A swinging lamp post would be a step up from what we have now stuie.

What is Lycette (WCE) like? Perhaps one of the big guys from the franchise clubs.

I really don't think any of those guys are a big enough step up from what we have.

Don't agree with you on this one 'stuie', I would be very surprised if we don't have a shot at one of them.

Out of our lot Jamar is on the downhill slide, Spencer is Spencer and I like Gawn but he stay on the park long enough to build a base.

A swinging lamp post would be a step up from what we have now stuie.

What is Lycette (WCE) like? Perhaps one of the big guys from the franchise clubs.

I think Sinclair is a better bet than Lycette but I think the Eagles are still trying to work this one out.

I think Sinclair is a better bet than Lycette but I think the Eagles are still trying to work this one out.

Lycette's a legitimate ruck. Sinclair can ruck a little but really isn't. With Cox coming towards the end I think the Eagles will be super keen to keep both and if one of them is a back up for injuries then so be it. Considering Nic Nat's injury status you'd want to have both available anyway.

The moral of the story is as always draft best available.

I'm not overly impressed by having Jamar, Spencer, Gawn, Fitzy, Pedo as our ruck department and having to pick 2 of those guys each week. But at the same time I think you can win games with them. I'd also want another quality forward in the pipeline behind Dawes and Hogan. So there's room for a ruck and a forward and there's especially room for a guy who can play both at a high level.

Of course you have to be careful drafting ruckmen early. I'd stay away from a number 1 pick on a ruck because at 18 it's very hard to measure the develop of any player yet alone a 200cm kid. But Wright is mainly a forward and in the Daniher mold. So I'm not adverse to him. If he's the clearly most talented kid then you take him.

What I'm really hoping is we don't have the number 1 pick. We have to frank our form against Carlton (and even Gold Coast, GWS, Saints) and turn that into wins.

There is a unique inner drive about some kids who have done the hard yards.

I'd rather us take a punt on one of these kids - than take a punt on another private school bottom feeder.

Ditto, but for me the thing is his honesty & hard work he has so obviously done with his hurt. this isn't easy, & takes guts & special qualities to face.

He sounds mostly free to a large degree of the things that haunted him, & I think he sounds like, now those issues can only drive him on, instead of hindering him.

he sounds like he really wants to prove himself, & earn a good reputation & name in lights.

he has guts. for sure.

Lycette's a legitimate ruck. Sinclair can ruck a little but really isn't. With Cox coming towards the end I think the Eagles will be super keen to keep both and if one of them is a back up for injuries then so be it. Considering Nic Nat's injury status you'd want to have both available anyway.

Geelong were keen to keep Mummy, in the end we have a place available and some cash for the right option.

I really don't think any of those guys are a big enough step up from what we have.

Stuey watch the 2002 Qualifying Final Melbourne vs Adelaide, watch how bad Darren Jolly was and listen to the commentators basically lambasting him, he was a premiership ruckman 3 years later

Who was Maric at Adelaide

I saw Cox when he was at East Perth and his first couple of years at Meth Coast nothing special, Sinclair is very athletic can play forward and would come a lot cheaper than a Pick in the Top 3, which could be used to deepen our midfeld with players who have 2/3 preseasons under their belt.

I do not know how you can base your thoughts on Sinclair as he has played little at AFL level due to those Meth Coast have at their disposal.

Jono Griffen is a very good ruckman and will want game time and wont want to be second fiddle which all depends on how Sandilands body holds up

Zac Clarke is just hitting the right age bracket and his form is suffering somewhat at the moment due to an interupted pre-season, he is another athletic ruckman who can play a variety of roles

Darcy Cameron was overlooked somewhat surprisingly last year but has been very impressive playing seniors at WAFL level so far this year, sharing ruck duties with Mark Seaby at Claremont , looks to have a fair bit of hunger after a reality check at the draft. Takes marks around the ground, provides pressure at stoppages and in the forward line is a good tackler.

