NATIONAL DRAFT PICKS 3 & 7

[H_T 3,049]

  On 12/11/2015 at 22:44, ProDee said:

Nah, we'll be taking a tall at pick 7. We're desperate for a quality young tall to support Hogan and the chances are one will be there. The fact that Hogan states the following is also a clear signal of our intent. And you're not going to be using picks 46 or 50 to land one.

Indeed, he said he’d been busy studying draft prospects — including potential forwards — to help the team mount an assault on September.

“We’ve only got a young team and could do with a little more help up forward,” Hogan said.

“These days the academies are amazing, you get developed from such a young age, come into AFL footy and you can basically slide straight into the system.

“There’s not that three to four years that talls used to have, you can come straight in and have an impact.”

Good to see he is having input. Heart warming knowing he's the general up forward and thinking ahead for the benefit of the club and himself.

[mo64 5,886]

  On 13/11/2015 at 00:09, Fifty-5 said:

I never said exponentially better and they don't need to be - just rated better. If Essendon rate a KPF higher than a mid at 5 they'll take him, even if they've taken a KPF at 4 - you'd be stupid not to.

There's a reason why all clubs don't "rate" draftees the same. The term "rate" has to be defined. Are you rating them on their potential to make an impact in the AFL, or are you rating them on their potential to make at impact at your club? They may not be the same.

GWS are a prime example of a club that has stockpiled talent, but if that talent isn't given an opportunity, they'll look elsewhere.

[olisik 4,060]

  On 13/11/2015 at 00:02, Devil is in the Detail said:

Looks to much like Jodie McKenzie

Racist

[DeeSpencer 26,597]

I think I've made my mind up.

I rate:

Parish - for his clean skills, relentless energy and great run

Oliver - for his hardness, burst and ability to kick a goal

Milera - for his evasive skills and slick skill in traffic and space

I'd be happy with either of those three at pick 7.

There's two pretty gifted key forward talents in this draft who will be available at pick 3. Both have concerns but both have significant upside. If we don't rate them then that's fine. Pass on them. But if we rate either of them as really good prospects them we take the one we like at pick 3. The midfielders available simply aren't good enough to take ahead of a key forward who you rate.

[Slartibartfast 18,086]

  On 12/11/2015 at 23:17, dazzledavey36 said:

Melbourne will be doing a special medical screening with him next week.

Wrong.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-11-13/private-testing-for-top-draft-picks

[rpfc 28,978]

  On 12/11/2015 at 22:44, ProDee said:

Nah, we'll be taking a tall at pick 7. We're desperate for a quality young tall to support Hogan and the chances are one will be there. The fact that Hogan states the following is also a clear signal of our intent. And you're not going to be using picks 46 or 50 to land one.

Indeed, he said he’d been busy studying draft prospects — including potential forwards — to help the team mount an assault on September.

“We’ve only got a young team and could do with a little more help up forward,” Hogan said.

“These days the academies are amazing, you get developed from such a young age, come into AFL footy and you can basically slide straight into the system.

“There’s not that three to four years that talls used to have, you can come straight in and have an impact.”

I am glad he is taking an interest in the selections but he is wrong.

He is applying his own, unique, experience about how quickly a young player can make the transition from teenager playing elite junior footy to the AFL.

His first year in AFL was really his second. He had a year in the VFL prior to that and he is a generational talent.

To put that pressure on any tall taken at 7 is unfair.

That kid will take, at least, those three years to make an impact.

Ironically, if he wants impact straight away - he should want two mids at 3 and 7.

[Gator 18,050]

  On 12/11/2015 at 23:53, olisik said:

Taking Oliver at 3 would throw a spanner in the works and also ensure one of Curnow Francis Parish or Weideman will be available at 7.

It's not about throwing the spanner in the works, or being too cute, it's about picking the best available talent at pick 3, which will probably be Parish.

Jason Taylor was on the selection panel for the 2014 AA under 18 team. He was part of the panel that picked Parish as a 17 year old. Parish backed up again to be dual AA.

