No 6, KPF or Midfielder?

[tugga]

Cheers Tug, yeah, been far too busy for here over recent months.

Don't know how many Dogs' games you caught this year, but Williams finally turned the corner IMO, he's very mobile for a man who tops 100kg, disposal's reasonable (on a par with Lake or Morris), pretty capable rebounder and he gives them a genuinely massive KPD. Wasn't sheltered from getting a few tough roles this year either and he coped well on most occasions when given the chance - he was negating well and perhaps more importantly, running off some good forwards and hurting them going the other way at times.

The way I interpret it, "dud" implies he has no currency for the future, whereas the Dogs have Williams pencilled in for the next 5-7 years as their mobile hulk KPD.

Well good to see you back mate.
Williams' kicking is irrelevant. Averages 6 of them a game which puts him in the Thursfield category. Career high disposals of 18. Obviously the Dogs aren't really keen to see the ball in his hands. He is a stopper. Pure and simple. Might effective at it and he is mobile, but he doesn't get enough of it.
Anyway, I don't want to spend any more time debating an opposition playuer. Just my take on it.

 

[_RT_]

Good to see you back Rayzor, hope everything is going well with the little one.

As for our draft pick I'm still hoping that Gaff falls to us. Has endurance, good speed over 20m and knows how to rack up touches almost at will.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Well good to see you back mate.
Williams' kicking is irrelevant. Averages 6 of them a game which puts him in the Thursfield category. Career high disposals of 18. Obviously the Dogs aren't really keen to see the ball in his hands.

Thursfield's occasional kick goes nowhere (albeit safely), Williams generally attacked well with his disposal this year, so big difference in quality if not so great in quantity. You've also gotta allow for the Lake factor, Williams and Morris do a lot of covering to free him up as per Eade's gameplan and naturally their possession count suffers. Both are pretty capable rebounders in their own right when called upon and can run, carry and deliver through the corridor, unlike Thursfield who will seemingly always be a short, safe and sideways man.

Good to see you back Rayzor, hope everything is going well with the little one.

Cheers RT, yeah, he's doing really well...at this rate I'm gonna have to move down the track or he'll get zone drafted to the Suns...or maybe the 'Cairns Crocodiles' by then.

 

[Wally Matera]

Late maturer, yes, not worth pick#6, quite probably, but he's hardly a dud Barnzy, had a very solid season this year and would walk into many sides for 2011.

Well, well, well... if it aint my old mate Rayzor. Who would have thought this old dog would come back and grace us with his presence.

Geed to have you back fella

You been spending your time getting spit roasted by Tucky and Hally?

 

[Rayzorwire]

I may well have chosen that in preference to reality Wally.

All set for a big Spring Carnival mate?

 

[nut]

First pick should always be the best available Midfielder. The game is moving towards having 15-18 midfielders. Ruckmans should always be a late pick or rookie selection. They are to hard to predict.


Best player between 178cm-190cm.

 

[Dustin Credible]

First pick should always be the best available Midfielder. The game is moving towards having 15-18 midfielders. Ruckmans should always be a late pick or rookie selection. They are to hard to predict.


Best player between 178cm-190cm.

I agree that ruckman can be hard to predict, but wouldn't you be tempted by a Naitanui? What about KPP? We took JR8 with our first pick IIRC.

...and the last time we overlooked a tall to take the best midfielder available, we drafted Tambling. And we all know how that ended.

 

[nut]

I agree that ruckman can be hard to predict, but wouldn't you be tempted by a Naitanui? What about KPP? We took JR8 with our first pick IIRC.

...and the last time we overlooked a tall to take the best midfielder available, we drafted Tambling. And we all know how that ended.

Who would you want? Dustin or Nic Nat? Cotchin or Nic Nat?

With out the hawks smaller players like rioli, Mitchell, Hodge, etc... the hawks wouldn't have come close to winning the flag. Notice how they off loaded talls to get smalls when the traded Thompson and Hay when they were in the middle of their rebuilding mode.

