What I have learned is the experts are pretty close to correct on estimating at what pick a player WILL be selected.

What they get wrong with alarming regularity is at what pick a player SHOULD be selected.

a different path to the same sentiment

All these experts seem to evaluate the players with glaring fallacy

Still can't begin to fathom how people believe it's 'more risky' to take a KPF over an 18 year-old kid who's already had a knee reconstruction and hasn't played for 12 months.

God I hope we don't pick Lever. Disaster waiting to happen. I've voted Wright from the beginning, but happy to just take the consensus top-3 talent that is Patty McCartin.

Please don't stuff this one up Melbourne.

The 'consensus choice' hasn't been good to us in the past.

Morton, Scully, Trengove, Watts, and dare I say Toumpas?

The last two are good players but picked above others more deserving because of the consensus reached by those that claim to know more than they actually do.

Lever is apparently 192-194. Played mainly as a key back, but been training as a midfielder.

Goddard is 191 and Goodes 194.

This is the type of swingman we need, able to run off halfback or hold down a KPP, run through the middle all at various stages of the game. (incredibly hard to match up on) I'm not as worried about X factor, we just need hungry competitive footballers who can stick at a task. His knee is a worry, but so is diabetes.

so is soft...

no issue with Lever IMO. he looks the goods.

will be interesting which way the wind blows if the aints take Mc Cartin

lesson here....The "experts" are actually seldom on the money. They often craftily rewrite a little bit of history here and there to justify where the world differed from their expectations.

I still expect the club to something "different" and to do it to suit US, not anyone else or their thinkings.

Cast aside the scrawny ones who's going to be able to help us and be strong bodies with enormous appetite for the game.

So if we think in terns of the players we have that ought to either solidify their games or step it up and form a framework of a decent midfield what do we require to bolster this, compliment it, not replace it.

and it'll all probably revolve around who actually goes at 1

maybe if saints take Mccartin, we take Brayshaw & Lever, leaving the Petracca to GWS, & next year we grab one of their Mids. they can't play all their players in one team of 22

rebound drafting

funny how 190-192 was the dreaded height..

Now its THE "Prototype" for the utility mid..

maybe if saints take Mccartin, we take Brayshaw & Lever, leaving the Petracca to GWS, & next year we grab one of their Mids. they can't play all their players in one team of 22

rebound drafting

Thats not so daft really is it. its unlikely ( said this elsewhere ) that either would be expected to impact hugely in 2015...nor anyone drafted by Roos for that matter. Sure they'll get some air time but will be educational more than anything else. So Whoever is picked wont become mainstream til likely '16.....by which time youve had a chance to go shopping again for an immediate impact player ....from the GW Store !! If youre building a team you dont do it all in one fell swoop.; well highly unlikely.

They may end up doing what many perceive the obvious...Petracca and Brayshaw ...I just dont necessarily see it as an absolute lock .

Will be interesting

Can i ask what it is about wright and lever that you guys like so much?

I think I know the reason behind the love affair for Lever. It's because GNF said that Roos likes him, GNF casts a spell like no other on Demonland.

Lever has done his knee, he's not quick, too skinny to play key, never played in the midfield. I really don't see what he's got going for him, would be amazed if we picked him up at 3.

Not sure if there is any love out there for Wright he only has 17 votes.

I think I know the reason behind the love affair for Lever. It's because GNF said that Roos likes him, GNF casts a spell like no other on Demonland.

Lever has done his knee, he's not quick, too skinny to play key, never played in the midfield. I really don't see what he's got going for him, would be amazed if we picked him up at 3.

Not sure if there is any love out there for Wright he only has 17 votes.

I think the big plus for Lever is the big knock on Wright - appetite for the contest. If Wright doesn't like the physical aspects of the game playing against boys then that's a serious concern. Its all speculative at this stage given we're primarily relying on the opinions of others, but the best comparison is Watts, what he does is very special what he doesn't do is beyond frustrating. If Lever has the same work ethic and competitiveness of a Nathan Jones (going by reports) then that's a very big tick along with his other attributes (strong in the air, awareness in traffic, neat skills, height etc).

NB. Not saying either is like Watts or Jones, just using current players as a point of comparison.

Edited October 21, 201411 yr by grazman

I dont think lever was ever in teh minds of the club as a #2 or #3 but a latter single digit pick

maybe if saints take Mccartin, we take Brayshaw & Lever, leaving the Petracca to GWS, & next year we grab one of their Mids. they can't play all their players in one team of 22

rebound drafting

I love you deeluded, but if we did that I would be seriously [censored]...for a number of reasons

I think I know the reason behind the love affair for Lever. It's because GNF said that Roos likes him, GNF casts a spell like no other on Demonland.

Lever has done his knee, he's not quick, too skinny to play key, never played in the midfield. I really don't see what he's got going for him, would be amazed if we picked him up at 3.

Not sure if there is any love out there for Wright he only has 17 votes.

you got me !

where are you GNF

watch out for Bbo, I understanding he's tracking you square.

I dont think lever was ever in teh minds of the club as a #2 or #3 but a latter single digit pick

Yeah, because a latter single draft pick never turns out to be better than those chosen before them...

The big problem is that we’re only ever drafting kids based on a very small snapshot of their career. Some 4-5 years before their expected to be at the peak of their ability.

How much they will grow? How well will they adapt to senior footy and playing consistently against men? How much can their game develop? These are all speculative questions, that recruiters have to make on quite limited data. Even the game and conditions can be quite different (TAC Cup rules vs AFL rules inside 50), and aren’t necessarily a straight like for like in terms of junior and senior footy.

