AFL National Draft 2014 Picks 2 & 3

[IvanBartul13 2,564]

No I wasn't against us getting Hogan.

We got access to the mini draft so it was different. And he couldn't be as accurately compared to other KP players of his draft.

But I still believe Hogan has a better mix of attributes. But that's neither here nor there.

The question should be, what do the MFC need to become more and more competitive?

And my answer is midfielders.

I don't see how you can have a philosphical problem with drafting key forwards and approve of getting Hogan. How can you justify taking Hogan over Kelly and then sustain your above key forward argument.

Also if a key position player graded at 9/10 and a midfielder 7/10, would you take the midfielder.

Of your key position list - Haynes is a potentially elite defender, but more of a third tall, so I'm not including him.

Day, Daniher, Boyd and Patton are all very good and if not salivatingly exciting prospects. Patton obviously has been cruelled by knee injury. Hansen (always more a key back prospect as well) and Henderson (good forward when used there) are undoubtedly good players. Gumbleton's career was destroyed by injury. Watts is going to play 200 games and Butcher has been the one major bust. Your list doesn't include Tomlinson either who is a good player. There is just no reason or evidence to support your theory.

And where you get your views on McCartin I'd like to know, he basically kicks 4 a game and takes 8 marks. There is nothing to suggest he can't kick goals. He has struggled to do so in teams getting defeated though.

[Machsy 2,858]

Day, Daniher, Boyd, Patton and Hogan are all a class above McCartin, in my opinion.

If he was better, I'd be ok with taking him instead of a mid, but he doesn't have the exceptional talent that makes him worth going against the strategy of building a midfield.

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,483]

If people (and recruiters of course) believe that McCartin is the third best footballer in the draft, then we should take him. I understand our midfield is poor but we must take talent when it is offered to us. If it's between McCartin and a midfielder, let's just draft the best player of the two and leave 'drafting for needs' as a tie-breaker.

For mine:

Pick 2: Brayshaw and Pick 3: McCartin

A young spine of FROST - MCDONALD - BRAYSHAW - HOGAN - MCCARTIN is full of that wonderful (dirty) word, potential.

[IvanBartul13 2,564]

Day, Daniher, Boyd, Patton and Hogan are all a class above McCartin, in my opinion.

If he was better, I'd be ok with taking him instead of a mid, but he doesn't have the exceptional talent that makes him worth going against the strategy of building a midfield.

For a start you can build a midfield over a number of years. My question is which mids would you take ahead of mccartin or wright and which quality miss in the pool you think can play in the centre square in particular are better?

[Machsy 2,858]

Ahern, De Goey, Duggan.

And Lever if he can play as a mid.

I really like everything Lever brings to the table, and I think he can play in the middle.

[Earl Hood 6,082]

Gee it is tough this year. I am hoping for Brayshaw at 2 but just don't know for number 3 so it is better I hold off so if we get it wrong I can wade in boots and all about the one I would have chosen if I had time.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Earl Hood

[IvanBartul13 2,564]

Ahern, De Goey, Duggan.

And Lever if he can play as a mid.

I really like everything Lever brings to the table, and I think he can play in the middle.

You would draft/rate Duggan and De Goey ahead of McCartin and Wright?

[Lord Travis 10,696]

Brayshaw and Mccartin is the most likely combo I feel. I'll be fine with that. Both are hard at it, and Brayshaw in particular is a lock to have a solid career at worst IMO.

I really wish we had another pick in the early 20s to pick up another midfielder. There will still be some class available there but will be all gone by our pick at 40 or whatever it is. Shame we missed an opportunity.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

I don't see how you can have a philosphical problem with drafting key forwards and approve of getting Hogan. How can you justify taking Hogan over Kelly and then sustain your above key forward argument.

Also if a key position player graded at 9/10 and a midfielder 7/10, would you take the midfielder.

Of your key position list - Haynes is a potentially elite defender, but more of a third tall, so I'm not including him.

Day, Daniher, Boyd and Patton are all very good and if not salivatingly exciting prospects. Patton obviously has been cruelled by knee injury. Hansen (always more a key back prospect as well) and Henderson (good forward when used there) are undoubtedly good players. Gumbleton's career was destroyed by injury. Watts is going to play 200 games and Butcher has been the one major bust. Your list doesn't Tomlinson either who is a good player. There is just no reason or evidence to support your theory.

And where you get your views on McCartin I'd like to know, he basically kicks 4 a game and takes 8 marks. There is nothing to suggest he can't kick goals. He has struggled to do so in teams getting defeated though.

