1858

Further to the WJ's post,

We now have 16 teenagers in total which includes 3 rookies. For the age bracket of [20 - 24] we have 19 players which includes 3 rookies. When you consider that either Meesen or Newton could be rookied by GC before us which would give us the option of rookieing another teenager (if desired), then the numbers would almost be in equilibrium.

Although it is hard for Jordie the club did mention a couple of weeks ago that the are looking at next years draft as a right off and plan to recruit mainly from our rookie list

Fair enough, thanks for that.

He will be a fine player I would think! 190cm midfielder/forward.

Automatically makes him one of our better midfield marking options in the corridore either through squaring up from the wings or conveyance down the guts. An area where we have been lacking with predominantly short inside mids.

Great insight BD.

There is no point lamenting anything if the club is happy with things. I am certainly not saying we should have gone with Talia or any other talls at 11 if the club clearly preferred a mid but Talia will be awesome at the Crows. The only thing is that I think the Crows see him down back instead of up forward which is why they may have pounced so the whole thing is academic.

Poor ol' Jordie Mckenzie, I can actually believe he would have been damn close for a promotion. Now his job of getting promoted is all that harder as there is 1 more (hopefully top mid) to contend with. Oh well, I hope he keeps his chin up and is in the mix for the mid season nominated rookie.

The Giz

Yep, that was my first thought too. 'Geezer' was my 2nd.

Burgan has Adelaide taking Jetta at 13 (with Kane Lucas, Koby Stevens and Jake Carlisle in the mix) but all the talk in Adelaide is Tapscott at 13 if he is available. We'll see I guess.

Unfortunately ,your smart arse comment inserted, without veterans the list is only 38 and with veterans up to 40!

You lose the availability for 2 rookies but they would not be on the list!

No smart arse comment needed!

With or without veterans you still have a pool of 40 players who can play senior football as '45hotgod16' was pointing out with the nominated rookies reference.

Here's some analysis that is useful:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=654570

It shows that from pick 21 on (about the value of 2009 pick 18) the % number of games played is pretty constant and about 60% that of 1-10 and 75% of 11-20. It shows a decent drop off and puts the value of pick 18 into some context.

Beware the pitfalls of indexation.

If we hypothetically equated pick 18 with pick 21: we could just as much include it in a 10 pick index of [12 - 21] as [21 - 30]. Pick 21 could then come out in a completely different light.

Having said that the information still has value from a very general stand point given we don't really know where 18 compares in this draft.

just asking I should think he will have to to maintain a position in the back 6. If he cant...and the others progress...it ( the game ) will pass him by. Simply an observation.

He hasnt had a brilliant run with injury...but I do wish him well.

If he doesn't get a spot in the starting 6 does that necessarily mean he becomes a liability? I agree in principle that less game time will not hold him in good stead with the direction of the game and if anything he has been caught out a little with the last injury with game style but the very nature is he was coming from injury and was builidng up his own form first.

I have always seen Rivers as more value when we are a better team. When our midfield gets better, when those around get better, and when the backline sees less ball.

Even though you could apply that to most players, I do see your point. The only question then is during this period of the team improving will Rivers be a passenger (in relativity) if he isn't prominent enough to help the team advance to that point?

And when they do I want one of the best readers of the play in the AFL to mark those, now indiscriminate (thanks to the harder working midfield), kicks that come into our backline, leaving his man to help Frawley and Warnock who are on the best two defenders, and then handing it off to Garland, Grimes, McDonald, Bruce, or MacDonald to rebound.

I think you make a very good case here of where Rivers should be of optimal value to the team, having said that he still has much room for improvement IMO in his own form but hopefully he will.

_______

Note, I am making neutral discussion here.

shame they cant call out Jacktom Scullgove.. and they be joint #1's

alas.. JT for me

You never know, BP seemed a little nervous last year with the opening call.

by up a notch...do you mean from where he is...or from where he was. I.e can he take his game to new heights ..or simply regain lost form ?

Probably both but more specifically from where he is as that is the capacity he is being condidered in atm in the thread I would have thought.

I don't know where the Rivers arguement originally came from but could posters possibly be coming from different angles here?

