-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
how did we go in the draft
- Thread starter snappy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
That isn't a Key Position Defender. Like he is going to line up on Matthew Lloyd anytime soon.
KEY POSITION PLAYER.
Your know the types that hold down the key positions of Full Forward, Centre Half Forward, Centre Half Back and Full Back.
As it is we have the best CHF in the competion in Barry Hall, a flanker playing at Full Forward (which has worked for our gameplan but going forward we really only have Grundy to really both these guys, you have to admit they is NO depth past Grundy).
In defence we have LRT at CHB who is the only Key Position Defender who is the "ideal" body size to play to in a Key Position (and yet look at how much improvement we need for him still) you have Leo Barry at Full Back who is 185cm tall and clearly undersized but is upperbody stength allows him to play above his size. As back up Bolton and Richards are 190cm+ and have the "smarts" to play KP but not every week as they get found every now and again. To back this lot up we have only Vogels as Back Up.
But that's "all-round" depth and players like Dempster, Tadhg, Malckesi add a wonderful dimention to the run off defence, while Bevan along with Crouch take the small forwards. I admit that is as good depth in run off defence and small defenders as any team in the comp, but thats NOT the issue that I (or even Charlie I would think) take up when talking about depth, its the key positions and who'll replace the Leo Barry's and LRT's when injuries and retirement happen??? Other than Vogels the depth is bear unless you rob Peter to pay Paul by playing the likes of Bolton at fullback.
I agree its not urgent in the sense that we need one to go in the team right away, but we need one to have "just in case" and to develop for when that day come when Hall retires. Hence why I like the select of White (attiude problems aside) so much, 198cm 102kg and can play either end of the ground.
If thats the case then we are ********ed. Because a) Goodes has been useless his entire career kicking for goal from a set shot and b) he has played he worst football in a set position (2004 - CHB, 2000, 2001 - CHF). I really can't see this move being a successful one and to be honest a pretty sad way for Goodes to end his career if history repeats.
So I'm sure West Coast would be pretty willing to give up Glass, or Adelaide Rutten or the Bulldogs Harris or the Cats Scarlett. Yeah your right I'm sure none of those specialist FULL BACK's would make us a better team
With Currie and Shaw, good to have 4 rucks on the senior list, 1 on the rookie list and 5 overall. Thats good depth. At least we won't get caught out by injuries to our rucks (quality might be an issue however)
Shake down the thunder
Rookie
That isn't a Key Position Defender. Like he is going to line up on Matthew Lloyd anytime soon.
KEY POSITION PLAYER.
Your know the types that hold down the key positions of Full Forward, Centre Half Forward, Centre Half Back and Full Back.
As it is we have the best CHF in the competion in Barry Hall, a flanker playing at Full Forward (which has worked for our gameplan but going forward we really only have Grundy to really both these guys, you have to admit they is NO depth past Grundy).
In defence we have LRT at CHB who is the only Key Position Defender who is the "ideal" body size to play to in a Key Position (and yet look at how much improvement we need for him still) you have Leo Barry at Full Back who is 185cm tall and clearly undersized but is upperbody stength allows him to play above his size. As back up Bolton and Richards are 190cm+ and have the "smarts" to play KP but not every week as they get found every now and again. To back this lot up we have only Vogels as Back Up.
But that's "all-round" depth and players like Dempster, Tadhg, Malckesi add a wonderful dimention to the run off defence, while Bevan along with Crouch take the small forwards. I admit that is as good depth in run off defence and small defenders as any team in the comp, but thats NOT the issue that I (or even Charlie I would think) take up when talking about depth, its the key positions and who'll replace the Leo Barry's and LRT's when injuries and retirement happen??? Other than Vogels the depth is bear unless you rob Peter to pay Paul by playing the likes of Bolton at fullback.
I agree its not urgent in the sense that we need one to go in the team right away, but we need one to have "just in case" and to develop for when that day come when Hall retires. Hence why I like the select of White (attiude problems aside) so much, 198cm 102kg and can play either end of the ground.
If thats the case then we are ********ed. Because a) Goodes has been useless his entire career kicking for goal from a set shot and b) he has played he worst football in a set position (2004 - CHB, 2000, 2001 - CHF). I really can't see this move being a successful one and to be honest a pretty sad way for Goodes to end his career if history repeats.
So I'm sure West Coast would be pretty willing to give up Glass, or Adelaide Rutten or the Bulldogs Harris or the Cats Scarlett. Yeah your right I'm sure none of those specialist FULL BACK's would make us a better team
With Currie and Shaw, good to have 4 rucks on the senior list, 1 on the rookie list and 5 overall. Thats good depth. At least we won't get caught out by injuries to our rucks (quality might be an issue however)
Couldn't have said it better myself! All the players mentioned as our depth are flankers aside from Vogels. Ted Richards may have the height but hasn't shown any capacity to hold down a KP. His GF performance was as a third tall - he had his best game ever but it wasn't stopping Lloyd.
