Can we fill our teams needs in this draft.??

[Eagle Ant]

I was reading alot of the phantom drafts on the Main board and some thing started to occur to me we have some big holes in our team and will they or can they be addressed in this draft. I am unsure we will select the required players over the best available therfor we will still have these holes.

We require from this draft with the current playing list and rookies IMO and this is in no particular order.

A- 1 Genuine Crumbing small forward in the mould of a Phil Matera/Leon Davis.
B- 1 Genuine Small stay at home defender in the mould of David Wirrapanda.
C- 1 Line breaking, long kicking, Ball carrying midfielder like Chris Judd/Adam Cooney etc
D- 1 in and under, hard tackleing, blocking, run all day midfielder with great athletisizm like Ben Cousins, Micheal Braun.
E- 1 Tall Developing Ruck or Kpp for future use after Cox, Seaby, Lynch, Hansen.

These players are available in the draft, weather or not they will be available at our selection is another story but here goes.

At pick 2 we could get:
Daniel Rich- Fills our C requirement for the Midfielder.
Nick Naitanui- Fills our E requirement for the Ruck option
Chris Yarran- Fills our A requirement for Small Forward.
Stephen Hill- Fills our C option Midfielder

At Picks 18 & 20
Tom Swift- Speedy Midfieder Fill C reqiurement -Depending on if Zeibell or Hartlett are still available at pick 11.
Michael Walters- Fills Option A small forward and Option D.
Tom Hill- Fills option E.
Jordan Roughead- Fills option E
Clancee Pearce- Fills option B Sm Def.
Jarryd Blight- Fills Option B
James Struass- Option D
Shuan McKernan- Option E- KPP and Pinch in Ruck.

Pick 36
David Zaharakis- Option C
Mitch Banner- Option D
Nick Suban- Option B & D
Jamie Sheahan- Option C
Neville Jetta- Option A
Clint Garlett- Option A
Jarryd Redden- Option E
Zac Clarke- Option E

Pick 52
John Bennell- Option A
Ian Richardson- Option A
Todd Banfield- Option D
Andrew Browne- Option E
Dan Murrey- Option E
Adam Cockie- Option C
Xavier Gotch- Option C


With all these options will we get what we need or who is the best player and still around at the time.
Now I say with our First pick at No 2 we should take the Best available Player.
Then with the rest take required positions and the best at it.
ie Rich at 2, then Walters(smF), Pearce(SmD), Zaharakis (Mid) and Ruck who evers left.
That covers our needs and if you go the other way.
Pick 2 Naita, Walters, Pearce, Zaharakis and Cockie.
You still get the same spots Filled. But that is what the coaching staff should try and do IMO

 

[beatlesmith]

pearce at 18/20 is way too early IMO. I don't think a small defender is needed anywhere nearly as much as the other criteria. We have schofield, houlihan, mcginnity, scooter and jmac, davis and waters who can all play the defensive mid/small backman role, and are all 22 or under. I would also have strauss as category C, as he has elite kicking and very good pace. I'd consider Cockie as category D, because ofhis superb tackling and second efforts

My ideal draft would be:

2: Naita; E
18: Swift; C
20: Walters; A/C
36: Jetta; A
52: Cockie; D

I think category C is the most needed, so one of blease, swift, sidebottom, smith or strauss would be needed at 18/20

 

[buddymania]

C has mitch robinson written all over it

 

[MaxHunt]

I've been thinking about this for some time. Will picking NN over a MID at 2 put us any closer to a premiership? When was the last time a team with 2 gun ruckmen won a flag? Our last flag was won with a great midfield and defence and one good ruck... same as Geelongs. It was the hawks defence and midfield pressure that won them the flag on the day this year (IMO the cats lost it). Jolly/Ball in 05 were ok but not outstanding.

Can Cox and NN play at the same time and both influence the game?

I'm all for NN but do we draft him as a MID or a Ruck? This draft is good enough for us to draft for needs and not only the best available. I feel classing NN into a role will define how the we go with the other picks.

 

[bzparkes]

I've been thinking about this for some time. Will picking NN over a MID at 2 put us any closer to a premiership? When was the last time a team with 2 gun ruckmen won a flag? Our last flag was won with a great midfield and defence and one good ruck... same as Geelongs. It was the hawks defence and midfield pressure that won them the flag on the day this year (IMO the cats lost it). Jolly/Ball in 05 were ok but not outstanding.

Can Cox and NN play at the same time and both influence the game?

