose Riewoldt*. Because thats what we need.

* Either Riewoldt can be included in this scenario

[flamindees 16]

The more I read about Jack Darling and Billie Smedts, the convinced i am that if both are available to us at pick 12, that Smedts is the best option.

His Draft camp numbers i think were out standing;

1st in agility,

7th in kicking assessment- 63%,

9th in 20m sprint and,

10th in Standing vertical jump

I'd be interested to know which, if any other players finished in the top 10 of four or more categories at the draft camp.

Added to this is his ability to be able to know when to leave his man to attack- he appears to be a great attacking defender and if Stauss as hoped, then it should mean that Grimes, Davey and Green need not be needed there, therefore allowing DB the luxury of playing them in more attacking roles.

With Darling, I think he'd make a great addition to the forward line as the 3rd tall as well as small stints in the midfield and relief ruckman but I also feel that he has the chance of sliding quite a considerable way- all the way to 32 is unlikely but with his off season head injury and reported attitude issues, you never know.

Who would have predicted that Matthew Panos would slide all the way to the Rookie Draft last year?

I don't think we'll have such a good defensive option such as Smedts available at pick 32, but i do think there'll be a third tall option, maybe even Darlin available at 32!

[e25 5]

If you care to look, I predicted Panos would end up as a rookie.

I thought it was pretty obvious.

You're correct in saying Smedts won't last til 32. While Darling has more chance of doing so, he won't either.

Lynch or Darling are worthy of pick 12. We do have a very good chance of getting a decent KPF at 32, but if we were to take someone like Josh Walker at pick 12 it would be idiocy.

So yes, the best & most probable course of action would be mid/flanker with 12 & a KPF at 32. I don't expect Lynch to still be on offer by then.

[old55 23,801]

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.

Agree with E25, early draft picks are on the best player regardless of need, later on you can pick more for need, those players will all have some issues and that's why they are still there. If you're worried about picking 5 midfielders pick the best midfielders first not last.

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.

Alternatively it might have been because BP thought that Gysberts was the best player?

[redman 28]

The question relates to specifically pick 12.

With first round picks You should always go best available.

Later picks can be used to fulfill list needs.

Obviously, as inhabent already stated, the needs will influence which player is deemed to be the "best", but it is not the sole influencing factor.

You wouldn't pass up Judd for Koschitzke.

You simply wouldn't, even if you already had Ablett, Hayes and Pendlebury.

The poll does relate to who you would pick at 12 - but the whole post is about drafting strategies.

By selecting the type of player you take at pick 12, this will dictate the rest of the strategy.

By using a Judd v Kosi comparision your using one thing a recruiter doesn't have - hindsight.

At the time Kosi was rated quite highly obviously at a similar level as Riewoldt and Didak... as Deemolition Man says i'd take a risk on a kosi/riewoldt-like player over a judd-like because its what I think we need.

Agree with E25, early draft picks are on the best player regardless of need, later on you can pick more for need, those players will all have some issues and that's why they are still there. If you're worried about picking 5 midfielders pick the best midfielders first not last.

Alternatively it might have been because BP thought that Gysberts was the best player?

Of course you would take the best midfielders first because of how they have been ranked - but you still end up with 5 midfielders being added to your list. Surely that would create an imbalance and less spots for players that play other important roles??

Re: Gysberts, that could be true - but BP might have thought that with the loss of Mclean and the future retiresment of Jmac in the near future that getting a inside/clearance player was important?

Both are possible..

[old55 23,801]

Of course you would take the best midfielders first because of how they have been ranked - but you still end up with 5 midfielders being added to your list. Surely that would create an imbalance and less spots for players that play other important roles??

Take the role players later if you've already picked 3 midfielders. You don't know at the start of the draft what you're exactly going to end up with so take best available early and assess the options later - it's not that complex.

Re: Gysberts, that could be true - but BP might have thought that with the loss of Mclean and the future retiresment of Jmac in the near future that getting a inside/clearance player was important?

Both are possible..

Occam's Razor