WA Draft Prospects

[PRANKSTER666]

Depends on who lasts but i suspect Fremantle won't expect him to last till 53 let alone the RD.

He won't be there at 50 on his combine results alone given the depth of the draft.

He is a genuine 2nd rounder in this draft which would put him @ 30+ and you could probably make a case for up to 50 players in the 2nd round.

 

[dajesmac]

McKenzie
Newman
Lockyer
Kersten

In order of preference. Newman is a must have @ 28 IMO, so it comes down to be available at 23. Wouldn't mind a punt on Lockyer though.

 

[Icanwalk]

McKenzie
Newman
Lockyer
Kersten

In order of preference. Newman is a must have @ 28 IMO, so it comes down to be available at 23. Wouldn't mind a punt on Lockyer though.

Lockyer tops the list imo but otherwise agree with your post.

Bearing in mind JJ delisting, would we be keen on Lockyer considering their apparent similarity. Why exchange like for like, unless the staff reckon he's a significant upgrade on JJ and couldn't fit both in the side with our merry abundance of mid sized backs. If so, I'd be deadest on taking him at 23.

Seems the type that could perform adequately at most positions on the ground. would tie in any lose ends in the back/forward line due to his versatility and marking ability. The cherry atop a solid spine perhaps.

Newman at 28 based on Swannies opinion, just haven't seen enough of him at WAFL level to make an accredited judgement. Hill at 28

 

[Masto]

Lockyer tested equal 6th in 20m sprint (2.89) and equal 2nd in kicking skills which really surprised me. I wouldn't compare him to JJ maybe a quicker, more skillful version of Beau Waters?

Agree that Newman is a better prospect than Hill.

 

[dajesmac]

Lockyer tops the list imo but otherwise agree with your post.

Bearing in mind JJ delisting, would we be keen on Lockyer considering their apparent similarity. Why exchange like for like, unless the staff reckon he's a significant upgrade on JJ and couldn't fit both in the side with our merry abundance of mid sized backs. If so, I'd be deadest on taking him at 23.

Seems the type that could perform adequately at most positions on the ground. would tie in any lose ends in the back/forward line due to his versatility and marking ability. The cherry atop a solid spine perhaps.

Newman at 28 based on Swannies opinion, just haven't seen enough of him at WAFL level to make an accredited judgement. Hill at 28

I agree that Lockyer should be very high on our priority list. HOWEVER, if McKenzie is there at 23, I think he should be considered. Otherwise, Lockyer all the way for mine.

I personally don't think Lockyer should be labelled a midsize back. At 190cm, he's the same height as Hunter, and a similar player IMO. He could play third tall. As Masto mentions Lockyer has great speed and good skills, he is a very aggressive defender and can really take a grab, meaning he's capable of playing full forward.

I don't really agree with J.Jones comparisons, to be honest, given JJ was probably going to be moved into a midfield role anyway.

EDIT: Strongly agree with the no Brad Hill talk, I don't want to touch him unless we use pick 63.

 

[Masto]

Lockyer is not a mid-sized back but likewise I do not see him playing FB on the 195/196cm Gorilla forwards in the AFL. He would be giving up too much height and bulk. He would line up against mid-sized forwards like Chris Mayne but has the utility to play anywhere in a pinch. I really like him but fear the Dockers will reach for him and nab him first. If they do we should take Brad Hill in a tit-for-tat.

 

[Lach72]

Lockyer would be a good one at 29.

If we picked Kersten and a good mid at 16 and 20.

 

[Bacchus]

I really like him but fear the Dockers will reach for him and nab him first. If they do we should take Brad Hill in a tit-for-tat.

You are joking, aren't you?

No way should we take Brad Hill, unless the club rates him above others available.

Far more at stake with scarce draft picks than silly games.

 

[pantskyle]

What about Mini Sandilands. Project player but if anywhere near as good as his big brother should be a handy pick up.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

What about Mini Sandilands. Project player but if anywhere near as good as his big brother should be a handy pick up.

If he gets drafted this year it's because of his name rather than his ability. He's got another three years of growing to do.

 

[Icanwalk]

I agree that Lockyer should be very high on our priority list. HOWEVER, if McKenzie is there at 23, I think he should be considered. Otherwise, Lockyer all the way for mine.

I personally don't think Lockyer should be labelled a midsize back. At 190cm, he's the same height as Hunter, and a similar player IMO. He could play third tall. As Masto mentions Lockyer has great speed and good skills, he is a very aggressive defender and can really take a grab, meaning he's capable of playing full forward.