I'm all for NN but do we draft him as a MID or a Ruck? This draft is good enough for us to draft for needs and not only the best available. I feel classing NN into a role will define how the we go with the other picks.

We lost the '05 flag because we had no decent backup ruck. We won the '06 because we did. Geelong had ottens and King last year and flogged Port, this year they had Ottens and Blake and Blake just couldn't cut it.

Premierships can be won and lost in the ruck.

 

[greennick]

We lost the '05 flag because we had no decent backup ruck. We won the '06 because we did. Geelong had ottens and King last year and flogged Port, this year they had Ottens and Blake and Blake just couldn't cut it.

Premierships can be won and lost in the ruck.

I agree.

Even in 06, many (or maybe most, I can't recall exactly) of the goals against us where kicked when Seaby was in the ruck.

You can't have one player ruck 100% of the game, hence you need two good ruckmen. Ruckmen are required in big games. You may survive a lot of the season without them, but you definitely seem to need them in big games. Don't know why though, they just seem to step up.

What was the last team that won without a more than reasonable second ruck???

 

[Biggie]

With 3 picks in the 20 you bloody think we'd have a chance of filling our needs.

 

[Eagle Ant]

pearce at 18/20 is way too early IMO. I don't think a small defender is needed anywhere nearly as much as the other criteria. We have schofield, houlihan, mcginnity, scooter and jmac, davis and waters who can all play the defensive mid/small backman role, and are all 22 or under. I would also have strauss as category C, as he has elite kicking and very good pace. I'd consider Cockie as category D, because ofhis superb tackling and second efforts

My ideal draft would be:

2: Naita; E
18: Swift; C
20: Walters; A/C
36: Jetta; A
52: Cockie; D

I think category C is the most needed, so one of blease, swift, sidebottom, smith or strauss would be needed at 18/20

Look I agree with you on the fact 18/20 is to early for Pearce but he fills the requirement and somtimes you gotta take a player earlier to get them. In all the players you suggested schofield, houlihan, mcginnity, scooter and jmac, davis and waters only Waters is a genuine small defender. Davis and Scooter would be our closest other option their.
We have heaps of good players that can fill those roles but they were not drafted for that position and thats where we are having problems.

In recent years we had Waters, Glass, Chick on the last line of defence with Bones, Hunter, Nocoski, Hurn, Wilkes, MacKenzie, A.Selwood, Schofield, and others trying to fill that rebounding or floating defender role that was vacated by Wirrapanda when he moved forward and Chick when he retired.
So the small defender spot opposite Waters and Glass really needs attention as well as the Small Crumbing forward role Vacated by Sampi.
As I have it this is the team as per position a player was drafted.

FB: Waters, Glass, Wirrapanda
HB: B.Jones, Hunter, Nicoski
C: Embley, Masten, Rosa
HF: LeCras, Hansen, Kennedy
FF: McKinley, Lynch, _______
RR: Cox, Kerr, Butler
INT: Seaby, Priddis, Stenglein, A.Selwood

Wirra is in his last contract and we need a replacement and we have No genuine Crumber.
We constantly build up the team by Adding players such as Ebert, Fletcher, Davis, Jmac, Brown, Wilkes, etc etc etc but they all have been playing their footy in other positions and were drafted accordingly due to that, Its good that they are versitile but I would like some 1 dimentional players in the Fact thats what they are in the team to do.
Walters and Pearce fill those holes and I believe both will be extreamly good players in the future. Its time we take a punt on these types of guys like Geelong did with Joel Selwood.

 

[Prem87]

Pearce should be available at 52 size & poor draft camp results will see him slide IMO.

 

[footballfreak]

I would say our team's needs atm would be

• 3 solid (potential superstar) midfielders- to cover the loss of Judd, Cousins, Braun
• 1 small crumbing forward- to fill the void of matera, sampi
• 1 small defender-Or reinstate wirrapunda as a back pocket after drafting a small crumbing forward

I reckon it would take at least two years to rebuild to fulfil these needs

 

[adagio]

My ideal draft would be:

2: Naita; E
18: Swift; C
20: Walters; A/C
36: Jetta; A
52: Cockie; D

How original


We'll get Naita at 2, so that fulfils "E"

We already drafted a "D" in Masten last year, plus we've already got lots of inside, hard-tackling mids so I wouldn't regard that as a major area of concern.

