Anyone have a subscription to inside football and want to let us know what Brett Allen has said?

Best available mid and best available tall.

Answering that question I think it is Parish and Francis.

it's a matter of who falls where after that to determine who is available at #7. parish / curnow at #3 seems to be the way the tea leaves are being read, and then it's a matter of where francis, milera, weideman and oliver end up being selected. who knows, there could be a dark horse emerge like a riley bonner or someone like that to be touted as the most likely.

think francis wiill go at #4 or #5 to essendon. from all reports, the dodo is a massive fan.

Edited November 3, 20159 yr by DemonAndrew

Anyone have a subscription to inside football and want to let us know what Brett Allen has said?

Will pick up the print edition on Thursday, but Anderson had us taking Curnow at 3 and Collins at 7 in his phantom draft. Curnow to form a monster partnership up fwd, Collins to relieve Dunn who has been punching above his weight. Believes if we shore up our kp stocks now, we can look to add mids in the future.

That was actually RPFC comment to Stuie about bashing your opinion over people's heads he needs to take his own advice I openly listen to everyone's opinions and respect them hope you back a winner today mate

delude

dɪˈl(j)uːd/

verb

past tense: deluded; past participle: deluded

1. make (someone) believe something that is not true.

   "too many theorists have deluded the public"

   synonyms: mislead, deceive, fool, take in, trick, dupe, hoodwink, double-cross, gull,beguile, lead on; More

Will pick up the print edition on Thursday, but Anderson had us taking Curnow at 3 and Collins at 7 in his phantom draft. Curnow to form a monster partnership up fwd, Collins to relieve Dunn who has been punching above his weight. Believes if we shore up our kp stocks now, we can look to add mids in the future.

Thank you. I just dont see Collins as the right option for us. Ah well, I'll pick up the print edition and have a read.

That's interesting that he's gone Collins so early - most other pundits have him as end of first / start of second round.

He looks a bit like Chris Lamb to me - big and strong but not agile whatsoever.

It's actually pretty simple:

In the draft you take the best available player regardless of their position!

During the trade period you address the positions that need upgrading!

Hawthorn and Sydney have been doing it for years (inevitably resulting in the need to trade tall's; think Hale, Gunston, Lake, Frawley, McVoy, Franklin, Tippet, Richards, Mumford, etc)

If you end up with to many quality players in the similar positions (midfielders) then they will have the currency to be converted (traded) into other positional requirements.

Not having followed this draft heavily, and following this very simple principle, I would expect:

Parish at 3 and Oliver/Francis at 7

I skimmed over your response, so decided to have a closer look.

I doubt I've ever seen anyone say pick 4 should be better than pick 6 and 6 better than 9, etc. Clearly there are plenty of variables. A top 10 draft pick gives you a chance to get a terrific player. It allows you to cherry pick from what you consider to be the top end of the draft pool. The best recruiters have plenty of fails, but they also have solid records.

Despite plenty of failures, if you said to Stephen Wells, who's been doing this for 20 years, that the draft is a "complete lottery" I can't imagine he'd agree. While a chimp with a dartboard could have emulated Prenderghast's success, or lack thereof, I don't consider that the norm.

There's a reason that plenty within the industry consider the head recruiter one of the most important people in the club. Despite our clubs failings, there are a string of champions drafted within the top 5- Riewoldt, Pavlich, Hodge, Judd, Franklin, Roughead, Pendlebury. Most supporters know it's not a certainty to land one with a top 5 pick, but we dream of that chance, because that's how premierships can be won.

I also don't like your premise as it's way to soft on an underperforming recruiter. Afterall, how can anyone hope to succeed when it's a complete lottery ?

I accept you've gone some way to retract your original comments and you're right to say the order of the top 10 will never pan out as selected, but given a good draft I expect a bloody good player in the top 10 and won't accept lame excuses for failures. If it's a crap draft, like 2003 then naturally one is more forgiving. I'll end it here as we've had this discussion before and I recognise how pointless it is.

