I do wonder with the academy kids if any of the clubs will go the route of not matching really high bids and then just getting the player to demand a trade after a year or two.If we did it, it’d be draft tampering.
Absolutely it would. But Sydney, GWS and GC? Less so.
I do wonder with the academy kids if any of the clubs will go the route of not matching really high bids and then just getting the player to demand a trade after a year or two.
Only if they end up at the Lions…
Stride management
Harley Baelic played with wrist injury this year. - Broken Scaphoid, kept playing until championships over.
anywhere in the first round - tall midfielder, unusual kicking style usually hits the target.
Jack Silvagni - SOS son kicked bag of 5 against WA. just played school footy until this year, has been up and down. a bid might come from other club 25 onwards, there wont be many talls beyond 25/30
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-24/state-league-gems-rough-diamonds-in-the-afl-mixInteresting looking at a few of these for our pick in the 50s
PAT LEVICKI and TOM KEOUGH two big key defenders if Mitch Brown isn’t there
Calling Aceman!!
Ha,
Patty is a ripper though. Real hard worker and has a great leap as well as a good reach so he spoils everything.
Likes to have a run and bounce and has a pretty strong leg on him. Reckon he will end up a decent player if he gets a chance
Sounds good. WSPHU.
An Essendon loving mate of mine living around the Geelong area reckons we should go Curnow and Mathieson. Not sure I would go for them if it was up to me. Francis and Parish seems better for us in my opinion. I would not rule out getting Kieran Collins either, (assuming Weitering is gone which I would be stunned if he was not. May not be as good as JW, but may not be too much below him). Collins may be around should we wish to use a pick in the 20's on him.
I like mathesison a lot. Reminds me of Lewis. If stants go and we get a nice band 1 pick for him and we get pick 5 for Jake then I’ll go with:
Parish
Mathieson
Weideman
Would love two athletic, inside/outside, strong marking, running machines who are genuine guns ready to play season 1.
I’m optimistic. 
Francis… the new Dangerfield.
Any chance of GCS actually passing on Francis?
Best available never comes with a useful explanation of what best means. Highest ceiling? Most immediate impact? Lowest risk?out on a limb but it probably means best player no matter what position.
High ceiling, low risk all come with top 5 draft picks you would hope.How do you even compare Goldstein vs Dangerfield vs Hurley vs Kennedy?
hindsight is beautiful isn’t it, easy to put those players up after 8+ years in the system.
Its up to Dodoro and the team I suppose, need to trust that they will pick the very best players available at 4 and 5 no matter what the position.
My point is that “best players…no matter what position” is so hard to define. Even with the guys we know how they end up. Now try and factor in improvement, growth etc
For me you just have to take the guy you think will make the most difference to your team into the future. That may be a guy that doesn’t necessarily check the box of the ‘best’, but he may be the ‘best for you’.
You’re going in semi-circles, mate.
If you concede that ‘best’ is arbitrary and/or a bit of guesswork, then so is ‘best for you’.
Of course it is.
Any chance of GCS actually passing on Francis?You'd think Parish and even Curnow come into the discussion for their pick 3, so is a possibility.
Surely gc will take the pure mid in parish with 3 considering Bennell going, ablett and riscatelli aging and omeara with his injuries. Francis will be ours if we take him IMO.
Any chance of GCS actually passing on Francis?You'd think Parish and even Curnow come into the discussion for their pick 3, so is a possibility.
I guess with Dixon going Curnow is a good option.
No one will complain if Curnow, Francis, Langford and Laverde are all similar if they are all outstanding players!
AMEN Sal!
PS - Commiserations RE kav
Cal Twomey on afl radio discuss allies (Div2) v under 17’s
Mills/Hopper & Keays didn’t play (Academy kids)
Harry Himmelberg -3rd tall 2nd - 3rd rnd prospect
Daniel Rioli - can play boarded at stpats, played for north ballaratt. There will be a club who wants him. Small forward who can kick goals, will definitely get a chance
Under 17’s
Ben Ainsworth - great little player 177-178 cm plays like Elliott (pies)
Ben & Harry Mckay - if they were born a week later would be next years picks and discussed for No1 pick, underaged 200cm.
missed1/2 interview
I would keep 4 and 5, absolutely no issueIf we get carlislol trade sorted we will get two jets both of whom appear ready to make a serious contribution in 2016
Would rejuvenate us over night
Go disco, wop, wop, wop
Agree. Quality over quantity any day. No guarantees of course but increased odds.
