Will we pick up Kepler?

[Pepe Dee Pew 0]

Given that Fergo has been delisted and Benny Holland has only one at a stretch 2 season left in him there is a chance that we will go for Kepler Bradley given he is a 'big' tall like Fergy. If the MFC think they can develop him further may be a chance here to pick him up. Whether he nominates for rthe National or PSD draft ? No doubt if we have been talking to him it will be the PSD given our early choice.

The Dons obviuosly do not think he can develop much further.

[IWAP 168]

Listening to an interview with Gary Ayres on SEN last week, he seemed to suggest that Bradley was most suited to be a tallish, free-running midfielder, or a leading forward.

I'd take him, but only if no one better was available

[Diablo 1]

As Nasher always says, players do not get delisted without good reason.

In Kep's case, it's that hes absolutely pants at AFL football. Too ungainly, with nothing natural about his game for me.

[Jarka 767]

As Nasher always says, players do not get delisted without good reason.

In Kep's case, it's that hes absolutely pants at AFL football. Too ungainly, with nothing natural about his game for me.

Sometimes that reason is salary cap pressure or too many players of the same ilk, which occasionally means that good players get delisted.

However, in the case I'd agree with you, I wouldn't go anywhere near him.

[Freak 100]

Listening to an interview with Gary Ayres on SEN last week, he seemed to suggest that Bradley was most suited to be a tallish, free-running midfielder, or a leading forward.

I'd take him, but only if no one better was available

Lol. 'I'd take him, but only if no one better is available'

talk about stating the obvious.

I'd take Kepler, as for where..i wouldn't play him forward because he is a shocking kick. I'd play him full back...where foot skills are not that necessary. Kepler would need to bulk up anotehr 5kg and he could turn into a great monster fullback.

[Choko 493]

Lol. 'I'd take him, but only if no one better is available'

talk about stating the obvious.

I'd take Kepler, as for where..i wouldn't play him forward because he is a shocking kick. I'd play him full back...where foot skills are not that necessary. Kepler would need to bulk up anotehr 5kg and he could turn into a great monster fullback.

Well I'll go out on a limb. Unless someone new comes up that hasn't been touted as being available at the PSD , I think we would be absolutely mad not to go for Kepler.

I think Essendon, like us in some respects, has the broom out, and for whatever reason had Kepler in their sights. I have no idea why they would reject a trade bid for him by Freo only to delist him.

There is enormous upside, and if he was to come good, he would be a very exciting prospect. I would support picking him up.

[IWAP 168]

talk about stating the obvious.

As opposed to not picking him up at all, as others in this thread have indicated

i'll write slower next time

[sylvinator 96]

i tend to agree with the original post.

one area we have struggled in the past 3 years is handling the big bodied massive forwards. Holland has been servicable but is in his final season, and ferguson at 196cm has now been delisted.

with our future backline involving River (lightly built 192cm), Carrol (decent build 189cm), Frawley (decent build 192cm), Garland (lightly built 192cm) we will continue to struggle against the forwards like Lucas, Hall, Richardson, Reiwold etc.

Keplar, at 198cm and strongly build KPP, and only 21 yrs old (pick6) could possible fill that hole. being still very young, and obviously talented enough to be pick6, this would not be a silly recruitment.

i have seen keplar play some outstanding football in his first season, though this season Sheedy fuked him up, swinging him forward and back like a yo-yo. his demise was brought abotu very similar to Miller's decline under Daniher. he was not given time to consolidate a position.

The one reservation id have in picking him up is that he has not shown he can successfully play as a key defender. his best football has been played as a key forward...

would not be a huge risk considering that we're getting him for nothing.

[deanox 8,782]

if he is the best availbable in the psd then yes, get him. the coaching staff would be more aware with this: why have essendon given up on him? are there other reasons? is he not suited to playing a KP due to his style? if its an issue of confidence then he would be a steel. if we think he can be servicable for 10 years (ala holland) getting 10 games a year kicking 10-15 goals and playing the odd game down back as a fill in KPP then maybe he is a good option, because holland wont go for ever. does bailey see kepler and miller fighting for the same spot, or different ends of the ground? add kepler as the 3rd tall to one end, and miller can settle into the 3rd tall at the other end...(rivvers and caroll back, neitz and juice forward)...we still have other options at both end such as frawley, bate, robbo...

it might depend also on how the draft goes. if we get 2 KPD then perhaps we skip kepler for a mid with pace who was rejected? just for list balance.

all in all it will be an interesting decision, but from what ive seen, there have been no better options so far...