Even NBA & MLB players are drafted (by and large) at an older age, so theoretically top picks in these sports are more exposed and a closer approximation of what the end product is likely to be when they are drafted.

Edited October 21, 201411 yr by ChaserJ

Yeah, because a latter single draft pick never turns out to be better than those chosen before them...

i'm going to the notion the club was supposedly interested ( according to some knowledge here on the boards ) in taking him a little later . So he may not have figured in the thinking of 2 or 3 especially if either had been traded.

put the snide away

Edited October 21, 201411 yr by beelzebub

The big problem is that we’re only ever drafting kids based on a very small snapshot of their career. Some 4-5 years before their expected to be at the peak of their ability.

How much they will grow? How well they’ll adapt to senior footy and playing consistently against men? How much can their game develop? These are all speculative questions, that recruiters have to make on quite limited data. Even the game and conditions can be quite different (TAC Cup rules vs AFL rules inside 50), and aren’t necessarily a straight like for like in terms of junior and senior footy.

Even NBA & MLB players are drafted (by and large) at an older age, so theoretically top picks in these sports are more exposed and a closer approximation of what the end product is likely to be when they are drafted.

Well said...

sort of makes of mockery of "don't get the picks wrong FFS " doesn't it

i'm going to the notion the club was supposedly interested ( according to some knowledge here on the boards ) in taking him a little later . So he may not have figured in the thinking of 2 or 3 especially if either had been traded.

put the snide away

Why?

Every year we have the best 3-5 18 year olds and we are told that these are the best and to pick anyone else is a reach.

And every year, the best player(s) come from outside those players and from the following half a dozen picks.

I don't like the way the 'consensus' ruins this club's drafting.

The consensus on the 'consensus' should be that it is almost always wrong.

If Petracca is taken I would seriously consider Laverde at 3. Pies are all over him so he must be very good for them to want to take him at 5.

Why?

Every year we have the best 3-5 18 year olds and we are told that these are the best and to pick anyone else is a reach.

And every year, the best player(s) come from outside those players and from the following half a dozen picks.

I don't like the way the 'consensus' ruins this club's drafting.

The consensus on the 'consensus' should be that it is almost always wrong.

I agree on the consensus, you need to have really good recruiters who will back themselves in. Think Bucky with Buddy and Rendall with Danger for example.

If Petracca is taken I would seriously consider Laverde at 3. Pies are all over him so he must be very good for them to want to take him at 5.

Agreed. I wouldn't be overly disappointed if his name was called out after Brayshaw's.

Why?

Every year we have the best 3-5 18 year olds and we are told that these are the best and to pick anyone else is a reach.

And every year, the best player(s) come from outside those players and from the following half a dozen picks.

I don't like the way the 'consensus' ruins this club's drafting.

The consensus on the 'consensus' should be that it is almost always wrong.

I'v actually suggested elsewhere that I have a gut feeling we may we'll do something a bit different . , a little unexpected, something that may raise eyebrows., but in reality who knows. The 'reading" i had of the club during the trade period was it was very into capitalising on its picks with a trade.. I , like your good self have no real idea ( nor will the majority of the football world for a year or two ) whether the phantom orders reflect the real ability of these kids once they enter the 'grown ups' system. I dont know how the club is going about the list, Convention may well overlap popularity as well as pragmatism and see us utter "Brayshaw" come pick 2. After that, who knows. Lever by all accounts has garnered much interest from the club but is that simply diligence if we were picking at 8-12 ? or irrespective ? We'll know soon. Was the club expecting that both Petracca and Brayshaw would be up for grabs? It would have to be a scenario they have considered. Are we looking at one mid now one later type thinking ? Personally it might happen as next years draft is supposedly heavier with mids than this years and lighter on taller prospects.

Has the club thought to enact a more holistic approach and view the likely scenario of who we can add ( and subtract ) over the next 2 EOS's after this one ? Nothing done now is ALL of the solution , is only a component. We now know pretty much who/what the footy dept is for next 5 years so are we building steadily bit by bit.

I have no idea...I;ll happily admit it.I will only be able to tell as we see it unfold. Sometimes 1+1 does simply =2, but what 2 and 3 = is anyones guess really.

Whatever transpires I think the heads on the selection shoulders are wiser now. Never infallible though

I agree on the consensus, you need to have really good recruiters who will back themselves in. Think Bucky with Buddy and Rendall with Danger for example.

The Great Evil Consensus had Buddy comfortably in the top 5. The greater shock to the GEC was that Hawthorn took Roughead before Buddy or Tambling. Absolute masterstroke in the end, it would seem. Richmond couldn't believe their luck in Tambling landing on their lap - snigger.

Thinking outside the box has yielded Lucas Cook and Mark Neeld. No thanks.

Thinking outside the box has yielded Lucas Cook and Mark Neeld. No thanks.

definitely outside the norm...but as to how much intelligent thought went into those selections

The Great Evil Consensus had Buddy comfortably in the top 5. The greater shock to the GEC was that Hawthorn took Roughead before Buddy or Tambling. Absolute masterstroke in the end, it would seem. Richmond couldn't believe their luck in Tambling landing on their lap - snigger.

bait and switch......clever

The Great Evil Consensus had Buddy comfortably in the top 5. The greater shock to the GEC was that Hawthorn took Roughead before Buddy or Tambling. Absolute masterstroke in the end, it would seem. Richmond couldn't believe their luck in Tambling landing on their lap - snigger.

...and Hawthorn would not have taken Buddy if Bucky didn't stand his ground, there were doubts on Buddy. They may have ended up with Tambling.

This reminds me of that Demonland myth re Viney and Toumpas/Wines.