If it was balanced he would have wrote something, anything about what Adelaide did not 3 words.
Traded 2018 Live Trade: Carlton trade #4 (2019) to Adelaide for #19 (2018) and #9 (2019)
- Thread starter Lore
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's simply that sometimes recruiters/List Managers target types.
We always hear "best available' but the results don't always show that to be the only consideration when it comes to drafting. (See McAsey, Weightman, Pickett just for starters) Of course recruiters will never say they took the third best player available, but profiling is important.
I can see what the CFC set-out to do in consideration to its list.
Whether that proves to have been the best path, only time will tell...and even then sometimes it may not, as if you keep loading up on the same types, some are going to miss as a matter of course. No point loading up on players that can only ultimately play musical chairs with others, and allow gaps to be overlooked.
What’s to write about Adelaide?
They picked the consensus best KPD, who has no injuries and few if any questions on his abilities or skills. And the other pick won’t be for another 10 months.
On the other hand, there’s been questions about Carlton’s rating of Stocker since day one, and questions about where he was drafted as well.
There’s no question about Kemp’s potential, but he faces the same questions as RCD did a year ago, about can he realise his potential. And he did an ACL, so it’s only natural for people to question if he’ll be the same player that he was before.
And Philp is widely regarded as more of a reach than Stocker was a year before. Undoubted athletic and physical traits, but can he improve on his footballing ability.
Okay you are trolling, good day.
I’ve long argued that teams select on a needs base even at the top end of the draft. So I’ve no issues there.
I just believe there’s there’s a significant gap in the quality of players between Robertson and Rivers, and Philp and Dow.
They’re different types of mids for sure, just don’t see how a Rivers type of mid doesn’t not fit in to CFC midfield.
The new always seem to have something more to them, than players that have been around for a couple of years.
May not seem this way to outsiders yet, but Cripps, Walsh, Setterfield, Dow and Fisher alone, add a lot of variety to the midfield mix.
The CFC then have SPS, Stocker and Kennedy, as inside midfielders and can add Martin, JSilvagni, and Cuningham into that mix, without even considering what they've just brought along in last years draft and at some point in time, a team has to settle on what they have and allow that group to grow and develop.
Carlton wanted speed and speed they got. Will it work? I don't know, but I'm glad for the path we've taken given how deep we are into the rebuild.
- Jul 14, 2005
- 18,723
- 29,567
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC
- Banned
- #2,858
If you’re a dilettante draft watcher you’re not going to be across all prospects, which is why someone like Philp is going to be undermined in these threads despite the feedback on him being reasonably generic and actually contradictory in nature.
A massive reason he was chosen was because of how team oriented he was almost to his detriment) and how good his leadership skills were, and this has so far been corroborated by his effort at training.
Kemp is the one who should have gone much earlier. Was always going to slide due to injury, but should never have slide that far based on his talent.
A massive reason he was chosen was because of how team oriented he was almost to his detriment) and how good his leadership skills were, and this has so far been corroborated by his effort at training.
Kemp is the one who should have gone much earlier. Was always going to slide due to injury, but should never have slide that far based on his talent.
The same question sits on the head of every single draftee. The only question that separates Kerr is his ACL injury.
Cal Twomey reported speaking to a number of recruiters who confirmed Philp wouldn't have last long beyond that pick.
Would you put the same percentage on Walsh as you would Philp, as in, as a percentage what percent chance would you give Walsh to reach his potential?
You can't tell the difference between listing a players strengths and weaknesses and listing nothing?
Not sure if you are just being intentionally dense, may god have mercy on your soul if you are serious.
Is that true? I mean, I've read it a few times on here, but I don't think anyone actually believes it.
It means SOS would have taken him over Walsh, Luko, Rankin, Rozee and the King twins.
I'm calling BS
- Sep 26, 2004
- 48,026
- 65,095
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #2,863
No, it doesn't.
- Sep 26, 2004
- 48,026
- 65,095
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #2,865
You did, and you suggested SOS would have taken Stocker over all of them. Which is obviously wrong...
blue_trinity
Team Captain
It means he would have selected him over at least 1 of those players...
you are right about one thing, it is really not that difficult
Fair enough. I guess by "rated top 6" you mean "would have taken Stoker at pick 6"
Any other narrative you want to change?
In other words 'would have taken Stoker instead of Ben King. If that's the case I can see why he's been sacked.
- Sep 26, 2004
- 48,026
- 65,095
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #2,869
- Jul 14, 2005
- 18,723
- 29,567
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC
- Banned
- #2,870
Why would he have taken Ben King? We already had Curnow and McKay and just signed McGovern at that point in time. Doubt he and Max were included in the shortlist.
If he had of taken them over Rankine, Rozee or Smith, who were far more likely to be included in the six, then there would be some concerns.
It’s all pontificating nonsense at the end of the day. None of us are any wiser on who SOS would have taken or passed on.
- Sep 26, 2004
- 48,026
- 65,095
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #2,871
As usual, brilliant discussion. I enjoyed all your well made points.
Got anything to contribute keyboard warrior? or just throwing insults?
Don't bother - I think I know the answer.
Please point to where I stated SOS would have taken Stoker over Walsh. I stated that it's BS if anyone still actually believes SOS would have taken Stoker in "Top 6". It's more likely a throwaway line to justify the trade. But, great conversation again. You really seem to know how to inspire a great discussion.Apparently this poster reckons we would have taken Stocker over Walsh.
You should be a Mod.
blue_trinity
Team Captain
What narrative? What are you actually on about?
blue_trinity
Team Captain
“It means SOS would have taken him over Walsh, Luko, Rankin, Rozee and the King twins.”
