GOLF

The player we need as a rookie for insurance against Jamar getting injured is not a forward (of whatever quality) who can fake it in the ruck, but a genuine ruckman who can step up if Jamar is injured and front for Sepencer/Gawn/Fitzpatrick for two years. Ideally, Jamar will stay fit, and this rookie will never play a senior game for us. But Hansen just doesn't have the right profile. At best, he could be a forward who helps out in the ruck. We need someone who can go in as first ruck.

We don't have a PSD selection, but we do have 6 rookie selections. If we defer one of these to after the NAB Cup (new rule this year) and we use one to re-rookie Tom McNamarra, then we will have four others to use in the rookie draft. One of these could well be, as other posters have mentioned, a mature bodied ruckman as insurance against Jamar being injured. Doesn't have to be a young world beater as Spencer, Gawn and/or Fitzpatrick will hopefully be developed enough to take this role in two years time. So can anyone see a good retread amongst the rookies who would last 2 years? Three other rookie picks on smokies, wild cards, mature VFL players and rough diamonds overlooked in the main draft and the PSD. Normally the rookie list is a great place to put young beanpoles to see if they develop. But with Spencer/Gawn/Fitzpatrick on the senior list, plus our four draft picks, plus the aforementioned insurance rookie this strategy may not be needed this year. Benefits of rookies are: they are cheap, they can be nominated for senior selection if we have long term infuries, and if they are duds we can let them go at the end of the year. Added benefit this year is that if one of them turns out really good, we can nominate them for senior selection even if we don't have any long term injuries, since we only have one veteran in 2011.

Putting their experienced players to one side, their young, whether recruited as 17yo last year or 18yos this year will be: 18-19 starting 2011 with zero senior games played. 19-20 starting 2012 with 10-20 senior games played 20-21 starting 2013 with 20-40 senior games played. At those ages some of their mids (but not all) should be hitting their straps in 2013, but their talls will be lucky to be ready for regular senior AFL by 2013. How long did it take for Frawley to become good? Is Watts (3 years now, 4th in 2011) yet good? Jamar, anyone? Given they have many fewer experienced players than a "normal" AFL side, I would put them 2 years behind us at least. And as I am expecting the Dees to play finals in 2011, top four in 2012 and flag in 2013 (that's the most optimistic path I can see) then GC would be on track for Finals in 2013, top 4 in 2014 and flag in 2015. And that depends on McKenna turning out to be a good coach, their selections in the 2011/12/13 drafts being good, their club/board/FD/Admin not falling to pieces and no more than the usual number of their kids going off the rails/failing to develop/getting homesick and leaving. Have a look at the age/games played profile of a top 4 or premiership side. GC aren't going to be there until 2015 at the earliest. I just can't see their current bunch of experienced players being able to carry the kids until some of the kids get good enough to take up their share of the weight.

We drafted well (imho) but don't expect to see Cook, Howe and McDonald in the seniors in 2011. Talls take longer. Our forward line will still be a bit makeshift, but capable. Green is a motza for FF until someone taller puts their hand up. If the selection committee has the wisdom to listen to sound advice, it should line up: Jurrah Green 2nd Ruck/Jamar Petterd Watts Wona in 2012/2013 look to see Cook, Howe and McDonald pushing for inclusion. Also maybe Tappscott.

And I forgot to say, there may be a commitment to take Tom McNamara. This would reduce our spots for exciting experimantals and smokies to 4 or 5.

Everything I have read says "forward or ruck". Can you quote a source? Against Sandilands? Or Jamar?

Just a theory, but .... If a club has made a commitment to re-rookie a delisted player, do they still need permission? Did Newton train with us at this stage last year? Admitedly he was still contracted to us, but maybe the promise to re-rookie is the get out clause.

We actually have space for 8 rookies, but Newton is already one of them and Green as a veteran reduces our count by another. Of the 6 we can take, we are allowed to delay naming one of them until after the NAB Cup. So we can take 5 or 6 in the Rookie draft. Note also that because we have only one veteran, we can nominate one of our rookies for senior selection even if we have no senior players on the Long Term Injured list (I wish).

