Freak of Naita excites Demons

[sideshowbob 0]

16.5 was chosen so that you would definitely be either over or under it and not equal, which would cause further arguments.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

16.5 was chosen so that you would definitely be either over or under it and not equal, which would cause further arguments.

not that it really matters, but how could u end up on 17pts??????

[jacey 333]

Rich V Naita.

Rich is more polished, and would be ready to go round 1. Naita not so much, but has a MASSIVE upside. Naita has more devleopment left in him, IF, and i mean IF he can continue to develop (read he has not been playing the game all that long, has plenty more to learn) Naita could be a club changing choice.

Rich is safe.....but will safe win us a flag, win us supporters? Naita could if he continues to develop.

Hey Wrath, I still think clubs still play it safe with early draft picks. It's that important to get your first picks right. It'll be interesting to see how Naitanui plays in the WAFL and championship this year cause he could be a quick learner and by the end of the year be a no brainer but atm, if the draft was held tommorow, I'll go for Rich.

Call me old fashion but I like pure footballers.

[dee-luded 2,958]

not that it really matters, but how could u end up on 17pts??????

(16.5)

A team would be either on say 16 points for 4 wins(priority pick), or 18 points for 4 wins & a draw misses the priority pick.

[sideshowbob 0]

To forest85 and Dee-luded - i don't get it either - but there's definitely no "half points" which is why i think they chose it - kinda like they do with betting margins etc.

[Axis of Bob 10,341]

Bailey has continually said that he we lack skill as a team, which is needed to play the type of football we are trying to play. So I would think that we will go for the number 1 pick with elite skills, rather than the athlete with suspect skills.

Looking at all the players we drafted last year, they all have very good skills.

We need good skills under pressure to play the football we are trying to play, so my money is on Rich.

If ND was still coach then maybe it would be different.

But there is still a lot of time left until draft day.

[Jarka 767]

I get a feeling that we'll get pick one, but not Natanui.

I just think that, at the moment, the hype is so big that people are overlooking what his effectiveness would be in relation to a gold plated midfielder.

Look at the ruckmen of the past 10 years. Barnes/Alessio, Keating/Charman, Lade/Brogan, Ball/Jolly, Cox/Seaby, Ottens/King. If you look at them they are not leaping ruckmen aside from Barnes. They are all big, strong ruckmen who clear traffic in the contests rather than run wide around the ground. Is this all something that Johnson can't do? Look at a lot of the rucks and they generally come from far further down the draft order. There is so much development left in ruckmen that you have to guess, so you just don't know. The real top shelf midfielders are easy to spot and they are almost always picked very early.

Look at the midfields of each of those teams and they are top shelf.

I think that the midfielder is a) a sure bet and, B) comparitively more important in building a good side and, c) something we are missing more in our future side.

You haven't taken into account the fact that in the past 10 years there hasn't been a ruckman like Naitanui to compare them to. He is unique to AFL footy, much like Jimmy Stynes was. Also, Naita has grown since last season, he is now at least 198cm and may still be growing, which now makes him taller than Charman and around the same height as Lade, hardly worthy of a wrist slashing. Have you seen him play? He clearly has a big frame, he's not built like a Justin Longmuir, clearing traffic is not going to be a problem for this kid. Right now playing in the WAFL seniors he uses his body as a battering ram.

On the topic of the WAFL, he played against Warnock recently (whom alot of people here on demonland want) and reports say that he beat him (stats wise he did as well), not bad for an underage kid who has only being playing footy for a handful for seasons. He's also been constantly named in the best players so far this season. He works harder when his team doesn't have the ball and his 2nd, 3rd and 4th efforts are on a level unseen before by kids his age and size.

As for your other points:

A: Midfielders are a sure bet hey? At the time Johnstone was considered to be the best talent to have gone through the drafting system, his nickname at the time was roller. Sylvia was also considered to be a 'sure bet', proof that nothing in life is absolute.

B: Ask Collingwood and St.Kilda whether ruckman are important to building a premiership team.