I agree with all you have said and if the measurement for success is as you say - "we should get a bloody good player with a top 10 pick " then I have no problem with that.

The only statement I disagree with is "I doubt I've ever seen anyone say pick 4 should be better than pick 6 and 6 better than 9, etc" - This board is littered with - We could have had such and such instead of such and such which to me absolutely equates to pick 4 should be better than pick 5.

I believe recruiters need to be held accountable but in as far as that the players drafted need to be good value at the pick they were selected rather than be judged against who they could have taken. I also think their task is made harder by the simple fact of the differing environments that draftees are thrown into both in terms of coaching and development and also the strength of the club itself ( I would much rather learn my trade as a midfielder at Hawthorn behind the likes of Mitchell and Lewis than at Melbourne - it is harder to crack into the team at Hawthorn but you job is made easier by much better players being around you)

Edited November 3, 20159 yr by nutbean

has anybody noticed when looking at a lot of these potential draft picks how many of them seemed to have had or are coming back from significant injuries?

That's interesting that he's gone Collins so early - most other pundits have him as end of first / start of second round.

I'd suggest he's had a little bit of mail from inside the club on this one. Generally speaking, I don't think he's had Collins that high, but I believe the club have discussed the idea of taking two talls.

Also suspect there'll be some recruiters who rate Collins much higher than where pundits place him. I think pundits are usually loathe to place key defenders two high unless they get great numbers.

You are right about Collins agility, it is the area he needs to work on, but his pace is pretty good and he's rated highly on decision making, has sure hands and has a thumping kick.

Best available mid and best available tall.

Answering that question I think it is Parish and Francis.

If we take one of those guys at 3 the other won't be available at 7 IMO. I think the club, and I'm only basing this off what I've read, seems very keen on Parish and we will take who we believe to be the best player left on the board at #7. Who we end up with there is anybodies guess as the Bombers seem a little unpredictable with their picks at the minute.

I agree with all you have said and if the measurement for success is as you say - "we should get a bloody good player with a top 10 pick " then I have no problem with that.

The only statement I disagree with is "I doubt I've ever seen anyone say pick 4 should be better than pick 6 and 6 better than 9, etc" - This board is littered with - We could have had such and such instead of such and such which to me absolutely equates to pick 4 should be better than pick 5.

I believe recruiters need to be held accountable but in as far as that the players drafted need to be good value at the pick they were selected rather than be judged against who they could have taken. I also think their task is made harder by the simple fact of the differing environments that draftees are thrown into both in terms of coaching and development and also the strength of the club itself ( I would much rather learn my trade as a midfielder at Hawthorn behind the likes of Mitchell and Lewis than at Melbourne - it is harder to crack into the team at Hawthorn but you job is made easier by much better players being around you)

When you pick Toumpas ahead of Wines and Stringer of course there's going to be gnashing of teeth, but we all know there's no guarantee. But I will vent my frustration if the club picks a bust with a top 10 pick.

Head recruiters are some of the highest paid people within the industry. All clubs know that great ones are gold. It's why they're paid well.

If it was just a "lottery" they'd employ the best clairvoyant octopus and save their money.

It's not an exact science, but there's far more substance to the craft than you seem to realise.

If we take one of those guys at 3 the other won't be available at 7 IMO. I think the club, and I'm only basing this off what I've read, seems very keen on Parish and we will take who we believe to be the best player left on the board at #7. Who we end up with there is anybodies guess as the Bombers seem a little unpredictable with their picks at the minute.

I misread "picks" as "pricks" and thought I was back on the WADA thread for a moment there.

When you pick Toumpas ahead of Wines and Stringer of course there's going to be gnashing of teeth, but we all know there's no guarantee. But I will vent my frustration if the club picks a bust with a top 10 pick.

Head recruiters are some of the highest paid people within the industry. All clubs know that great ones are gold. It's why they're paid well.

If it was just a "lottery" they'd employ the best clairvoyant octopus and save their money.