You trade for Qualtiy rucks like Collingwood did with Jolly, like Geelong did with Ottens. Once you have your gun midfield ready thats when you inject a quality tall. In the meantime you try to score your own through the rookie draft, mature age or even a late ND pick.

Vickory was and always will be a mistake, Blease, Zeibell, Sidebottom, and even Swift would have been better options( I said this after the draft).

The main reason is talls take too long. They are riskier when it comes to injuries.

If you look at the daft as an investment tool, Talls offer huge risks. Sure if you get a good one they are worth their weight in gold, but for a relatively small role on the field, they do not represent value for you buck.

Average 4-7 years before they hit their peak.
Injury proned.
High failure rate.


Midfielders offer you a safer return on your investment overtime. They give you dividends quicker and it's much easier evaluating their potential.

Roughead isn't exactly setting the world on fire, and Buddy was regarded as a huge risk before draft day. Hawks smalls won the flag, sure Buddy got them there.

Geelong and the Pies have built their list through the midfield, topping up with talls when they need them.

we need 2-3 quality midfielders before we can start trading for talls.

Lets hope Graham continues his steady improvement and Browne can also improve.

And on a side note, Jacks 78 goals got us to 15th. We need more midfielders.

 

[tigs2010]

Who would you want? Dustin or Nic Nat? Cotchin or Nic Nat?

With out the hawks smaller players like rioli, Mitchell, Hodge, etc... the hawks wouldn't have come close to winning the flag. Notice how they off loaded talls to get smalls when the traded Thompson and Hay when they were in the middle of their rebuilding mode.

You trade for Qualtiy rucks like Collingwood did with Jolly, like Geelong did with Ottens. Once you have your gun midfield ready thats when you inject a quality tall. In the meantime you try to score your own through the rookie draft, mature age or even a late ND pick.

Vickory was and always will be a mistake, Blease, Zeibell, Sidebottom, and even Swift would have been better options( I said this after the draft).

The main reason is talls take too long. They are riskier when it comes to injuries.

If you look at the daft as an investment tool, Talls offer huge risks. Sure if you get a good one they are worth their weight in gold, but for a relatively small role on the field, they do not represent value for you buck.

Average 4-7 years before they hit their peak.
Injury proned.
High failure rate.


Midfielders offer you a safer return on your investment overtime. They give you dividends quicker and it's much easier evaluating their potential.

Roughead isn't exactly setting the world on fire, and Buddy was regarded as a huge risk before draft day. Hawks smalls won the flag, sure Buddy got them there.

Geelong and the Pies have built their list through the midfield, topping up with talls when they need them.

we need 2-3 quality midfielders before we can start trading for talls.

Lets hope Graham continues his steady improvement and Browne can also improve.

And on a side note, Jacks 78 goals go to 15th. We need more midfielders.

we have a late pick/rookie pick in mind also we are in a good position to trade in a few years with that compo pick meaning we have 2 first round picks one year plus free agency and room in the salary cap for 2 big guns. so maybe we will trade for a ruckman then?

 

[nut]

we have a late pick/rookie pick in mind also we are in a good position to trade in a few years with that compo pick meaning we have 2 first round picks one year plus free agency and room in the salary cap for 2 big guns. so maybe we will trade for a ruckman then?

Hopefully Graham and Browne keep kicking on and we wont need too. But the option is there for us.

The other advantage is that, it seems like, mature players with a fresh start have a pretty big impact in the first season. Maybe it's because they have something to prove, or they want to show that they are worth what was paid.

 

[pawleesee]

Vickory was and always will be a mistake, Blease, Zeibell, Sidebottom, and even Swift would have been better options( I said this after the draft).

T

+1

we could have had Jack Zeibell or Steele Sidebottom

and then with our 2nd round pick we could have taken Jordan Roughead to solve our ruck problems...

to summarise

we went with Vickery & Post when we could have gone with Zeibell/Sidebottom & Roughead

 

[Dustin Credible]

Who would you want? Dustin or Nic Nat? Cotchin or Nic Nat?

