13 hours ago, rjay said:

We've been here before....

You don't draft for needs.

It's a recipe for disaster.

Best available every day of the week.

You can think of picking for needs but then make sure you extinguish that thought and pick best available.

...and that best available must be a competitive ball winner, tall, mid or small.

If they're not then they're not best available.

 

Not sure I agree. We need outside pace and skill.Let's ask josh

1 hour ago, binman said:

Not sure I agree. We need outside pace and skill.Let's ask josh

That's a different story.

You trade in needs but draft best available.

We just traded in needs both skilled players who have pace and can kick...which is as it should be.

We might yet pick up another before going to draft....

Guarantee Josh will say "best available".

You invariably come unstuck when you try to draft needs.

10 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Agreed Roos and most good recruiters mantra is more or less pick best available at the draft and trade to fill in the gaps based on needs.

I think 18 clubs mantra is to take the next best available following the previous picked.  However this is a perception in the eye of the pick-beholder. so when you can throw an A4 sheet of paper over the next 10 players you go for what you want/need. 

 

No-one enters into drafting, saying I want "Plugger Lockett", and won't settle for anything else. That is a just fool hardy attitude.

 

This constant bickering of best over needs, is mostly irrelevant... because anyone with any sence of proportion, would see the difference in quality.

3 hours ago, binman said:

Not sure I agree. We need outside pace and skill.Let's ask josh

We need to keep our list fairly balanced.

Those we draft may well point towards the next set of de-listings.

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

Read what I said. I said we need another EXPERIENCED ruck, as we have a project ruck in Bradtke and without Hogan, they shouldn’t risk injuries to Tom and Sam in the ruck, ad we are short of key forwards.

Someone like Tom Campbell as a rookie for a couple of years, is needed until Bradtke can develop. We have lost Pedo and if Max and Preuss go down we are in trouble.

Here's a problem caused by the demise of the VFL Development League.

Unless there's a major shift in game style, we'll be running one ruck in the senior team for the most part. Gawn

That leaves Pruess as your #1 ruckman in the VFL team. Assumedly we would want Bradtke in that side as well to develop alongside Pruess.

So where does your fourth ruckman - your experienced emergency option - play his footy ?

7 hours ago, Redleg said:

Read what I said. I said we need another EXPERIENCED ruck, as we have a project ruck in Bradtke and without Hogan, they shouldn’t risk injuries to Tom and Sam in the ruck, ad we are short of key forwards.

Someone like Tom Campbell as a rookie for a couple of years, is needed until Bradtke can develop. We have lost Pedo and if Max and Preuss go down we are in trouble.

I think we should risk Tom and Sam in the ruck. If Gawn goes down we are in trouble if both Preuss and Gawn go down we are unlucky. Tom Campbell isn't AFL standard. Develop Bradtke in the reserves don't need Campbell or any other reject ruckman.

7 hours ago, Redleg said:

Read what I said. I said we need another EXPERIENCED ruck, as we have a project ruck in Bradtke and without Hogan, they shouldn’t risk injuries to Tom and Sam in the ruck, ad we are short of key forwards.

Someone like Tom Campbell as a rookie for a couple of years, is needed until Bradtke can develop. We have lost Pedo and if Max and Preuss go down we are in trouble.

So what you are saying is that we need a backup for the backup ruckman?  Not sure that AFL lists are big enough to enable that luxury these days.  I know we sort of had that when we had Spencer to some extent, but I think allowing Pedo to retire was a fair sign that we don't think we wanted to go back there.

I haven't paid too much attention to what this mid season draft is all about, but I'm wondering if the opportunity that could present to pick up the best/ in form state league ruck in case of an emergency is something that factors into all this?

1 hour ago, Go the Biff said:

Here's a problem caused by the demise of the VFL Development League.

Unless there's a major shift in game style, we'll be running one ruck in the senior team for the most part. Gawn

That leaves Pruess as your #1 ruckman in the VFL team. Assumedly we would want Bradtke in that side as well to develop alongside Pruess.

So where does your fourth ruckman - your experienced emergency option - play his footy ?

Full forward at Casey. We have no one else to play there anyway.Tom Campbell has played there for the Dogs.

3 hours ago, DV8 said:

I think 18 clubs mantra is to take the next best available following the previous picked.  However this is a perception in the eye of the pick-beholder. so when you can throw an A4 sheet of paper over the next 10 players you go for what you want/need. 

