Always choose best available, why? due to currency, if you pick the best players they will be worth more later, and you wont look stupid for passing on "the best player" in a draft at any particular time. If we draft to many mids then we will trade our excess of qaulity in one area for another. Geelong for Ottens, Collingwood for Jolly, etc

If you dont pick the best player at anyone point in the draft i see it as a depreciation in value.

I do understand that we could do with a KPF/RUC but i dont see it to be so severely desperate as others, the desperate need is to give Jamar a short rest each qaurter, which a PJ,Newton,Martin can do until a real option arrives.

How far down the draft order is anyone prepared to go for a serious NEED? down 10 spots? 15 spots? it is all reative and i know these figures arnt realistic but what numbers are?

  On 12/10/2010 at 10:40, Steamin Demon said:

I'd bet my balls that we are looking for ONLY KPF'S.

  On 13/10/2010 at 01:49, E25 said:

My dream (semi-realistic) draft:

pick 12 - Tom Lynch - giant KPF with freak athleticism, good below the knees

pick 32 - Ben Jacobs - rebounding ball magnet with booming kick

pick 49 - Luke Mitchell - promising young KPP

pick 52 - Callum Sinclair - mature bodied KPF/ruck

This trend I am firmly against, a lot of people keep saying stuff like this as if a KPF is the big missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle. Like it's the only thing between us and a premiership and it's the only thing worth pursuing in this draft, it's ridiculous.

Look at Collingwood, the premiers of 2010, their top 5 goal-kickers for the year:

1. Alan Didak (41 goals)

2. Travis Cloke (38 goals)

3. Chris Dawes (30 goals)

4. Leon Davis (27 goals)

5. Dayne Beams (26 goals)

The modern game is a lot less about a big bustling KPF than it was 5 or 10 years ago. It's more about people getting the goals on the board, regardless of size, style or position. The more goal-kickers, the better. Take a look at the Bulldogs acquiring a great KPF in Barry Hall which in turn kept shooting them in the foot because he was the only lead they were kicking to, they were scoring more goals last year because of the unpredictability of their forward line. And just to remind people, we have already got one of the best young KPF potentials on any list in Jack Watts.

I think best available is still the way to go, with keeping versatility in mind. Part of what made Geelong so great was they selected a lot of great midfielders who could also play other positions, that seems more appealing than lumping all the eggs into one KPF basket.

Reactionary.

Tall KPP still have a lot of value and influence in this game.

  On 13/10/2010 at 07:41, E25 said:

Reactionary.

Tall KPP still have a lot of value and influence in this game.

They get subdued by an equal or better defender, then what do they have to offer? What value? What influence?

That's the curse of a true KPF, they can't play anywhere else.

Ahh but Deez Nuts...what would the Filths goal kicking looked like WITHOUT Cloke being there ? He mightnt have kicked them all but he allowed others into the game in a way the coach directed. We cant do that yet... hence our desire for a biggish solid unit up front forcing the oppositions hand !

Probably would have looked a lot better, a lot less behinds and more opportunities for the other guys up forward.

  On 13/10/2010 at 08:07, Deez Nutz said:

Probably would have looked a lot better, a lot less behinds and more opportunities for the other guys up forward.

He creates opportunities ya fool.

  On 13/10/2010 at 08:09, E25 said:

He creates opportunities ya fool.

Some just dont get it !!

The 2 games he didn't play this year Collingwood scored 100 and 127. You are right though, I don't get either of your admiration for Cloke, I will openly admit that. But his value as a KPF is highly questionable.

  On 13/10/2010 at 08:18, Deez Nutz said:

The 2 games he didn't play this year Collingwood scored 100 and 127. You are right though, I don't get either of your admiration for Cloke, I will openly admit that. But his value as a KPF is highly questionable.

The only thing questionable about Cloke is his kicking for goal - the rest of his game is A-Grade, sure kicking goals is an important feature of being a key forward but they do sooo much other important stuff that cannot be over looked.

He has a massive tank, is quick, takes the number 1 defender, creates space for others, contests in the air and creates spillages, provides a get out of jail target... thumps it 60 metres..

Cloke one of collingwoods most important players and if he could kick a little straighter he would be one of the best in comp it pains for me to say...

I don't like the guy - but can't knock him for the majority of his game.

  On 13/10/2010 at 07:51, Deez Nutz said:

They get subdued by an equal or better defender, then what do they have to offer? What value? What influence?

That's the curse of a true KPF, they can't play anywhere else.