I'll be very surprised if Taylor overlooks Parish.

[Slartibartfast 18,086]

  On 13/11/2015 at 01:02, ProDee said:

It's not about throwing the spanner in the works, or being too cute, it's about picking the best available talent at pick 3, which will probably be Parish.

Jason Taylor was on the selection panel for the 2014 AA under 18 team. He was part of the panel that picked Parish as a 17 year old. Parish backed up again to be dual AA.

I'll be very surprised if Taylor overlooks Parish.

I agree with you on Parish but the way I get there is different.

I think we will look at the difference in ability of the talls we would get at 3 and 7 and the difference in mids we'd get at 3 and 7. We would then factor in the risk associated with each type.

For example if we believed there was little difference in the mids we'd pick up in each position but a huge difference in talls we'd probably go tall and then mid. But we'll factor in risk. Talls are risky so that might mitigate any perceived difference in them. From what I've read none of the talls available are "locks". Therefore it's Parish at 3. But if we think there is a lock at 3 for a tall and we'll also pick up a good mid at 7 then we might well go that way.

I think in this case "best available" means a combination of both, not each individually. I've got no idea which way we'll go.

[mo64 5,886]

  On 13/11/2015 at 01:19, Baghdad Bob said:

I agree with you on Parish but the way I get there is different.

I think we will look at the difference in ability of the talls we would get at 3 and 7 and the difference in mids we'd get at 3 and 7. We would then factor in the risk associated with each type.

For example if we believed there was little difference in the mids we'd pick up in each position but a huge difference in talls we'd probably go tall and then mid. But we'll factor in risk. Talls are risky so that might mitigate any perceived difference in them. From what I've read none of the talls available are "locks". Therefore it's Parish at 3. But if we think there is a lock at 3 for a tall and we'll also pick up a good mid at 7 then we might well go that way.

I think in this case "best available" means a combination of both, not each individually. I've got no idea which way we'll go.

And that's why I don't believe that Essendon will take 2 KPFs with picks 4 and 5.

[DemonOX 8,838]

  On 12/11/2015 at 21:43, Moonshadow said:

Mids with both picks please. Our biggest weakness still.

Agree moon.

If we havemids who can kick goals on a regular basis then we can wait for another forward.

Goal kicking mids, wouldnt that be a nice change!

[dazzledavey36 56,085]

  On 13/11/2015 at 00:51, Baghdad Bob said:

Wrong.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-11-13/private-testing-for-top-draft-picks

How was i wrong? The reason why he is doing the private medical screening is because Melbourne along with Essendon and a few clubs have specifically requested one. It all hinders on his medical report as i have already mentioned he has had serious injuries for 2 years.

Same as we flew Sharenberg down to Melbourne for the same exact reason.

[manny100 1,625]

Taylor said its best available unless the next is a tall and there is not a lot of difference. A mid can get 30 disposals week in week out in the TAC and not be rated that much higher than the tall who leads well, is relatively quick, crashes and bashes and kicks goals on a regular basis with relatively way fewer disposals. So the way recruiters rate talls and mids is different. There is usually more risk with the talls but if it comes up you are laughing big time.

Watch for Callum Toomey's final draft update closer to draft night. He usually gets the first 10 reasonably ok. I guess he gears a bit of talk as we get closer. He said on trade radio (I heard him) that if it was not for injury he would have had Weidemen at pick 2. So Taylor and team have a lot of thinking to do. Play it safe and go for Parish or be bold and take a risk on Weideman knowing that if it comes off it could set the team up for the future. Also knowing that we may attract a top established mid next year.