[IWAP 168]

Interesting to see that Wisbey didn't rate him, when everyone else was raving about him when he got drafted

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kepler Bradley (West Perth)

198/86 mid age right foot giant all-rounder.

Skinny, gangly athletic 198cm with a fantastic motor and work rate. Still growing into his body as a late developer. Reads like a coach's dream on paper but I'm not as sold as others are, despite his scope for further improvement.

I anticipate ridicule over my assessment as every man and his dog is barking his name with enormous enthusiasm. However, I call it as I see it and have not made the assessment without a lot of thought and double-checking. Not saying I'm infallible by any means. It's just that I started the year as a very big fan from '02 but began to notice some aspects that worry me somewhat.

Bottom line: I rank him at 23 among the players I assess (my list is almost exclusively just mainstream U18s), which in itself still reflects a healthy opinion of him. However, he will go very much earlier than I rate him. Is touted as being almost plug 'n play and perhaps he will play some games in year 1 but I think year 2 is more likely.

*STYLE LIKE: D Bandy / D Fletcher. Physically (especially posture), he reminds me of Spider Burton. From the day I first saw him last year, I instinctively referred to him in my notes as "Spider".

*TRADEMARK:

- Run hard into space downfield to present an option, then mark, sprint off immediately with head down, look for a free team mate, hunched toe-poke pass, then immediately sprint off again to present an option for the team mate he just kicked it to and continue the cycle. If it doesn't come to him, sprint to the next play ... and the next ... and the next.

*SUMMARY ASSESSMENT, RECOMMENDATION:

- I expect him to have an AFL career but he is likely to take more time to be regularly productive and have more serious deficiencies to overcome than people are acknowledging amidst all the current hype.

- Biggest assets are heart, motor and height. All are giant.

- He is extremely mobile and athletic, knows where to run, runs hard to present, cover an enormous amount of ground running contest to contest and into space to present. And he ALWAYS strives to get to and give a contest - competes hard at every opportunity, pushes the ball out or taps it towards a team mate. Fantastic ethic. He is desperate and quite courageous. Does the team and 1%er things. Chase, tackles, blocks, shields, presents himself as an option, 2nd 3rd and 4th efforts.

- Always tries to make things happen. Never gives up.

- Gets a lot of possessions, many through running hard into space to present an option but also many hard ball gets.

- Has a good leap (much better than his DC test result suggests) and can take a big grab (especially if he gets a ride).

- Clever, creative (eg tap ons).

That's much of the good stuff. Now for my concerns. Some bells keep ringing in my ears:-

1. One thing about Bradley is that you can throw him around anywhere. The problem is that I'm not sure where you will land him when you want to put him down.

2. Another thing about Bradley is that he and others can throw him around anywhere. The problem is that he's not sure where he will land when he puts himself down.

I'll explain these later.

- He can take a huge grab on occasions against anyone. Anyone. "On occasions". And he will usually murder a flanker in the air. However I'm not convinced he has KPP-quality overhead reliability.

- I have always stated that I believe Bradley's pace is overrated. People laud Bradley's pace and Bradley's own preferred position is wing. However, we are talking AFL. Yes, Bradley has very good pace ... for his size. However the likes of Tenace, Cooney, Ray, etc would come from behind Bradley and race straight past, leaving him in their wake. OK, they are the often-named serious speedsters. I could also include Dunn, Dyson, Sylvia, Surjan, Stanton, Willoughby, Jackson. OK, they are mainly small-mid. I could also include tallish players like Walker, Clarke and Pettigrew. "But Bradley is 198cm", many would say. That's fine but he is not currently a front-line ruckman per se. He can play U18 key position but is more a super tall (U18) ruck-rover or (WAFL seniors) wingman at this stage and on that basis, although he has a huge height advantage over most of the players around him, it is those players he will often be exposed by for pace, even if they do only come up to his waist. FWIW, Brent Hall (a 95kg ruckman) is also 198cm and I believe a fit Hall would at least give Bradley a run for his money. I labour this point because, while Bradley can take a grab and does read the play well, his major touted attributes are his heart and motor (with which I agree totally) and his pace, and I disagree strongly re how fast he actually is. He is reasonable over a distance but is not quick off the mark or up to 20m. Yes, you don't find many 198cm players who have his pace. However, whenever he is being talked about for his linking and hard running, contest to contest, rather than as KPP, I can't help thinking that most people seem to be equating that to being quick. In short (pardon the pun), Bradley to me has a speed deficiency in such a role, not a speed attribute. This is critical to why I have rated him much lower than other observers and much lower than he will go. (Not that a midish 2nd round pick is low, I again point out).

