DeeSpencer

I'll add to the chorus saying Josh Walker is the one mature tall who somewhat interests me. The reality is though I want to see Petty and Weideman given every chance at both ends of the ground, plus I'd like to recruit at least 1 young tall with our 5 remaining spots.

Casey has often had Gippsland players as the 23rd man right? I wouldn’t be surprised if JT wanted Serong and Flanders to play for Casey. Both strong bodies and good up forward, you’d like to see them win a few clearances and make an impact forward.

I assume Taylor usually watches a wide range of games looking at a bunch of players trying to cover the whole draft pool. With our season down the drain he knew he’d have a top pick and so had a deep dive on top prospects, watching multiple games and maybe isolating on a player and seeing their off ball work etc. A lot of these top guys play plenty of school footy. Ie. Kemp and Serong for Geelong Grammar. Taylor would go to some of those games regardless of focus. But I think he was saying the games he took a deep dive on were likely the carnival games, WAFL/sanfl or Nab league finals. The big games where big guns step up.

He was 1 vote off winning the Larke medal for best player in the national champs! More than just a bit of good form. And he’ll start as a forward was all Taylor said, no real difference to a young mid starting as a forward like Serong, Kemp and Flanders probably do. I think people need to get their heads around this being genuine. May not end up that way but there’s enough there for me. No 18 year old should be drafted for needs. Mids and smalls might do more earlier but even guys like Petracca and Cam Rayner were big projects in terms of fitness and went top 2.

Interesting reading between the lines. JT says 3 players are in the mix at pick 3. Twomey: Is Luke Jackson in that mix? JT: 'Yeah he'd be in that mix I'd say'. It could certainly be bluffing, but it sounded pretty honest to me. And if we wanted to take him at 8 then you'd downplay any interest. Bluffing only makes sense if you're keen to get a trade. Who is rating him nowhere near 3? The mock drafts that have him around 10-15 is where Oliver and Bont were rated at this time in their draft years. The media and greater public always go with the high possession mids and goal kickers early whilst the recruiters are looking at other players. We've seen reports GWS, Freo and possibly Carl are all keen on him, it's not like he's come from nowhere. Should a team not have drafted Dangerfield, Rioli, Cripps with pick 3 because they weren't rated as pick 3 by the consensus? Here's my interpretation: The pick swap with North doubles our chances of getting a ready made player. It's exactly the kind of move you'd make if you were considering a 199cm kid with one of your picks.

If we like 35 players in the draft then 1 or 2 of those might get all the way through to pick 75 if we are very lucky but it makes some sense to me that we'd be looking for a pick in the 40's or around 50 to grab a slider.

Interestingly Callum Mills was pick 3 after we bid on him and at the time was an out and out midfielder who the Swans started at half back to ease him in to AFL footy. A few years on and he's had a few cracks at the midfield but he just looks more comfortable with strong aerial and contested work down back rather than being a midfielder. Vlastuin was pick 9 after being a midfielder at TAC level but a half back and captain at Vic Metro, has been ok in a few stints in the midfield but is elite across half back. I'd argue Jake Lever is a flanker in many ways and I understand we went close to picking him with pick 3! Then there's Daniel Rich who might be the closest comparison to Young in that kicking is by a mile the strength of his game. Pick 7 but could've gone higher. The thing I like about Young is his elite skill - kicking - matches with his role. Like a gun forward who clunks marks or a gun mid who wins clearances for fun if you have the elite trait in one area and no clear deficiencies then you're going to be a really good player even if you aren't a superstar.

A fairly smart player with decent skills but his body is shot. There's no mobility and speed left there. Some guys are just done by 30. No thanks.