I don't have a philosophical problem drafting all key forwards. Just some at the top end of the draft. It gets murky sometimes.

I have a problem with posters believing that McCartin will be an absolute gun because of how he is rated within this draft pool. It's always the case that forwards stand out at tac cup level football. It's harder to predict whether or not they'll be as good at AFL level, and I'm making a calculated judgement that McCartin doesn't have the attributes required to become a topline AFL forward. That is all.

I gave examples of forwards previously rated as highly as McCartin within their own draft who for varying reasons, never reached the heights that people had hoped. I've already stated that it was too early to tell for Patton, Daniher and Boyd. (All three of whom were standout number one draft picks and in my eyes, are more exciting prospects than McCartin). We can argue details of the others but Sam Day was drafted as a forward. Haynes I thought was too but maybe I'm wrong.

The way in which we got hogan was a unique scenario and he is a completely different player with a much better set of attributes in my opinion.I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

McCartin is a one-dimensional forward who's kicking for goal is questionable. No matter how he's rated in THIS DRAFT, too many types like him haven't dominated in the same way at AFL level.

I'd rather go with a safer bet. A midfielder.

Edited October 29, 2014 by stevethemanjordan

[rjay 24,866]

Gee it is tough this year. I am hoping for Brayshaw at 2 but just don't know for number 3 so it is better I hold off so if we get it wrong I can wade in boots and all about the one I would have chosen if I had time.

Agree 'Hood', might have been easier if we were able to do another Tyson deal.

[DeeMfc 621]

Unfortunately this whole draft pool is very even and there are no real standouts like an O'Meara or a Whitfield etc.

That go's for talls or mids.

Although he's a promising talent, the fact that Petracca is touted as the number 1 pic is testament to that.

Edited October 29, 2014 by DeeMfc

[Machsy 2,858]

You would draft/rate Duggan and De Goey ahead of McCartin and Wright?

I quite like De Goey. Could be something special.

Duggan I'm not sure on, but I'm not sure on McCartin, and I don't rate Wright's chances of becoming anything amazing.

For at least 5 years anyway.

[Biffen 12,940]

Ahern, De Goey, Duggan.

And Lever if he can play as a mid.

I really like everything Lever brings to the table, and I think he can play in the middle.

So you've narrowed it down to about 7 or 8 choices for the two picks.

Good one.

[CBDees 3,167]

So you've narrowed it down to about 7 or 8 choices for the two picks.

Good one.

Considering that Brayshaw is a given, what you are really trying to say that he has narrowed it down to 6 or 7 choices for the single oick!

[Machsy 2,858]

So you've narrowed it down to about 7 or 8 choices for the two picks.

Good one.

Let me know when you actually have an opinion, instead of just cheap pot shots and poor attempts at comedy.

You'd have to be thick to not realise I've said a handful of times that I'd take Brayshaw & Lever.

Failing that, I think I'd consider taking De Goey.

But I was naming mids that I'd take ahead of McCartin, as I was asked to.

It's a shame you're so obtuse.

[nutbean 8,838]

No I wasn't against us getting Hogan.

We got access to the mini draft so it was different. And he couldn't be as accurately compared to other KP players of his draft.

But I still believe Hogan has a better mix of attributes. But that's neither here nor there.

The question should be, what do the MFC need to become more and more competitive?

And my answer is midfielders.

probably the answer is that the need to acquire McCartin has diminished because we have got Hogan.

[nutbean 8,838]

If people (and recruiters of course) believe that McCartin is the third best footballer in the draft, then we should take him. I understand our midfield is poor but we must take talent when it is offered to us. If it's between McCartin and a midfielder, let's just draft the best player of the two and leave 'drafting for needs' as a tie-breaker.

The trouble is that history has shown us that players that recruiters believe to the third best footballer have a varied success rate of turning out that way. To date - IMO 2013 draft - pick 4 bontempelli is the standout

2012 draft - pick 7 Wines

2011 draft - wow - really hard - maybe we now have the steal of the draft Tyson at number 3 or Toby Greene at 11 ?

The point is we make such a big deal about the difference between what predraft are considered the 3rd best and 4th, 5th or 6th best when in reality the careers of what was picked as the 3rd , 4th ,5th or 6th best never play out in that order.

So would we be ridiculous taking a Laverde over McCartin because McCartin is considered 3rd best and Laverde 5th best ? absolutely not - history tells us that there is as much chance that Laverde should be a number 3 pick.

