Also didn't play as much as those other blokes, and I'd like to see where you heard he would have went in the 30's?

Daniel Rich is comparable to Ollie Wines in that his impact in the first year was great. But when you look at that draft Rich was/is not the best player from picks 7-53. If you were drafting in retropsect you would take Zeibell (9), Davis (10) Dayne Beams (29), Hanneberry (30), Zaharakis (23), Shuey (19) Sloane (44) Walters(53) - all ahead of Rich.

Its such a cr ap argument to look at first year impact.

I am impressed by the patronising tone...

As PSD noted, if they draft age was lifted, other things will change along with that - it won't happen in a vaccum.

The AFL can look at an elite U/20 Competition or they can put money into grass roots footy and their programs. These clubs would thrive on the responsibility.

It's only because it seems incredibly obvious and I am genuinely surprised.

You have changed your argument RP. Do you want the kids to go to the VFL or amend the TAC cup and increase the draft age? Earlier posts indicated that you want the kids sent to the VFL.

Brayshaw had injuries the year before and had no consistency in terms of games. Funny thing is that he would have been drafted at 30 on upside and talent - not due to performances. This year he put performances on the board which made him rocket up the rankings. He's also up there due to a poor showing by the key forwards this year at the championships.

I am just highlighting how much luck is in recruitment - timing, injuries, when kids develop, how they play in a particular carnival etc.

Trengove's domination in the SANFL finals meant he became an instant top 2 pick

Jack Watts took a clutch mark and goal to win the Championships which was possibly the difference between pick 1 and 2

Bontompelli had a huge last month and went from a pick 15 throughout the year to 4.

Tom Swift was the best junior in the land for a number of years, fell down to pick 18 and was retired by 21.

Darling was regarded as risk - feel to pick 25.

Selwood had dodgy knee and fell to pick 7.

Judd 2 shoulder reco's and went 3

You get my drift.....

It's only because it seems incredibly obvious and I am genuinely surprised.

You have changed your argument RP. Do you want the kids to go to the VFL or amend the TAC cup and increase the draft age? Earlier posts indicated that you want the kids sent to the VFL.

I am not wedded to any arrangement for these teenagers to spend the two years after they finish school. Frankly, some of these kids won't make the TAC U/20 and there would be players selected from, you know, interstate where there isn't a TAC Cup-like competition.

I am only wedded to the increase in the age limit.

And it is not without precedent - it was increased by 4 months when the GWS came in.

Back to the Thread!

nutbean, on 07 Nov 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

I consider my views "Expert" I went for Ollie Wines over Jimmy Toumpas

That's 1 zip

I now go for Mc Cartin at pick 3 if Saints don't take him first!

Now if we don't get him and he has an impact straight away and whoever else we grab doesn't have an impact straight away then that gives me

2 Zip

So who are the 'Real Experts"??

Hnmm

Remember Hogan still hasn't played and if he still continues with lingering after effects then stuffed if I want to see Pederson and Fitzy playing the key Forward roles.

And If Hogan does come up , then great for us we have potentially the best possible Forward combo we have had for some time.

Now that is sound logic !

The Levers and Laverde's are not top 3 plus DON'T FILL OUR MOST PRESSING NEEDS So why oh why would you consider them??

Nup recruiting is easy, if you can see the real wood for the trees! And remember don't go for twigs, go a few strong branches that will bear some fruit!

as to your assertion that you picked Wines over Toumpas - 1 -zip. You are selling yourself short. Every expert bar yourself rated Toumpas higher so the scoreline should look more like you 100% right -other experts 100% wrong . Well done ! You also wanted to select Newton who will languish in SANFL until death do us part. I asked all the experts on this and I am afraid that brings the scoreline back to you 1,000,00 million wrong - experts on par ( 100% wrong on Wines 100% right on Newton)

I will argue that Lever and Laverde may well be top 3 after a season or two - you don't know. Again Bontempelli on exposed form should be no 1 from last years draft but thats not where he was selected.

As to our most pressing needs - you can argue both ways - do we need mids ? absolutely .. do we need forwards ? absolutely.

I will state categorically that if Lever or Laverde turn out to be champs and McCartin a chump then we require Lever and Laverde. If McCartin turns out to be the anti-Newton then we desperately need him.

We'd committed our 3rd rounder to Stretch and our 4th rounder to Garlett. The only way to get what we needed for Frost was to downgrade one of our first 3 picks. I wanted that downgrade to be less steep than pick 23 to pick 40. I would've liked our third pick in the draft inside to the top 30 or 35. But it wasn't to be.

the talk was we were going to pick him up as a DFAgent ?