Is Rivers specifically threatened? - I would assume not as he plays a different role.

Is Rivers indirectly threatened? - from the pov that any defender is threatened with more competition as Bailey has another type of option now then perhaps.

Either way, another question to consider: After his first significant season back, do you expect Rivers to go up a notch next year?

We need three or four more good quality midfielders.

I agree with this although I can't see the club going for mids with the first 4 picks which means BP may be earning his money with the later picks.

I read somewhere Schwab (i think it was) mention that at least 12 good midfield options was important which I agree with and I also agree with the crux of the OP. We definitely don't have a surplus of mid options with respect to this criteria at all and we do need more quality mids on top of Scully and Trengove.

If we can manage to add say at least 3 good prospects (Scully + Trengove + Other) then I would be quite happy with that. I get the feeling if 11 goes tall then 18 will go mid or vice versa. I think we need to be mindful though that we don't get "mid happy". IMO there reaches a point where you can have so much raw talent that it becomes less than optimal in developing them with so many potentials competing for game time. We definitely don't need to extensivley add ball carriers to flood the list like last year, now is the time for quality not for diluting our stocks and making the development process harder than it has to be.

Thanks for that info I was under the impression that they had changed the rules and you could now have an extra 2 Rookies the additional ones were for mature players. Guess I got it wrong.

They have changed the rule with respect to how many mature age rookies you can have (2, up from 1) but my understanding was that the actual amount of rookie spots was unchanged. Happy to be corrected though.

I understand that, the question is how many Rookies, including Meesen and Newton do we have, and how many are we allowed. In other words when we take them back do we have one or two more spots or are we all full up?

Would we be able to take Thorp or Tenace in the Rookie draft after we re rookie both of them?

We currently have a maximum of 6 rookie list spots. Excluding Meesen and Newton, 4 are taken. We'll be full if we end up adding them both.

Essentially Valenti and Zomer made way for Newton and Meesen.

The current 4 rookies are: Spencer, Hughes, McKenzie and Healy.

he has strongly hinted that we're looking at talls for picks 11 and 18.

Does that mean looking at getting 2 talls with 11 and 18 or looking at getting 1 tall with either 11 or 18?

Then Pick 11 is going to have to be an enormous talent.

I should hope that pick 11 is worthy of pick 11 (within the club's strategy).

So Watts and Jurrah will become stale and predictable? Like Franklin and Roughead? Brown and Fevola?

My, you really are getting ahead of yourself. Liam Jurrah 9 games, Jack Watts 3 games.

Should I also mention that Hawthorn still have Dowler as a tall who will probably get more game time next year and that Brisbane actually preferred to keep Bradshaw?

And for there to be multiple options, the choices have to be near enough in quality to attract the attention of the ball that would normally go to the 1st option. Cameron Cloke was another option in Carlton's forward line, but that didn't mean that 1) the midfielders kicked it too him over Fevola, or 2) that he would be good enough to take advantage of the same delivery.

We are only talking KPFs here - not the entire forward line. We have plenty of smaller options to compliment Jurrah, Watts, and Bate. There is your variety should you need it.

With all due respect, if you are using Cameron Cloke to build your case around then I can't take the case seriously. A complete hack.

rpfc, whilst I understand your angle here you seem to be presenting extreme cases to create a scenario which simply isn't worth worrying about.

I also realise we are talking kpfs not the entire forward line but over the long haul Jurrah, Watts, and Bate is one tall short (npi) and the club seems to think similarly.

I think Jurrah is good enough to be the most dangerous forward, for a decade, in a flag...

I am ridiculing those that think there is going to be a talent at Pick 11 who will relegate Jurrah to a 3rd tall. Pick 11 will be the third tall, or the 4th tall, if you are willing to invest Pick 11 on a 3rd tall or a 4th tall then by all means, but I can see the sense if BP isn't willing to invest Pick 11.

Yes, I understand your point, there may be a few posters with unrealistic expectations of what pick 11 could get us (relatively speaking) and making calculations that put that pick as potentially our most prominent forward is probably misguided. Having said that, there are still no guarantees, we may get that big body player or at least something close to perform an anchor role. At the end of the day though I don't see any connection between this and whether the player is worthy of pick 11 or not which I think is what you were hinting at in your OP.