If WRIGHT is the one big reward but big risk given what you would get in return for the pick and you would also want to be guaranteed the Lions or if anyone else finishes below us doesn't take him or trade the pick

My opinion on Lycett is he lacks agility, I have seriously seen Milk turn quicker, which is why I rate Sinclair higher and I also rate Sinclair as a better ruckman but that is my opinion.

we are attacking the problem from the wrong angle.

what we need is a coach thats a flux capacitor,then he can turn anything into good stuff.

With 18 players on the field, one player can only have so much influence. (Gary Ablett Jnr only racks up around 10% of GCS total SuperCoach points, which is an indicator of his value.) And given how difficult it is to postulate how 18 year old boys will develop, this means the draft is an extremely ineffective tool in evening up the competition.

The AFL should restrict the first round of the draft to only teams that miss the eight and then go in reverse ladder order for round 2. I would also be in favour of a weighted lottery for the first round.

This change is particularly necessary in a world of Free Agency.

I just had a thought, about the salary cap, that it might work better, if all clubs had the same amount of $$$$ to spend in an annual salary cap, but maker the list numbers less at the top of the table, & growing list numbers for the teams each 2 rungs lower, until the bottom team has 8 more on the list, churning more players.

Make the cap tighter, squeezing the salaries. This will cause some players to move clubs for more opportunity. Make the list too tight at the top end, causing the top teams to trade out some players as they climb.

Allow the rookie list to be seperate from the senior list numbers, and outside the senior salary cap, but still evenly regulated.

Stuey watch the 2002 Qualifying Final Melbourne vs Adelaide, watch how bad Darren Jolly was and listen to the commentators basically lambasting him, he was a premiership ruckman 3 years later

Who was Maric at Adelaide

I saw Cox when he was at East Perth and his first couple of years at Meth Coast nothing special, Sinclair is very athletic can play forward and would come a lot cheaper than a Pick in the Top 3, which could be used to deepen our midfeld with players who have 2/3 preseasons under their belt.

I do not know how you can base your thoughts on Sinclair as he has played little at AFL level due to those Meth Coast have at their disposal.

Jono Griffen is a very good ruckman and will want game time and wont want to be second fiddle which all depends on how Sandilands body holds up

Zac Clarke is just hitting the right age bracket and his form is suffering somewhat at the moment due to an interupted pre-season, he is another athletic ruckman who can play a variety of roles

Darcy Cameron was overlooked somewhat surprisingly last year but has been very impressive playing seniors at WAFL level so far this year, sharing ruck duties with Mark Seaby at Claremont , looks to have a fair bit of hunger after a reality check at the draft. Takes marks around the ground, provides pressure at stoppages and in the forward line is a good tackler.

If WRIGHT is the one big reward but big risk given what you would get in return for the pick and you would also want to be guaranteed the Lions or if anyone else finishes below us doesn't take him or trade the pick

IMO our first picks in the U-18 draft should be the ones who can offer us senior help inside a 2 yr turn around. The U-18 ruck may not do that for us?

We need Key Posi players, both ends, & we need hard skilled running players, capable of playing back or forward, or mid.

King will be one season in, this year. we could rookie another ruck, & grab a useful aging Ruck as backup to Spencer/Gawn.

Edited April 30, 201410 yr by dee-luded

Says who?

Hunt may not have been on your list, but by the sounds of it a few clubs had monitored him.

You're not to know where another team may have picked him, or that no other team was interested.

Just because it wasn't all over the AFL website, doesn't mean he must a longshot project.

And you're going very early on him.

In regards to Templeton, I heard a number of clubs put a line through him due to attitude.

My AFL scouting/ recruiting friend. A few days after draft night I asked him and he confirmed he was taken too early. I presume by the way you wrote that he must have been on "your list" come draft night... was he?

He was and is a project player (aka smokey), he didn't play TAC Cup in 2013 let alone represent VIC metro. He played school boy footy for Brighton Grammar. The trigger was pulled far too early on him, and if another club selected him as their project player it would not have been a huge loss like you elude it to be.

As I said I have nothing against him, I hope he succeeds and makes something of himself, I'm just saying we could of selected him in the rookies and we could have selected a greater and more probable prospect at pick 57. For example Honeychurch who went at #60 and was on my list (I was PO with this on the night), and interestingly Langdon at #65 (although I was unaware of how good he would be), and then of course Templeton at #3 RD.