It's not an exact science, but there's far more substance to the craft than you seem to realise.

I absolutely understand there is substance behind recruiting.

I guess my frustration is more with posters than the actual system - you rightly point out that it is not an exact science but there are many on here that have expectations that is exactly what it should be.

Recruiters are working with a limited data set and a data set that is skewed by immaturity and constrained by draftees in the main playing in a same age competition. It is further exacerbated by internal club problems which has hindered development - (I think we are over that now.)

To me, the making of the a good recruiter is the picks outside the top 20 as picks inside that mark usually pick themselves.

The likes of Prendergast were shown up IMO not for the picks of Morton, Toumpas and Watts - but on the likes of Cook and Gysbert who were picks that were considered speculative for the positions they were taken.

I think it also needs to be acknowledged that an enormous amount of resources has been thrown into the development of the draftees as Roos has publicly stated that our previous draftees were somewhat thrown into the deep end with little help. There is no doubt in my mind that our previous treatment of our draftees has added to our recruiters poor record.

i think one reason behind the poor draft selections of Barry was that he was trying to draft for needs instead of going for best available. Best example of this was Cook. They decided they needed a tall so picked a bloke who was considered a 2nd round pick but the best tall at that pick.

then there was wrong type of player and of course development beyond that.

I'd suggest he's had a little bit of mail from inside the club on this one. Generally speaking, I don't think he's had Collins that high, but I believe the club have discussed the idea of taking two talls.

Also suspect there'll be some recruiters who rate Collins much higher than where pundits place him. I think pundits are usually loathe to place key defenders two high unless they get great numbers.

You are right about Collins agility, it is the area he needs to work on, but his pace is pretty good and he's rated highly on decision making, has sure hands and has a thumping kick.

I'd suggest he's trying to go a little off-broadway so that he doesn't just regurgitate the same rough top 10 as everyone else.

I honestly don't believe we'd be considering Collins at either of our first 2 picks.

Will pick up the print edition on Thursday, but Anderson had us taking Curnow at 3 and Collins at 7 in his phantom draft. Curnow to form a monster partnership up fwd

That's all good and well but if we don't get the ball to them it ain't gunna work that well.

We need MIDS. I am getting sic of saying it.

Buckenara rated Collins as the 3rd best player in the draft. Given our KPD stocks with O Mac coming through I would be surprised if we pick him up.

That's all good and well but if we don't get the ball to them it ain't gunna work that well.

We need MIDS. I am getting sic of saying it.

I appreciate that our midfield hasn't been all that fun to watch, but we do have 19 on the list at the moment. Since Roos has come in we've added 6 through the draft, 5 through trade and three as DFA's (although 2 have since departed). We do still have Petracca in the sheds waiting to show us what he can do, along with Kennedy, Melksham and Bugg to come in. I think Salem will play more in midfield, so there will be a pretty different look to our midfield come round 1.

IMO our absolute need (based on where the talent cluster of our list sits is) a second key forward. We have to guarantee we get the key forward we want at 3. Then, we do need an runner who can hit targets, the best likely to be around at 7 is Milera. Gold Coast may be honing in on Oliver, so Milera could get through there.

A draft haul of Curnow (or Weideman) and Milera would be one that ticks a few boxes for mine.

I appreciate that our midfield hasn't been all that fun to watch, but we do have 19 on the list at the moment. Since Roos has come in we've added 6 through the draft, 5 through trade and three as DFA's (although 2 have since departed). We do still have Petracca in the sheds waiting to show us what he can do, along with Kennedy, Melksham and Bugg to come in. I think Salem will play more in midfield, so there will be a pretty different look to our midfield come round 1.

IMO our absolute need (based on where the talent cluster of our list sits is) a second key forward. We have to guarantee we get the key forward we want at 3. Then, we do need an runner who can hit targets, the best likely to be around at 7 is Milera. Gold Coast may be honing in on Oliver, so Milera could get through there.