 

No-one enters into drafting, saying I want "Plugger Lockett", and won't settle for anything else. That is a just fool hardy attitude.

 

This constant bickering of best over needs, is mostly irrelevant... because anyone with any sence of proportion, would see the difference in quality.

If you read my other post in this thread, I think we are on the same wavelength on this DV.

Just now, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

So what you are saying is that we need a backup for the backup ruckman?  Not sure that AFL lists are big enough to enable that luxury these days.  I know we sort of had that when we had Spencer to some extent, but I think allowing Pedo to retire was a fair sign that we don't think we wanted to go back there.

I haven't paid too much attention to what this mid season draft is all about, but I'm wondering if the opportunity that could present to pick up the best/ in form state league ruck in case of an emergency is something that factors into all this?

I am pretty confident we will rookie an experienced ruck to play at Casey and share time with Bradtke and also be the emergency for Max and Preuss.

17 hours ago, Redleg said:

We have a project ruck in Bradtke. We need another experienced ruck in case Max and  Preuss go down.

You cant carry ruckman on a list these day purely for insurance.

With the mid year rookie draft next year we have exactly the right setup, in the event we did lose Gawn and Preuss then we take the best available experienced ruckman from SANFL, VFL, WAFL etc in the mid year draft.

Could argue that you rookie the likes of Campbell - dominant at VFL level - so that the Casey mids develop a system around a ruckman who regularly wins taps (or at least breaks even). 

2 hours ago, boydie said:

You cant carry ruckman on a list these day purely for insurance.

With the mid year rookie draft next year we have exactly the right setup, in the event we did lose Gawn and Preuss then we take the best available experienced ruckman from SANFL, VFL, WAFL etc in the mid year draft.

If Preuss and Max are in the seniors, who is rucking at Casey, a skinny 18 year old Bradtke, who has hardly played footy the last few years, I think not. 

How would our mids and setups go, with no chance of practice to a winning ruckman. 

IMO, we will rookie an experienced ruck like Campbell, who can also play forward if required, when Preuss is playing  for Casey.

Edited November 4, 20186 yr by Redleg

17 hours ago, TRIGON said:

Could argue that you rookie the likes of Campbell - dominant at VFL level - so that the Casey mids develop a system around a ruckman who regularly wins taps (or at least breaks even). 

I like my players to learn to win footy in adversity...  Anyone can win with silver service.  But when the going gets tough, I want those who can withstand things not going your way. the reliable types. 

... no soft front runners_please.

I'd agree that you need to develop mids so that they can cope with a lack of ruck dominance; you also need them to be able to make the most of having ruck dominance. 

We need tall forward depth. Simple.

Having just lost Hogan and Pedo, we now have Tmac and Weid and that's it. If either or both get injured then we're in for a world of pain and would have to send Frost or May forward, which would be disasterous. There's no guarantee Weid will even perform consistently yet in the short term, though I do rate him and believe he will be a good player for us longer term. This is the most glaring need on our list now.

Bailey Williams is the perfect draft option for us if he makes it to our pick 23, which I suspect he won't. He'd be depth for the tall forward and ruck spots. He's got a great leap, strong body, and if he can tidy up a few aspects of his game he could be perfect long term for us. I hope like hell he slides to us and we take him. All the other options look to be average midfielders who won't add much to an already strong midfield group IMO.

I hope Frost and maybe Oscar are given the opportunity to try (again for Sam) in the forward line for Casey this year if/when they are squeezed out of the back six. Frost especially has had a good year and Id love to see him get another run at it. Oscar... who knows? Still young for a 195cm KPP.

The fact that Frost and Mac would be considered our tall forward depth options speaks volumes of the current state of our list. Our midfield is strong with decent depth, our backline is now chocked full of talent and proven proven performers, but our forward line is now severely lacking. We need more tall forwards on the list to develop.

22 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

The fact that Frost and Mac would be considered our tall forward depth options speaks volumes of the current state of our list. Our midfield is strong with decent depth, our backline is now chocked full of talent and proven proven performers, but our forward line is now severely lacking. We need more tall forwards on the list to develop.

Name another club with more than 2 good/reasonable KPF's?

Richmond now have 2

West Coast have 2

Hawthorn have the ageing Rough

Geelong have Hawk

GWS have Cameron and an injured Patton

Collingwood have Cox and whoever else they use to pinch hit

Port have Dixon

North have Brown

Swans have Buddy

EFC used their full back when Daniher couldn't play this season

etc. etc.....