If a tall is good enough to be picked at 11 and will make our forward line better then Jurrah's relative value doesn't matter even if we have illusions of grandeur. A third tall gets a third tall defender so we make the most of the situation. I think the club will be after a good tall, without worrying too much if it is a 1st, 2nd or 3rd. Jurrah is a freak (KOTD as you said) and Watts was a #1 pick so the odds of getting a kpf at 11 or 18 in a shallow draft that eclipses them is not only unlikely but immaterial.

That is not my argument at all. And it certainly isn't moronic. I am saying that if his perceived potential is that he could be as good ad Jurrah and Watts then pick him up. But if he isn't then we are spending Pick 11 on a third tall, who may also be a speculative pick (I have said before that if the best player available is a KPF then of course we take him). Midfielders are different; you need more good mids than good KPFs, and they are easier to spot at draft age. These variables make recruiting mids easier than recruiting talls. It is as simple as that.

Firstly the "moronic" comment was not aimed at you, it was tied in with my anaology which was correct in principle but because I was comparing players in the same draft (who can be compared clinically by draft pick) it stood to reason that 1,2 would be better than 11 (it was a digression).

If the likely tall candidates at pick 11 prove to be "speculative" after all the research the club has done then I doubt they would pull the trigger but I don't see why you have used the word "speculative" when suggesting that we could be using pick 11 for a third tall. There is no reason to make such a connection.

"Midfielders are different; you need more good mids than good KPFs" - I can't see anyone disagreeing with that. I think it is fair to say we will have more good mids than good kpfs, especially if we invest the other pick of 11/18 in a mid. I still see this comment as dodging the principle of my point of comparing the midfield though - the principle is the same.

I think that is a fair comment about mids being easier to pick than talls but where do we draw the line? If we don't go tall at 11 then we go down a notch (maybe 2 good talls mised) to 18. If not 18 then we jump to 34, it fast gets to the point where we have missed the boat on filling such an (apparently) important requirement.

Going over heavily trodden ground here but we had Smith for depth - how did that work out? Hawthorn drafted Thorp knowing full well that there was no place for him in the side, all things being equal (no injuries, trades, 'Carey-like infractions' etc. from Roughhead and Franklin), and now he is training with us. Is Newton depth?

Would the opposition play guessing games with Newton in our forward line?

Pick 11 will no doubt be better than Newton and he may well turn into a productive forward, but I am simply asking the question - would you prefer the lesser player at Pick 11 - a 3rd tall in the forward line - or would you prefer the best midfielder available at that stage of the draft?

(Again, I stress, if the best player available at 11 is a KPF then there is no argument from me on recruiting him)

Again, I think you are presenting an arguement which could just as equally be applied to the midfield or defence. Midfield options (for depth or other) can turn out just as bad. We tend to lament kpf failures more for some reason probably because their lack of impact can be more profound.

When Thorp was drafted in 2006 Hawthorn not only had Roughead and Franklin (2004) but Dowler (2005) and I doubt they drafted Thorp thinking they didn't have a spot for him - I think the timing was just bad for Thorp that the main 2 took off so well the next year. I don't know their rationale but to suggest that they picked him for the sake of it is just convenient assumption, I think there is a case that they still wanted the option. Watch Dowler take off next year inspite of the other 2 targets.

Newton was insurance more than anything and failed because he sucked, all the more reason to make sure we get some quality up forward. If pick 11 or 18 is used in this measure then fine by me. I think the average Dees supporter was playing guessing games with Newton this year, even from 10 meters out.

If the best available mid at 11 is a far better player (general acquisition to the team) then I would expect the mid to be picked up but I have never argued against that. I have simply stated that I disagree with your assertions about how good the kpf option has to be at 11 or 18 (relative to our best current forward) to be of value to our forward line and worthy of the particular pick. I also think you are stereotyping the role that a third tall would play in our side and how our coach and mids would use them.

FWIW I think come draft day I would end up making similar opinions as you rpfc with how to go in the draft based on the options at each pick but I just don't buy all this 3rd tall caper. I sound like I am rallying for a kpf at pick 11 with all of this but that is not strictly the case.

