List Mgmt. Draft 2018: Lions 1st (5), Power 1st (10), Hawks 1st (15)

[shewho]

Smith bleeds professionalism. That’s something we’re in dire need of around the club. Can see why we’re prioritising him over Rankine who by all reports is the opposite

What reports. Never heard any suggestion that Rankine is lazy or unprofessional.

Pure unsubstantiated swill.

 

[PJ Power]

Bailey Smith - he sounds more driven than the young Nathan Buckley.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...iscipline-sets-him-apart-20181107-p50elp.html

We need someone with the professionalism and drive to lead the rest of the players by example, ala Tredders in his prime.

 

[Harlott]

Rankine is a cocky Gavin Wanganeen.

Wanganeen was treating Scott Salisbury and his mates with contempt in an SANFL GF when he was 17.

 

[manureid]

Prior to this news coming out you've been calling for 'Smith and Rankine, whatever it takes'. Now that the reports are that we want Smith, we'd be 'incompetent' to draft Rankine?

Please try to make your apologism less obvious, it's getting embarrassing.

I am sure multiple people or personalities post on that login.

 

[Janus]

Prior to this news coming out you've been calling for 'Smith and Rankine, whatever it takes'. Now that the reports are that we want Smith, we'd be 'incompetent' to draft Rankine?

Please try to make your apologism less obvious, it's getting embarrassing.

How the **** did you pull 'we'd be incompetent to draft Rankine' from that post? I'm saying we'd be incompetent to trade out a player who has the same skill set as Rankine and just draft another one. If we are going for Rankine, we need to draft Smith first.

Smith and Rankine > Smith > Rankine. And that's because Smith will end up being a premier mid, whereas Rankine will end up exactly like Wingard and be a mid-forward who blows up at the end of games.

Of course I want both, because Rankine is elite talent and will be the premier deep forward in the competition, but I've always rated Smith higher because of his running capacity that goes along with his elite talent. That's why it's 'Smith and Rankine, whatever it takes' rather than 'Rankine and Smith, whatever it takes'.

The incompetence I'm referring to is the idea that we would neglect a change in team structure based on having too many players who don't have the endurance to run through the middle all day and simply replace one player with that weakness with another. It doesn't make any sense. If we get Smith, then sure, we can get Rankine and it will be pants down lap around the table time. But you pick the cake before the icing all day every day.

All my opinions are based on logic, not 'apologism'.

 

[RossFC]

Smith and Rankine > Smith > Rankine. And that's because Smith will end up being a premier mid, whereas Rankine will end up exactly like Wingard and be a mid-forward who blows up at the end of games.

Of course I want both, because Rankine is elite talent and will be the premier deep forward in the competition, but I've always rated Smith higher because of his running capacity that goes along with his elite talent. That's why it's 'Smith and Rankine, whatever it takes' rather than 'Rankine and Smith, whatever it takes'.

The incompetence I'm referring to is the idea that we would neglect a change in team structure based on having too many players who don't have the endurance to run through the middle all day and simply replace one player with that weakness with another. It doesn't make any sense. If we get Smith, then sure, we can get Rankine and it will be pants down lap around the table time. But you pick the cake before the icing all day every day.

All my opinions are based on logic, not 'apologism'.

Are you not worried that if we pick pick Smith that we'll end up having Boak, Ebert and Rockliff playing in positions that they shouldn't be in just because Hinkley is trying fit all these guys that are the same in the side.

 

[Macca19]

Are you not worried that if we pick pick Smith that we'll end up having Boak, Ebert and Rockliff playing in positions that they shouldn't be in just because Hinkley is trying fit all these guys that are the same in the side.

Not worried at all.

 

[MrPortAdelaide]

ive locked in my preferred draft outcome, Rankine or Rozee with 1st, Hately or Caldwell with 2nd & Hill or B king with 3rd

 

[Janus]

Are you not worried that if we pick pick Smith that we'll end up having Boak, Ebert and Rockliff playing in positions that they shouldn't be in just because Hinkley is trying fit all these guys that are the same in the side.