I just don't want to see these later picks in the national draft used for prospect players or smokeys when there are talented players that rack up stats available.

NB. Fyfe was a smoky, in a similar vein.

Ummm... no.

Im pretty sure last year I read a mini artince on Sinclair saying that we were very interested in him but was a toss up between him and Fitzpatrick and we decided on Fitzy instead?

My AFL scouting/ recruiting friend. A few days after draft night I asked him and he confirmed he was taken too early. I presume by the way you wrote that he must have been on "your list" come draft night... was he?

He was and is a project player (aka smokey), he didn't play TAC Cup in 2013 let alone represent VIC metro. He played school boy footy for Brighton Grammar. The trigger was pulled far too early on him, and if another club selected him as their project player it would not have been a huge loss like you elude it to be.

As I said I have nothing against him, I hope he succeeds and makes something of himself, I'm just saying we could of selected him in the rookies and we could have selected a greater and more probable prospect at pick 57. For example Honeychurch who went at #60 and was on my list (I was PO with this on the night), and interestingly Langdon at #65 (although I was unaware of how good he would be), and then of course Templeton at #3 RD.

I just don't want to see these later picks in the national draft used for prospect players or smokeys when there are talented players that rack up stats available.

Ummm... no.

My point is that even if half the teams thought Hunt was taken too early, that doesn't mean that the other half didn't.

Let alone 1 recruiter.

Especially when you're comparing to Templeton, who was in the same boat (some obviously rate him, some didnt).

And Fyfe was rated, but I recall him having an unorthodox path to the draft, and was seen as a smoky by some teams.

Even Freo were shocked at his ability to play midfield and rapid development.

It's well documented the recruiter had to put his aggets on the line, against the wishes of the coaching staff.

Im pretty sure last year I read a mini artince on Sinclair saying that we were very interested in him but was a toss up between him and Fitzpatrick and we decided on Fitzy instead?

I think you might be thinking Fitxpatrick & Gawn.

We selected Gawn out of the 2 at pick 34, thinking Fitzy would go soon after, but then Fitz was still available at 50.

My AFL scouting/ recruiting friend. A few days after draft night I asked him and he confirmed he was taken too early. I presume by the way you wrote that he must have been on "your list" come draft night... was he?

He was and is a project player (aka smokey), he didn't play TAC Cup in 2013 let alone represent VIC metro. He played school boy footy for Brighton Grammar. The trigger was pulled far too early on him, and if another club selected him as their project player it would not have been a huge loss like you elude it to be.

As I said I have nothing against him, I hope he succeeds and makes something of himself, I'm just saying we could of selected him in the rookies and we could have selected a greater and more probable prospect at pick 57. For example Honeychurch who went at #60 and was on my list (I was PO with this on the night), and interestingly Langdon at #65 (although I was unaware of how good he would be), and then of course Templeton at #3 RD.

I just don't want to see these later picks in the national draft used for prospect players or smokeys when there are talented players that rack up stats available.

Ummm... no.

That's not what I call a project player.

Michael Luxford, a basketballer who has never played footy, being taken as a rookie at Geelong, is a project player.

Even a steeplechaser in Blicavs.

It's not unreasonable to expect a kid requires 2-3 years of development before playing AFL, and that does not make them a project.

Not in my eyes.

While believing in always drafting best available, I would be trying to boost our midfield again at the end of the year. The game has changed and top midfielders are of much more value than good KPP these days. Look at who are the top players today (Ablett, Selwood, Watson, Dangerfield, Pendlebury and Mitchell) and compare that to yesteryear when it would have been Dunstall, Brereton, Carey, Kernahan and Lockett. Given our pick is likely to be very early again and much of the top end talent is KPPs, I would be in favour of trading down our pick(s) again.

I also think underage KPPs often look better draft prospects than they actually are because underage games are more open and there are more one-on-one marking contests.

Our lack of structure and ineptitude in the first three rounds is an example of that good kpp’s are still important in the modern game.

We couldn’t cover for the absence of Clark, Dawes and Hogan, and Fitzpatrick and Pedersen couldn’t cover their absence.