Pick 3: down to about 3 players Confirmed Luke Jackson is one of those, liked his improvement post national champs - has gone to see him play in person and play forward, and that he's always played in top junior games. Hayden Young in the mix, likes his improvement from last year to this year Wasn't asked much about Green but will bid on academy players as he sees fit Tim Lamb (list manager) in ongoing talks about pick swaps Will entertain swaps but aim is to be careful about trading down with the hope of player getting through, doesn't like the risk - if 0.5% risk you're not doing it (something along those lines) Dealing for pick 8 based around a group of players that might be available as well as 30% of the top 30 next year being academy based Hosts bring up Lachie Ash, Caleb Serong. JT doesn't really confirm too much about those 2, instead brings up Brodie Kemp and Deven Robertson Gets asked about Weightman and talks positively about small forwards in the pool Aims to take 3-4 draft picks, has a list down to about 75 Likes the top 35 of the draft and then the next group is more pros and cons Pro Bennell Still confident in the list, assessing it based on 2018 not just 2019 Talks up the resilience and work ethic of the 2018 draft class - Sparrow, Jordon, Nietschke, Bedford, Dunkley etc Keen for Spargo to bounce back and bought up Harry Petty - unsure in which role - as a talent for the future

An unusually bold strategy to publicly confirm so much interest. I like that it's as a train on player though, that's the wise move.

I'd still rather see him train with us and get picked up as a supplemental rookie after a period of training than race in with a list spot before we even know if he can run. If other clubs are willing to give him a list spot straight up then we have a more difficult decision to make.

A post earlier in the thread says he will stay on, he seems popular with the players and has far more experience now, so with the appropriate guidance should do a good job. Brukner is surely too busy to do the day to day stuff and every training session, if he can oversee the program, get involved with creating management plans for tricky injuries and possibly do some games that will be a good result.

My biggest concerns with drafting a ruck early are: 1. Injuries. I think Nic Nat and Kreuzer would've justified their draft position quite easily if they didn't miss so many games. Nic Nat has played 166 games, Rich 207. Kreuzer's played 188 to Cotchin's 234. Factor in the number of games where they aren't fully fit or go to the bench early and it might be closer to 30% less effective footy. 2. Replacement value. A 2nd or 3rd round pick can often find a competent ready made replacement, as can stashing development or state league options on the rookie list until required. Nankervis isn't fit to lace Nic Nat's boots but he can do the same job. That's not true of other positions.

Personal bug bear of mine but height is a bit of a useless stat because how long a guys neck and head is can make the difference between 198cm and 202cm. I'd like to know Jackson's height to the top of his shoulders plus his arm wingspan. And his vertical leap which I can't find in the top results from the combine but apparently is quite good all be it not freakish. At his height he might not be able to out jump the 204cm+ rucks but he might have the wingspan and leap to easily compete against the guys of similar stature.

They nailed 3 really good draft picks last year. The draft is often where analytics first comes in to sports, it's easier to quantify numbers on who is likely to be successful whilst it takes a while to change game plans - partly because coaches are often so restrictive to change. I'd also argue that after losing Wingard and Polec that Port started the season very well - as they often do - then lost their way down the stretch as Kenny started messing with the game plan and selection.

I like this appointment. Not that I know anything about Robert Younger particularly but I know we absolutely should be investing in analytics. We will never be the biggest club, we have to be smarter than everyone else to get success. Which means smart coaches, smart fitness staff, smart recruiters and giving all of those guys tools to get better at their job. That's what an analytics guy can do. So many trends come and go in footy and the teams that are at the leading edge of those trends win games and win premierships. - The importance of forward pressure and then full ground up and back presses - Left footers kicking from the backline - Intercept markers across half back retaining possession etc etc If I were a coach I'd love to know what skills/plans are actually vital to winning games. And if I were a recruiter I'd like to know what traits are actually the most valuable. Is it size/speed/kicking ability/winning one on ones/winning ground balls. Should we look to trade up the draft for elite talent or is the smarter move to trade back and bank more draft picks.

I don't mean to pry but are you older than 70? Otherwise age isn't an excuse if you're younger than Bill James - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_James If you're even remotely in to baseball you can read Moneyball. Or Astroball. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37822619-astroball If you like the NFL you can look in to what the Pats - maybe now one of the greatest teams in any sport - have done https://www.espn.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4817050/patriots-take-pride-in-their-use-of-analytics-to-help-scouting Or how the Eagles used analytics to win a superbowl - https://www.espn.com/blog/philadelphia-eagles/post/_/id/27697/eagles-provide-roadmap-to-analytics-driven-future-of-nfl A stack of examples in Basketball too.