C: We don't have a clear replacement for White, although we have McLean, Jones and hopefully Grimes to build a midfield around. How could we not desperatley need a quality ruckman?

I want to see him in the U/18 champs this yeara nd see how he handles the pressure of being the best kid in the comp. Cotchin struggled last year but Kreuzer did quite well. This will tell us alot about his character and his ability to handle being hunted and not the hunter. I'd also like to know what his endurance is like and whether he can play in a key position, but I won't be making the mistake of dismissing him as just pure hype.

[Axis of Bob 10,341]

Yes, I have seen play but only last year. Have you seen him play?

I don't doubt that Naitanui can do the bullocking work needed. Afterall, he's a good player. A very good player.

But is that something that can't be done by someone else?

Look at all those ruckmen I listed, and only one of them was a top 20 pick in the last 15 years (Ottens at 2, although King was a compensation 16 year old). My point is that you don't need to use a number 1 pick to get a premiership ruckman.

However nearly all the top midfielders are top 10 picks, as it's far easier to see which ones are good and which ones are duds.

All Australian team midfielders last year: Ablett (father-son), Bartel (8), Corey (8), C Cornes (9), K Cornes(20), Kirk(rookie), Hodge(1), Dal Santo (13), Foley(rookie), Kerr (18), Lappin (2), Ling (38), Mitchell(36).

So, overall: 1 to 10 = 5 (of 13), 10 to 20 = 3 (of 13), > 20 = 4 (of 13). Plus Ablett, who would have been in the (conservatively) 10-20 range.

So the good midfielders (70% of last years AA team) are in the top 20, while only 2 of the last 12 premiership ruckmen were (17%).

So do we need to risk a number 1 pick at a type of player whose role could feasibly be played by a less expensive alternative? Especially when history has told us that if we want a gun midfielder then we will probably have to use a top pick to get him.

That's the point I'm getting at. Naitanui will be fun to watch, but is spend pick 1 to get a ruckman really a wise way to get us to a premiership? IMO, there are better ways to do it.

[tess 19]

Here are Naita stats so far this year:

http://www.sportingpulse.com/nf/team_info....0-64429-4320168

[Axis of Bob 10,341]

A) Johnstone is one of the most talented players I have seen. He is a dead set freak. He was drafted at number one because he was the most talented and should be the best player in his draft. But he's a head case, and that's what has kept him back. There are headcases who are tall and small, so that doesn't really come into the argument. It's like using Angwin as an example of why you shouldn't draft 197 cm key forwards who run like the wind. He's a head case, so you can't tell.

B) You do need a ruckman. But what do you need from a ruckman? Look at the past and you will see that they need to be strong, honest and lion hearted, but don't necessarily need to be superstars.

Collingwood's ruckman was Josh Fraser. A "once in a generation player" as he was touted. A ruckman who could play like a midfielder. In a Grand Final he was found out because his talent was less important in the role he played, but instead it was all about being strong and honest.

C) Paul Johnson is strong and honest. If Jamar plays the way he did yesterday then he is the same. I'm not saying that our ruck stocks (aside from Johnson) don't need improvement, but we can get those players in other areas rather than pick 1 of the National Draft. Maybe Warnock in the PSD. Maybe from a rookie list or a late selection. It depends who's out there. The type of player you need for the ruck can be found in strange places!

[Jarka 767]

Yes, I have seen play but only last year. Have you seen him play?

Yes

I don't doubt that Naitanui can do the bullocking work needed. Afterall, he's a good player. A very good player.

But is that something that can't be done by someone else?

Look at all those ruckmen I listed, and only one of them was a top 20 pick in the last 15 years (Ottens at 2, although King was a compensation 16 year old). My point is that you don't need to use a number 1 pick to get a premiership ruckman.

However nearly all the top midfielders are top 10 picks, as it's far easier to see which ones are good and which ones are duds.

All Australian team midfielders last year: Ablett (father-son), Bartel (8), Corey (8), C Cornes (9), K Cornes(20), Kirk(rookie), Hodge(1), Dal Santo (13), Foley(rookie), Kerr (18), Lappin (2), Ling (38), Mitchell(36).

