I think there’s a big difference between least successful (which I think is arguable) and disappointing. There’s also a difference between what Jackets looked like for a split second where we didn’t get Draper and him being upset about the whole off-season.
And you can’t just discount Hobbs. We got a guy a lot of draft people had ranked in their top 5 best players at 13, and additionally plays a role we need pretty badly. Personally I think that in and of itself makes the period a win.
Where does he play?
If small forward. He and Fejo jnr (or like him) as a rebounding defender would fill our needs perfectly imo.
We still have two picks.
Still the chance of a couple of exciting young blokes.
i wanted Hobbs/NWM
and Long and Fejo, and they went after ND, Long got Rookied with Hawks
we could have snuck in front in PSD if we wanted.
so i can’t really complain too much.
Draper got close, thought he would be gone before our second pick
I don’t get this view. In the EF we played Gleeson who we subsequently delisted. We played Cutler who until a good 7 week stretch was headed for delistment. The EF clearly showed we had no lockdown defenders, and no running defender depth. This off season fixed both issues.
Also in the EF we were missing any dedicated wingers beyond the developing Durham, as Langford was injured, Cox had tailed off and Ham wasn’t trusted. This draft also helped there.
If we get at least one small forward with our remaining picks I’d have said this off season covered all the needs. Hell, it also helped those who want more contested midfielders.
Oh right, so it’s a failure before any of these players have even been to a training session? What a load of ■■■■
’
Yep, couldn’t agree more with all of this.
The only weird pick for me is Voss. But I’m just happy we’ve taken a swing at an 18yo as a rookie pick, instead of recycling a main list guy that is proven to be not up to it
Disagree on a few fronts there. The list already has those positions covered, are we going to make decisions off one final where we could have moved McGrath back anyway?. Hind plays as a small defender and McGrath moves to small defender and we are golden going forward.
Durham and Langford as well as a developing Cox is ample wing coverage, especially when you take into account we have good midfield depth where some of our good mids will need to be pushed out to the wings next season (ie. Shiel).
I don’t even mind the look of the pick ups, I especially like the left footer, but who will he play in front of, heppel, Cutler, Redman, Kelly? Or if he plays wing is he going to push out one of our young wingers mentioned above that will naturally improve and need game time next year anyway ?
We recruited for the now in positions we are stacked in already and recruited for the future in positions we lack depth in. Even tall and mid sized defenders we have a shitload of, Kelly doesn’t play as a small defender is my understanding, he isn’t quick enough.
Anyhow it might all work out, my whole point was, when Adrian went home to the wife after the drafting period and was asked how it went, I think he would have said ‘not as well as we planned’, especially in comparison to last year. I don’t think there is any reason to get sensitive about it.
Then don’t post dribble like this. Just stick to your other points.
Hind’s role is not to be the lockdown small defender, his best asset is to run and carry the ball, break the lines and then deliver it either further up the wing or into the 50. Kelly is brought in to help him do just that by taking a more lockdown role, which he is very good at doing.
Lord is a young guy and possibly won’t play a lot for a couple of years, we haven’t drafted him for the immediate. But we have drafted McDonugh for that.
Langford plays on the wing but is much more damaging playing HF and midfield, at his best when he impacts games the most that’s the role he is in, the wing less so. I suspect the club wants to use him more in that role. Durham is developing and Cox may not stay on the wing long term.
Disagree with that. Hind and McGrath together would be McKenna and Saad equivalent. There aren’t many purely lockdown small defenders these days anyway. I was speaking to my mate in Adelaide and he reckons Kelly rarely played on small forwards, not sure if that’s right or not.
Also I prefer the drafting philosophy of picking mids and forwards and if they don’t make it you can send them back. Gee, even our own backline is reflective of this. Despite the plethora of half backs and tall defenders drafted over the years, we have Redman, Stewart, Laverde and Cutler proving that theory.
Back to the point, where would you rate this off season in the past 5 for the recruiting team, if you put them in order 1 to 5?
He isn’t going to the backline, people really need to get over it.
The same would’ve been said of Heppell.
I don’t rate them in the year they are made, rating takes time to come to fruition. Some years everyone has carried on how great it was, later down the track none of the players remain.
It is a pointless newspaper analysis with no basis in reality.
Forgoing true hff and small forwards and our reluctance to give up future picks might be a indication as to how highly our father sons and academy kids are in the next draft.
We have more than just the twins and Munkara available next year. @THE_DON1 most of them are forward half players too aren’t they?
Yeah but that was the point of my post that you got so upset about. So for how triggered you got, I assumed your opinion differed significantly.
I am talking about currently, not down the track in his twilight years.
Or Luke Hodge.
I do have an opinion, your post was garbage because it is a pointless exercise less than one week after the draft happened.
