Quigley's Draft Rankings

[Gator 17,598]

He's back.

Quigley's Draft Rankings

He'll get some wrong and plenty won't agree, but he has an exceptional eye for talent.

[KingDingAling 3,758]

He's back.

Quigley's Draft Rankings

He'll get some wrong and plenty won't agree, but he has an exceptional eye for talent.

Pretty neat assessment. I think he is spot on with Francis at 3 and pointing out that Curnow and Weideman are being over hyped. Don't mind his assessment of Milera either, he is such a great mover, its a shame we didn't see more of his SANFL form earlier on.

[mo64 5,881]

Great read, but from our perspective, I hope he's wrong with his assessment that this draft is shallow with top end talent. I seem to be the only one who questions our decision to trade next year's 1st pick.

[beelzebub 23,384]

Thanks for posting the link PD

[binman 44,120]

He's back.

Quigley's Draft Rankings

He'll get some wrong and plenty won't agree, but he has an exceptional eye for talent.

Thanks PD. I have to say he makes a pretty compelling case for Francis and given his size i could imagine Roos being a fan. I like the fact he describes him as a natural footballer who backs himself.

[beelzebub 23,384]

Interesting he has both Weed and Curnow further down than most. Oddly it marries with my thinking they go later than many suggest.

Will be curious to see how his rankings taĺly with the draft.

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

Safe to say he doesn't rate the players most discussed here very highly, was surprised where he rated Weideman, Curnow and Oliver. Also gave food for thought on Parish vs Francis for number 3

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Oliver at 24? Olisik will scream conspiracy.

Interesting read though. As others have stated he doesn't rate Weideman or Curnow highly and makes a decent case as to why he doesn't. Interested to see how it plays out on draft night.

[thedirtydog24 18]

His assessment on Matt Kennedy shows he writes a lot to seem informed, but doesn't know a great deal... Lots of impressive words and 'recruiting' terms...poor identification. I stopped reading there...lucky I got there after he rated Partington at 9. I assume the rest was as 'interesting'.

[stuie 7,374]

He's back.

Quigley's Draft Rankings

He'll get some wrong and plenty won't agree, but he has an exceptional eye for talent.

Don't rate him....

[rjay 25,197]

Interesting view on Francis as a mid. I must admit the little bit I saw of him at centre bounces was pretty impressive, match that with his marking ability and kicking ... he's a footballer.

[Mach5 4,768]

I think Quigley is a keen observer and notices a lot of things that others don't, but I sometimes question his understanding of how certain traits will translate to AFL level and what attributes a player may be lacking that they would need to be a real success at the next level.

Not that I'm an expert.

I often go off "feel" then try to understand why I felt that.

For instance, Francis doesn't quite do it for me, and I think it's because athletically I don't feel he'll ever be able to cover enough ground to have the impact Quigs expects.

And I think he may often undervalue the impact of that athleticism in a player; what it will allow them to do at the next level (like a Parish, who I think will blossom).

I also think he doesn't value certain attributes enough, like the contested marking, character and competitiveness of Weideman, and undervalues him because he lacks certain attributes that may not be necessary to play the role he will fill at AFL level.

Just my observation.

As others have said, Quigs is an astute viewer.

[Thrice 216]

Great point M5 on Weideman. That competitiveness is what separates Hogan, Cameron and Daniher from Boyd and Patton. The latter two were both No1. picks, and like Watts before them were chosen on their skills and physical abilities. But they don't have the killer instinct or willingness to really impose themselves on a contest. And like Watts before them, if they don't show it as a junior they are very unlikely to develop it in the AFL. It is for this reason that I, and I'm sure many others, are bullish about Weideman at AFL level.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Another who thinks Curnow is overrated.

I see him slipping.

[Ted Lasso 19,549]

i think, academy picks aside it'll be

1. Wietering

2. Schache

3. Parish

4. Francis

5. Curnow

6. Milera

7. Weideman

8. Balic

9. Oliver

10. Mathieson

[beelzebub 23,384]

What role is Curnow being thought of ? ..as I cant see him being that tall forward option

[Gator 17,598]

What role is Curnow being thought of ? ..as I cant see him being that tall forward option

That's his only option in my opinion. He's certainly no mid.