All 3 please. My point was I would take, whoever is considered, the best available at that point of the draft. Irrespective of whether they are tall/medium/small, keyposition, onballer, ruck.

For the record if it was at pick one and all 3 were available I would take them in this order, Martin, Cotchin, Natanui. However say it is pick 6, like we have this year, and the Cotchins and Martins (Bennells and Days) of this world have already been picked. I would take Nic Nat, with your stratergy you wouldn't even consider him.

With out the hawks smaller players like rioli, Mitchell, Hodge, etc... the hawks wouldn't have come close to winning the flag. Notice how they off loaded talls to get smalls when the traded Thompson and Hay when they were in the middle of their rebuilding mode.

They wouldn't have won the flag without Franklin or Roughead either, you need quality all over the ground.

You trade for Qualtiy rucks like Collingwood did with Jolly, like Geelong did with Ottens. Once you have your gun midfield ready thats when you inject a quality tall. In the meantime you try to score your own through the rookie draft, mature age or even a late ND pick.

It's a valid point that both Collingwood and Geelong traded for their rucks. But they were trading to correct their deficiencies. Collingwood also traded for Ball, a midfielder, because that was another area they were deficient in.

Vickory was and always will be a mistake, Blease, Zeibell, Sidebottom, and even Swift would have been better options( I said this after the draft).

Vickery may turn out to be a mistake, but I believe he will come good. For the record in that draft, had Nic Nat been available at pick 8 would you have overlooked him for a Blease , Zeibell, Sidebottom or Swift ?

The main reason is talls take too long. They are riskier when it comes to injuries.

If you look at the daft as an investment tool, Talls offer huge risks. Sure if you get a good one they are worth their weight in gold, but for a relatively small role on the field, they do not represent value for you buck.

I look at the draft as a way of building a team, a team capable of winning. And as you say a good tall is worth their weight in gold. How often do KPP players worth their weight in gold get traded? Don't draft any talls and end up with a midget fleet.

Average 4-7 years before they hit their peak.
Injury proned.
High failure rate.

There are plently of injury prone smalls and midfielders who don't make the grade. Danny Meyer at 12 springs to mind. Your right though that talls take longer to reach their peak.

Midfielders offer you a safer return on your investment overtime. They give you dividends quicker and it's much easier evaluating their potential.

Roughead isn't exactly setting the world on fire, and Buddy was regarded as a huge risk before draft day. Hawks smalls won the flag, sure Buddy got them there.

You could therefore make the argument that the bigger the risk the bigger the potential reward.

Geelong and the Pies have built their list through the midfield, topping up with talls when they need them.

we need 2-3 quality midfielders before we can start trading for talls.

Lets hope Graham continues his steady improvement and Browne can also improve.

And on a side note, Jacks 78 goals go to 15th. We need more midfielders.

As earlier they addressed their deficiencies. We still have deficiencies around the ground. We don't need more midfielders as such, we need better ones. With the youth and potential of some of our midfield hopefully our midfield can become better with development rather than re-drafting.

While we're at it, we need better forwards, defenders and rucks as well.

 

[tiggywigs]

The greater the talent the less the risk.

Don't seem to remember Kreuzer or Nic Nat taking that long to get into the seniors either.

 

[tigs2010]

Hopefully Graham and Browne keep kicking on and we wont need too. But the option is there for us.

The other advantage is that, it seems like, mature players with a fresh start have a pretty big impact in the first season. Maybe it's because they have something to prove, or they want to show that they are worth what was paid.

very true. could always use the cap space on a couple more gun mids or kpp then lol. would be a shame if we did have to waste it on a ruckman. much better if we can just add to the quality we have in other positions. can u imagine cotch dusty foley lids grigg morton etc with 2 more top liners?

 

[nut]

All 3 please. My point was I would take, whoever is considered, the best available at that point of the draft. Irrespective of whether they are tall/medium/small, keyposition, onballer, ruck.

And my point is that the best available is normally a mid. Because they offer less risk over a drafting period.

