It's obvious that our selections were more needs based. We also obviously rated who we picked.

Well it's like Sylvinator said pre-draft - we had a leaning towards talls and if we rated 2 players similarly then we'd take the tall at 12 and that's what both Bailey and Prendergast said we did.

Isn't a leaning towards talls actually somewhat indicative of a 'more needs base' if we rated 2 players similar and took the tall ?

Seems to me these two quotes are somewhat singing to the same tune.

It's pretty much a case of who is the best value for the team at the picks we had. At pick 12, we had the choice of a few "handy" mids, but were they assured of giving us the Return on Investment? Maybe, but maybe not. So, picking Cook at 12, while seems a bit of risk, he may turn out to be good value. If he can develop over the next few years and become a regular player, then he was worth the punt. But, where would the midfielder, that seems better on paper than Cook, be at the same stage? Maybe a star, maybe a fringe player.

I think outside the top 10, it is a very difficult year to predict where players will be. In fact, any year is hard to predict.

While I was a bit disappointed last night watching the draft, I am slowly understanding the angle the Club took. I think I was just frustrated that the Gold Coast took Lynch at 11.

Anyone know if Callum Sinclair got picked? We have no selections in the PSD (at this stage), may give him a rookie spot?

Well it's like Sylvinator said pre-draft - we had a leaning towards talls and if we rated 2 players similarly then we'd take the tall at 12 and that's what both Bailey and Prendergast said we did. You're not seriously suggesting we took Cook while we rated some mid higher are you?

Please explain how Howe and Davis are needs based when we've got Jurrah and Warnock? And how McDonald is needs based when we just picked 2 marking forwards?

To be honest, unlike some, I don't really give a rat's fat clacker who we've drafted. Time will tell if they're the right picks, or not. But when footy publications, such as Inside Footy, don't even have one of the four in their 100+ listed hopefuls and two of the other three are in the "best of the rest" section you'll perhaps understand why the "best available" theory holds little weight with me. We've chosen for need and picked accordingly. They obviously like what they see, but it's hard to convince me that all 4 were best available at their respective picks. But as I said, I couldn't give a toss.

It was funny though when Terry Wallace said on radio last night that he was across 150 draft prospects this year, but he hadn't even heard of 3 of our 4 picks.

Well, I found it funny.

I always get a some mixed feelings when we draft 3 players i know nothing about, but looking into the players we drafted, I'm very content. With 3 tall forwards, we've now got an enourmous amount of talent in our forward line. Considering we've stocked up on midfielders the last 2 years, and our defence is looking super strong with Frawley and Garland, it looks like we've got all the talent we need to take us to finals.

- Cook looks like he's a serious talent, great kick, very good mark in one-on-one, runs across the ground smoothly. He also has versatility and at 196cm, he's the height of the type of KPP we need

- Howe is 20 years old and could come straight in and make an impact. He looks like a massively upgraded version of Danny Hughes, and considering we kept Hughes on our list for 6 years or whatever, we clearly feel that this kind of a player is important. I love the fact that we've now got several player who are super dangerous in the air, but equally dangerous at ground level (Jurrah, Howe, Pettard, Green)

- Davis is apparently a super quick 192cm defender, and we know that Melbourne LOVE that kind of defender (think Garland and Frawley). Pace for a key defender is critical these days, and while i don't know much about him, I think we definitely needed 1 KP defender developing, since we now really are down to Frawley, Garland and Rivers (and Warnock) as our only key defender options.

- McDonald has versatility to play forward and ruck, but is 194cm. I think that this type of player might not have been drafted 4 years ago, however with the new interchange rule coming in this type of player suddenly becomes really important because you can play 1 ruckman, with McDonald/Fitzpatrick type player can play as a key forward + ruck relief

We've now got 6 rookie spots to fill.

I think 1 mature age ruckman could be on the cards, just in case (Giles anyone?). Perhaps stock up on a couple more mids and half back flankers. Maybe a lightning quick small forward?

