Mega Thread The OFFICIAL 2011 Draft mega thread. Rd 1 - Pick 18

[Daz]

Totally. As long as these types have the right attitude and work ethic I reckon most of them make the grade. Look at Patch. Not overly quick, small, but just a bloody good little player with a super work ethic. Grigg looks to me like he will be a gun midfielder despite his deficiencies.

To be fair, you also get the likes of Myles Sewell and Shane Valenti.

 

[GarnerSmash]

To be fair, you also get the likes of Myles Sewell and Shane Valenti.

True.

There's a difference between a trier who gets a lot of the footy and a natural footballer though.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Looking at who to draft it may be an idea to look at what we need based on the future needs of our list. By removing all players over 24 you can get a good look at how the list is being structured for the next 5 year period.

24 and under team:

B: Greenwood - Tarrant - Richardson
HB: Mullett - Hansen - Macmillan
C: Atley - Swallow - Bastinac
HF: Harper - Pedersen - Adams
F: Wright - Black - Thomas
G: Goldstein - Ziebell - Cunnington
INT: Speight - Anthony - Garlett - Warren

EMG: Urquhart - L.Delaney - Daw

C.Delaney - Sierakowski - McKinley - Mabon

So, what do we need to bring in?

Looking at that we have:

About 9 guys who can rotate through the guts;
3 blokes who can ruck;
5 guys who can play key defensive posts;
3 guys who can play key forward posts
3 guys who can play the lead up forward role;
8 guys who can play half forward/wing;
6 guys who can play a half back role;
4 who can play a shut down defender role;
5 guys who can play close to goal as a forward.

Overall the list looks pretty healthy, but when you consider that Warren, Urquhart and McKinley will most likely not be around in 12 months I reckon we should look to bring in the best option first and either a key position forward or a hit up forward with the second pick.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

without giving it too much thought, when browsing across those lines, we look a KP forward short.

 

[Daz]

Of our players aged 27 or more, the only player that will leave a massive hole when he leaves is Petrie.

Candidates to fill the two key forward posts in the future are: Hansen, Tarrant, Black, Pedersen and maybe Kennedy.

Needless to say, all four of those have considerable question marks hanging over their head. 3 of them appear to be better defenders. The other 2 may not be genuine KPP's.

Problem is, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, this draft lacks quality talls. You can also bet your bottom dollar that GWS will take as many key position players they can get.

Next year our first pick will surely be used on a tall, or we'll trade for one. The year after that we'll take McDonald.

 

[RooHooDoo]

without giving it too much thought, when browsing across those lines, we look a KP forward short.

This is our most glaring deficiency.

Tarrants body may still be an issue.

The jury is out where Hansen's best spot is.

The rest are backmen or at least appear to be. Pedo is a little on the small side to be a real power forward.

 

[Kimbo]

Pedo is a little on the small side to be a real power forward.

I'm not necessarily suggesting Pedo should be a power forward, but...

Pods: 193cm, 102kg
Pedo: 193cm, 100kg
Even Brown is 195cm/104kg.

Pedo might seem smaller because he's a more mobile type. Given his age (25yo in March), he'll could add a little weight from about now. Remember, unlike days gone by, even the big guys need to bring defensive pressure to bear.

 

[RooHooDoo]

I'm not necessarily suggesting Pedo should be a power forward, but...

Pods: 193cm, 102kg
Pedo: 193cm, 100kg
Even Brown is 195cm/104kg.

Pedo might seem smaller because he's a more mobile type. Given his age (25yo in March), he'll could add a little weight from about now. Remember, unlike days gone by, even the big guys need to bring defensive pressure to bear.

Interesting. Pods certainly plays a lot bigger than that.

Its funny how you perceive people, I suppose its the way they approach the game as much as anything. I guess Im thinking more of that pack splitting Drew Petrie type.

 

[THE MOEMAN]

without giving it too much thought, when browsing across those lines, we look a KP forward short.

I agree we need to draft a kpf with pick 18 and the only 2 solid options that should be available are jackson paine and julian dobosz. I like both of them but would prefer paine.

With pick 40 we should draft a hbf such as josh tynan or brad hill.

 

[tiltraise]

I agree we need to draft a kpf with pick 18 and the only 2 solid options that should be available are jackson paine and julian dobosz. I like both of them but would prefer paine.

With pick 40 we should draft a hbf such as josh tynan or brad hill.

I think with 18 we just go with best player regardless of type.

With 40 we can look to perhaps address a need such as the one u suggested.

 

[tiltraise]

So as it stands we have picks 18,40,76+94.

Assuming Pratt comes off the list we are left with 4 spaces which looks like 2 ND selections and 2 rookie upgrades.

Thus on the face of it looks like we maybe done with trade week.

 

[THE MOEMAN]

So as it stands we have picks 18,40,76+94.

Assuming Pratt comes off the list we are left with 4 spaces which looks like 2 ND selections and 2 rookie upgrades.

Thus on the face of it looks like we maybe done with trade week.

pratt will come off the list and lower,ross and norris are of the list which is 4 spaces free. Rawlings doesn't count because he is a veteran. Then we added sirra to our list so we're back to 3 spots meaning we have to delist another player in order to use 2 picks and upgrade 2 rookies. Also i think we will trade campbell to the hawks for young/lisle.

The player i think we will delist is probably urquhart

 

[croode]

The player i think we will delist is probably urquhart

Urquhart is contracted, so as long as there is no mutual agreement to terminate that contract, he stays. I suspect Ben Warren is in danger.

