Analysis Draft Day 2014 Discussion

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Based on draft highlights alone, I'd say Framptom had the best youtubes.

 

[Portress Hill]

i dont know much about these guys, but i think its pretty safe to say we came in about 10 spots too late. oscar mcdonald and big marc P woud have been chosen instead.

 

[Powerade 08]

Happy with Frampton. No idea about the others, sounds like they are long term projects and not particularly good ones given the picks we had.

 

[mic59]

You don't win premierships with marking smalls
You don't win premierships with marking smalls
You don't win premierships with marking smalls

Not with JUST marking smalls, I'll give you that. But Hawthorn have it right with 1 small(Breust 184) and 2 middle-talls(Gunston and Roughhead 193).

We will need a backup, maybe replacement for Monfries in 3 or 4 years, and Howard looks like insurance in case Butch and/or Shaw don't make it.

 

[PJ Power]

I can only go by the strategy we took of using late picks to draft tall players with an eye to 1 or 2 of them working out in the future. I like it actually.
I can't comment on whether Howard will be better than McKenzie, but at least we drafted in talls this year.
For those unhappy, who should we have taken?

 

[BIG MATTY WHITE]

No matter how this plays out we still have the ace up our sleeve....

 

[Portia]

Not with JUST marking smalls, I'll give you that. But Hawthorn have it right with 1 small(Breust 184) and 2 middle-talls(Gunston and Roughhead 193).

We will need a backup, maybe replacement for Monfries in 3 or 4 years, and Howard looks like insurance in case Butch and/or Shaw don't make it.

TBH I care less about the Palmer pick than the others, because he'll be expected to perform and if he's no good he'll get the arse.

I'm more concerned from a list management perspective that we've picked 3 guys we can expect to lock up three list spots for four years with minimal likelihood of upside. It doesn't seem like value of a limited list.

 

[n4nirvana]

We didn't have much choice given our position in the draft

though im surprised that we used all 4 'late/project' picks to fill out the main list

 

[PJ Power]

Maybe we should have passed on all four picks.

Can't see how taking Glenn or some other flanker would have been an improvement in strategy.

 

[Macca19]

It was obvious we needed a ruckman. Didnt necessarily need one that can pay straight away - check.

Many said we needed some KPD depth. Check.

Many wanted another tall forward to add to our forward depth. Check.

I think we did well. You can pick dime a dozen back flankers in the rookie draft.

 

[FallingLiefs]

IMO

Medium marking forward Tick
Quick KPD Tick
Medium/Tall midfielder
HBF with bit of scope
Happy to rookie a ruck if we have a pass today, if we don't pass our last pick has to be a ruck. Tick

List structure would just about be perfect if all that happened.

If there was one pick that i would prefer not to be based on needs i'm happy it was our first pick. from there to pick 3 of ^ very happy with the draft tactics used.

 

[BIG MATTY WHITE]

Why are you guys arguing....

We had s*** picks and drafted needs....

We have paddy ryder....

There is no winner in these arguments

 

[mic59]

I'm more concerned from a list management perspective that we've picked 3 guys we can expect to lock up three list spots for four years with minimal likelihood of upside. It doesn't seem like value of a limited list.

I can see that side of it is quite valid. Picking 4 players who are all by definition as late picks going to be in the hit or miss category is maybe punting a bit too much. Not fair on the players too. Sometimes it's best for a player not to be drafted at 18 so they can re-nominate at 19. They may possibly do nothing on our list which means they've wasted our time and would be less likely to be picked up when they're delisted in their early 20s.

But this is a discussion board and if the choice is between what this board thinks and what the club has done I will side with the club every time.

 

[Portia]

Maybe we should have passed on all four picks.

Can't see how taking Glenn or some other flanker would have been an improvement in strategy.

Because with most flankers you can work out if they'll be good or not within a couple of years. If not, reload in two years time - you give the best chance to get players that will work out.

Project talls you won't even begin to know for four years, so if you're picking them, its a long commitment.

 

[mic59]

OK - nicknames.
They pretty much decide themselves.

Dougal Howard - Doogie.
Logan Austin - Steve or Stone-cold.
Jesse Palmer - James.
Billy Frampton - Peter.

 

[tamba]

OK - nicknames.
They pretty much decide themselves.

Dougal Howard - Doogie.
Logan Austin - Steve or Stone-cold.
Jesse Palmer - James.
Billy Frampton - Peter.

Pretty spot on there ---- not much you can change around --- but 1 training session , guess what a name out of the blue

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Because with most flankers you can work out if they'll be good or not within a couple of years. If not, reload in two years time - you give the best chance to get players that will work out.

Project talls you won't even begin to know for four years, so if you're picking them, its a long commitment.

It's okay, this means we don't have to draft a tall for four years.

#datdepth

 

[Portia]

It's okay, this means we don't have to draft a tall for four years.

 

[philthy05]

Because with most flankers you can work out if they'll be good or not within a couple of years. If not, reload in two years time - you give the best chance to get players that will work out.

Project talls you won't even begin to know for four years, so if you're picking them, its a long commitment.

sure

but lets face it.

to get really really solid tall prospects you need top 5 draft picks which we dont have access to.

the other alternative is to find prospects who have some features you like who may come good with late picks/rookie picks. would those guys have slipped through to the rookie draft? who knows? will we miss the other prospects we could have picked up instead? who knows?

 

[Portia]

the other alternative is to find prospects who have some features you like who may come good with late picks/rookie picks. would those guys have slipped through to the rookie draft? who knows? will we miss the other prospects we could have picked up instead? who knows?

 

[Schulzenfest]

Portia every year: We draft too many flankers! We need to draft more talls!
Portia when we draft talls: Talls take too long to come on, we should have drafted flankers.

 

[Portia]

Schulzenfest you don't pay enough attention to what I say.

Portia every year: Pick KPPs early! Or on the rookie list!
Portia every year: Pick flankers late! Or on the rookie list!
Portia every year: Pick rucks on the rookie list unless we're talking some Naitanui top 5 shit!
Portia every year: Pick genuine midfielders over flankers pretty much every time!

 

[philthy05]

considering the players they are replacing on the list.. i mean hitchcock spent 5 years on the list... is it really that bad it might take a few years to sort whether these guys can make it?

 

[mic59]

Pretty spot on there ---- not much you can change around --- but 1 training session , guess what a name out of the blue

True. For instance, the dog on BBC TV's "The Magic Roundabout" in the 70s was called Dougal. Somehow I doubt if anyone would think of using that to work out a nickname but when you remember Paul Salmon was called "Ella" then anything's possible.

 

[Portia]

considering the players they are replacing on the list.. i mean hitchcock spent 5 years on the list... is it really that bad it might take a few years to sort whether these guys can make it?

And how many kids we could've drafted in that time did we miss? Rookies or late picks gone to other clubs