- My other main concern with Spider is balance. Worries me more than any other aspect. This is what I meant by point (2) above. He has poor balance body on body. And he is easily nudged completely out of a marking contest. And he often loses his balance and goes to the ground in a run to the ball. (Purely an issue of balance. He certainly isn't soft). When I talk about him losing balance, the thing with Spider is that he doesn't just stutter a bit - he flings off like a rag doll and very often hits the turf. The balance issue really worries me as it is not just about insufficient strength. As much as I try to allow for him still growing into his body, I can't help thinking it is fundamentally lack of natural balance. He struggles for balance even when having a set kick - and that's a serious comment.

- Kicking accuracy is very mixed bag. Awkward, unbalanced kicking style.

- He is currently skinny (86kg for 198cm). Can probably get by AFL level with even just another 10kg, which doesn't sound hard relative to his height. However he was listed last year as 85kg (for 195cm) yet at Draft Camp this year his weight was recorded as being just 1kg heavier despite now being 3cm taller than listed last year. Skinnier, smaller kids than him have added 10kg so the odds are in his favour and I'm not losing sleep over this concern. However, it is yet another question mark to add to a small cluster of more significant ones that I have along side his name.

Coming back to point (1) above, I am somewhat concerned that he may be a jack of all trades, master of none. This is the crux of my rating him lower than (all?) others do. Yes, you may be able to throw him around during a game depending on match-ups and need or trying to create a mismatch, such is his range of attributes, but I struggle to pinpoint any SPECIFIC role to which he is ideally suited (even semi-permanently) at AFL level.

He has great height, mobility and good pace for a KPP but his overhead marking is arguably not reliable enough for KPP and his balance may often render him ineffective against the big, strong guys. And that's even if he can add weight.

He has fantastic height and marking strength for a wingman and a great motor and ethic. However, I believe his pace and lateral agility will be exposed against the outside runners on a wing.

He has fantastic height and marking strength for a ruck-rover midfielder and a great motor and ethic. However, his hands and decision-making in close are not that great and nor is his balance, acceleration off the mark or lateral agility (when he doesn't have the ball and is on his feet).

He is tall enough to be a ruck and can exploit the relative lack of pace and mobility of most rucks. However, his balance is likely to be a big issue, as may be his physical strength (depending on the weight factor by then).

Possibly sufficiently quick or laterally agile, or a reliable enough tackler for HBF. Maybe the same for HFF and in which role an opponent would often be able to run off him.

Perhaps his best role might be 3rd tall defender. That plays to some of his strengths and caters best for his weaknesses but robs him of his 2 biggest assets other than (/ including?) height - namely, motor and ground coverage. And he is still susceptible to some of my concerns even in that role.

When I couple all the above with being an unreliable kick, I am forced to conclude that, although he does have wide range of attributes and a lot to offer, there are quite a few other kids whose potential AFL roles I can see more clearly and about which I am more confident. Hence, my ranking of Spider still reasonably early but below such players and way below where the pundits rank him.

I love watching Spider play, as I do Adam Jordan (a lesser-name athletic strong tall, quicker, shorter and without Spider's footy smarts). I have enormous admiration for both. Both represent a mouth-watering combination of attributes not usually found in their size. However, for me the bottom line query with both is "What actual AFL role are they suited to?"

*DISPOSAL, DECISION-MAKING, SMARTS:

(See above)

- Very good decision-maker around the ground. Not quite as good a decision-maker in close. Reads the play very well, reads the ball quite well.

- Is essentially one-sided. Feeds well but somewhat one-sided even by hand. Often works hard to get onto right hand for what should more logically be a left hand feed, which is a worrying trait in traffic especially. Can squeeze a (usually ugly) non-preferred left foot kick in an emergency.