 

[Teffy]

Urquhart is contracted, so as long as there is no mutual agreement to terminate that contract, he stays. I suspect Ben Warren is in danger.

It's a shame about Milky.

His application is superb and he is "solid" at all the disciplines, it's just that he doesn't "excell" at any of them.

 

[RooHooDoo]

It's a shame about Milky.

His application is superb and he is "solid" at all the disciplines, it's just that he doesn't "excell" at any of them.

Agree.

If only you could inject his heart, and work ethic into a few other more talented players who lack it...

 

[THE MOEMAN]

Urquhart is contracted, so as long as there is no mutual agreement to terminate that contract, he stays. I suspect Ben Warren is in danger.

i read somewhere urqs requested a trade so maybe we can package urqs and pick 40 and get a draft pick in the early 30's. it would free up a space on our list so we would only have to delist pratt.

or we could trade pick 40 and campbell for the hawks pick 33 which would also free up the last spot in our list

the alternative would be just to delist warren and pratt and we would have our 4 free spaces in the draft

 

[The Nostradamus]

i read somewhere urqs requested a trade so maybe we can package urqs and pick 40 and get a draft pick in the early 30's. it would free up a space on our list so we would only have to delist pratt.

or we could trade pick 40 and campbell for the hawks pick 33 which would also free up the last spot in our list

the alternative would be just to delist warren and pratt and we would have our 4 free spaces in the draft

all those scenarios are fine and i would be pushing to trade pick 40 and urquhart for GC pick 31

which would give us pick 18 + 31 in the draft to use and then with our last 2 picks upgrade car keys and pedo

 

[Teffy]

or we could trade pick 40 and campbell for the hawks pick 33 which would also free up the last spot in our list

1) We don't already have enough free spots on the list?

2) Campbell and 40 for pick 33 is a mindnumbingly shit trade from our perspective.

 

[THE MOEMAN]

1) We don't already have enough free spots on the list?

2) Campbell and 40 for pick 33 is a mindnumbingly shit trade from our perspective.

1) like i mentioned earlier we have only 2 spots free on our senior list because we traded in sirra and delisted lower,norris,ross. I assume we will delist pratt but that only gives us 3 spots and i think we want to use our first 2 picks and use our last 2 picks to upgrade rookies meaning we need 1 more spot free.

2) yea it probably is not the best value trade from our perspective, it was just an alternative suggestion to delisting warren to free a spot on our list. I like the ziebulls suggestion of urqs and pick 40 for GC pick 31

 

[Daz]

I posted this in the list changes thread but didn't get a response. Just looking for someone to confirm that this is correct.

"Can someone confirm this for me please? This is my understanding of what our list will be next year. The fact that Brady was a veteren complicates things a little.


38 senior listed players, plus one veteren (Harvey) outside of the list.

7 rookies, with one allowed to be promoted prior to round 1.


So assuming we delist 6 senior listed players (Rawlings, Pratt, Lower, Warren, Ross and Norris), we will have 5 empty spots. Sierakowski, Pedersen and Delaney will take up 3 of those and the other 2 will be picks 18 and 40.

Daw and Mullett are likely to be our only remaining rookies (Pedo and Delaney upgraded, Scott and White delisted), which would leave us with 5 spots to fill at the rookie draft.


Have I got that right?"


I'm not overly excited about having 5 picks in the rookie draft this year.

 

[Daz]

I also find it amusing that people expect GC would be happy to take on our list cloggers. They're overflowing with young talent and have to trim their list significantly each year.

 

[THE MOEMAN]

I posted this in the list changes thread but didn't get a response. Just looking for someone to confirm that this is correct.

"Can someone confirm this for me please? This is my understanding of what our list will be next year. The fact that Brady was a veteren complicates things a little.


38 senior listed players, plus one veteren (Harvey) outside of the list.

7 rookies, with one allowed to be promoted prior to round 1.


So assuming we delist 6 senior listed players (Rawlings, Pratt, Lower, Warren, Ross and Norris), we will have 5 empty spots. Sierakowski, Pedersen and Delaney will take up 3 of those and the other 2 will be picks 18 and 40.

Daw and Mullett are likely to be our only remaining rookies (Pedo and Delaney upgraded, Scott and White delisted), which would leave us with 5 spots to fill at the rookie draft.


Have I got that right?"


I'm not overly excited about having 5 picks in the rookie draft this year.

yep thats all correct from my understanding.

Also i don't think we have to fill the rookie spots so we can take just 3 rookies if we want in the rookie draft

 

[Daz]

yep thats all correct from my understanding.

Also i don't think we have to fill the rookie spots so we can take just 3 rookies if we want in the rookie draft

May as well take 5. It would be a waste not to. We'll probably take a couple of state league players. If they're not up to it we can delist them and try again in the 'superdraft'.

 

[The Nostradamus]

I also find it amusing that people expect GC would be happy to take on our list cloggers. They're overflowing with young talent and have to trim their list significantly each year.

Urquhart has talent though and is still young plus GC don't have many small defenders. brown is close to retirement and besides him they just have toy and harbrow. Pick 40 + Urquhart for pick 31 is very reasonable and i could see it happening

 

[THE MOEMAN]

May as well take 5. It would be a waste not to. We'll probably take a couple of state league players. If they're not up to it we can delist them and try again in the 'superdraft'.

i agree i was more just responding to your statment that you "weren't overly excited about having 5 picks in the rookie draft this year"