BP:

"We had a slant towards talls, but we ... just thought that the players we picked were pretty much the best available at those particular picks. Troy Davis has got a body that could quickly step up to playing in the AFL and so has Tom McDonald, so while the talls can quite often take a longer period of time, these guys - at least three of them - we'd expect to step up quickly.

"We acknowledged that tall forwards were an area that we needed to bolster in our list, but we were able to get what we were after at the opportunities that presented. Like every club ... we're very happy."

By my reading of this, we went our needs over the best available.

Pretty much the best available does not equate to best available.

BTW, I'm very pleased with what the club has done.

and for the record, i don't believe Barry skipped past any players that were 'better' than the guys we took at our picks.

Recruiters sort players into 'bands' of quality. There might have been up to 3-4 players at every pick that were in the same band, which means the club rated their talents relatively equally... and then the choice probably comes down to who of the 3-4 options would fit best into the team's structures, needs and culture.

The only thing I got slightly disappointed with, was not picking up Patrick McCartney as pick 33 (he went to Carlton at pick 34). We obviously wanted a key defender, which we got in Davis, but McCartney looks like a really great talent at 196cm, and perhaps Howe would still have been available at 50. But then again, who knows if Howe would've been available, and we got the guy we obviously liked in Davis, so who am I to judge

It was funny though when Terry Wallace said on radio last night that he was across 150 draft prospects this year, but he hadn't even heard of 3 of our 4 picks.

Well, I found it funny.

Doesn't surprise me. That's Plough for you. Stuck in the solarium.

........

It was funny though when Terry Wallace said on radio last night that he was across 150 draft prospects this year, but he hadn't even heard of 3 of our 4 picks.

Well, I found it funny.

By the time Wallace got half way to 150, he would have forgotten 70 of them.

As has already been said, could be just spin.

Time will tell.

To be honest, unlike some, I don't really give a rat's fat clacker who we've drafted.

you're lying

Someone said on another forum that BP will go down as a friggin genius after this draft, or a friggin idiot - with not much in between.

It's a sentiment with which I have some sympathy.

As I'm a glass half full kind of guy I'll back him in.

you're lying

Withdraw.

My guess is one will be a dud, one will play 30 odd games, one will play around 100 games of fairly pedestrian but useful to the team football and one will lean forward in early October 2014 to have a much needed medallion hung around his neck. He's the one we'll all remember when we're very old and Demonland is piped directly into our cerebral cortex. Talk to you then!

Withdraw.

why open draftee video threads then?

Just as "best available" is an over simplistic drafting strategy, the assertion that "needs based" drafting totally avoids any consideration of quality is an over simplistic analysis or what happened yesterday.

BP apparently went in there looking for talls, probably set his bands of comparable quality a bit wider than normal, and looked for the best tall in each of these bands as our picks came up. But there is no way he would have picked a tall if there was no tall available of quality comparable to the other candidates. Recruiters rarely adopt a "pick to type even if they are rubbish" approach.

Just as "best available" is an over simplistic drafting strategy, the assertion that "needs based" drafting totally avoids any consideration of quality is an over simplistic analysis or what happened yesterday.

BP apparently went in there looking for talls, probably set his bands of comparable quality a bit wider than normal, and looked for the best tall in each of these bands as our picks came up. But there is no way he would have picked a tall if there was no tall available of quality comparable to the other candidates. Recruiters rarely adopt a "pick to type even if they are rubbish" approach.

You're too sensible to post here.

If anyone wants a very clear explanation of the balance between needs and best available, just listen to Dean Bailey and Barry Prendergast's interviews of melbournefc.com.au.

They both made it clear that had a better player fallen to our pick, they did have the flexibility to go with a midfielder or a flanker... however this draft had good depth for talls, and we needed talls, so we were able to balance needs without compromising best available.

For the record, Bailey confirmed they had knowledge that Howe would NOT be available at pick 50, and Prendergast confirmed that another recruiter told him straight after the draft they were waiting for Cook only a few places after our pick, so he definitely woudln't have been available at 33.

why open draftee video threads then?