Quite clearly this draft showed that everyone was taking the opportunity to go tall and by that 190cm is now an onballer. These guys were 197cm+ types and we are going to need someone to man them up in a few years time. Let me know when one of our project players gets a game!
And whilst Daniel O'Keefe may be an inspired choice in hindsight, when we have guys like Tim Schmidt struggling to get a game do we really need more onballers. He has pedigree coming out of his b.... so lets go tall. Also alot of the guns running around in the AFL didn't win their U18 B&F.
Nope, he's a defender over 190cm, which is the point I was making.
These positions are pretty much anachronisms in contemporary footy. Clubs stopped trying to draft full-backs a long time ago, and full-forwards are generally looked on as freaks of nature. There's nothing 'key' about CHB and CHF; they don't even exist at the SCG.
Ah well, we'll have to agree to differ. I believe that Bolton, Richards and Vogel are all capable of playing full-back or CHB in today's game. I would be nice to have more depth in the forward line, but I'd much rather recruit a potential gun than a potential depth player.
No, that's not accurate. Goodes kicked 40 goals in a season playing at CHF, and was carrying knee injuries when he played a season in defence. His accuracy is around 62% overall (cf Barry hall at 65%). Goodes would be at least very good in whatever position he played.
Sorry, that argument doesn't work either. The only one of those that you'd confidently back to take on Lloyd or Gehrig or Hall would be Matthew Scarlett, and he's exactly the same size as Ted Richards. Glass too is only the same size as Richards, Rutten is smaller. Rutten and Harris are perfect examples of why you don't waste early picks on defenders: Harris was only drafted to make up the numbers (at pick 71) and Rutten missed out altogether in the draft (recruited through the rookie list as a goal-kicker!). Much better to trade for defenders than to try to draft them.
That's for sure.
Rubbish. 50% of the top 30 draftees were under 190 cm.
Of the 18 first round/priority picks, only two were out-and-out defenders.
Shake down the thunder
Rookie
Rubbish. 50% of the top 30 draftees were under 190 cm.
Of the 18 first round/priority picks, only two were out-and-out defenders.[/quote]
KPP not defenders. Lets put our onballers on the KPP drafted by the other clubs or maybe one of our projects! Let me know but what was the % in the first round where we had a pick - top 30 is irrelevant.
From memory - 9 of the 16 clubs went tall with their first pick. Collingwood went tall with both their picks in the top 10. Geelong didn't have to with Hawkins stolen as a father son.
Oh and surprise - Carlton went tall with pick 17!
Oh well at least Craig Bolton can play above his weight for another 10 years......
Of the 18 first round/priority picks, only two were out-and-out defenders.[/quote]
KPP not defenders. Lets put our onballers on the KPP drafted by the other clubs or maybe one of our projects! Let me know but what was the % in the first round where we had a pick - top 30 is irrelevant.
From memory - 9 of the 16 clubs went tall with their first pick. Collingwood went tall with both their picks in the top 10. Geelong didn't have to with Hawkins stolen as a father son.
Oh and surprise - Carlton went tall with pick 17!
Oh well at least Craig Bolton can play above his weight for another 10 years......
I never understood why he was delisted so quickly. He seemed to be on Rocket's radar, but as soon as Roos came in Hunt was out the door.
I remember one of the players saying that since the 'Blood's code' was adopted a number of players had left the club, because they didn't embrace the concept. The same player also suggested that there was fear of a drinking culture developing at the club and similarly that had led to certain players leaving the club.
Now I have no idea if Hunt falls into those categories. But I was very surprised he was shown the door.
As for our last successful project player I would nominate LRT (although still a work in progress). I recall stats such as he having played only 15 aussie rules games prior to joining the club.
Of course Tadhg would also have to qualify as a fairly successful project.
He was given three years, when you include 2004 spent on the rookie list.
That's more time than Earl Shaw has thus far had.
- Banned
- #59
Even in the WAFL, Hunt is injury prone. I don't think his body could of handled and AFL career.
That's Bull******** and you know it. Hansen, Nathan Brown, Everitt and Frawley are all Under 18 level defenders and the likes of Gumbleton, Thorp, Reid and Mitchell Brown played both ends of the ground.
But he is never going to line up on a Pavlich or a Lloyd anytime soon now is he and thats the point I'm trying to make. Depth in defence overall is one thing, but depth in the three main areas of defence (small tagging defender, running defender and tall man marking defender) is different and we lack depth in the tall man marking area going forward.
