Knightmare
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 22, 2010
- 19,533
- 19,542
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #2,601
I agree with the last sentence, about Lennon though, he bombed everything, not just the endurance tests. Didn't show great endurance, but didn't show great jumping ability, speed or agility either. Rioli and Dangerfield were quick, and Swan and Watson were rightly not considered top draft picks at the start of their career. It's hard to know what Lennon will do, I definitely think he can make it, but he'll need to work hard to get himself up to AFL standard, so there's a bit of risk there. I wouldn't call Lennon a safe pick like I would to say Sheed or Dunstan.
It's interesting to see how you generally ignore testing, whereas Quigley seems to place more of an emphasis on it.
I consider myself a student of the game in that I really enjoy studying the draft, the dynamics of each list every year and how guys go in the u18 testing relative to how their careers go.
Lennon I see as someone who if things work out has the opportunity to follow a Steve Johnson type career path. He doesn't have those personality problems Johnson had early career but in a similar way I think his game will as was the case with Johnson time to develop and be suitable for senior football. I'm not 100% convinced which way he goes but I'm relatively optimistic none the less that with 2-3 years in the system he can become a handy, versatile tall just not nearly the star Johnson has become.
So I also agree with your feel with Lennon where he's not someone I'd class as a safe selection at all.
Josh Kelly is one example of a guy I see having a certain AFL career and someone I see as an incredibly safe selection. I just don't see him becoming a star and more likely a slightly better Andrew Gaff. Those taller mids like Bontempelli, Lennon even Scharenberg I attach some risk to, to be perfectly honest. But they all have the opportunity to develop into big time footballers if things go right.
Quigley knows those recruits he's seen plenty of in greater depth than probably anyone on this site as many I'm sure have gathered by the quality of his bios of the years which are absolutely exceptional. I have some different values in terms of what I look for in a recruit (everyone does so this is no criticism) and my values have developed over time with every season. But I'm increasingly confident in those values (primarily being around contested ball and showing me on the field and not on the track).
Love your work Knightmare.
If essendon want garlett do you think they will need to take him at #26 considering their next pick is #55?
Garlett's draft range as most have alluded to is exceptionally unclear. Will he go 2nd round? Will he go late draft? Will he go rookie draft? Will he go undrafted again? All of these answers are plausible in Garlett's situation.
There are only some are speculating between 4-8 teams even considering Garlett with the others from my understanding saying a firm no.
It's not certain he'll be available at 55 as someone who probably comes into calculations for some clubs in the third round but at 26 I wouldn't be particularly confident in him as a long term prospect for a club so that's something Essendon will need to weight up with Garlett if they're indeed looking seriously at him again this year.