So, overall: 1 to 10 = 5 (of 13), 10 to 20 = 3 (of 13), > 20 = 4 (of 13). Plus Ablett, who would have been in the (conservatively) 10-20 range.

So the good midfielders (70% of last years AA team) are in the top 20, while only 2 of the last 12 premiership ruckmen were (17%).

So do we need to risk a number 1 pick at a type of player whose role could feasibly be played by a less expensive alternative? Especially when history has told us that if we want a gun midfielder then we will probably have to use a top pick to get him.

That's the point I'm getting at. Naitanui will be fun to watch, but is spend pick 1 to get a ruckman really a wise way to get us to a premiership? IMO, there are better ways to do it.

But what makes Rich any less of a risk? In recent years both Collingwood and St.Kilda were unable to win a premiership without a genuine ruckman and both teams have been trying to fix the problem since. Geelong realised their importance and traded away two first round picks to get one in Ottens and it paid off.

In 2006 Brisbane took Leuenberger @ 4 and he is clearly going to be a very good ruckman at the very least.

I'd imagine that if Naitanui goes at number 1 as the hype is suggesting it would be because he is the best player available with the most amount of potential, not because he is a ruckman.

The point that I'm making about the kid is that you cannot judge him by what has gone on before because his talent and abilities are completely unique, the game has never seen a kid like this play before.

I would have thought that the club has already answered your question though, it's clear that over the last ten years our pursuit of ruckman has failed. Picking up so so players like Jamar with late picks doesn't always work, you need talent not just someone who can fill in a position. In fact our best ruckman over the last decade has clearly been Jeff white, and where was he taken in his draft?

[Jarka 767]

A) Johnstone is one of the most talented players I have seen. He is a dead set freak. He was drafted at number one because he was the most talented and should be the best player in his draft. But he's a head case, and that's what has kept him back. There are headcases who are tall and small, so that doesn't really come into the argument. It's like using Angwin as an example of why you shouldn't draft 197 cm key forwards who run like the wind. He's a head case, so you can't tell.

So how on earth is taking a midfielder a 'sure bet'?

B) You do need a ruckman. But what do you need from a ruckman? Look at the past and you will see that they need to be strong, honest and lion hearted, but don't necessarily need to be superstars.

Collingwood's ruckman was Josh Fraser. A "once in a generation player" as he was touted. A ruckman who could play like a midfielder. In a Grand Final he was found out because his talent was less important in the role he played, but instead it was all about being strong and honest.

Yes, ruckman are clearly important.

C) Paul Johnson is strong and honest. If Jamar plays the way he did yesterday then he is the same. I'm not saying that our ruck stocks (aside from Johnson) don't need improvement, but we can get those players in other areas rather than pick 1 of the National Draft. Maybe Warnock in the PSD. Maybe from a rookie list or a late selection. It depends who's out there. The type of player you need for the ruck can be found in strange places!

You mention Warnock which is funny because even at this young age Naitanui is already beating him when they go head to head.

As it stands we don't have a ruckman on our list who is capable of holding his own in finals footy, and you're right a quality ruckman can come from anywhere but if Naitanui is the best player available with the most amount of potential then the point is irrelevant because you should always take the best kid with your first pick, you shouldn't trying to fill a position and pass on more talented kids as we did with Luke Molan in the 'superdraft'.

[Demon Disciple 11,094]

The only problem i have with drafting Naitanui is that his potential is huge. When it comes to potential and the MFC, they don't seem to be able to produce it as well as other teams.

You just have to look at the players skills this year to get a fair idea of how well our devlopment of players is going. Drafting Naitanui will be a huge risk, and it would put a lot of faith in our development team, to get the job done. On current form, i wouldn't be relying on or trusting our skills coaches to untap the potential of a young player.

This ain't Naitanui's fault. There would be many teams out there that would be able to turn him into a superstar, i doubt the MFC could. I'd like to be proven wrong by our development team though.

But then again, all of our young players have seemed to stop in their development, including midfielders. Many of our young kids have come onto the scene and impressed early, yet most have struggled to take the next step.