I don't really agree with J.Jones comparisons, to be honest, given JJ was probably going to be moved into a midfield role anyway.

EDIT: Strongly agree with the no Brad Hill talk, I don't want to touch him unless we use pick 63.

Although it didn't really come across in my earlier post, I meant to imply that Lockyer, like JJ possesses versatility, in the sense that they both can be used as defenders and midfielders. Although Lockyer could play as a third tall and mabye even CHB if we're stretching it. Would compare him to Schofield actually.

Would even like to see Lockyer on a wing with his pace and skills by foot. And for that matter Schofield.

 

[pantskyle]

So would you not pull the trigger now? What's his potential like?

That's in reference to your post above Eastern...It didn't quote

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

If he gets drafted this year it's because of his name rather than his ability. He's got another three years of growing to do.

Was told with Chad that with xrays taken they believe he will end up slightly taller than his brother.
He's 17 and will keep growing till he is 21.
Throw him on the rookie list for 3 years then move him onto main list another two years, then look to play him in his third year on the main list.
Thats the sort of project he would be, 5 years on the list without playing a game.

 

[dajesmac]

**** though, 211cm+ ruckman would be a massive advantage.

 

[WCE_phil]

Was told with Chad that with xrays taken they believe he will end up slightly taller than his brother.
He's 17 and will keep growing till he is 21.
Throw him on the rookie list for 3 years then move him onto main list another two years, then look to play him in his third year on the main list.
Thats the sort of project he would be, 5 years on the list without playing a game.

Exactly this. Would think freo will take him with their first rookie draft pick if available though.

 

[Prem87]

Would be worth the risk, imagine having the luxury of playing Naitanui and Lycett up forward as twin towers Kennedy roaming at CHF and Darling playing as a pure mid.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

So would you not pull the trigger now? What's his potential like?

As Royal said he would be a project player. Aaron was drafted at the age of 20 and played his first game at the age of 21. You have to give him two years at least till he reaches his full height and then he needs to bulk out.

Ive never seen him play. Obviously if he's expected to grow another 5-6cm then his potential is massive.

 

[pantskyle]

Apparently there are several clubs interested.

 

[Anjahads]

Either Brad Mckenzie,Newman or Lockyer for our picks would be nice.
Wonder if Mckenzie would be suited for a wingman role?

 

[shooshka]

so is there a train of thought on whether we will choose 'best available' or draft for needs?

what we already knew has been confirmed today (picks #23 and #28 are our only 2 choices to be used).

Even in a draft lacking depth you would think there would be some reasonable players available at those picks (especially with GWS having 11 picks, Bris having 2 and Freo having 2 before our first - so odds are there will be a slider or two).

 

[gurncentral]

so is there a train of thought on whether we will choose 'best available' or draft for needs?

what we already knew has been confirmed today (picks #23 and #28 are our only 2 choices to be used).

Even in a draft lacking depth you would think there would be some reasonable players available at those picks (especially with GWS having 11 picks, Bris having 2 and Freo having 2 before our first - so odds are there will be a slider or two).

If the best available player is a HBFer, we shouldn't take him.

 

[Goldfish]

If the best available player is a HBFer, we shouldn't take him.

Really? We appear to be a little light on in that department now J Jones has departed...

 

[paran]

You usually can't go wrong with BPA (Best Player Available) and then go for need if all things are equal. The real thin is list management though, because you have to look at the draft with the view of where the club iwll be in 3-4 years time. Guys like Darling and Gaff contributing straight away are somewhat rare. For us, we need to loo at our KPD stocks (Glass retiring), small forwards (neglecting since Phil Matera) and outside mids (Embley).

 

[shooshka]

We would have to look at a ruckman either in the ND - or more likely in the RD - won't we? obviously Nic Nat, Cox and Lycett are all on the list and we won't need a 4th ruckman to play - but Cox isn't getting any younger so you can never start too early developing a young ruckman (and there has been great sucess with them off the rookie list - Cox and Sandilands as a start!). Would also ease the pain if by chance Lycett gets a case of the Eberts and wants to go home.

 

[paran]

Teams rarely, if ever, carry more than 3 rucks on the main list, and we've got that covered. I would happily add one to the rookie list to develop to be ready in 4-5 years, but I believe Coxy has at least 3 seasons of prime footy left in him.