I am just highlighting how much luck is in recruitment - timing, injuries, when kids develop, how they play in a particular carnival etc.

Trengove's domination in the SANFL finals meant he became an instant top 2 pick

Jack Watts took a clutch mark and goal to win the Championships which was possibly the difference between pick 1 and 2

Bontompelli had a huge last month and went from a pick 15 throughout the year to 4.

Tom Swift was the best junior in the land for a number of years, fell down to pick 18 and was retired by 21.

Darling was regarded as risk - feel to pick 25.

Selwood had dodgy knee and fell to pick 7.

Judd 2 shoulder reco's and went 3

You get my drift.....

without listing 100 more instances your drift is 100% correct.

What you are asking is for kids who chose to be professional sportsmen, to take two years off their [limited] working life! I am not sure how the AFL Players Association will view that as a good idea!

open a rookie draft @ age 17Yrs, & bring back an under 19's competition. if one of our rookie listed kids is good enough at say 17Yrs & 8 months; dispensation should be sought to primary list the kid. each AFL club could have say 6 scholarship squad rookies list per season?

make the national draft age 19 Yrs.

Is there any merit to having 2 age groups within elite junior ranks if the draft level was raised a year? Each current club would field an under 17 TAC cup team with current rules in place regarding tagging and flooding etc and a under 19 TAC cup with no restrictions, played in the true spirit of senior footy.

Daniel Rich is comparable to Ollie Wines in that his impact in the first year was great. But when you look at that draft Rich was/is not the best player from picks 7-53. If you were drafting in retropsect you would take Zeibell (9), Davis (10) Dayne Beams (29), Hanneberry (30), Zaharakis (23), Shuey (19) Sloane (44) Walters(53) - all ahead of Rich.

Its such a cr ap argument to look at first year impact.

Daniel Rich> Phil Davis, Luke Shuey, Michael Walters, Jack Ziebell

Those clubs exist to win senior premierships first and foremost, not to foster development pathways to the AFL. It is not their sole focus, they put a fair bit of money into development and a lot leave U/18'S in their colts sides knowing they are going to be drafted and exposure at senior level may show flaws which effects where they go in the draft, seen it done many times scracthing my head why some weren't given senior games upon return from U/18 Nationals ahead of older players they were better then

The colts may be able to cope due to the lower numbers of elite footballers and increased geography in WA. There is no way that the VFL could cope. It is just my opinion but I don't agree with this, for starters the vast majority of kids at TAC cup level have little chance of making it when you crunch the numbers. I see two fold benefits and would like to see the AFL adopt an academy system for the Vic based AFL clubs similar to the Northern States and also see the older VFA clubs also gain the financial benefits of having kids drafted from their zones, isn't their already a system in place where Oakleigh Chargers kids go to Port Melbourne if they aren't brought into the AFL system

TAC cup tracks many of these kids form 14 years of age, they are taught about diet, training, leadership etc etc. Who says VFL Clubs could not do this in their zones, WAFL Clubs have development squads from the age of 14, this has been happening for years I was in a development squad in the 80's and I know we certainly weren't the first group

The system isn't perfect but neither is democracy. The failures of the TAC system are massively over-stated by a few here and is probably due to MFCScfS or whatever you call it. It is a very good system with a few flaws. If your recruiters are good enough then those flaws will be factored into your decision making. When you go through the draft history of the last 15 years every club has made howler decisions and it is not limited to MFC, one or two good drafts can set your club up for a decade Hawks 2001/2004 and Cats 1999/2001 whilst drafts like the MFC of 2008/9/10 can set you back years. The Cats have made some mistakes in drafting in this time frame as have the Hawks but it is less amplified, the draft remains a lottery and IMO exposure over a few years would limit the percentages of failed picks

The fact remains that some here want to go from a system which is one designed specifically as a pathway to senior AFL football to one that is not. That is a backward step and makes no sense.

The Levers and Laverde's are not top 3 plus DON'T FILL OUR MOST PRESSING NEEDS So why oh why would you consider them??

I totally agree with you here Picket. Our most pressing needs are mids and KPF's, then followed by KPD's, but we have some depth in that department in Dunn, Frost and McDonald.

Laverde at the moment is what i would describe as a flanker/wingman, not a mid but a hybrid. Lever, whilst impressive is currently a KPD and untried as a tall mid.

I see real value in Wright in that he can play as a forward/ruck, something we lack at the moment (particularly quality ruck depth), but in terms of overall quality, Picks 2&3 would have to be Brayshaw and McCartin.

All other potential draftees would simply be picked on speculation and potential ahead of the 2 named above.