- Good depth but unreliable accuracy.

- Ugly, unbalanced, loose kicking style goes a long way to explaining his inaccuracy. Waves the ball side to side. Very stooped for set kick (especially for set shot for goal). Tilt to the right. Low take. Often (maybe 50% of the time) releases early - simply lets go of it. Hunch or big lean backwards. Right arm useless after impact, left arm goes back then just gets tucked in or just swings across chest, bent. Throws his boot at the ball in toe-poke style (Not a criticism, just an observation). Sometimes jumps. (No big deal but can sometimes indicate the player has punched the ball instead of having a fluent straight-through connect). Often finishes up being very off-balance, tilting RHS, with left leg splayed out. In short, ungainly, inefficient.

- Sometimes tries to mark when he should spoil.

*HANDS:

- Good below knee, extremely good for his height. Quite good overhead. Overall though, he is quite clean but not super clean.

*OVERHEAD MARKING:

- (See above). Best from behind where he can climb the pack (which he does very well) but can (and often does) take a big grab from the most unlikely positions and angles. He will feature in some Mark Of The Day highlights over his career.

- Is inclined to gets too under the ball when in front at a marking contest and have to stretch backwards.

- Very occasionally, instinctively ducks his head a bit when in front.

*ATHLETICISM, INTENSITY, ETHIC, CONSISTENCY:

(See above)

- Huge leap when he gets a ride. And he is very good at using the pack as a step ladder. Also much better leap from a running jump than his poor DC result suggest. Very good as 3rd man up at a throw-in.

- Fantastic endurance. Runs hard all day, all over.

- Magnificent ethic, intensity, work rate. Extraordinary desperation for someone so tall. Desperate chaser. Flings himself at man and ball, in the air of on the ground. Disposes then immediately runs on hard to present an option (even an immediate one to the guy he just gave it to by foot, not just by hand, so far and flat-chat does he run). Pushes himself, pushes himself, pushes himself. Heart as big as Phar Lap. Good pain threshold - able to push himself through an injury during the game.

- Pace is very good for his size but I have concerns (see above). Unusual, stooped running action, as if he has concrete tied to his legs - is all arms, legs, leans forward, back hunched as if his limbs are tied together. (Perhaps he could squeeze out an extra bit of pace if he addressed this). Not very quick off the mark. His pace is best when on a run over some distance rather than the first 10-20m.

- My major concern, and a seriously major concern, is his balance. (See above).

- Straight-line agility and agility when he is on the ground contesting or lunging is very good but his lateral recovery agility on the run is not. Good sidestep, on the run or stationary. In general, agility when he has the ball or in straight-line is good but is not good one on one when the opponent has the ball.

- Quick reflexes. Quick recovery (other than laterally on the run).

- Is a determined tackler but not a reliably effective one. (Lack of lateral agility factors into this as he is easily wrong-footed). An excellent spoiler though, especially from behind at a marking contest.

*SCI (SCOPE FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT):

- Plenty of scope. Is a late developer who is still growing into his body.

- Because he is pretty skinny he theoretically will improve heaps (including in the number of roles he would be strong enough to play) once he adds another 10 or so kg. I say theoretically because he doesn't seem to have added weight in the past year so maybe there is a small question mark over his ability to add weight (even though 10kg is not much relatively).

*AFL VERSATILITY:

- See above. In short, I am unsure of a role he specifically suits.

*QUERY:

- Balance

- Kicking style and accuracy.

- Ability to add weight???

*SOME STATS:

- Stats summary '03 U18 Champs:

Averaged 19 disposals and 6.0 marks in 3 U18 Rep games.

Kicks vs feeds: tends to somewhat favour kicking. Stats vs VM misleading as he injured leg Q1 & only kicked twice but did 11 feeds.

Gets own ball?: yes. only 11/57TD were HR. 9 hbg.

Kicks long vs short: mixed.

Kicking accuracy: poor. 11/30 ineff/clang incl 2 clang.

Handball accuracy: 5/27 ineff incl 2 clang.

Marking: 18m but only 4 were contested.

Tackles: 5 (4 in game 2)

Clearances: 7 incl 2 cb

HO: 18 incl 4cb. (8 incl 3cb) were against VM (mainly Boyd). was only very part-time in ruck.