I think as draft day approaches the Phantom drafters and media will start going for either Curnow or Weideman at 3.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

  On 12/11/2015 at 23:53, olisik said:

Taking Oliver at 3 would throw a spanner in the works and also ensure one of Curnow Francis Parish or Weideman will be available at 7.

yes.. it would throw a spanner in OUR works, as we would be handing our preferred player in Parish to Essendon

[Moonshadow 17,678]

  On 13/11/2015 at 00:51, Baghdad Bob said:

Wrong.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-11-13/private-testing-for-top-draft-picks

"Clubs will be invited by the League to send a doctor and physio to the screening, where Weideman and fellow forward Ryan Burton will garner significant interest."

Whether the screening is run by the AFL or by MFC, our doc and physio will watch and get the results

[jnrmac 20,316]

  On 12/11/2015 at 21:43, Moonshadow said:

Mids with both picks please. Our biggest weakness still.

Like x 1000

[Fat Tony 5,324]

  On 12/11/2015 at 23:27, dazzledavey36 said:

He is definitely not out of the question at pick 7 mate.

Will he be the best mid? Time will tell.. Personally he has enormous upside due to very little exposure at elite under 18 championships. I compare him to a taller and quicker Luke Parker.. He is an absolute maniac at the contest and prides himself on his agression and hardness.

What is your view of Oliver's skill level dazzle? He achieved a perfect score for goal kicking, so he must be ok under no pressure.

[Brayshaw Self 847]

Top tall forwards these days are most often taken in the first round (excluding academy picks, F/S, etc.).

We don't have a first round pick next year.

Mids can come from anywhere.

We are starting to build a deep, talented, young midfield and we most likely have Parish coming in, with Prestia a strong chance in 2016.

In terms of tall forwards, we have Hogan, daylight, Dawes, Pedersen, daylight and King.

Dawes and Pedersen are older and aren't world-beaters. King is speculative, although the signs are reasonably good.

Pick 7 should be used on a tall forward. My preference is McKay due to his capability of being a 2nd ruck and his ceiling may be higher than Weideman due to his age and lack of development.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,461]

  On 12/11/2015 at 03:13, daisycutter said:

a while back i would have said get the best two midfielders

now i'm inclined to think best mid at 3 and best tall (preferably) forward at 7

we are pretty exposed for good talls on fwd line and if hogan is injured we'd be in deep poo (yes i know we beat the [censored] sans hogan)

After thinking this through for a bit I think we have to just go with the best two players available at those picks.

The philosophy in most draft-run competitions is best player available with early picks, pick for needs with later picks. If you try to "reach" to fill a gap with an early pick you invariably end up screwing yourself over.

[Mad_Melbourne 877]

  On 13/11/2015 at 02:46, Brayshaw Self said:

Top tall forwards these days are most often taken in the first round (excluding academy picks, F/S, etc.).

We don't have a first round pick next year.

Mids can come from anywhere.

We are starting to build a deep, talented, young midfield and we most likely have Parish coming in, with Prestia a strong chance in 2016.

In terms of tall forwards, we have Hogan, daylight, Dawes, Pedersen, daylight and King.

Dawes and Pedersen are older and aren't world-beaters. King is speculative, although the signs are reasonably good.

Pick 7 should be used on a tall forward. My preference is McKay due to his capability of being a 2nd ruck and his ceiling may be higher than Weideman due to his age and lack of development.

Whilst I agree they do come early in the draft, most clubs who are looking for key forwards will attempt to trade them in, this is where i think we can do our best work towards a more open premiership window is look to bring in a forward target.

Dawes is still well above competitive and is easily in our best 22 and would not be replaced by any of the younger forwards in this years draft, but I still agree that we are definitely in need of a developing forward. The problem with this years crop is that 2/3 of the available prospects have suffered from injury throughout the year and the third and best option (IMO) is still really raw and who knows how he will develop. People keep excluding Frost from our forward line and it is evident through what we saw of him last year and multiple instances of players and coaches mentioning him as a forward.

Our key forward stocks look like this: Hogan, Dawes, Frost, Pederson, King as developing, Spencer and Gawn if we play two ruckman. We do not need to be hasty with selection of a forward and if we do not think that they will fit into an AFL system or their body will not hold up to the rigors of AFL then we should not risk it.