You put a guy who can run all day in Smith into the side and you free up rotations for Rockliff, Powell-Pepper and Wines to make maximum impact. Which was the whole problem with the second Showdown when they all ended up on the bench in the last ten minutes.

Need to start looking at what's best for the team as a whole, rather than looking at individual players as components.

 

[Adz2332]

at pick 5 i want in order Luko Walsh M king smith Rankine
If two of the above are available at 5 id be trading for 6 with next years first and either 10 or 15
Hope Rozze or B king slips to 10

15 unsure....

 

[OneGreatClub]

It’s going to be fascinating re reading this thread after draft night

 

[El_Scorcho]

How the **** did you pull 'we'd be incompetent to draft Rankine' from that post? I'm saying we'd be incompetent to trade out a player who has the same skill set as Rankine and just draft another one. If we are going for Rankine, we need to draft Smith first.

Smith and Rankine > Smith > Rankine. And that's because Smith will end up being a premier mid, whereas Rankine will end up exactly like Wingard and be a mid-forward who blows up at the end of games.

Of course I want both, because Rankine is elite talent and will be the premier deep forward in the competition, but I've always rated Smith higher because of his running capacity that goes along with his elite talent. That's why it's 'Smith and Rankine, whatever it takes' rather than 'Rankine and Smith, whatever it takes'.

The incompetence I'm referring to is the idea that we would neglect a change in team structure based on having too many players who don't have the endurance to run through the middle all day and simply replace one player with that weakness with another. It doesn't make any sense. If we get Smith, then sure, we can get Rankine and it will be pants down lap around the table time. But you pick the cake before the icing all day every day.

All my opinions are based on logic, not 'apologism'.

But we didn't get rid of Wingard because he had an incomplete skillset, we got rid of him because of cultural concerns and workrate issues.

Rankine has some endurance issues because of his age, but there are countless examples of players who didn't have AFL midfield endurance at 17 who went on to have no endurance issues as full time mids.

Replacing Wingard with someone who has the same ability but seeks to get the best out of himself would be a best case scenario unless we can snag Lukosius.

 

[Jack Grange]

He can taste alcohol every time he wins us a flag.

You are sold with Smith over Rankin?

 

[Janus]

But we didn't get rid of Wingard because he had an incomplete skillset, we got rid of him because of cultural concerns and workrate issues.

Rankine has some endurance issues because of his age, but there are countless examples of players who didn't have AFL midfield endurance at 17 who went on to have no endurance issues as full time mids.

Replacing Wingard with someone who has the same ability but seeks to get the best out of himself would be a best case scenario unless we can snag Lukosius.

Workrate issues = can't run out games. I never said Wingard had an incomplete skillset, and I never said Rankine did either.

You know what the potential knock on Rankine becoming a premier mid is? That he looks like he can't run out games.

Walsh and Smith are running 6:07 in the 2km time trial. Rankine was at least >6:15...in fact, his time isn't even mentioned, so it was probably like 6:30 or something. His kit is burst speed. That's why he's more a Stephenson or a De Goey than a Martin. Nothing wrong with it - everyone needs an electric small forward that can have burst runs through the middle.

The issue is that if he gets better with endurance due to age, the other players who are better than him at the moment will also get better with endurance. It's got nothing to do with having AFL midfield endurance and everything to do with having draft level midfield endurance.

The best case scenario is Rankine is just foxing with his results in order to slide. But that's also the worst case scenario, because it shows the mentality.

 

[Port01]

You are sold with Smith over Rankin?

until there is a rumour about us wanting Rankine over Smith, at which point Janus will be justifying that from the clubs perspective.

 

[Janus]

You are sold with Smith over Rankin?

I want both. But if I have to choose, it's Smith over Rankine, because Smith fills a greater need for our team. I want a midfielder who has burst acceleration that can run all day. It's why I was into RCD early in the year.

 

[bringbackbucky]

Reading that article, Smith sounds like a flight risk. Hawks supporter as well... He also sounds way too professional to fit in with our clique.