*OTHER STUFF:

- All Aust TY.

- WAFL Colts B&F '02.

- WAFL Seniors debut 23/8/03, after working his way from Colts to Reserves to seniors through '03, and hit the ground running. Terrific seniors finals series, especially Prelim.

- Right forearm very heavily strapped during '03 U18 Champs. No obvious sign of inconvenience.

- Leg injury Q1 of game 3 in '03 U18 Champs affected his effectiveness (although he still did quite well when carrying the injury).

[sylvinator 96]

after reading that, and having seen him play many afl games (most average, but ive seen him play some good games), i wouldnt be upset if we picked him up.

age and height are in his favour. still is young enough to improve significantly imo, and has the height that we need with Holland nearing the end.

[deanox 8,782]

...if we think he can be servicable for 10 years (ala holland) getting 10 games a year kicking 10-15 goals and playing the odd game down back as a fill in KPP then maybe he is a good option, because holland wont go for ever. does bailey see kepler and miller fighting for the same spot, or different ends of the ground? add kepler as the 3rd tall to one end, and miller can settle into the 3rd tall at the other end...

me and wisby seem to be suggesting the same sort of role for him...

[Yencks 8]

yeah id take him for sure

[Adzman 2,085]

give it a miss. He wants to head to WA.

If he wanted to come to the club, I would take a chance on him. But he has no interest in playing with the dees, so why have him on the roster?

[Chelly 749]

Interesting to see that Wisbey didn't rate him, when everyone else was raving about him when he got drafted

Can you get a hold of what Wisbey wrote about Meesen before he was drafted by the Crows.

[deanox 8,782]

the wisby comparision of messen and wood was posted somewhere on the forum, not sure where, try the search function...

[Jarka 767]

the wisby comparision of messen and wood was posted somewhere on the forum, not sure where, try the search function...

A comparison of Meesen and Cameron Wood by Colin Wisbey:

*COMPARISON: WOOD vs MEESEN:

Neither has obvious significant flaws. Wood's height/reach is much better and he almost certainly has more upside. Meesen's endurance, work-rate and bodywork are better and he is likely to come to hand earlier. I rate both as definite AFL. I rank them at 5 and 7 and expect both to go perhaps within the first 8 or 9, certainly within the first dozen. Wood ready year 3, maybe year 4, and Meesen perhaps year 2, maybe year 3.

If I was buying purely on potential / upside, I would definitely take Wood. If I could afford less patience and/or risk, or wanted a bit more versatility or more of a dependable work-horse, I'd take the harder-working Meesen. If (!) the club looking at the two kids deemed none of these factors more important than the others then, on balance, I'd possibly take Wood if I was a SA club, Meesen if I was a Vic club and virtually toss a coin otherwise.

On exposed form, those two are way ahead of the other rucks, not discounting the promise that Deluca, Moran and co are beginning to show. Wood and Meesen are possibly the best ruck prospects in the past 3 years.

In comparing them:-

1. There doesn't seem to be much between their ruck abilities. Both have a bit to learn and are not yet all-time standouts for ruck technique but show a lot of promise, including at centre bounces. Both seem to enjoy ruck contests. (I believe that matters). When opposed to each other in the U18 Champs, ruck contests were about even. At this stage, if they contested about 100 ball-ups against each other, perhaps 80-90 would be "dead rubbers" and each ruck would get 5-10 hitouts to targeted advantage.

2. re Ruck Style: Both usually try to target their palm-outs. Both have very good leaps and time their leaps well. Both vary their run-up approach on occasions, perhaps Wood more so. Wood's approach tends to be from further back, leaving him more vulnerable to a bad bounce. At this stage at least, Meesen makes much better use of his body. Wood has a bit to learn about protecting the ball.

3. Although Meesen has grown about 8cm since about early last year, Wood is 9 months younger yet already 5cm taller and with a bonus 4cm reach advantage compared to the average player of his height.

4. Their overall stats for the U18 Champs were virtually identical in most areas, not just ruck. Meesen usually has an even split of kicks-to-feeds that the Champs stats suggest but, other than that, their U18 Champs stats, although a small sample, accurately reflect where each is at and their style of game.