Personally: 3 = Parish

7 = Oliver or McKay or Curnow.

but that said would be happy with 2 mid selections

[dazzledavey36 56,085]

  On 13/11/2015 at 02:42, Fat Tony said:

What is your view of Oliver's skill level dazzle? He achieved a perfect score for goal kicking, so he must be ok under no pressure.

A beautiful kick of the ball mate. And by that i mean he bullets his kick low and hard. Perfect penertration on and hits his target well.

Originally i was iffy using pick 7 on him but after thinking long and hard about him i just couldn't ignore the fact i saw this kid literally ragdoll other kids around him. His lack of exposure was my big query. But like i said he is the closest i have seen to next Luke Parker.

[Gator 18,050]

  On 13/11/2015 at 01:19, Baghdad Bob said:

I agree with you on Parish but the way I get there is different.

I think we will look at the difference in ability of the talls we would get at 3 and 7 and the difference in mids we'd get at 3 and 7. We would then factor in the risk associated with each type.

For example if we believed there was little difference in the mids we'd pick up in each position but a huge difference in talls we'd probably go tall and then mid. But we'll factor in risk. Talls are risky so that might mitigate any perceived difference in them. From what I've read none of the talls available are "locks". Therefore it's Parish at 3. But if we think there is a lock at 3 for a tall and we'll also pick up a good mid at 7 then we might well go that way.

I think in this case "best available" means a combination of both, not each individually. I've got no idea which way we'll go.

Taylor stated on a recent podcast that there would be no strategy linked with picks 3 and 7, because you can't afford to not get the player you rate best at 3.

They'll pick "best available" at 3 and assess who's left at 7.

[olisik 4,060]

  On 13/11/2015 at 03:35, ProDee said:

Taylor stated on a recent podcast that there would be no strategy linked with picks 3 and 7, because you can't afford to not get the player you rate best at 3.

They'll pick "best available" at 3 and assess who's left at 7.

Reminds me of when we were told we wouldn't be trading pick 10

[daisycutter 29,945]

  On 13/11/2015 at 02:52, Dr. Gonzo said:

After thinking this through for a bit I think we have to just go with the best two players available at those picks.

The philosophy in most draft-run competitions is best player available with early picks, pick for needs with later picks. If you try to "reach" to fill a gap with an early pick you invariably end up screwing yourself over.

from what i read about this draft there are more good talls at the top end than usual

depending on who you read p7 best available could likely be a tall anyway

normally i'd agree that you dont "reach" too much to fill a need with a top pick but this year i don't think a tall forward at p7 would be too much a "reach"

anyway more than happy to trust taylor et al

[Gator 18,050]

  On 13/11/2015 at 03:41, olisik said:

Reminds me of when we were told we wouldn't be trading pick 10

Why ?

[rjay 25,388]

  On 13/11/2015 at 03:05, Mad_Melbourne said:

Whilst I agree they do come early in the draft, most clubs who are looking for key forwards will attempt to trade them in, this is where i think we can do our best work towards a more open premiership window is look to bring in a forward target.

Dawes is still well above competitive and is easily in our best 22 and would not be replaced by any of the younger forwards in this years draft, but I still agree that we are definitely in need of a developing forward. The problem with this years crop is that 2/3 of the available prospects have suffered from injury throughout the year and the third and best option (IMO) is still really raw and who knows how he will develop. People keep excluding Frost from our forward line and it is evident through what we saw of him last year and multiple instances of players and coaches mentioning him as a forward.

Our key forward stocks look like this: Hogan, Dawes, Frost, Pederson, King as developing, Spencer and Gawn if we play two ruckman. We do not need to be hasty with selection of a forward and if we do not think that they will fit into an AFL system or their body will not hold up to the rigors of AFL then we should not risk it.

Personally: 3 = Parish

7 = Oliver or McKay or Curnow.

but that said would be happy with 2 mid selections

I don't think so...