Curnow is interesting. If you listen to Brett Anderson he's very highly rated in club land, but not so much by amateur observers.

[KingDingAling 3,758]

What role is Curnow being thought of ? ..as I cant see him being that tall forward option

I agree, I don't think he is a tall option as a forward. Seems like a jack of all trades - master of none. Just on limited viewing of Curnow, he didn't impress me as a ruckman, was a 3 touch player as a mid, and was only marginally impressive as a forward. But he was more of a lead up forward - as opposed to a tall forward option. If we were looking for a tall forward option, we wouldn't look past Weideman, I think he has better hands than Curnow - and reads the play better. In saying that, I wouldn't take either. They COULD both end up being great players, but there is too much uncertainty around them, I would be shocked if we taken either.

[beelzebub 23,384]

That's his only option in my opinion. He's certainly no mid.

Curnow is interesting. If you listen to Brett Anderson he's very highly rated in club land, but not so much by amateur observers.

Hence my curiosity.

All other arguments aside ... mids v talls v whatevers etc. If Curnow is being looked upon as a selection I don't quite get it. I've read he may move into the middle as a direction but he's not exhibited much of an inkling to abilities in that regard. He seems capable as a smaller target up front but not the KPP type many are clammering after. He's only really tall enough as a 3rd tall so why bother? Or am I missing something entirely?

I might be lol

For talls there seems better offerings esp if said tall might need to some rucking at some point in future.

Which brings me back to what we sort of know as ambitions of the club re this trade... a play mate for Hogan and more mids. He doesnt seem to fit... Must be some element Im over looking.

Brett always raves about his falcons !!! lol....pinch of salt time

[Beats 190]

All other arguments aside ..mids v talls v whatevers etc If Curnow is being looked upon as a selection I dont quite get it.. Ive read he may move into the middle as a direction but hes not exhibited much of an inkling to abilities in that regard. He seems capable as a smaller target up front but not the KPP type many are clammering after. Hes only really tall enough as a 3rd tall so why bother. Or am I missing something entirely ? I might be lol

Which brings me back to what we sort of know as ambitions of the club re this trade... a play mate for Hogan and more mids. He doesnt seem to fit... Must be some element Im over looking.

The reason he's being touted as a mid is he has very good to elite endurance for his size. As Quigley highlights though, his speed, agility and disposal is on par with his brothers and without decent improvement he will just be a taller version of his brother in the midfield.

[beelzebub 23,384]

The reason he's being touted as a mid is he has very good to elite endurance for his size. As Quigley highlights though, his speed, agility and disposal is on par with his brothers and without decent improvement he will just be a taller version of his brother in the midfield.

Then for mine hes not a good use of this pick

[Rolling Stone 160]

What role is Curnow being thought of?

I can't see him being in charge of the drinks if he comes to us.

[Akum 2,660]

Quigs makes me wonder whether the best tall available at 7 might be Hipwood. It may be that he has advantages over both Weideman and McKay as a tall-forward-second-ruck.

If we put a bid on Hipwood at 7, it will upset all of Brisbane's points calculations, because they would have expected him to go 10 picks lower. They may well not be prepared to cough up enough points to match a bid at pick 7, and may keep them to ensure they nail their other academy picks. Especially considering they would have already picked up Schache, who's a similar type.

So what do others think about making a bid on Hipwood at 7, Quigs or no Quigs?

And if we do, is the difference in points between 10 and 18 (or 20) enough to put Brisbane in the position where they can't afford to match it?

[ILLDieADemon 804]

From all the stuff I have read in the past month about Curnow I think he is a bit of a risk pick, from what I read he is a "could be anything" type of player not is the best player.

If we do decide to take him at pick 3/7 it's clear he is the type of player we need not the best available player at that pick.

[CBDees 3,167]

After reading Quig's reviews of the most touted players, I wouldn't be unhappy if we picked up Francis and Oliver. If Francis goes down back, then Frost could become a forward option! Oliver seems ready to play in the midfield.