We also have a lot of small defenders already, although they're all more valuable in another role (Hurn, Waters, Nico etc.). But we've got a lot of potential "B's" coming through like Schofield, SSelwood, McGinnity and Davis so I don't think that is especially urgent either. Certainly wouldn't waste an early pick getting one, however I'd be very happy with Broadbent at 36.

That leaves the crumber and the line-breaker, which are the two gaps that really need filling. I have a hunch Blease will be available at 18 and would expect us to pounce if that is the case. If not we'll take whoever does slide to 18 (reckon Sidebottom's a chance), and I can very much see us taking one of Smith or Strauss at 20. Woosha has stated West Coast plan to target speed.

Walters could well be snared at 20, but obviously that depends on the circumstances. If not there will still be plenty of forward pockets around at 52 and the rookie draft (e.g. Richardson, Sharples, Bennell, Garlett) so we can easily get some "cheap" crumbing ability into the side.

So, yes, we can fill our teams needs in this draft.

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

Good thread, EA

But I look at things a little more simplistically. Somehow I feel that we have the small defender role covered with Davis or McGinnity or even a future draft pick. Simply put, I'm not too worried about picking up a small defender yet because there are other options on the list I'd rather have a look at.

I'd say that we need a ruckman, a small crumbing forward and as many quick, skilled, 'outside' mids as possible.

If we don't pick up Naitanui then I'd expect a ruckman later in the draft and a mid who plays a little closer to the inside of the inside-outside spectrum. If we do pick up Naitanui, I'd not worry about an inside mid unless we found ourselves a slider who we couldn't pass up (Sidebottom would be sweet at 18 etc.).

 

[MaxHunt]

I agree.

Even in 06, many (or maybe most, I can't recall exactly) of the goals against us where kicked when Seaby was in the ruck.

You can't have one player ruck 100% of the game, hence you need two good ruckmen. Ruckmen are required in big games. You may survive a lot of the season without them, but you definitely seem to need them in big games. Don't know why though, they just seem to step up.

What was the last team that won without a more than reasonable second ruck???

Yeah i can see what you are saying but on the flip side... you cannot expect to have the flow of the game from start to finish. It just doesnt happen. We still have seaby. A reasonable ruck can be picked up with pick 18/20 etc if hes on the way out. When was the last time a team won with 2 outstanding rucks? I expect an outstanding player with pick 2.

Cox is our best player. Do we use pick 2 on a player that we expect to be a bit-part player when cox is on the bench or resting in the fwd line? Its a big price to pay for the 5/6 seasons we have left with Cox. Classing what type of role NN will fill will be very important to what we draft at 18 and 20. IMO

 

[worsfold]

A- 1 Genuine Crumbing small forward in the mould of a Phil Matera/Leon Davis.
B- 1 Genuine Small stay at home defender in the mould of David Wirrapanda.
C- 1 Line breaking, long kicking, Ball carrying midfielder like Chris Judd/Adam Cooney etc
D- 1 in and under, hard tackleing, blocking, run all day midfielder with great athletisizm like Ben Cousins, Micheal Braun.
E- 1 Tall Developing Ruck or Kpp for future use after Cox, Seaby, Lynch, Hansen
F- 1 genuine Full Forward who can take a contested mark and convert.

2. Nick Nat E
18. Stephen Hill/ Swift C
20. Steele SideBottom D or Mitch Brown F
36. option C,D or F
52. option A

Not sure we need option B this year.

 

[bodazoka]

Id go Nat at #2, best available mid @ 18 (Whatever style they have-prefer C), Best available mid/KPP @ 20 (Perefer D Mid but if there is still good tall talent id take it), and a crummer/small defender/mid D @ 36, and depending on what we were able to take at 18/20/36 52 could be just about any player/position!

Now I also am leaning towards not worrying about a crummer this year and try for one with our first selection next year, talented crumming players like a rioli dont go within the top 5 and I think were going to have a pic within the top 8 next year.

EDIT Agree with the Mitch Brown @ 20 idea, we still do need a "genuine" FF our genuine FF is Lynch (and no one wants to see him in front of goals within the arc) then possibly Brown (who might end up back) and then Notte.

 

[bodazoka]

Even in 06, many (or maybe most, I can't recall exactly) of the goals against us where kicked when Seaby was in the ruck

It was even more evident in the games that Seaby played in 08, you could tell a markable difference between centre clearances when Seaby was in the ruck compared to cox. And we all know the best way to kick a goal is straight from the goal square run and carry/long kick into the forward 50.