PS - my heart is set on Brayshaw, but pick 3 is still a massive guess. I have no bias either way and will back our recruiting team and PR 100%, but if it's best available, then it simply would be:

1- Petracca

2- McCartin

3- Brayshaw

PS - my heart is set on Brayshaw, but pick 3 is still a massive guess. I have no bias either way and will back our recruiting team and PR 100%, but if it's best available, then it simply would be:

1- Petracca

2- McCartin

3- Brayshaw

Why would the best available simply be those three names you mentioned ?

2013 - Boyd Kelly Billings - went as expected - the best available - are they now the best available ? Emma Quayle and Paige Cardona ranked them this way as well as countless others

2012 - Whitfield O'Rouke Plowman - the best available ? Quayle had them this way - Cardona had Whitfield Toumpas Plowman - on form to date - the three best ?

Simply, whoever comes out 1-2-3 is almost guaranteed not to be the best 2 years down the track.

Most people on this site question Wright's physicality but some time junior players who are very big don't show physicality because they believe they will hurt the smaller players. If this is the case with Wright then when he gets to the AFL he will release the beast and will become an exceptional player. This is a big if whilst McCartin does not care whether he hurt small players and has shown some c..t. I am a great believer in players who have this are going to be better players than the timid type like Gysbert, Morton, Blease and Watts. In junior footy the players who read the play like Gysbert Morton and Blease standout because their opponents don't play close checking football once they get to senior football the game changes and these type of players fail.

Why are we choosing to ignore what Roos said mid year about not rating TAC Cup forwards? There is no flooding, no double teaming and often the defenders in these sides are just top up players as all the decent/draft able players play midfield or forward.

I recon it's almost certain we'll take Brayshaw and Lever

I just threw up.

Nup yep me too!!!

Why are we choosing to ignore what Roos said mid year about not rating TAC Cup forwards? There is no flooding, no double teaming and often the defenders in these sides are just top up players as all the decent/draft able players play midfield or forward.

I recon it's almost certain we'll take Brayshaw and Lever

Because:

1. Roos doesn't do the drafting

2. Where did he categorically say this, at a private supporters meeting

3. If he doesn't rate the forwards how can he rate the key defender?

Because:

1. Roos doesn't do the drafting

2. Where did he categorically say this, at a private supporters meeting

3. If he doesn't rate the forwards how can he rate the key defender?

1. He has influence dontyathink?

2. Apparently.

3. Thinks he can be a tall mid.

I don't necessarily agree with any of these, but there are the clift notes - I saved you some time.

The Levers and Laverde's are not top 3 plus DON'T FILL OUR MOST PRESSING NEEDS So why oh why would you consider them??

Nup recruiting is easy, if you can see the real wood for the trees! And remember don't go for twigs, go a few strong branches that will bear some fruit!

Our needs are for superstars. There isn't a position on the ground where we don't need improvement. We need the best player available.

A champion centre half back or a superstar tall wingman who can turn in to a clearance midfieder are our needs. A key forward who doesn't get a kick isn't.

The no skinny kids policy is just ridiculous

Err Roughead 193cm David Hale 201cm And buddy the last couple of years at 196cm aswell.

Pretty sure you do need big haulking forwards come finals time.

No brainer.

In GF Hale played little or no part (was he playing?), and you have the others in a nutshell Roughhead 193, Gunston 193cm, Breust 184cm. None of these are big hulking forwards!

Because:

1. Roos doesn't do the drafting

2. Where did he categorically say this, at a private supporters meeting

3. If he doesn't rate the forwards how can he rate the key defender?

1. He has influence dontyathink?

2. Apparently.

3. Thinks he can be a tall mid.

I don't necessarily agree with any of these, but there are the clift notes - I saved you some time.

What RPFC said ^^^

Daniel Rich> Phil Davis, Luke Shuey, Michael Walters, Jack Ziebell

IYO

Because:

1. Roos doesn't do the drafting

2. Where did he categorically say this, at a private supporters meeting

3. If he doesn't rate the forwards how can he rate the key defender?

I think you will find he said it on his Foxfooty program whatever its called?

FWIW I can see us targeting a tall forward in the next Trade / Free Agency period rather than Dangerfield.

It is seemingly a easier and safer bet to develop mids and pay overs for a quality forward. Look at how hard it has been for us and Dogs for develop a strong CHF or FF.

In GF Hale played little or no part (was he playing?), and you have the others in a nutshell Roughhead 193, Gunston 193cm, Breust 184cm. None of these are big hulking forwards!

Roughy and buddy last year?

Tom Hawkins and Cam Mooney

Nick Reiwoldt and Kozi

Cloke and Dawes