  On 13/10/2010 at 08:18, Deez Nutz said:

The 2 games he didn't play this year Collingwood scored 100 and 127. You are right though, I don't get either of your admiration for Cloke, I will openly admit that. But his value as a KPF is highly questionable.

Not admiration but fact. 2 of the top 3 you named from the filth are KPP.

I'd say that the filth's predominant kicking game makes Dawes & Cloke essential to their set up. That is why they score heavily & players such as Didak, Beams etc capitalise.

  On 13/10/2010 at 07:41, E25 said:

Reactionary. Call Gary?

Tall KPP still have a lot of value and influence in this game.

  On 13/10/2010 at 07:36, Deez Nutz said:

This trend I am firmly against, a lot of people keep saying stuff like this as if a KPF is the big missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle. Like it's the only thing between us and a premiership and it's the only thing worth pursuing in this draft, it's ridiculous.

Look at Collingwood, the premiers of 2010, their top 5 goal-kickers for the year:

1. Alan Didak (41 goals)

2. Travis Cloke (38 goals)

3. Chris Dawes (30 goals)

4. Leon Davis (27 goals)

5. Dayne Beams (26 goals)

The modern game is a lot less about a big bustling KPF than it was 5 or 10 years ago. It's more about people getting the goals on the board, regardless of size, style or position. The more goal-kickers, the better. Take a look at the Bulldogs acquiring a great KPF in Barry Hall which in turn kept shooting them in the foot because he was the only lead they were kicking to, they were scoring more goals last year because of the unpredictability of their forward line. And just to remind people, we have already got one of the best young KPF potentials on any list in Jack Watts.

I think best available is still the way to go, with keeping versatility in mind. Part of what made Geelong so great was they selected a lot of great midfielders who could also play other positions, that seems more appealing than lumping all the eggs into one KPF basket.

Thats exactly what I said in my post! Too many KPP become liabilities. Look at St. Kilda with Riewoldt and Kosi down in their forwardline. No mobility or running power when the ball hits the deck. It only takes one KPF to create a contest and spill the ball to the ground not two or three. Why not draft gun midfielders who will come in and have an influence straight away rather than waiting and HOPING that this next big thing will do something within the next 4 years!

  On 13/10/2010 at 23:43, grimes4 said:

Thats exactly what I said in my post! Too many KPP become liabilities. Look at St. Kilda with Riewoldt and Kosi down in their forwardline. No mobility or running power when the ball hits the deck. It only takes one KPF to create a contest and spill the ball to the ground not two or three. Why not draft gun midfielders who will come in and have an influence straight away rather than waiting and HOPING that this next big thing will do something within the next 4 years!

But that logic is not right, especially in Collingwoods case.

Cloke and Dawes play completely different roles to Kosi & Riewoldt, Collingwood obviously play a much better brand of football than St Kilda.

St Kilda have plenty on the deck, besides the fact Milne goes missing which has little to do with the KPP, they just don't get it in there fast enough and Kosi and Riewoldt are leading deep inside 50.

haha I don't think Garry is silly enough to make that call!

  On 14/10/2010 at 01:20, Demon Hill said:

But that logic is not right, especially in Collingwoods case.

Cloke and Dawes play completely different roles to Kosi & Riewoldt, Collingwood obviously play a much better brand of football than St Kilda.

St Kilda have plenty on the deck, besides the fact Milne goes missing which has little to do with the KPP, they just don't get it in there fast enough and Kosi and Riewoldt are leading deep inside 50.

Plenty on the deck? Who do they have on the deck? Name one half decent small forward they have apart from milne & schiender? What Eddy?

  On 14/10/2010 at 10:46, grimes4 said:

Plenty on the deck? Who do they have on the deck? Name one half decent small forward they have apart from milne & schiender? What Eddy?

You named two...

The problem with the concept of best available is that it seems reasonable when approached on a theoretical level applying objective criteria to the selection process but in practice it's a different story altogether.

When you actually get to the draft table, decisions will often be based more on subjective criteria necessarily involving some consideration of a team's needs.

Apart from very early in the piece when the so called "best available" is usually obvious, there might be three or four candidates under consideration of roughly equal ability.

In 2009 the circumstances favoured our selection of midfield types ahead of tall KPPs. This year our needs are different, our draft position is different and the types in the available pool of players is different. Hence, our draft strategy will also differ to that adopted last year. However, I don't believe that this means our FD is going to compromise on the qualty of player it will seek to bring into the fold.

I prefer to look at it therefore as meaning that the player selected will be the best available to suit the particular needs of the club.