We've lost Clark, Hogan is a mystery, Jamar is nearing the end, Spencer is not AFL standard, Gawn is another mystery... No way do we pick midfielders over KPPs if they are best available (Peter Wright).

Our depth isn't great, and agree that there are too many unknowns with Jesse and Max, who is yet to ruck a full season at AFL level.

Same was said of FRASER & KRUEZAR, no thankyou trade the pick for two quality mids & target ruckman not getting regular game in their sides the same way other clubs have managed to get hold of Jolly, Mumford, Hale & Jacobs. Cox & Sandilands came via the Rookie draft and I do not want to take another chance on WRIGHT

At this stage though Wright has played more of his football as a forward, and has been dominant at times there.

There's still a fair bit of football to be played to assess his potential and worth. Pick one is fairly open this, he could well be overtaken. Besides, I still think (and hope) that we don't finish last this year.

If Frawley stays, I hope we take the best available. If it’s Wright, he looks like he has a very solid body for a 202cm kid and is quite quick for his size, with a good tank. I’ve only seen video, so look forward to seeing him play live.

Durdin can play across all key positions (back, forward, ruck), so offers the best versatility, if Frawley goes, he might be the KPP draftee I lean towards.

I also hope that whomever we pick, competitiveness and aggression is part of that players make up, and of the KPP’s tipped to go high, Goddard seems to display the most aggression (haven’t seen enough of Durdin and Wright to know whether they are competitive beasts or how much aggression they have in their games).

I’d be happy with any of those at this stage.

If we get a FA compo for Chip, I’d look to split the player types and draft a mid. Really hope Clem Smith pushes himself up into contention for a selection this high. His aggression and thirst for the contest is inspirational and he makes things happen. A quick player who can use the ball, make good decisions AND does the hard stuff is pretty rare. I hope he can show more of a midfield game this year, because he is a point of difference player in this draft. He does have a bit of work to do push himself up that far in the order, but I like the kid.

My point is that even if half the teams thought Hunt was taken too early, that doesn't mean that the other half didn't.

Let alone 1 recruiter.

Especially when you're comparing to Templeton, who was in the same boat (some obviously rate him, some didnt).

And Fyfe was rated, but I recall him having an unorthodox path to the draft, and was seen as a smoky by some teams.

Even Freo were shocked at his ability to play midfield and rapid development.

It's well documented the recruiter had to put his aggets on the line, against the wishes of the coaching staff.

That's not what I call a project player.

Michael Luxford, a basketballer who has never played footy, being taken as a rookie at Geelong, is a project player.

Even a steeplechaser in Blicavs.

It's not unreasonable to expect a kid requires 2-3 years of development before playing AFL, and that does not make them a project.

Not in my eyes.

I'll take your points and we can agree to disagree on the description of a project player

As for pulling the trigger too early on Hunt with regards to my original post, I would have preferred the club stacking the odds with that pick (and future late picks) by selecting players that are more likely to succeed based on good or excellent performances at a higher levels that slide in the draft (TAC Cup and U18 Champs), as apposed to a player in others inferior competitions (School Football).

Compare Honeychurch to Hunt, Honeychurch was in the premiership winning team of the TAC cup, represented Vic metro and was further named as an All-Australian in the U18 team. Hunt had a few good performances for Brighton Grammar. As for Templeton, I agree not all clubs rated him as high as some but his performances particularly during the U18 champs rated him higher than Hunt.

If the club again this year chooses a school boy who did not play TAC cup or represent his state over one that did who also performed well enough for to obtain or fall just shy of All-Australian selection I'll be livid.

I'll take your points and we can agree to disagree on the description of a project player

As for pulling the trigger too early on Hunt with regards to my original post, I would have preferred the club stacking the odds with that pick (and future late picks) by selecting players that are more likely to succeed based on good or excellent performances at a higher levels that slide in the draft (TAC Cup and U18 Champs), as apposed to a player in others inferior competitions (School Football).

Compare Honeychurch to Hunt, Honeychurch was in the premiership winning team of the TAC cup, represented Vic metro and was further named as an All-Australian in the U18 team. Hunt had a few good performances for Brighton Grammar. As for Templeton, I agree not all clubs rated him as high as some but his performances particularly during the U18 champs rated him higher than Hunt.