I think that because ruckmen are big units with big statures, if you have your big blokes crashing players/packs being relentless at the ball and stepping up in finals it really lifts the whole team.

 

[kerrscarryingus]

why does everyone suggest nat is the best available at pick 2..everyone is ranking him so high based on potential. he is potentially the best available not the best available. i mean gee if i got fit, added 10kg refined my skills i could be an awesome player too.

 

[Ebert and Ernie]

why does everyone suggest nat is the best available at pick 2..everyone is ranking him so high based on potential. he is potentially the best available not the best available. i mean gee if i got fit, added 10kg refined my skills i could be an awesome player too.

Nobody knows, unequivocally, who the best available is at this stage... All new players in the draft are unproven at AFL level and subsequently, are drafted on potential.

 

[MaxHunt]

It was even more evident in the games that Seaby played in 08, you could tell a markable difference between centre clearances when Seaby was in the ruck compared to cox. And we all know the best way to kick a goal is straight from the goal square run and carry/long kick into the forward 50.

I think that because ruckmen are big units with big statures, if you have your big blokes crashing players/packs being relentless at the ball and stepping up in finals it really lifts the whole team.

I would say alot was to do with the fact that there was no Judd or Cousins in the middle not just the person rucking.

The point im trying to make is that this draft we should be able to pick for need not just best available. Also the eagles have a man-on-man game plan strategy and thus would be looking for players to fill a specific role. Defining what role NN will then be paramount to what type of players we will be drafting after him.

 

[MaxHunt]

why does everyone suggest nat is the best available at pick 2..everyone is ranking him so high based on potential. he is potentially the best available not the best available. i mean gee if i got fit, added 10kg refined my skills i could be an awesome player too.

I would back our coaching staff to assist him in reaching his potential.

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

why does everyone suggest nat is the best available at pick 2..everyone is ranking him so high based on potential. he is potentially the best available not the best available. i mean gee if i got fit, added 10kg refined my skills i could be an awesome player too.

I think people read too much into the best available thing. When a coach says they'll be taking he best available they mean that they're going to be picking the player they think will end up the best, regardless of position.

They're not saying they'll take the best player in the draft, otherwise Ben Cousins would be the #1 pick.

Plus, "best available" is just draft talk for "Piss off, you're not going to quote me on which player we're going to draft when there's still a month till the day and there a chance we may be pulling a swifty" or "Piss off, I leave this shit to the recruiting people, I'm too ****ing busy to watch junior football".

 

[TOA.]

why does everyone suggest nat is the best available at pick 2..everyone is ranking him so high based on potential. he is potentially the best available not the best available. i mean gee if i got fit, added 10kg refined my skills i could be an awesome player too.

Well no, he impacts games much more than Rich now so you could argue he is already the better player than Rich. And then you add on top of that his amazing scope to improve.

People assume that just because he has potential that he does have any ability at the moment. Totally incorrect. He has both.

 

[fryzie]

Max Hunt, the only problem with trying to define Nats role in the team is that nobody knows how he's going to develop. Worst case scenario he will replace Cox in the ruck and thats it, best case scenario he plays as a tall midfielder (Goodes) or tall forward whenever Cox is in the ruck.

I do agree that if we are using him soley in the ruck our selection committee will need to use our other picks accordingly, but I'm sure they are all over that.

IMO we won't be wasting our #2 pick on a player who is just waiting to take over for Cox. Nat will be utilised as a tall forward and match up nightmare in the midfield.

Bring on Saturday

 

[adagio]

Max Hunt, the only problem with trying to define Nats role in the team is that nobody knows how he's going to develop. Worst case scenario he will replace Cox in the ruck and thats it, best case scenario he plays as a tall midfielder (Goodes) or tall forward whenever Cox is in the ruck.

I do agree that if we are using him soley in the ruck our selection committee will need to use our other picks accordingly, but I'm sure they are all over that.

IMO we won't be wasting our #2 pick on a player who is just waiting to take over for Cox. Nat will be utilised as a tall forward and match up nightmare in the midfield.

Bring on Saturday

Well he's got the potential to be all of those things at once. Our number 1 ruckman whilst also an extra super-quick, hard-tackling, pack-marking, goal-kicking midfielder-forward

Oh, and he can also push back to the last line of defense and save what would otherwise be certain goals with his giant leap. So he's a goalkeeper too.

 

[fryzie]

Well he's got the potential to be all of those things at once.

Can everyone please stop using the word 'potential'

Reminds me too much of the likes of McDougall