Your major points are based on rigid assumptions which miss the point IMO. I understand what you are getting at but I don't follow the strict mechanics of it - too simplistic for mine.

- Just because you say so, that does not mean Jurrah can be made into a 3rd option. He is our best forward at the moment and will receive the greatest attention. Black or Talia or whoever can't be 'just another option' for Jurrah to be relegated. Does that sink in to anyone?

Not sure what others think rpfc but I think your scenario could hold true next year, after that who knows? As I said previously, that isn't necessarily a major concern straight off the bat. If Jurrah cops the best defender then there isn't too much we can do about it except try and exploit it with more quality forward options. Also the more options you have, the more likely that you can get an opposition making changes with their match ups. If we just stick with say Jurrah, Watts and Bate as our future forward line we'll become predictable and more often than not Jurrah will cop the best defenders. In any event, what does it really matter if there isn't a talented enough forward to relegate Jurrah from being our most "dangerous" forward? As long as we get a good quality forward who compliments the others and the team that is all that matters. Jurrah's talent is a bonus to our side not a barrier, I don't see how we can waste pick 11 simply because the player in question may not be more dangerous than him straight off the bat. Again, same arguement with midfield - if we can't get a mid with pick 11 who cops a better tagger than Scully or Trengove are we wasting that pick? (sounds moronic I know but that is what you are more or less implying in a forward line context).

- With Watts and Jurrah in the 50, who is good enough from the talls that we might take at 11 to divert the attention of our mids streaming through the middle. If you say that that player is depth then you are wasting a 1st round pick on depth, if you say that that player will be the third tall I would say we are wasting a first round pick on a third tall, and that he would have to be better than Bate.

You don't ask for much lol. Perhaps ring up BP for an expert analysis.

Although I think 11 could snare quite a good KPF, it isn't just about who but about how many. Redundancy is a great thing, if two forwards are ineffectual then maybe the third will bob up and so on. Trying to play guessing games about who our mids will kick the ball to without any context of game plan, personnel, opposition, game day variables such as certain players being blanketed, form of players etc strikes me as a very trivial excercise. It is also something that may not be easily answered until we get a full year under the belts of 2 or 3 key forwards. I think your assertions are very short sighted and I think in my previous post I gave a good example of how a greater group of quality forwards can compliment each other (and develop) rather than plucking rules out of nowhere about how he has to be better than him etc.

I realise rpfc your post was addressing many other posters as well so I didn't take your post personally.

The issue is that we should not look to get the best KP player at 11 or 18 unless we can see that player being able to command a decent amount of football in a forward line containing Watts, Jurrah, and Bate.

Should we be applying the same predicate with respect to midfield options at 11 and 18? Assuming we get Scully and Trengove, should we just say don't bother on another mid if they don't command a decent amount of footy in a midfield of Moloney, Jones, Sylvia, Grimes, Scully, Trengove, Blease etc?

I would hope the club is not that narrow minded with respect to talent in any position when looking at the big picture.

__________________

I will run through a few arguments for going for a KPF at 11.

"We need a tall, deep target to take the pressure off Jurrah and Watts"

Now this the argument for a big lump in the square crashing packs, provide a 'release target,' and kicking the odd bag. Can Jamar do that? Can Martin do that? Can you afford to carry a player like that who doesn't have another role (ie ruckman)? Does Black have the physique for that? Does Talia?

A KPF regardless of size requires forward instincts and talent. Do you see Jamar bagging 3 or more regularly and how likely do you think it is that he will even be there on a regular basis given he is probably our #1 ruckman? Martin I doubt is a permanent option either, he still has room for improvement as a defender let alone being a forward. A makeshift player is the last thing we need up there for the next 5-10 years, we need quality.

"We need a big body to make Jurrah a 3rd tall so he can do more damage"

Just because you want him to be the '3rd tall' doesn't mean he will get the '3rd best defender' or that our midfielders will kick it to him any less. As I said before, if Pick 11 is going to make Jurrah a '3rd tall' - he better be effing good! Is there someone that good in the draft? Is Black THAT good? Is Talia THAT good?