If the club again this year chooses a school boy who did not play TAC cup or represent his state over one that did who also performed well enough for to obtain or fall just shy of All-Australian selection I'll be livid.

I always find it funny when 'experts' say someone was taken too early. History will judge that.

Every year, in every draft regulated sport, there are experts saying that players were taken too early.

You just can't tell who will slip through to a later pick, or who will represent value in a few years when the dust settles.

Look at Fyfe - I don't recall much fanfare but if we took him many picks earlier would the 'experts' have said we are 'reaching' and that we should have gone for someone else? They wouldn't say it now...

Edited April 30, 201410 yr by rpfc

I think it just shows, that there is often little separating players in the draft, especially at the early stages.

The deigned "number 1" pick may only be 2% better than pick 3, if you have some magical "talent worth counter".

Sometimes you might have 5% difference between picks 1 & 10, or picks 5 & 20.

In the end it's a raffle, and all the kids drafted early should have what it takes.

But you never really know until you get them in the system and see how they flourish.

But, as rpfc pointed out, you're talking about priority picks still.

And I'd be all for a priority pick at the end of the 1st round.

It's odds-on to provide as much value as a top 5 pick, and it's about getting that 2nd bite at the cherry.

Roos understood that, and it's why he traded pick 2 for Tyson & Salem.

I believe Luke Shuey was an end-of-1st-round priority pick.

Just gotta use it well.

Machsy

I think you are echoing what I was trying to say (perhaps poorly worded). Struggling clubs need more picks in the first and second rounds of the draft, not necessarily a priority 1 pick, to increase their chances of improving their lists in what you have described as a raffle. in the draft raffle about all we have some confidence in is that there is more talent in the first 25 picks than the next 25 picks.

And yes this is exactly what Roos tried to engineer for us last draft.

I'll take your points and we can agree to disagree on the description of a project player

As for pulling the trigger too early on Hunt with regards to my original post, I would have preferred the club stacking the odds with that pick (and future late picks) by selecting players that are more likely to succeed based on good or excellent performances at a higher levels that slide in the draft (TAC Cup and U18 Champs), as apposed to a player in others inferior competitions (School Football).

Compare Honeychurch to Hunt, Honeychurch was in the premiership winning team of the TAC cup, represented Vic metro and was further named as an All-Australian in the U18 team. Hunt had a few good performances for Brighton Grammar. As for Templeton, I agree not all clubs rated him as high as some but his performances particularly during the U18 champs rated him higher than Hunt.

If the club again this year chooses a school boy who did not play TAC cup or represent his state over one that did who also performed well enough for to obtain or fall just shy of All-Australian selection I'll be livid.

I too was very surprised and so was the Footballing world we had taken him so early. He is every much as a project player has what Machsy mentioned about that guy. Hunt didnt even make the cut for his TAC which is bit of a worry. Played a few bit of school footy here and there and played tennis a bit more.

From the footage he is very quick and alright skills but surely he would have last till our rookie draft. I was a Templeton fan and I trully believe its the one that got away. If its not that then its Langdon or Honeychurch aswell.

Sick of these picks we keep wasting on smokies aswell.

Edited April 30, 201410 yr by dazzledavey36

I too was very surprised and so was the Footballing world we had taken him so early. He is every much as a project player has what Machsy mentioned about that guy. Hunt didnt even make the cut for his TAC which is bit of a worry. Played a few bit of school footy here and there and played tennis a bit more.

From the footage he is very quick and alright skills but surely he would have last till our rookie draft. I was a Templeton fan and I trully believe its the one that got away. If its not that then its Langdon or Honeychurch aswell.

Sick of these picks we keep wasting on smokies aswell.

But he is under 65 kg with no discernible muscle definition and the club surely couldn't pass that up.

But he is under 65 kg with no discernible muscle definition and the club surely couldn't pass that up.

Hasn't hurt him at St Kilda this year.

Hasn't hurt him at St Kilda this year.

Dazzle, are we talking about the same bloke - Hunt?