For the record if it was at pick one and all 3 were available I would take them in this order, Martin, Cotchin, Natanui. However say it is pick 6, like we have this year, and the Cotchins and Martins (Bennells and Days) of this world have already been picked. I would take Nic Nat, with your stratergy you wouldn't even consider him.

Depends on the build and agility of the player. Nic Nats build was almost complete, so the risk factor was less. Personally I wouldn't take a ruckman EVER until after pick 20. A long term strategy that would pay off over time.

They wouldn't have won the flag without Franklin or Roughead either, you need quality all over the ground.

No because they wouldn't have made the granny. I'm not disputing that you need good talls, I'm saying that is less riskier taking smalls and they have a bigger impact to sides fortune. Plus you can trade excess and get developed tlls

It's a valid point that both Collingwood and Geelong traded for their rucks. But they were trading to correct their deficiencies. Collingwood also traded for Ball, a midfielder, because that was another area they were deficient in.

Ball offered experience in the middle also which the pies lacked. and they didn't trade for him they used there first live pick in the ND on him

Vickery may turn out to be a mistake, but I believe he will come good. For the record in that draft, had Nic Nat been available at pick 8 would you have overlooked him for a Blease , Zeibell, Sidebottom or Swift ?

At the time I would have taken Nic Nat. But since I have changed my mind and in hindsight I would have taken Zeilbell, Blease and Sidebottom in that order.

I look at the draft as a way of building a team, a team capable of winning. And as you say a good tall is worth their weight in gold. How often do KPP players worth their weight in gold get traded? Don't draft any talls and end up with a midget fleet.

Yes you still use later picks on them, plus you can trade a quality mid for picks to help you get a good tall. Like Geelong did with Mahoney in the Ottens trade. There will always be a club hoping to off load a quality player in a rebuilding stage to get some more early draft picks.

There are plently of injury prone smalls and midfielders who don't make the grade. Danny Meyer at 12 springs to mind. Your right though that talls take longer to reach their peak.

But the more quality smalls you have he less the impact if 1 or 2 go down.

You could therefore make the argument that the bigger the risk the bigger the potential reward.

Of course. But dont hold your breath

As earlier they addressed their deficiencies. We still have deficiencies around the ground. We don't need more midfielders as such, we need better ones. With the youth and potential of some of our midfield hopefully our midfield can become better with development rather than re-drafting.

Yes we need better ones. Thats why you top up with more quality first pick every year.

While we're at it, we need better forwards, defenders and rucks as well.

I think we are going ok with slow improvements across the board. Our midfield is where the most improvement looks like coming from. This normally has a flow on effect to the other areas. ie. better forward movement and less pressure on the defence, which in turn helps the talls play better, and suddenly, like at geelong with mooney, an average forward becomes much better.

With a better midfield you can have the luxury to play one of your best mids down back like Hodge, Goddard and what we are doing with Lids.

Midfield depth is what wins flags.... end of story.

 

[nut]

The greater the talent the less the risk.

Don't seem to remember Kreuzer or Nic Nat taking that long to get into the seniors either.

They are the exception. The amount of Tall top ten picks that have failed compared to smalls is so disproportional.

Kreuzer v Cotchin will be a great debate this season if they can both get on the park. Both drafted in the same year 1 v 2.

I know who I want and we have him

 

[tiggywigs]

They are the exception. The amount of Tall top ten picks that have failed compared to smalls is so disproportional.

Kreuzer v Cotchin will be a great debate this season if they can both get on the park. Both drafted in the same year 1 v 2.

I know who I want and we have him

I can see the logic of your position, but I'm wondering whether you've actually crunched the numbers on the comparative failure rate.

And of course I regard our future captain more highly than Kreuzer (who is a very, very good player imo). But is that the point? Cotchin filled a major hole at the time of his drafting. We now arguably have got answers for all our deficiencies - in potential terms at least. So why not go for the biggest talent first up - regardless of size or role?

 

[nut]

I can see the logic of your position, but I'm wondering whether you've actually crunched the numbers on the comparative failure rate.