Edit - I went back to 2000 on number one draft picks and on careers to date I could argue the case for three (maybe five) being the correct choices ( Of course this is retrospective) - 2010 - Swallow ( I think Heppel is better though). 2003 - Cooney ( Mundy ?) 2002 - Goddard is still the pick , 2001 - Hodge ( Judd ?), 2000 - Reiwoldt. Again on history and the odds - there will be a better player in this draft than Petracca.

Edited October 29, 2014 by nutbean

[TheoX 1,222]

I've said a handful of times that I'd take Brayshaw & Lever.

Failing that, I think I'd consider taking De Goey.

But I was naming mids that I'd take ahead of McCartin, as I was asked to.

So you want us to draft a safer bet in a midfielder, rather than just the best talent at #3, yet your preference is Lever, a key defender who has never played in the midfield and is coming off a knee reconstruction? Make up your mind.

Edited October 29, 2014 by TheoX

[nutbean 8,838]

So you want us to draft a 'safer bet' in a midfielder, rather than just the best talent at #3, yet your preference is Lever, a key defender who has never played in the midfield and is coming off a knee reconstruction? Make up your mind.

Read the above - are you confident who the best talent is at number 3 ?

[TheoX 1,222]

Read the above - are you confident who the best talent is at number 3 ?

No i'm not personally, but I'm confident our recruting staff will work it out. They're no Barry Prendergasts.

[Machsy 2,858]

So you want us to draft a safer bet in a midfielder, rather than just the best talent at #3, yet your preference is Lever, a key defender who has never played in the midfield and is coming off a knee reconstruction? Make up your mind.

Comprehension issues?

I think Lever is a talent worthy of pick 3.

I don't think McCartin is, although he will be good.

I'd rather a mid than McCartin.

I'd rather Lever than one of the mids likely to be available, because I assume Petracca will be gone.

Any sensible questions..?

[nutbean 8,838]

No i'm not personally, but I'm confident our recruting staff will work it out. They're no Barry Prendergasts.

But you can't argue with historical data - not only are the odds heavily against our recruiters, the odds are against any recruiter making the correct decision. It has happened in almost draft to date - why should that change.

What I am hoping for is draft pick that can be a valuable 10 year player. What I dream about is an elite superstar.

I look forward to the five phases of recruiting according to demonland

phase one - everyone having an expert opinion on immature, under-developed 18 year olds coming from a competition where defensive efforts and two way running are a mystery. ( these opinions in the main are gathered from a 2 minute highlight reel and the musings of so called experts who have not got it right from day one)

phase two drafting the players

phase three - immediate outrage over who we should have taken and who we missed out on

phase four - two seasons on - outrage over who we should have taken and who we missed out on ( which are a completely different set of players than those mentioned in phase 4)

phase five - ongoing and continued depression on why we can't get a draft pick right

Edited October 29, 2014 by nutbean

[IvanBartul13 2,564]

The way in which we got hogan was a unique scenario and he is a completely different player with a much better set of attributes in my opinion.I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

It's not really a unique scenario, the mini-draft was a means by which the club chose to improve its list. It was effectively a decision to trade the rights to Ollie Wines for an elite young key forward and your commentary would suggest that you should be against that move, which is fair enough. But the problem with your concept would be that the club would never, failing being able to trade for one or fluking with a late pick, be able to ever have a quality key position player. The next question being can the club ever achieve sustained success without taking the "risk" to draft key forwards, which is an ages-long debate about the importance of midfields versus forward setups, but either way I would contend that it is complete lunacy to not draft good young key position players if you think they are clearly the best players available at a particular spot.

Edited October 29, 2014 by goodoil

[IvanBartul13 2,564]

Comprehension issues?

I think Lever is a talent worthy of pick 3.

I don't think McCartin is, although he will be good.

I'd rather a mid than McCartin.

I'd rather Lever than one of the mids likely to be available, because I assume Petracca will be gone.

Any sensible questions..?

My question is, and this is the problem I have with us picking Lever - and I have no problem with him as a player and certainly not as a character - how can you justify drafting a defender when you have just re-signed Tom McDonald, when Dunn has been given a (too-long) four-year deal, when you have just effectively used a second round pick on Sam Frost? Are you purely taking best available?

Edited October 29, 2014 by goodoil

[Machsy 2,858]

My question is, and this is the problem I have with us picking Lever - and I have no problem with him as a player and certainly not as a character - how can you justify drafting a defender when you have just re-signed Tom McDonald, when Dunn has been given a (too-long) four-year deal, when you have just effectively used a second round pick on Sam Frost? Are you purely taking best available?

No. I think he would be a best available selection.

But I also think there's a strong chance Lever can move into the middle.

And Frost could play up forward if needed.