5. Both have good leap, agility (despite DC results), and reflexes, and are very mobile for their size. Both are courageous, coordinated and very skilled for their size, including below the knee. Both are clean for their size, all levels. Meesen is quite good off the ground, Wood better. Ditto re inside traffic. These two are modern era rucks, not dinosaurs.

6. Meesen has proven he will push himself to the limit and Wood hasn't. DC tests are not everything but they bear this out. Messen's beep test beat 83% of all-time "at least 195cm" DC/SS attendees. Wood's was very poor and disappointed me greatly - particularly as that poor result was no improvement on one earlier in the year.

7. Meesen is a schools runner and has proven endurance. His DC 3Km time beat 98% of all-time "at least 195cm" attendees. I don't have any evidence of Wood's endurance (and his 3Km time was very poor) but there is no doubting Meesen's.

8. Not that Wood is a slouch but Meesen is a fair bit ahead for intensity and ethic. Meesen has a "ruckrover" work-horse mentality around the ground, with usually better 2nd efforts and a more intense attack on man, ball and marking spoil. Wood is also inclined to go for marks at times when he should try to spoil. Meesen is a very committed chaser, even over 40m or so. Wood has a bit of mongrel in him though.

9. That said, both have good 2nd efforts at ball-ups (especially centre-bounce). Wood's ability to rove his own spill, before or after the ball has hit the ground, is as good as any genuine ruck I can recall in recent years. Excellent agility and reflexes, clean hands and good vision. Wood's efficiency inside traffic is such that he can have days where he gets as many "rove the spill" CB clearances as some of his "rovers". That is very impressive, especially in a 204cm bottom-age kid who has only recently focussed on footy.

10. Both have similar speed. Both are OK for tall rucks but guys like Moran and the shorter Gibson would leave Meesen and Wood in their wake. Neither Meesen nor Wood is probably as quick over the first 5m as their DC times might suggest. Meesen's action over a few metres is as if trying to run with his pants around his ankles. (He's had that action as long as I've seen him but used to look much more unco). Wood has the better running action over a short distance.

11. Both are/will be good overhead. At this stage, Meesen perhaps has slightly better hands and judgement and is harder to spoil against than Wood. Wood might become the better mark down the track. Both hold their ground quite well (for their builds) at marking contests, Meesen a bit better.

12. Both are very good readers of the play across half-back (and move well) dropping back as loose man. Both routinely show good judgement. Both have good vision and poise, can think quickly and they make the right decisions. Both do some clever things. eg hitouts behind their head, or deft tap-ons at knee level, etc.

13. Disposal-wise, Meesen looks for creative/ impact options more often in situations where Wood is too often inclined to just automatically dish off a "1m" feed behind him instead of checking for clear options upfield. Both are accurate by hand, have quick hands and are capable of power in their feeds. However, as mentioned, many of Wood's feeds are those virtual handovers that rucks often feel obliged to automatically lay off to a linker. Meesen's feeds have a very much greater hurt factor. Wood is arguably the better kick.

14. Meesen seems to understand the game a bit better at this stage and will probably be ready a year earlier than Wood.

15. Meesen has already shown an ability to at least pinch-hit in at CHB and CHF on the right opponent, in addition to his prime role of ruck. I wouldn't be surprised to see Wood be capable of occasionally pinch-hitting at CHF or FF in time too though.

16. Meesen has improved dramatically since late last season. Wood also has plenty of improvement in him, having only recently committed to footy after apparently knocking back a US baseball scholarship.

17. Physically, both are skinny but should fill out fine. At the moment Meesen appears more physically developed as both players are the same weight even though Wood is 5cm taller. Wood's current weight though is virtually skinfold-"free" whereas Meesens' skinfold reading, athough good in its own right, is softer.

[Pipefitter 2,042]

musical tribute to kepler bradley

Getting by

[Spirit of the Demon 211]

musical tribute to kepler bradley

Getting by

If he's that bad then how on earth did he become a top 10 draft pick in the first place?

[deanox 8,782]

If he's that bad then how on earth did he become a top 10 draft pick in the first place?

i think its because of the role he played in juniors. he was a a giant who played on the wing. that wont work at afl level. they tried to turn him into a KPP, but he hasnt been good enough thus far. i think any future lies as a third tall, ie a very tall flanker. sort of like a permanent resting ruckman...or a third tall defender...