And of course I regard our future captain more highly than Kreuzer (who is a very, very good player imo). But is that the point? Cotchin filled a major hole at the time of his drafting. We now arguably have got answers for all our deficiencies - in potential terms at least. So why not go for the biggest talent first up - regardless of size or role?

In todays game you need 6-7 A grade midfielders to be anywhere near top 4. We have Deledio, Martin, Cotchin and Foley when fit. We still need more.

B graders at the moment are Tuck, Jackson, Nason, White, Griggs, Edwards and Morton. Hopefully 1 or 2 of those can improve and become A graders.

We still need more depth in our midfield and by taking 2 mids early will bolster our depth and increase our chances of having more A graders. It will also allow use Deledio back or forward to our advantage.

Once we have built the midfield then it is a lot easier to trade for a tall.

 

[SA TIGER]

In todays game you need 6-7 A grade midfielders to be anywhere near top 4. We have Deledio, Martin, Cotchin and Foley when fit. We still need more.

B graders at the moment are Tuck, Jackson, Nason, White, Griggs, Edwards and Morton. Hopefully 1 or 2 of those can improve and become A graders.

We still need more depth in our midfield and by taking 2 mids early will bolster our depth and increase our chances of having more A graders. It will also allow use Deledio back or forward to our advantage.

Once we have built the midfield then it is a lot easier to trade for a tall.[/quote]


Not necessarily.............Western Bulldogs?

 

[santa claws]

All 3 please. My point was I would take, whoever is considered, the best available at that point of the draft. Irrespective of whether they are tall/medium/small, keyposition, onballer, ruck.

For the record if it was at pick one and all 3 were available I would take them in this order, Martin, Cotchin, Natanui. However say it is pick 6, like we have this year, and the Cotchins and Martins (Bennells and Days) of this world have already been picked. I would take Nic Nat, with your stratergy you wouldn't even consider him.



They wouldn't have won the flag without Franklin or Roughead either, you need quality all over the ground.



It's a valid point that both Collingwood and Geelong traded for their rucks. But they were trading to correct their deficiencies. Collingwood also traded for Ball, a midfielder, because that was another area they were deficient in.



Vickery may turn out to be a mistake, but I believe he will come good. For the record in that draft, had Nic Nat been available at pick 8 would you have overlooked him for a Blease , Zeibell, Sidebottom or Swift ?



I look at the draft as a way of building a team, a team capable of winning. And as you say a good tall is worth their weight in gold. How often do KPP players worth their weight in gold get traded? Don't draft any talls and end up with a midget fleet.



There are plently of injury prone smalls and midfielders who don't make the grade. Danny Meyer at 12 springs to mind. Your right though that talls take longer to reach their peak.



You could therefore make the argument that the bigger the risk the bigger the potential reward.



As earlier they addressed their deficiencies. We still have deficiencies around the ground. We don't need more midfielders as such, we need better ones. With the youth and potential of some of our midfield hopefully our midfield can become better with development rather than re-drafting.

While we're at it, we need better forwards, defenders and rucks as well.

here here well said on all points.
just with ruckmen dont use 1st rounders on them unless they are absolutely outstanding or have outstanding atributes. ie kruezer naitanui and leuenberger. leuengerger is an example of huge talent but taking time.

personally if your list is shit you need to go tall first and smaller later because of one simple fact talls take longer.

always always always your first rounders should be used on best available no matter if you have an abundance of them. personally if i rate two players on potential pretty even and ones a tall i would go the tall every time. why because they are harder to find.

 

[McGun]

Hepell Or Polec With Lynch and Atley somkies.

 

[_RT_]

Right now we still have holes all over the place so get the best available kid and build from there.

 

[Mr Magic]

It is one thing to trade for Ruckman , it is another to trade for A grade tall forwards. They are as rare as hens teeth.

We are lucky we got JR!

 

[THE_GUN]

will lynch really be an A-Grader !!

from what i have seen on the youtube clips , he doesnt really impress me

i would be leaning hepell then atley followed by gorringe

 

[Mr Magic]

Maybe, maybe not, I was talking generally, not necessarily with a Lynch connection