I thought this warranted a new thread. It gave me a lot more confidence in our decision.

AFL.com.au canvassed recruiters and list managers from 12 clubs about who they would have taken if they held the third pick

Who would you have taken with pick # 3 - recruiters
 

Reading that, it's a surprise that Young slipped as far as he did.

 

 

Reading that just makes it hurt more that we didn't take young. 

"I'd be taking Luke Jackson every day. And I'd be taking him at pick No.2, too"

vs

"Hayden Young by the length of the Flemington straight "

Even amongst recruiting circles it's a bit of an unknown.

I think Jackson will turn out to be a good selection and will hold his own as this crop of draftees develop. I have doubts over Pickett taken where he was. I would have selected Kemp with that selection.

I’m a Young fan and was disappointed we didn’t take him at 3, but it’s done now.

Fremantle were the big winners last night. Young, Serong and Henry is about the best collection of prospects you could ever hope to draft at those picks. They’re building a superb list now. Very jealous.

Doerre's take....

...."Can't help but think clubs are underrating Tom Green (GWS Academy). A clear cut top-3 quality prospect. Started the year #1 on my board just ahead of Anderson and Rowell and could still make that case. Best stoppage player I've seen in my 11 years watching the U18s. #AFLDraft".

It’s baffling that Green slid to 10 when he’s a clear top 5 pick. GWS get another freebie!

12 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

It’s baffling that Green slid to 10 when he’s a clear top 5 pick. GWS get another freebie!

Once he got past GWS's first pick at 4 it made no difference when he went.  

52 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

They’re building a superb list now. Very jealous.

Ours is better.

6 minutes ago, Brenno said:

Once he got past GWS's first pick at 4 it made no difference when he went.  

So clubs just give them a free ride instead of bidding and driving them into a large points deficit?

It’s weak. Sydney is the latest a bid should have come for him. 

Not sure on pick 3....seems a bit of a flyers at this spot but hopefully can fill a need in the next few years however can;t see him playing much in 2020.

 

Love the Pickett choice, perhaps a bit high but looks a likely type who could play pretty much straight away up forward for us.

Yes it seemed split between Young and Jackson.  Love the irony in the names. 
 

We can always get Young if Jackson decides to go home.  That’s going to be the annual discussion after 2021 imo.  Hogan was also mentioned each year to go back home and he did.  

12 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Yes it seemed split between Young and Jackson.  Love the irony in the names. 
 

We can always get Young if Jackson decides to go home.  That’s going to be the annual discussion after 2021 imo.  Hogan was also mentioned each year to go back home and he did.  

Would have been great to get Young and Jackson, then make our social home Young and Jackson pub.

Spoke to a couple of contacts in WA about this kid most said think Jeff White great leap good mark but more agile.  Wasn't a fan of taking him at 3 as we need players that can kick and keep the football, hopefully he can have that impact we need early as a forward ruck, then later as a Ruck.  

 

1 hour ago, Rusty Nails said:

Doerre's take....

...."Can't help but think clubs are underrating Tom Green (GWS Academy). A clear cut top-3 quality prospect. Started the year #1 on my board just ahead of Anderson and Rowell and could still make that case. Best stoppage player I've seen in my 11 years watching the U18s. #AFLDraft".

Clearly didn't watch Oliver ........

2 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

So clubs just give them a free ride instead of bidding and driving them into a large points deficit?

It’s weak. Sydney is the latest a bid should have come for him. 

Given that we passed the next likely was Sydney at #5 but was taken at #10. 

Draft Points:

Pick 5: 1,878

Pick 10: 1,395

Diff (max deficit):  483 pts = pick 37. 

Other clubs with an early bid (Crows/Freo) had their own agendas.  Had they bid on Green the Diff/max deficit would be smaller than above (and the value pick equivalent could be pick #67).  There was no real 'hurt' factor to GWS.  No real incentive for other clubs to bid.

Edited November 28, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

52 minutes ago, Brenno said:

Once he got past GWS's first pick at 4 it made no difference when he went.  

Correct....he was always going lower once we didn't bid.

48 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

So clubs just give them a free ride instead of bidding and driving them into a large points deficit?

It’s weak. Sydney is the latest a bid should have come for him. 

It was up to us to bid and force their hand with pick 4 LT taking that free hit out of the top 5 or 10.  Once we didn't they used it as a bonus to nab Ash and the rest is history.  Any bid once they used their pick 4 was pointless given their next picks started at 40.

1 hour ago, Lord Travis said:

So clubs just give them a free ride instead of bidding and driving them into a large points deficit?

It’s weak. Sydney is the latest a bid should have come for him. 

I was listening to the Sydney recruiter (forget his name but it was an interesting one) on the AFL Draft show prior to the draft and he made an interesting point. He was asked if they would bid on Green and if not why not. His response was pretty simple, if they wanted Green they would bid on him. You want to call the name of the player that you want at that spot, because if GWS don't match the bid and your bidding just to force their hand, then you might miss the player you actually want and end up with Green. 

Made sense to me. 

10 minutes ago, HBDee said:

I was listening to the Sydney recruiter (forget his name but it was an interesting one) on the AFL Draft show prior to the draft and he made an interesting point. He was asked if they would bid on Green and if not why not. His response was pretty simple, if they wanted Green they would bid on him. You want to call the name of the player that you want at that spot, because if GWS don't match the bid and your bidding just to force their hand, then you might miss the player you actually want and end up with Green. 