Pavlich? Brown? This boy is a beanpole at the moment. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Just as "best available" is an over simplistic drafting strategy, the assertion that "needs based" drafting totally avoids any consideration of quality is an over simplistic analysis or what happened yesterday. BP apparently went in there looking for talls, probably set his bands of comparable quality a bit wider than normal, and looked for the best tall in each of these bands as our picks came up. But there is no way he would have picked a tall if there was no tall available of quality comparable to the other candidates. Recruiters rarely adopt a "pick to type even if they are rubbish" approach.

Assuming he is really 18 and that the 20-year-old comment is a furphy, then an 18yo weighing in at 90 kilos and being call "blisteringly fast" could be something very special. Given our current defensive stacks, I wouldn't be looking for him in the seniors until 2012 at the earliest, unless we have injuries and/or Warnock loses his pace faster than we hope. But come 2013 he should be a goer as we shoot for a flag.

At 194cm, I don't see him making any impact in the ruck. Still, he might grow a bit. But he will take time to develop. Look to 2013/14 (same as Cook) for him to be ready for seniors. Unless he does grow, play him as a forward if there is any room left for a tall in the forward line alongside Watts, Cook, Jurrah and a second ruck (Spencer/Fitpatrick/Gawn) swappimg with Jamar. At his size, the beep tests are fantastic. Hope he can keep it up when carrying more muscle.

Two years older than the other three, so we might see him in the seniors earlier than them. 2012 most likely, but maybe even 2011 if we have a couple of injuries up forward. But remember, he is still a tall (even is a solid one) and messages from the coach take longer to get from his brain to his hands and feet. If he really is going to be a taller Robbo with better ground skills, I'd be rapt. Do you suppose he can chase and tackle as well?

More like Watts but taken later in the draft (2010 pick 12 = normal year pick 18? 20?). Can't see him playing much senior footy until 2013/14. Needs a couple of preseasons. Unless we use him as a ridiculously tall winger. But all the potential we could hope for.

I still think we need insurance on the Big Russian. If Jamar cops a bad injury, we are in some king of trouble. Spencer is the next best, and while I would like to see him play a bit as 2nd ruck to Jamar, the idea of him as first ruck (with maybe Fitzpatrick or Gawn as second) does not inspire confidence. In that scenario, we may well miss the finals. I'd like to see us rookie a mature bodied ruckman. Needs to last for 2 years, until Spencer/Gawn/Fitzpatrick can really step up. This rookie may never play a senior game if Jamar stays fit, but if required should be able to step in to take the hard bruises if Jamar isn't there. One prospect I see is Orren Stephenson from North Ballarat. But I haven't looked at a full list of rookie hopefuls, and there may be some recycled gems lying in wait. But some such big tall toughie is needed. For two years.

They are all tall and will therefore, almost be definition, take longer to develop. If 2013 is our target year, then this was the last draft we could recruit tall and reasonably expect them to be ready by 2013 (which I take as our target year). 2011 draft we can go for "best available" and take small or midsized (including one J Viney), and they can be ready by 2013. 2012 we should be in the position of looking to trade to fix any problems resulting from players not developing as we hoped or from serious injuries. Any picks left over from than should go on a "best available" again. I can think of much worse positions to be in.

Can't see any mention of Fitzpatrick. Is he injured? If not, has he put on any muscle or is he still a beanpole?

And then maybe add a TAC cup game as well. With a slight change to age elibility, they could call it an "under nineteen" game.

Agree. They will play him for 2 years while their draftees mature a bit, and then discard him, making more room inn their TPP to retain the yound developers who turn out alright.

Quite true. But if we don't use pick 53 in the main draft, we will have a PSD pick available. In that scenario we may get him, if that is the wish of the FD. But I don't want him.

The sub comes on when someone is injured. How would Bennell, Maric or other shorter players cope if it was Frawley or Garland who went down? #22 has to be someone who can cover for a lot of positions.