These are the thoughts I want BP to go through - he has to select, not the best tall at that stage of the draft, but a tall who would have as much potential as Watts and Jurrah.

Even if Jurrah hypothetically did get the best defender, what better way to exploit that than to have other forward options on lesser defenders? Giving the opposition headaches is what it is all about. Then on top of injuries there is plain old bad form to contend with, there are no guarantees with any forward line.

"We need depth in our talls in case Watts, Jurrah, or Bate get injured"

You can't replace your best players. Mitch Thorp was recruited as depth for Roughhead and Franklin - how did that work out? Recruiting for depth in the first round? You can argue that you're not sold on Watts, Jurrah, and Bate and that another talented forward will be needed if they don't come on but that's an argument I would love to have.

Of course you can replace your best players. Adelaide's prime tall playing forwards are Tippett, Hentschel and Burton. They have Taylor Walker as a developing youngster to fill in (14 games) but Craig even said he is not in their best 22. Then they have 192 cm Andy Otten who I would say plays a very similar role to what Bate does at Melbourne pushing through the 50 arc and presenting or getting possesion and attacking through 50 to find a target or goal - he played 22 games this year. Also of note is their draft recruit of 196 cm Shaun McKernan who they described with "He’s strong on the lead and can also take a good pack mark, so he’s difficult to man up on". McKernan would have got more games if it wasn't for injury.

Sheesh, what a wealth of riches to have at your disposal. I know who's shoes I would prefer to be in if Melbourne left their future up to just Watts, Jurrah and Bate. If anything, Adelaide shows that if the tall players emerge then you can accomodate them quite effectively.

If we had the development record of say Adelaide then I would have more faith in our ability to take say a 34, 50 pick tall and turn them into a dangerous forward but I am not that confident. The club has hinted at a tall which suggests they believe our forward line is not yet complete/adequate for the future. Logic suggests we have a better chance of getting a good forward at 11 than at later picks. I understand the appeal in getting a mid at 11 in the event of being the best player but what happens if the club then prioritises 18 as a KPF? 18 is less likely to be as good a forward as what 11 would command (in principle) so over all we may be no better off and we get a lesser player to fill in a position of apparent need which does not bode well. I think at 34 or 50 we'd be wasting our time almost at Newtonian levels.

I think the draft and how we go about it is far too complex for us to come up with rules/predicates on how to go about it. I am not necessarily pro mid or pro tall at 11 I am pro common sense based on our direction and I think the club has a better graps of our needs and strategies going forward than any of us. Even "best available" is no clear option without weighing up all factors. A Butcher/Black/Talia could help us immensely up forward just as another great mid could be useful to add to our stocks. None of us ultimately know how much the club rates the top couple of talls relative to the rest of the pack or for that matter any mids that slide so we don't know how much importance they place on getting in at 11 regardless of best available.

Worry not and leave it to BP.

A lot of it comes down to our options - and to our willingness to take a risk with our last pick. If we get as many injuries as we had last year - and he stays fit - we'll all look back in 12 months time and complement BP and IH for some very astute recruiting/ list management. If Strauss, Cheney,Bennell, McNamara and etc etc all develop he might have to spend some time at Casey. How's your crystal ball?

Fair point, there are no guarantees in footy or life for that matter which is kind of why insurance is important I think but again it is not just about next year. To me, Cheney won't be a running defender but I may end up wrong. McNamara on the other hand is anyone's guess at this stage. Bennell is a 179cm small defender who may get some mid-time but would benefit by having JM beside him. Strauss hasn't even played a game yet and an experienced player like JM could help him too. If all those players come good then great but how likely is that really to happen such that they are all better options than JM in our 22?

I see JM as a conservative pick with possibly a big upside in how our other players benefit rather than a risk but I guess it depends on how you look at the situation.

In any case it can't hurt to be philosophical. Hawthorn just forked out picks 25 and 41 for Josh Gibson (and 69) who is 7 months older than JM. Gibson may be slightly ahead as a defender but there isn't that much in it and they play similar roles (although I suspect Hawthorn will give him some heavy duty tasks next year). Hawthorn had a hole in their defence and probably are still in their premiership window so were keen but we virtually get a similar commodity for free so from that pov I am quite content.