I need to see more to see how he moves to get back on to his left as much as if his right passes the basic pass marks. I'm fine with most players using just their preferred side to kick but they have to be able to get out of trouble to get back to their good side. Salem rarely uses his right but he has really quick feet to take lots of short little steps and kick on his left before getting smothered or tackled. At some stage I'll watch Young's full TAC highlights and hope to see his elite agility and footy smarts to get time and space.

Some of these are great kicks, a personal fave is this one. What i'm looking for is kicks under pressure and the technique that stands up at AFL level. - Quick reliable and balanced release - Eyes up field to see targets - Penetration v weighting the kicks I have to see more to get a sense of what happens if he's trapped on his right and how he deals with full on pressure but the technique looks rock solid.

Those players - apart from Martin - will be delisted free agents available to sign without the draft. When it comes to the PSD we will have 3 options: 1. Martin 2. Pass 3. Catch wind of Gold Coast (unlikely due to being able to prelist academy pick ups) with pick 1 in the rookie draft or any other team with a subsequent pick being interested in players we want to rookie draft, forcing us to reassess our plans and add them to our main list.

I've had similar thoughts but if Young works out he's going to get 15-20 kicks per game - which is what designated kicking half backs and only a select number of midfielders can do. Salem was at 16.70 last year. The attacking benefits of an elite kick getting more kicks than any other player on the field have to be worth a lot, maybe up to a couple of goals a game if he's lasering it in to the corridor. Then Young's got the size and ability to contribute defensively and composed ball use stops turnovers. A gun key forward is probably still the most valuable recruit, challenged only by the Dusty/Dangerfield style mid/forward bull and maybe the absolute silkiest 30+ disposal goal kicking mids. Rowell is the gun accumulator/goal kicker, Anderson is the mid/forward star and there's not a highly rated key forward. After that does it matter if you draft an in an under on baller, a wing, a half back, a ruck, a key defender? Isn't a good player a good player?

Wouldn't be completely against it because he would probably be best 22 but I've always thought he was more of an up and back half forward flanker than a dangerous small forward. If he's just competing with ANB, Lockhart, C. Wagner, Sparrow, Hannan, Hunt, Chandler etc and maybe one of pick 3/8 then even if he's the best option of those players we aren't noticeably improving. We've committed to so much depth in that role I'd rather use a list spot on a guy with more upside to really make the number 1 small forward job their own.

Good teams need backline generals who can see the game unfolding and have the time and space to direct play. It’s vital to have at least 1 and ideally more players who can provide structure and we have May and Lever. Midfielders and forwards have to get their stoppages and starting points right but after that they have to dictate play and the game moves so quickly outside of stoppages I’m not sure how much field marshaling is achievable. Viney has to be smarter with the ball but we need most of our mids and forwards to do the same and to be well coached. The off field leadership sets the tone of the club and Richmond and GWS were both great examples - as were WCE and Coll - that a positive well led club goes a long way to onfield success. Sparrow, Spargo and Petty - a random 3 guys who put their names up? Or 3 players on the fringe of the 22 who could all be important players if they make a leap?

It's wrong to rewrite history without even any of the internal knowledge and Misson is a particular victim of that. We forget he did some very good work over the years. But pushing out a doctor with 20 years experience and full qualifications for a guy who wasn't even qualified in the field was almost certainly a mistake. If it was done to achieve a certain power structure - which may or may not be true - then that's a particularly poor mistake.

This may be wrong or even offensive but I feel we made a huge mistake when Misson came on board and our experienced doctors left and apparently went to Richmond. IIRC reports at the time said they weren’t happy with the power structure. We then hired Dr Z as our main doctor who at that stage had very little sports medicine experience and wasn’t even a Sports med registrar yet alone an experience clinician. Dr Z seems quite popular and I have nothing against the guy but he’s far more experienced now than when he first got the gig. If Burgess is either willing to work with or requires an experienced doctor to work alongside then that’s a huge show of competence to me. Good people recognise their strengths and weaknesses and work well with other experienced and quality colleagues.