So what we just stop drafting tall player completely and go with midfielders everytime, depsite the fact history has shown we have been able to replace the likes of Kelly, Cresswell and Schwass better than we did in our attempts with Dunkley and Lockett.
Really??? So we forget about those positions because we play at a ground 8 times a year??? Also what about our best forward - Barry Hall, last time I checked he plays better at Centre Half Forward than he does at Full Forward because he has more space to play into and has less players dropping back onto him. So yes they DO exist these day at the SCG esp at the SCG considering the amount of run we get off half back, thus returning the "lost" CHF position to the SCG.
Wollongong Represent
Debutant
Kids, kids. We've played in successive grand finals and have the best club culture in the comp. I think we should be concerned with who we draft, not what. Brett Kirk wouldn't of got drafted last weekend, neither would Ben Matthews and Leo Barry probably would of struggled. Yet these guys are the heart and soul of the TEAM. Don't stress about what we draft, we've got a decorated history of drafting our way out of trouble and into success. And it's because our club culture wins out in the end. Forget about cms and secs and skills and endurance and reputations. These young BOYS will either man up and become men (BLOODS) or fall through the cracks. I like that people are asking questions of guys who get delisted. "Why couldn't he cut it when so and so has excelled". These kids are well aware of the culture they're being drafted into and will adapt accordingly. You wait and see how many kids we have bemouned over looking who turn out to be duds and the number who exceed from outside the square. Now I don't know what kind of people the kids we have drafted are (they could be knobs).
History indicates that they're likely to be quality young men. History also shows that this recruiting policy is gold.
History indicates that they're likely to be quality young men. History also shows that this recruiting policy is gold.
No, we don't.
That makes no sense. The Swans have been more successful since Dunkley and Lockett retired. You're still basing your argument on this myth of the KPP.
I'm not sure what your point is here? During any game, Barry Hall plays full-forward, CHF, forward flank, wing and ruck. If he played permanently at CHF on the SCG, he would spend most of the game as a spectator. Hall is living proof that labels like FF and CHF are mostly redundant.
I definitely have no idea what your point is here?
The facts are that Goodes kicked 40 goals as a forward in 2000. That year he kicked more goals than Warren Tredrea, Barry Hall, Anthony Rocca and David Neitz. That's the only season he played as a permanent forward. I've got no doubt he could be at least as good a forward as Barry Hall.
So what? I'm not disputing that they are good defenders. It doesn't change the fact that it's very rare for any club to risk wasting an early pick on a tall defender.
Ok I've edited your post somewhat selectively and I understand the point you are making, that character is at least as important as athletic/physical characteristics.
BUT none of the 3 players you mention are national draft selections.
Kirk is a rookie selection, Barry & Mathews zone selections.
My concern (apart from our lack of drafting for need) is the lack of early draft success.
In the last 10 years early draft picks have been;
1996 #4 Kinnear
#14 O'Farrell
#17 Warfe
1997 #11 Saddington
1998 #3 Fosdike
#4 Fitzgerald
#8 Bolton. J
1999 #21 Stevens. S
2000 #24 Ablett
2001 #28 Powell
2002 #5 McVeigh
2003 #16 Willoughby
2004 #31 Moore
13 players, only 5 still at the club.
Sure injuries etc play a part, but of those 13 only 1 (J.Bolton) is a walk up start for rd1 2007.
Sure the other 4 (Fosdike, McVeigh, Ablett, Moore) will be thereabouts, but hardly stars.
Now we have picked some gems late in the draft (eg Goodes, O'Keefe), but you have ask how successful is our recruiting if , of the 13 1st/2nd rounders we have selected in the last 10 years, only one would be considered a potential All-Australian going into next season.
In this draft of the 16 1st rd selections, 11 were talls.
We had a chance to address a need, by drafting a well credentialled tall in M.Brown, instead we took an outside midfielder.
Other teams,that had a need to replenish their KPP stocks, such as Collingwood & WCE did so.
Collingwood took KPPs with their first 3 picks (#s 8,10 & 28) Wce took KPPs with their first 2 picks (#16 & 29). Our first KPP was drafted at pick 65.
We have a lack of KPP back up. To suggest Goodes, C.Bolton, Richards can play KPP on a full time basis would see us 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.
Sometimes we are very hard on our own team cause we know them (faults) Ablett & McVeigh had very good 2006 year and improved dramatically together with Fosdike Buchy Schnieder etc they were close to back to back p'ship midfield players against the Best midefielders in the world - WC. Most of them are still approx age of when Kirky was delisted... so plenty of time to improve further yet!