Our list is in good shape, we have pretty good coverage across the board.

1 hour ago, Lord Travis said:

We need tall forward depth. Simple.

Having just lost Hogan and Pedo, we now have Tmac and Weid and that's it. If either or both get injured then we're in for a world of pain and would have to send Frost or May forward, which would be disasterous. There's no guarantee Weid will even perform consistently yet in the short term, though I do rate him and believe he will be a good player for us longer term. This is the most glaring need on our list now.

Bailey Williams is the perfect draft option for us if he makes it to our pick 23, which I suspect he won't. He'd be depth for the tall forward and ruck spots. He's got a great leap, strong body, and if he can tidy up a few aspects of his game he could be perfect long term for us. I hope like hell he slides to us and we take him. All the other options look to be average midfielders who won't add much to an already strong midfield group IMO.

I'm confused about how you think Bailey Williams is going to provide AFL depth in 2019 if Weid doesn't perform consistently?  Sure it's a reasonable argument to recruit KPF depth but there's no way a draftee is going to help next year.  I think you've put two ideas in the blender there.

We've got a plethora of small and mid sized players as needed, but look at the talls. Other clubs might only play one or two, but they have others on their list that are either developing or are depth. We have no depth in this position. None. Zilch. 

Our list is one of the best in the league, but this is a thread about analysing our needs, and I'd have thought tall forwards were the obvious place to start. 

Tall forwards on list of approximately 40: TMac, Weid

That balance is way off, and I'm hoping we can land a decent one come draft time.

2 hours ago, rjay said:

Name another club with more than 2 good/reasonable KPF's?

Richmond now have 2

West Coast have 2

Hawthorn have the ageing Rough

Geelong have Hawk

GWS have Cameron and an injured Patton

Collingwood have Cox and whoever else they use to pinch hit

Port have Dixon

North have Brown

Swans have Buddy

EFC used their full back when Daniher couldn't play this season

etc. etc.....

Our list is in good shape, we have pretty good coverage across the board.

Adelaide had 4 in Walker, Jenkins and Lynch/McGovern. Carlton have Curnow and McKay. Geelong have Ratugolea too who could be absolutely anything.

But yes, I agree with you. It's a bit like my argument over our lack of midfield depth. We've no less depth than anyone else. And if Rance or Martin went down at Richmond their premiership aspirations would be significantly dinted. If Grundy or Sidebottom went down for Collingwood they'd be significantly hampered. We've shown in the past that even without Gawn we can beat most opposition.

I have to agree with what @Fifty-5 said in another thread - we will take 4 players in the ND and take the max of rookies. 

Unless we pull picks out of our rear end, using 91 is pointless and actually less flexible than using the Rookie Draft.

Other than that - take the best available with 23 and 28 and get needs with later picks and rookie draft picks.

Another mature ruck, mature midfield depth...

5 hours ago, rjay said:

Name another club with more than 2 good/reasonable KPF's?

Richmond now have 2

West Coast have 2

Hawthorn have the ageing Rough

Geelong have Hawk

GWS have Cameron and an injured Patton

Collingwood have Cox and whoever else they use to pinch hit

Port have Dixon

North have Brown

Swans have Buddy

EFC used their full back when Daniher couldn't play this season

etc. etc.....

Our list is in good shape, we have pretty good coverage across the board.

May and Petty both played  forward in junior footy. 

On 11/4/2018 at 5:00 PM, boydie said:

You cant carry ruckman on a list these day purely for insurance.

With the mid year rookie draft next year we have exactly the right setup, in the event we did lose Gawn and Preuss then we take the best available experienced ruckman from SANFL, VFL, WAFL etc in the mid year draft.

Spot on. Already using 3/40 odd spots on predominantly single position players in Gawn, Preuss and Bradtke. Having Bradtke not on the regular list looks like the perfect combination to me.

I reckon every club rolls the dice that they won’t have their first and second choice rucks go down injured and if they do they will have to improvise. Tim Smith or Sam Frost would have to do in a pinch if Weideman (who rucked lots in the VFL) and T.Mc won’t be risked, but with a very different ruck strategy than what you’d have with a potentially dominant Gawn or Preuss.

We had a preview in 2017 when Gawn and Spencer went down and things were cobbled together with Pedersen, Watts and T.Mc.

I agree the mid year draft allows for more contingency in case of a significant early season ruck injury.