[Axis of Bob 10,341]

We picked up Jolly and Simmonds in the rookie and preseason draft respectively. If White wasn't there then one of those two (the less talented one is a premiership ruckman) would have stepped up to be our number 1 ruckman. White was better than them, which is why we kept him. But he is not a premiership ruckman and his style has not been influential in finals. In fact his best final was against St Kilda's non-existant rucks in our 2006 final win. His talent did not shine out in finals because the pressure in finals requires the bullocking work which can be done by less talented ruckmen.

The reason Collingwood and St Kilda struggled so much in the ruck is because they failed to understand what role a ruckman needed to perform. They both had 'around the ground' ruckmen who would pick up possessions, but were uncompetitive in the clearances. McKee/Fraser were runners not bullockers, while Blake/Rix are useless inside packs due to their lack of size/muscle. Losing the ruck is fine as long as you are competitive and can throw your body around the contest. The extra aspects of the ruckmen are not as relevant under finals pressure, hence their role can be filled by less talented ruckmen.

However finals can not be won without class midfielders.

Look at Brisbane, with their lion hearted ruckmen (I'll also add Beau McDonald to the list with Keating and Charman), but their superstar midfield of Voss, Black, Akermanis, Lappin, Power etc.

Look at Port with the hard working Lade and Brogan, with a midfield of Francou, Cornes, Cornes, Burgoyne, Burgoyne, Carr etc.

Look at Sydney with the bullocking Jolly and Ball, with a midfield of Bolton, Goodes, Kirk, Williams, Kennelly etc. (arguably the least talented of the premiership midfields).

The West Coast flag was on of the few to have the combination of talented ruckman and exceptional midfield. But even Cox can't win them games without Judd and cousins this year!

Rucks are important, but their role is to provide support for their star midfield. You don't need to sacrifice an A grade midfielder for a player that will simply provide finals support for the remaining B grade midfielders.

You are arguing whether or not he's a good player. I'm not arguing that he's a bad player, because he clearly isn't. I am arguing that his relative importance in a premiership winning side is less than a midfielder like Rich. I think our premiership chances in the future will be better enhanced by picking Rich than Naitanui. I'm afraid that people are looking at his 'uniqueness' rather than looking at what is needed in a side that will win a premiership. I'd be afraid that the benefit we get from Naitanui would be well exceeded by the opportunity cost of missing Daniel Rich.

[Jarka 767]

We picked up Jolly and Simmonds in the rookie and preseason draft respectively. If White wasn't there then one of those two (the less talented one is a premiership ruckman) would have stepped up to be our number 1 ruckman. White was better than them, which is why we kept him. But he is not a premiership ruckman and his style has not been influential in finals. In fact his best final was against St Kilda's non-existant rucks in our 2006 final win. His talent did not shine out in finals because the pressure in finals requires the bullocking work which can be done by less talented ruckmen.

The reason Collingwood and St Kilda struggled so much in the ruck is because they failed to understand what role a ruckman needed to perform. They both had 'around the ground' ruckmen who would pick up possessions, but were uncompetitive in the clearances. McKee/Fraser were runners not bullockers, while Blake/Rix are useless inside packs due to their lack of size/muscle. Losing the ruck is fine as long as you are competitive and can throw your body around the contest. The extra aspects of the ruckmen are not as relevant under finals pressure, hence their role can be filled by less talented ruckmen.

However finals can not be won without class midfielders.

Look at Brisbane, with their lion hearted ruckmen (I'll also add Beau McDonald to the list with Keating and Charman), but their superstar midfield of Voss, Black, Akermanis, Lappin, Power etc.

Look at Port with the hard working Lade and Brogan, with a midfield of Francou, Cornes, Cornes, Burgoyne, Burgoyne, Carr etc.

Look at Sydney with the bullocking Jolly and Ball, with a midfield of Bolton, Goodes, Kirk, Williams, Kennelly etc. (arguably the least talented of the premiership midfields).

The West Coast flag was on of the few to have the combination of talented ruckman and exceptional midfield. But even Cox can't win them games without Judd and cousins this year!