Made sense to me. 

I heard that interview too and was a bit taken a back that he seemed to open about not taking Green. It does make complete sense what he said in terms of strategy though. Why bid on him if you wouldn't be happy to take him!

But that means the clubs rated Green at pick 10 in this draft, which doesn't seems correct on what everyone has seen from him this year. Oh well, it's done now.

Jackson is clearly an athletic freak and I hope he becomes a superstar for us!

12 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

I heard that interview too and was a bit taken a back that he seemed to open about not taking Green. It does make complete sense what he said in terms of strategy though. Why bid on him if you wouldn't be happy to take him!

But that means the clubs rated Green at pick 10 in this draft, which doesn't seems correct on what everyone has seen from him this year. Oh well, it's done now.

Jackson is clearly an athletic freak and I hope he becomes a superstar for us!

Jackson can also pop out a fake front tooth. That might help.....

11 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Reading that just makes it hurt more that we didn't take young. 

I'm told we cooled on Young due to him going into his shell on the rare occasions he was up against it.
And mids/flankers being available in every draft all throughout - opportunities to acquire unique players like Jackson are also rare.
We don't expect to have selections this early in the draft for a few seasons now.

Sounds like an astute decision to me.

39 minutes ago, HBDee said:

I was listening to the Sydney recruiter (forget his name but it was an interesting one) on the AFL Draft show prior to the draft and he made an interesting point. He was asked if they would bid on Green and if not why not. His response was pretty simple, if they wanted Green they would bid on him. You want to call the name of the player that you want at that spot, because if GWS don't match the bid and your bidding just to force their hand, then you might miss the player you actually want and end up with Green. 

Made sense to me. 

 

26 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

I heard that interview too and was a bit taken a back that he seemed to open about not taking Green. It does make complete sense what he said in terms of strategy though. Why bid on him if you wouldn't be happy to take him!

But that means the clubs rated Green at pick 10 in this draft, which doesn't seems correct on what everyone has seen from him this year. Oh well, it's done now.

Jackson is clearly an athletic freak and I hope he becomes a superstar for us!

Sydney have a vested interest in clubs not making academy bids. Whilst Blakey was bid on by the Giants last year it was at pick 10, far after he should have been. With so many academy players next year there seems to be a sense that less bidding is better for many clubs and Sydney are one of them.

The Crows have enough one paced mids so probably didn't want any risk but apart from that their trade with the Giants likely came with stipulations.

For the life of me I can't understand Freo not bidding. It would've pushed each of their picks back one and made the price of Liam Henry slightly less. Nothing to lose, the Giants were certainly matching by pick 7.

Green is a beauty but I think he's also slightly overrated. One paced mids are a dying breed and you have to be Paddy Cripps good to make it. If you're even 80% of Cripps then you go from a weapon to a liability. We've seen that with Gus Brayshaw - just a little off his game and he falls from (an undeserving) Brownlow contender to a player I now have serious doubts about.

8 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Correct....he was always going lower once we didn't bid.

It was up to us to bid and force their hand with pick 4 LT taking that free hit out of the top 5 or 10.  Once we didn't they used it as a bonus to nab Ash and the rest is history.  Any bid once they used their pick 4 was pointless given their next picks started at 40.

Maybe we thought Jackson was a better bet than Green.

Keep in mind GWS may hve taken Jackson had we nominated Green

11 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

I'm told we cooled on Young due to him going into his shell on the rare occasions he was up against it.
And mids/flankers being available in every draft all throughout - opportunities to acquire unique players like Jackson are also rare.
We don't expect to have selections this early in the draft for a few seasons now.

Sounds like an astute decision to me.

Yeah was told his game against WA was far from flattering. I think that and lack of pace. If you aren't bursting off half back and breaking the lines then there's only so many places you can kick the ball. Even at 100% efficiency good teams don't leave huge gaps the same way the under 18's do.

The Grant Birchall comparison probably is about right and people forget how good Birchall was but at the same time are you racing out to use pick 3 on Birchall?

The most interesting part of the comments about Young was the recruiter who loved his midfield game and thought he could be Pendlebury based on one game. 30 touches of sublime ball use and decision making across the ground sure does sound nice - but why wasn't he given more midfield time in the NAB League?

3 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Yeah was told his game against WA was far from flattering. I think that and lack of pace. If you aren't bursting off half back and breaking the lines then there's only so many places you can kick the ball. Even at 100% efficiency good teams don't leave huge gaps the same way the under 18's do.

The Grant Birchall comparison probably is about right and people forget how good Birchall was but at the same time are you racing out to use pick 3 on Birchall?

The most interesting part of the comments about Young was the recruiter who loved his midfield game and thought he could be Pendlebury based on one game. 30 touches of sublime ball use and decision making across the ground sure does sound nice - but why wasn't he given more midfield time in the NAB League?

 

That's exactly my question.
If he was capable of it, surely they'd be giving him serious midfield minutes.

Having said that, I also recall a TAC cup team captain I knew a good few years back, dominated in the midfield as an under-ager, going into his final junior year was told they wanted to play him in defense to give some of his teammates a chance to shine too.
They ended up top 10 picks and he was in the VFL the following year (although size had a bit to do with it too).