We so easily forget that every year we are hammered with injuries and or players in and out of form.

Reality - Junior will miss many games this year as his body slows down.

Grimes will be freed up to take part in learning how to be part of our mid field.

Bruce may even be able to take some time up forward. Remember the days Bruce was able to do that!

Strauss doesnt have to be under pressure if he is struggling to come on at anytime through the year.

Its a long long year - reality is we may only have our 'best' team on the ground for anything from 0-22 rounds......Our young players cant and wont play every week. We need hardened bodies to be able to maintain consistancy in performance and compete.

I agree with the gist of all of that and I think Wellman would be happy to have a player like JM there to rally the younger players when things get tough.

If Davey and Green can spend less time floating back in defence through necessity and more in attack then that would be a massive plus too.

I agree.... that is why I thought that this was an unhelpful poll!

If he is a strong team-orientated character ( I hope he is... I am asking the question?) then he should be an asset over the next few years - although his value will fall over time as our youngsters develop and mature.

1) Fair enough, although I think some insight did come out of it.

2) That is most probable but would also (I imagine) be part of the plan so far as he would be there not only as a good defender but also to help the younger runners improve. IMO our defence is quite good with the sheer talent of players. 1 on 1 situations, we are improving. Getting the ball to a neutral or possesion situation we are improving. Third tall up we are improving and we are becoming quite strong. But when I look at a (IMO) benchmark team such as Adelaide and their run from defence which is their main form of attack, we don't even come close. I thought given the circumstances, Bennell played very well this year and Grimes stood up very well too. The problem is that we don't have the system that other clubs have and we don't have enough runners full stop who can work together from half back - well not this year anyway. I consider MacDonald's influence on this aspect of our game as significant as Ball's influence could have been on our extraction work in the middle. Obviously MacDonald is not the same calibre of player as Ball (or many other defenders for that matter) but he helps us in an area where we are lacking. Until we establish our defensive run then we won't be finals material. If we can do this without having to "rob Peter to pay Paul" so to speak ie not drag back our mids to help out then we become more effective - Adelaide have done this whilst leaving most of their promising young mids in the guts. I'll probably get laughed at for this, but for someone that we get in the PSD who isn't a top tier name and more a safe option than anything else, he still could be one of our most important acquisitions going forward. This was not aimed at you either hoopla, just me thinking out aloud so to speak.

If anything the only thing this strange poll shows is that MacDonald does not fill an obvious need - except the need for depth

I think you need to extrapolate how MacDonald will serve us to over the next 3 or 4 years rather than just looking at our list for the next 5 minutes of next year and thinking hmmm, where will I put him?

Even if your assumption was correct (which I disagree with btw), to discard defensive depth from being an obvious need doesn't make sense to me. Defensive depth is a very important aspect to any club's list as long as the players involved are not list cloggers and can adequately do the job required. MacDonald is no slouch and will give us many options going forward as to how we use some of our other mid height defenders. He isn't competing against any of our 190cm+ players although I beleive he could at least fill in for 1 if they were injured. Of the stocks around his height, there is Grimes and Bell. It has been mentioned time and time again by many posters (and the club also) that Grimes is likely to be groomed as a genuine midfielder and we all know where Bell is at. From this pov a pretty obvious purpose is emerging for getting MacDonald. Even Strauss at 185cm is being touted as midfield material even though he will probably start from hbf.

The options that Bailey will gain from having a reliable/experienced 187cm running defender over the next 3 or 4 years will be massive IMO. MacDonald is also a good defender in his own right. Our defence has developed in many areas but we are yet to establish a solid run/rebound from defence style of play which I think we will focus on next year. This is such a huge part of the modern game and MacDonald's experience will help us with this as the majority of our defensive runners are still young and learning to gel. The younger runners could also benefit from playing along side of him and become better players. I should say though that I thought Warnock started to improve in this area which was pleasing for a taller defender.

don't be racist

Don't be a [censored].

For someone like me who doesn't have a good grasp of the candidates apart from online "enlightenment" I went for Butcher as a safe option although Black would be my 2nd. One thing I am sure of is that if we get Black then our two big forwards will be collectively known as "Black Jack".