 

[Janus]

until there is a rumour about us wanting Rankine over Smith, at which point Janus will be justifying that from the clubs perspective.

I bet you I won't. I'll be disappointed if we pick Rankine and Smith is still on the table. And I'll be distraught if we pick Rozee over one or the other.

 

[JUSTWORK]

I bet you I won't. I'll be disappointed if we pick Rankine and Smith is still on the table. And I'll be distraught if we pick Rozee over one or the other.

Rankine>Rozee>Smith

 

[Adz2332]

at 5, unless you reach, there are 5 excellent prospects that would choose from
any of
walsh
luko
rankine
M King
Smith

will do me just fine! theres 5 take your pick. bar M king all will play round 1

 

[El_Scorcho]

Workrate issues = can't run out games. I never said Wingard had an incomplete skillset, and I never said Rankine did either.

You know what the potential knock on Rankine becoming a premier mid is? That he looks like he can't run out games.

Walsh and Smith are running 6:07 in the 2km time trial. Rankine was at least >6:15...in fact, his time isn't even mentioned, so it was probably like 6:30 or something. His kit is burst speed. That's why he's more a Stephenson or a De Goey than a Martin. Nothing wrong with it - everyone needs an electric small forward that can have burst runs through the middle.

The issue is that if he gets better with endurance due to age, the other players who are better than him at the moment will also get better with endurance. It's got nothing to do with having AFL midfield endurance and everything to do with having draft level midfield endurance.

The best case scenario is Rankine is just foxing with his results in order to slide. But that's also the worst case scenario, because it shows the mentality.

Every draft profile I can see on Martin suggested that in 2009, he had elite skills and was an explosive player but his biggest question mark was his endurance and that it would need work.

Wingard had a pretty similar write up and ended up having poor endurance, but while reportedly being the laziest trainer at the club.

Endurance is something that players can build if they have the right levels of commitment.

 

[Chrizzt]

Every draft profile I can see on Martin suggested that in 2009, he had elite skills and was an explosive player but his biggest question mark was his endurance and that it would need work.

Wingard had a pretty similar write up and ended up having poor endurance, but while reportedly being the laziest trainer at the club.

Endurance is something that players can build if they have the right levels of commitment.

So perhaps Smith's elite endurance compared to Rankine is a sign of superior commitment - which is exactly what we'd be after?

Not taking sides either way, but I can see the justification for the Smith > Rankine argument.

 

[El_Scorcho]

So perhaps Smith's elite endurance compared to Rankine is a sign of superior commitment - which is exactly what we'd be after?

Not taking sides either way, but I can see the justification for the Smith > Rankine argument.

Don't get me wrong, i'll be happy enough if we pick Smith and I honestly don't follow the draftees enough to make an educated comment.

But writing off Rankine as being incapable of playing full time midfield minutes because he doesn't have elite endurance at 17 years old is silly unless we think he's lazy and won't try to work on his weaknesses, but if that's the case then we shouldn't draft him at any pick. Plenty of elite midfielders didn't have elite endurance on draft day, including the likes of Martin and Ablett.

 

[Janus]

Every draft profile I can see on Martin suggested that in 2009, he had elite skills and was an explosive player but his biggest question mark was his endurance and that it would need work.

Wingard had a pretty similar write up and ended up having poor endurance, but while reportedly being the laziest trainer at the club.

Endurance is something that players can build if they have the right levels of commitment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Martin spend a fair portion of his game up forward?

Also, Martin is 187 cm. Rankine is 175 cm. Martin's lack of endurance could be excused because he had the height.

I'm not gonna cry if we select Rankine, cause we need a player to replace Robbie Gray anyways...but it really means we've decided that we're not winning a flag with guys like Boak and Gray.

 

[Nater]

I'm in the Smith camp but this is a good read

Why Champion Data list has the Rankine wrong
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/link/03a637dbda36c1e22c2fe2ff59257a7c?domain=newscorpaustralia.com