With PJ off the list, we will use Jamar plus one of Spencer/Gawn/Fitzpatrick as our rucks in 2011. Maybe even Martin if he regains fitness and form. But what happens if Jamar gets injured? Spencer is the most developed of our young ruck stocks, but does anyone feel comfortable about asking him to be first ruck in 2011? Even maybe in 2012? Without an adequate first ruck we may well miss the finals in 2011, setting our development back a year. The FD will be looking for a mature bodied ruckman who will be serviceable at least for 2011 and 2012. By end 2012, at least one of our young rucks should have stepped up. But during those two years we need cover for Jamar. I think they will look to get one with pick 49 in the ND. Picks 12 and 32 can get good youngsters even in a corrupted draft like this. If they can't get one with pick 49, they may decline to use 52, just so they keep a list spot open for the PSD. If there is no good option in the PSD, then they will look in the rookies. If they haven't found anyone by the time our last rookie pick is due, they may even re-rookie PJ. But I think some option will present and be taken up before then. Remember, we don't need a young world beater. Just a reliable ruck to front for our youngsters for two years. He may never play a senior game for us if Jamar stays fit. But if Jamar does get injured, he must be available to step in and prevent the youngsters from getting monstered. If we can't find anyone else, I would go for Orren Stephenson of North Ballaraat. Has matched/beaten a few good AFL rucks who were coming back from injury or squeezed out of seniors games during 2010. But I think there will be a better choice around somewhere.

Newton should only be retained as a rookie if the FD think he will make a solid forward. I'd be looking for 5 goals per game in VFL, translating to 2 goals per game in AFL. I haven't seen any sign of this rate of scoring happening. His ruck skills, if any, are purely bonus. An almost unoticable bonus imho, but others may think he has something there. But if he is not going to make it as a forward, he should be let go. Meesen, Healey and Hughes are no brainers. McKenzie and Spencer have been promoted to the main list. Note that rookie promotions DO NOT use any of our draft picks, but they DO count towards the minimum number of picks we have to use. We currently therefore have our full set of picks plus pick 52 we got from Hawthorn for Cheney. We must use one pick, and are able, with our current delistings/retirements to use two picks. The number of rookies plus veterans has been increased this year to 8. As we will have two on the Veterans List (Bruce and Green) and have cleared out our rookies (by promotiom, retirement and delisting), we can take 6 rookies (6 rookies plus 2 veterans = 8). If we want, we can delay selecting one of these 6 until after the NAB cup. We could look for a recycled mature bodied ruck as insurance for Jamar. Doesn't have to play a game unless Jamar is injured. Otherwise we will be relying on PJ and the youngsters (who aren't ready yet) if the Russian goes down. I fancy Orren Stephenson of North Ballaraat in this role. For the rest, rookies are where you pick young hopefuls or players who missed previous drafts and have matured late. Best bet in my view is rookie the talls - Ruckmen, Forwards or Defenders. They always take longer to develop, and may therefore not be showing enough to be drafted this year. Maybe one or two of the six will ever make it, and they won't be getting regular games until 2014/15, but we should keep the pipeline fed. Take one beanpole (200cm+) and the best four 193-197 forward or back long term prospects. Don't go for midfielders or small defenders/forards - if they are any good they will have gone in the draft. Only exceptions to this should be players the FD has spotted as late bloomers.

This thread is premised on us using four picks. Currently we only have list space to use two (12 & 32). If we are going to use more we have to find more delistings. Many have said delist PJ. If we do, we create an urgent need for a mature bodied ruckman to fill in if Jamar is injured, and we must look to use one of our three picks to fill this need. To go to using four picks needs another delisting. Who? Will that create another real need to be filled? Random musing about who will be available where in the draft won't cut the mustard beyond the first two picks.

If we do look at Skipper, please remember we are not looking at him to play a single senior game UNLESS Jamar gets injured. Our rucks next year, barring injury, should be Jamar plus one out of Spencer, Gawn or Fitzpatrick in every game. If Spencer, Gawn or Fitzpatrick get injured, there are the other two to keeo it going. But if Jamar is injured? We could well miss the 8. So we need at least one mature bodied ruckman who can step up to lead the youngsters if Jamar goes down. By 2013 the young should be ready to stand on their own. By 2012 they may be showing signs of getting there. But in 2011 we need the insurance. Currently we have PJ to fill this role. If we see something better that PJ, lets get him. We could delist PJ, giving us the use of a third draft pick, if that would do it. We could also look at the rookie draft. If we want someone to fill in for the injured Jamar, then a rookie is fine as he can be nominated for senior selection to replace the injured Jamar. So is the right choice Skipper? Maybe. Is it someone else? Whoever it is, we hope they won't play a single senior game for us, but will just be hanging around in case Jamar goes down.