2016 Draft Thread - The Rebuild Begins

If available, which player do you want us to select at pick 7?

  • Sam Petrevski-Seton

    Votes: 123 45.6%
  • Tim English

    Votes: 50 18.5%
  • Ben Ainsworth

    Votes: 9 3.3%
  • Tim Taranto

    Votes: 27 10.0%
  • Griffin Logue

    Votes: 43 15.9%
  • Todd Marshall

    Votes: 4 1.5%
  • Jack Scrimshaw

    Votes: 3 1.1%
  • Josh Rotham

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Oliver Florent

    Votes: 2 0.7%
  • Cedric Cox

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 2.6%

  • Total voters
    270

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

The criticism of all the draftees other than sps on this board is a joke. These kids haven't even been put into the afl system yet and had time to develop and everyone is writing them off. Until they have had a year or two under their belt you won't even know what sort of player they are. They are still kids for gods sake.
 
I read it more as a general discussion of the possibilities.
Which as you say is all they are at this stage.
I'm not even trying to second guess the recruiters although I've watched the U18's and have an opinion on the qualities each appears to bring.
I think we've positioned ourselves as well as we possibly could and have done so in a draft where the quality will still be there at our 2nd and 3rd pick.
I see us doing very well but have no idea what we're likely to do.
 
The criticism of all the draftees other than sps on this board is a joke. These kids haven't even been put into the afl system yet and had time to develop and everyone is writing them off. Until they have had a year or two under their belt you won't even know what sort of player they are. They are still kids for gods sake.
SPP played for WCE's wafl team, so on our board apparently hes a shit kick, we don't want and hes no good. Poor form really, they're kids who are yet to be given an opportunity.
 
Yep - When Boyd went into the ruck it left Dogs with Dickson (184cm) as their main 'tall'. He kicked 3 and they won the premiership. Must get the talent in first, then worry about how many centimeters they are.

Don't get me wrong, English will be a fine ruckman from what I've seen (All Stars game aside where he stunk up the place), but if you had a choice between Scott Pendlebury or Josh Fraser, you pick Pendlebury every day of the week.

My post was referring to our teams complete lack of a functioning forward line.

..and yes, who wouldnt pick Pendlebury... maybe Richmond.
 
haha. He isn't my choice. Just amuses me how naive posters are. The posts I am responding to don't actually contain criticism do they? What they do is state as fact that he is not best available. That he is a reach. That selecting him is a needs based pick, like we should prefer a type of player we don't need.

Most drafts I read rate English extremely highly.

* by the way, is calling me Mrs supposed to be an insult? tsk tsk.

As one of those on the other side of the fence. I'm thinking is more as follows

Why do people think that height being over 195 means that a player goes up 10 spots in the draft. I agree you can't teach tall but neither can you teach quick or smart.

The reports on English are conflicted at best on his tap and overhead work.
So people say we should take him as a tall roaming mid. But if he is not taking contested marks he's just a mid. Now is he a top 10 mid. I would think not.
So the real question is do we draft a genuine top 10 player or a top20 mid who may become a ruck. As there are a few rucks that seem to be good this draft, one or two of who are likely to last to our picks 2 and 3, I'm in favour of best available. Not best "needs" available.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
In 2008 it was almost unanimously decided that choosing Stephen Hill over Daniel Rich was a horrible decision that was a symptom of our incompetent club.
I wanted Hilly and was rapt we grabbed him.Have to go back and check the thread but from memory there were plenty who thought our Stephen had the better upside and how right they were although Rich has been more serviceable than I thought he would be.
Generally horse trading is a hard arsed game.
 
As one of those on the other side of the fence. I'm thinking is more as follows

Why do people think that height being over 195 means that a player goes up 10 spots in the draft. I agree you can't teach tall but neither can you teach quick or smart.

The reports on English are conflicted at best on his tap and overhead work.
So people say we should take him as a tall roaming mid. But if he is not taking contested marks he's just a mid. Now is he a top 10 mid. I would think not.
So the real question is do we draft a genuine top 10 player or a top20 mid who may become a ruck. As there are a few rucks that seem to be good this draft, one or two of who are likely to last to our picks 2 and 3, I'm in favour of best available. Not best "needs" available.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

He was the only ruckman selected in the All Australian under 18s team. He is regarded as by far the best ruckman available in the draft.
 
SPP played for WCE's wafl team, so on our board apparently hes a shit kick, we don't want and hes no good. Poor form really, they're kids who are yet to be given an opportunity.
ehh I think it is more that we have pick 7 which would be a huge reach for SPP whereas if we had pick 22 still then we would be talking about taking him at that pick, if he somehow slid to 35 (no chance IMO) then we would grab him straight away like we did Blakely and Balic two years running.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

He was the only ruckman selected in the All Australian under 18s team. He is regarded as by far the best ruckman available in the draft.
The question is simple I think. If we are going best available, is he the 7th best player in the draft? Irrespective of the speculation on his contested marking ability, height, potential, or being the best ruckman in a small pool.

I'm not sure if he is, or if he ever will be. That's the challenge we all face yeah? It's easier to project midfield types that dominate now than talls who take more time to develop. I'll be happy whoever the club takes.
 
He's pretty dangerous when left without a tag.

However, getting Stephen has meant we were able to get Brad. Also isn't there another Hill brother who is due to come through the system?
Yes their cousin Ian is a gun. Possibly rated as the #1 draft prospect for his age group atm (in u16s).
 
I for one was very happy when we went Hill over Rich. I watched a fair bit of Rich in the WAFL that year and always thought he looked like he was wandering around at half pace never really looking like he was desperate to get the ball.
By contrast Hill in the last quarter of the preliminary final for WP was throwing himself everywhere desperately defending. Skinny little kid was going in everywhere trying to get his team over the line.
 
Which doesn't change a lot of opinions overall. Hell if it was Nic Nat & Pendles - guess which one's still more likely to take you to a premiership..

Yeah I know but phrases like 'Fraser or Pendlebury' are a bit disingenuous and designed to make it seem like the club would be ****ing incompetent to select English, which isn't the case
 
Recon we should look at a bid on Macreadie at 35 if still there. Apparently, he's fallen out of love with GWS after being moved from Riverina to Sydney, so could well end up without a match-bid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top