Rucks are important, but their role is to provide support for their star midfield. You don't need to sacrifice an A grade midfielder for a player that will simply provide finals support for the remaining B grade midfielders.

You are arguing whether or not he's a good player. I'm not arguing that he's a bad player, because he clearly isn't. I am arguing that his relative importance in a premiership winning side is less than a midfielder like Rich. I think our premiership chances in the future will be better enhanced by picking Rich than Naitanui. I'm afraid that people are looking at his 'uniqueness' rather than looking at what is needed in a side that will win a premiership. I'd be afraid that the benefit we get from Naitanui would be well exceeded by the opportunity cost of missing Daniel Rich.

I'll ask the question again, what makes Daniel Rich are sure bet? Surely you aren't saying this just because he is a midfielder, or are you...

You've said before that you think people are getting carried away with the hype of Naitanui but aren't you doing exactly the same thing with Rich?

[mo64 5,240]

...

I really don't understand where your coming from, but I'll pose this hypothetical question:

If Dean Cox was available in the draft, would you take Rich ahead of him?

[titan_uranus 22,731]

Here are Naita stats so far this year:

http://www.sportingpulse.com/nf/team_info....0-64429-4320168

Is it just me or are these stats somewhat underwhelming (except for hitouts)?

[The Emblem 1]

Is it just me or are these stats somewhat underwhelming (except for hitouts)?

I'd like to see 1% and tackles as the videos and reports all claim this is a big part of his game too.

As for the draft...at least there are 3 juicy candidates... Natanui V Rich V Hurley.

Nice to know that whatever happens things will be looking up.

[Demon16 69]

does anyone have any information on his capabilities overhead? contested marking etc...... or his ability to play key position?

[MeLbOuRnE 0]

If we have the chance to get Naitanui and don't it would be a huge mistake and we would end up regreting it.

Naitanui can't be compared to any one, He has the biggest leap i have ever seen and he not only wins the taps but he then gets down and roves them and he is a clearance machine, He is super fast and he will keep the opposition in fear of being tackled like nobody has in the history of the game.

And people who are saying his skills are questionable are wrong his kicking has been very good so far this year as has his handballing.

He went head to head with Warnock last week in the WAFL and had 27 hitouts, He is averaging 21 hitouts and a goal a game...

This is a picture of Naitanui at a ruck contest so just keep in mind that he jumped that high off about 3 steps!!!

[Hannabal 4]

I understand Axis' view and under normal circumstances I'd agree, but as long as he impresses this year in the WAFL it's Naitanui for me. An agressive ruckman with a freak leap who creates space for teammates, wins his own clearances, is fast, tackles ferociously, and has been described as a 7 foot mid gets my vote.

Rich will also be a gun, but you can build teams around athletic freaks like Nat. Don't under estimate the physical presence Naitanui brings. The ability to create space for mids is enormous and something we've lacked since Stynes.

[Hannabal 4]

Is it just me or are these stats somewhat underwhelming (except for hitouts)?

He's averaging 12 possessions, 20+ hitouts, and a goal a game, which is fine for an 18 year old ruck in a very good competition. And he's still learning the game. His athleticism and aggression ensures he'll only get better.

Cox played 17 games for WC in his first year and averaged 7 possessions, 19 games in his second for 10, 19 in his third for 11, and 13 in his fourth. He broke through in year 5 with 16 and 20+ hitouts.

Some industry experts are in awe of Naitanui's natural talent and potential. And they've been watching kids for years. He's already good, but what he can potentially bring to the table is unlikely to be matched by any mid.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

I tend to agree with Axis of Bob's point of view. However, a season of footy is a long time and no decision should be made until after the Championships. I can't wait to watch them both later in the year.

[Eastie Boyz 0]

I really don't understand where your coming from, but I'll pose this hypothetical question:

If Dean Cox was available in the draft, would you take Rich ahead of him?

Dean Cox was picked only after 100 other kids (he was a rookie selection).

So I'd go Rich

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Who of the two would be more marketable, Rich or Naita?

We need excitement at the club not another midfielder, good as Rich appears to be.