Picks #4, #12, #13, #23, #25 would be a good base to try and rebuild around. Go Francis/Parish with #4, Collins or McKay and best available with the two early teens picks, and then another tall and a good small with the two early twenties picks. Hope M. Brown lasts to our 3rd rounder.Sure, #4 and #5 are flashy, but historically they have about a 50/50 chance of (individually) being a bust. But a lot would (obviously) depend on where the recruiting team see the draft talent falling off the cliff.
Is it just me or do others think that the historical data of a particular pick is bs? I read a fair bit of it in the lead up to the NBA draft, and it just had me thinking that surely good recruiting staff know their stuff and therefore logic would suggest that it should be a better pick and player than the ones after.
This is not a shot at you in any way Ants, just that you mentioned the bit in bold.
Picks #4, #12, #13, #23, #25 would be a good base to try and rebuild around. Go Francis/Parish with #4, Collins or McKay and best available with the two early teens picks, and then another tall and a good small with the two early twenties picks. Hope M. Brown lasts to our 3rd rounder.Sure, #4 and #5 are flashy, but historically they have about a 50/50 chance of (individually) being a bust. But a lot would (obviously) depend on where the recruiting team see the draft talent falling off the cliff.
Is it just me or do others think that the historical data of a particular pick is bs? I read a fair bit of it in the lead up to the NBA draft, and it just had me thinking that surely good recruiting staff know their stuff and therefore logic would suggest that it should be a better pick and player than the ones after.
This is not a shot at you in any way Ants, just that you mentioned the bit in bold.
But that said, the idea that even top picks don’t have a high rate of busts is also a bit of a myth. Pick #1 is pretty safe, but on the flip side often doesn’t produce a champion of the game. A lot of people seem to conflate a pick (say #4) with getting you the fourth best player out of a draft, and not the fourth best perceived player at a single time before a lot of development still has to happen.
Picks #4, #12, #13, #23, #25 would be a good base to try and rebuild around. Go Francis/Parish with #4, Collins or McKay and best available with the two early teens picks, and then another tall and a good small with the two early twenties picks. Hope M. Brown lasts to our 3rd rounder.Sure, #4 and #5 are flashy, but historically they have about a 50/50 chance of (individually) being a bust. But a lot would (obviously) depend on where the recruiting team see the draft talent falling off the cliff.
Is it just me or do others think that the historical data of a particular pick is bs? I read a fair bit of it in the lead up to the NBA draft, and it just had me thinking that surely good recruiting staff know their stuff and therefore logic would suggest that it should be a better pick and player than the ones after.
This is not a shot at you in any way Ants, just that you mentioned the bit in bold.
No, I completely agree. Actually pick #5 has (historically) a better hit rate than 50%. It has a better hit rate than #4 or #6. That stat is from the average of all three, because I would assume the fact that #5 has historically been a touch better than the two picks around it is just a statistical anomaly and has no reason to apply this year.But that said, the idea that even top picks don’t have a high rate of busts is also a bit of a myth. Pick #1 is pretty safe, but on the flip side often doesn’t produce a champion of the game. A lot of people seem to conflate a pick (say #4) with getting you the fourth best player out of a draft, and not the fourth best perceived player at a single time before a lot of development still has to happen.
Mark Bolton come on down
Picks #4, #12, #13, #23, #25 would be a good base to try and rebuild around. Go Francis/Parish with #4, Collins or McKay and best available with the two early teens picks, and then another tall and a good small with the two early twenties picks. Hope M. Brown lasts to our 3rd rounder.Sure, #4 and #5 are flashy, but historically they have about a 50/50 chance of (individually) being a bust. But a lot would (obviously) depend on where the recruiting team see the draft talent falling off the cliff.
Is it just me or do others think that the historical data of a particular pick is bs? I read a fair bit of it in the lead up to the NBA draft, and it just had me thinking that surely good recruiting staff know their stuff and therefore logic would suggest that it should be a better pick and player than the ones after.
This is not a shot at you in any way Ants, just that you mentioned the bit in bold.
Picks #4, #12, #13, #23, #25 would be a good base to try and rebuild around. Go Francis/Parish with #4, Collins or McKay and best available with the two early teens picks, and then another tall and a good small with the two early twenties picks. Hope M. Brown lasts to our 3rd rounder.Sure, #4 and #5 are flashy, but historically they have about a 50/50 chance of (individually) being a bust. But a lot would (obviously) depend on where the recruiting team see the draft talent falling off the cliff.