Many of Swans early picks have been traded Rocca Grant Licuria and Swans have been excellent at changing early round picks for mature age stars
T Lockett - Legend
P Roos - Legend, P'ship Coach
S Maxfield - Captain, Blood leader, RU B&F
K Dyson - VIP
A Schaubble - B&F
J Ball - VIP
W Schwass - B&F
P Williams - 2 B&F
B Hall - Captain, B&F
C Bolton - AA
N Davis - Potential
D Jolly - VIP
T Richards - Developing
P Everitt - ??? Previous AA
P Chambers - Retired BS&M Instructor
Wollongong Represent
Debutant
You sort of accidently proved my point. We're all stressing about our lack of success with early draft picks when we've won a comp with a whole bunch of guys we've traded first round picks for. And the fact that Kirk, Matthews and Barry came from outside the draft is absolutely no surprise to me. We should be grateful that we haven't relied on the development of our early picks to decide our fate (oh Richmond, how cruel football is). We've probably been at the top end of the ladder for the longest of any side in the last 8 years. That's because we use the draft as a tool, not a resource. If we win the comp this year after trading a pick for Peter Everitt, guess who's the cleverest recruiter in the comp..... again??? The draft has become integral to the way clubs recruit kids, not players. We've been able to use other clubs predisposition for kids to allow us to get players. In bemouning a perceived lack of success with our first round picks, you are conforming to the 'draft culture' that has engulfed the rest of the comp. Without trading away picks and taking chances on roughies, we woulld not be about to challange for the comp, again, for about the 5th year in a row.
It's like everyone saying that Geelong or Saint Kilda have the best list in the comp. However, they haven't won a premiership for while and we have. $**@ talent, team success is the only indication of clever recruiting so forgot the kids we could of had and remember the players we've got.
Shake down the thunder
Rookie
But I think the point of a lot of the debate here is that the Swans seem to pick projects with their late picks. Given we often only have late picks after trading away our early picks this doesn't give us much room to move. Its interesting but guys like kirky wouldn't be drafted nowdays but kids who are athletic still get a chance on a hunch. The rookie draft is filled with kids who can play but don't have the athletic ability (Grundy?) and the non draftees often include kids that know how to get the ball and use it but for some reason aren't athletic enough.
Anyone willing to bet Greg Williams wouldn't get drafted in the first round if at all. So what is troubling Swans fans is that when we get in to the first round we need to use it on a player who is a 'chance' of being a player you can build your team around for the next 10 years and unless i'm wrong - those are usually KPP.
Have you got some evidence to support your obsession with KPPs?
Who are the quality KPPs for the Eagles? Glass maybe?
The Swans? Hall . . . although he doesn't seem to have a fixed position.
Adelaide? Rutten? Anyone else?
St Kilda . . . Riewoldt and Gehrig?
As far as I can see, the successful clubs build their team around a quality midfield.
Wollongong Represent
Debutant
The order in which kids are drafted is based on demand. There is a demand for kids who are 195cm, can run a sub 3 sec 20m etc. These are indicators of future performance at an elite level. These kids get drafted high because they're a rare species. Just by the way they're built they have a greater chance of being able to cope with the rigours of league footy. There are a million guys at 180cm, with no pace who can kick a footy and gather 30 touches. And many go on to be great footballers. But they're much easier to come by than a tall athletic kid who kicks it 60. It's not to say that the small kid won't be a gun, but you can always pick them up later. We go for projects late because every now and again you pull off a gem. Adam Goodes was a project player taken at pick 30 odd who had only played footy for 3 years prior to being drafted. That's why our recruiting policy involves taking calculated risks. If you don't put your balls on the line you'll end up with a mediocre team (Kangaroos for example).
In summary, the draft is a demand process. We've had success bypassing the rush and doing a few things differently. We haven't built our list like St Kilda or Geelong, but we've got a better resume than both those sides at the moment. Keep the faith, we're not one of the best sides in the comp for nothing.
In summary, the draft is a demand process. We've had success bypassing the rush and doing a few things differently. We haven't built our list like St Kilda or Geelong, but we've got a better resume than both those sides at the moment. Keep the faith, we're not one of the best sides in the comp for nothing.
sherminator
All Australian
Theres a slight hope he becomes a gun and returns to Brisbane. JK. All the best with Jezza.
JK. All the best with Jezza.
Brad Johnson is only 22 games away, Ertimus.
One more season down, and I'm STILL not older than any 300 game player
(Round 1 2008 is a different story however!)
apparently we were landed evens.
will see if mattner and playfair will eventuate to anything.
will see if mattner and playfair will eventuate to anything.
Similar threads