Naturally I'm interested after they're selected you silly man.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I'm interested post draft in who we've drafted, but pre draft I was very ambivalent (this year). Especially after I went off Darling.

It was funny though when Terry Wallace said on radio last night that he was across 150 draft prospects this year, but he hadn't even heard of 3 of our 4 picks.

I'm not sure just what argument this is supposed to support. Howe (for example), had been invited to train with both Richmond and Collingwood, and had spoken to a number of clubs. He'd also been included in the "leaked" Richmond list. If Wallace (ex Richmond coach I believe) or some footy site isn't up to speed on that kind of info, it says something about them, but not much else.

As for the other discussion here, all a bit narrow for me. "Best available" and "needs-based" are not mutually exclusive. Nor is there some kind of "absolute" rating of draftees. Even in an ideal world, clubs would list their top 50 very (very!) differently.

Finally, i find this idea that needs-based = talls as being a bit limiting. Sure, we drafted "tall", but all 4 are supposed to have elite endurance (new interchange rules kicking in???), both Howe and Cook are supposed to be great kicks, and 3 of the 4 could be ready for some AFL action next year.

I wonder if Heppell,,, Prestia,,, Gorringe,,, or Lynch were still available to us, would we have taken them. I think yes, obviously. But it does look like there were only 2 mids that may have fallen our way, that we may have taken ahead of Gorringe, Lynch & cook. and thats probably how I would have rolled the dice myself. I mean I rated Heppell on need of a med' back. Prestia was rated highly it seems as an inside classy player. Higher than I thought. But I liked Gorringe & Lynch & Watson.

Ps: The blues got a lot of players I liked, for between P15 - 40ish. Interesting to see how they go in the next 4 years.

PS: i think we can trade next year prior to the National draft... I think from memory that If we trade our early pick for a player, we can still nominate our father sun with the next best available Pick.

Not sure if that's right, but if it is, then the Western Bulldogs stuffed up. Imagine if we could trade our 1st & 2nd picks for a player and then offer our 3rd round (effectively our first llve pick) to get Viney. If only...

I'm not sure just what argument this is supposed to support.

What argument ?

By my reading of this, we went our needs over the best available.

Pretty much the best available does not equate to best available.

BTW, I'm very pleased with what the club has done.

I agree. Best available,,,, according to our needs!

We needed another Key forward or 2,,, + a key defender for down the track, as well.

So with Day, Lynch & Gorringe gooone,,, they obviously thought the next best available, of the key forward talls was Cook.

To get a mobile livewire as well, like a true full forward of the old style, in Howe, to me is a bonus. I love it.

Not sure if that's right, but if it is, then the Western Bulldogs stuffed up. Imagine if we could trade our 1st & 2nd picks for a player and then offer our 3rd round (effectively our first llve pick) to get Viney. If only...

I heard something along those lines a little while back. Thats why I posted it. Because I was reasonably sure, of what I thought I heard, so put it out there for discussion. I'm aware of the advantage it would give if true.

I heard something along those lines a little while back. Thats why I posted it. Because I was reasonably sure, of what I thought I heard, so put it out there for discussion. I'm aware of the advantage it would give if true.

As the Father/Son bidding is held as the first item during trade week, I guess the picks that are locked in cannot be traded.

Monday October 4, 10am - Father/Son bidding meeting (Gold Coast FC not entitled to participate).

Monday October 4 - Monday October 11 - AFL exchange period

As the Father/Son bidding is held as the first item during trade week, I guess the picks that are locked in cannot be traded.

Monday October 4, 10am - Father/Son bidding meeting (Gold Coast FC not entitled to participate).

Monday October 4 - Monday October 11 - AFL exchange period

Yes, I looked that up prior to this recent post, but I still wasn't certain that we have to nominate a pick, when we tell them of our father son nomination. I think it may have been Footscray a couple of years ago, who may have done something when they took that ruck father/son. I can remember something.