A draft haul of Curnow (or Weideman) and Milera would be one that ticks a few boxes for mine.

If Parish is renowned for terrific foot skills both sides, smarts, quick decisive action and best mid in the draft that would tick a few boxes and top up our depth for mids I find it hard to neglect. Knowing that there are a few handy key position players available in Curnow, Weideman, Francis and Collins still available. Throw in Milera, Oliver, Matheison and Essendon's needs for a mid with one of their two picks at 4 & 5, and there's a good chance 2 - maybe even 3 - of those I have underlined will be available at our pick 7.

Again, I'm just ecstatic that we have picks 3 and 7.

Those who are writing off the likelihood of us picking up Collins and to a similar extent Harry McKay should note that they are both almost 12 months younger than Curnow.

In fact, Harry McKay (DOB 24/12/97) only just qualifies for this draft. Had he been only 8 days younger he'd be playing U18's again next year and not eligible for this draft.

Collins (DOB 14/12/97) isn't much older.

If you consider that our extra top 10 pick is in effect next years 1st round pick, the club may be thinking about picking what they see as the best bottom age talent to offset the fact that we don't have next years 1st round pick.

In effect, give them 12 months in the system developing similar to what has happened with Hogan and now Petracca.

My guess is that Curnow, Francis and Weideman will be gone before pick 7. I reckon that either of Collins and/or McKay are well and truly in the mix for pick 7. I can't see us passing on Parish at 3.

Those who are writing off the likelihood of us picking up Collins and to a similar extent Harry McKay should note that they are both almost 12 months younger than Curnow.

In fact, Harry McKay (DOB 24/12/97) only just qualifies for this draft. Had he been only 8 days younger he'd be playing U18's again next year and not eligible for this draft.

Collins (DOB 14/12/97) isn't much older.

If you consider that our extra top 10 pick is in effect next years 1st round pick, the club may be thinking about picking what they see as the best bottom age talent to offset the fact that we don't have next years 1st round pick.

In effect, give them 12 months in the system developing similar to what has happened with Hogan and now Petracca.

My guess is that Curnow, Francis and Weideman will be gone before pick 7. I reckon that either of Collins and/or McKay are well and truly in the mix for pick 7. I can't see us passing on Parish at 3.

Hogan as a 17 yo was in a totally different stratosphere to McKay and Collins. If they were at Hogan's level, they would be picks 1 and 2. Twelve months in the system won't necessarily elevate McKay and Collins to another level. They are what they are, and will be drafted accordingly.

PS: Tom Swift was considered the best 16yo in the country at the time. Do you remember him?

If Parish is renowned for terrific foot skills both sides, smarts, quick decisive action and best mid in the draft that would tick a few boxes and top up our depth for mids I find it hard to neglect. Knowing that there are a few handy key position players available in Curnow, Weideman, Francis and Collins still available. Throw in Milera, Oliver, Matheison and Essendon's needs for a mid with one of their two picks at 4 & 5, and there's a good chance 2 - maybe even 3 - of those I have underlined will be available at our pick 7.

Again, I'm just ecstatic that we have picks 3 and 7.

Curnow and Weideman are the ones I'd hone in on, and not certain either gets through to 7 (Weideman some chance). Don't see Francis as a kpp at the next level, better suited to be an intercept defender who could pinch hit in midfield.

More than happy with a Parish/Weideman combo if it becomes apparent that Weideman gets past Essendon and GC, but would be very disappointed to come away without one of Curnow or Weideman.

Curnow and Weideman are the ones I'd hone in on, and not certain either gets through to 7 (Weideman some chance). Don't see Francis as a kpp at the next level, better suited to an intercept defender who could pinch hit in midfield.

More than happy with a Parish/Weideman combo if it becomes apparent that Weideman gets past Essendon and GC, but would be very disappointed to come away without one of Curnow or Weideman.

Are you also reading into the talk that we seem to be looking at Curnow over Parish at pick 3?