Pick 48


#302

I think we just pass on everyone at 48 tbh. I mean if they lasted to 48 they can’t be any good. Same goes for rookies. Can we just play with a total list size of 40 next year?


#303

I’m hearing we are interested in Ben Wiggins and Jake Riccardi as rookies. Both privately tested with us along with a dozen or so TAC players


#304

Given his age, he probably still has a little bit of growth left in him. Not all forwards have to be 2m monsters.


#305

Maybe, but if he doesn’t he is going to have to be that much better overhead compared to the defender he is playing on to make up for it. If you are going to take a long shot key forward you might as well make sure they have height working in their favour.

Then again it seems people are happy to take a key forward with a late pick so perhaps I’m way off.


#306

But as with everything there’s tradeoffs. His might be that he’s “only” 193cm, which is shortish for a KPF. But he may not be asked to play KPF, he may be seen as a HF link man. Lynch for Adelaide does that at 191cm, without being a contested marking machine. Or he may be seen as similar to Nick Riewoldt (193cm). Both of those players are known for their tank. And that seems to be McCartin’s strength as well.

I don’t think the height is an issue, as there are plenty of roles for 193cm guys with good endurance who can take a mark. If he was a slow pack marking guy who liked to wrestle with his opponents I’d probably have question marks, but it doesn’t sound like that’s him.

(in the BF draft that Ben Miller was also still there at that pick, and we’d apparently been interested in him, so a tall may be on the cards)


#307

Any player who lasts to around pick 50 has many more “trade offs” than just one.

But that wasn’t my point originally, if we got him to play HF then his height isn’t any issue (of course that type of player is hardly a priority for us). But he was referred to as a Key Forward and that is what I was assuming we would be drafting him for and commenting on (hence why I said “A 193cm KPF”).

Lynch and Riewoldt were both very early picks, so they were seen as having plenty of potential and talent can overcome many perceived shortcoming so aren’t really good comparisons for a hypothetical where McCartin lasts until pick 48.

Having said that I know nothing of the kid in question and the u/18 watchers seem to think he will go much earlier so maybe he has the talent to play as a true KPF at his size. After all I never said 193cm was infeasible for any KPF, I was just talking about the generalities of height and ability in relation to draft position.


#308

What clubs like about McCartin are his workrate, marking and attitude. He tested very well physically and mentally at the combine and the fact he is barely eligible this year plays apart.

Apparently played one school game that looked better than any key forward in this draft and he shows it in patches. He is 193cm but he also has a very good leap, with McCartin they are looking at a Mitch McGovern type but with the aerobic capacity of a Tom Lynch.


#309

Unless they are a genuine KPF then we don’t need. Agree.

As you say we have plenty of roaming tall forward types.


#310

Needs is interesting though. When he’s 23 and coming into his prime Daniher and Stewart would be 29. And our other taller mobile types may end up playing completely different roles, and we may already have clear ideas about how we think will use them. (Francis, Ridley, etc)

It’s clearly not a need in the short term, but you could make a case that a lead up, strong marking KP with a big tank would be a reasonable investment if we rated them highly in that role.


#311

I agree in time it may be a need.

But by drafting somebody like that you have to actually play them. In the next 5 years at least we are stacked in pretty much all forward roles so he wouldn’t even get a game.

I don’t doubt that he may have talent, but I just can’t see how we could develop him properly to give him the best opportunity.

From my reckoning we have Joe, Hooker, Stewart, Begley, Laverde, Stringer, Langford and also Francis and Lavender could play there if required.

Obviously we hope that some of them play midfield but I think we are pretty stacked for some time.

Our club is looking primed for the next five years or so and I think we will have opportunities to pick up established tall players from other clubs.


#312

I just think it’s a very very very silly argument

You shouldn’t take a Lucas Cook in the first round just because he’s the best tall forward there

And you shouldn’t ignore a Josh Jenkins with a late pick just because he’s been passed over a number of times

You rate a player on how good you think they’ll be, and how much you think you need that: not on what everyone else thinks or needs.


#313

I don’t know if this is necessarily true, Hooker is 28/29?? Would expect him to be gone by about 2021, hopefully 18yo skinny kid starts to play a couple of games in 2-3 years, and is ready to take over a role full time in 3-4.

Works out nicely.


#314

I got the impression from that draft profile that he’s more of a Laverde/Stewart 3rd tall type rather than a monster like Hooker.

Yeah, if he’s like hooker then fine.

Still think we are better off adding depth in other areas, but that’s just me.


#315

Oh same. I don’t think tall forwards should be a priority.

But given our position:

  • already got 3 first 22 players with our first 2 picks
  • making pick 48 effectively our 4th pick.
  • Supposed weak draft

I don’t know if we can be too picky about needs at 48. I think we need to be pragmatic. If there’s a kid we rate highly who’d still there, I think we go for him.
All recruitment is a balance of assessed talent vs assessed needs.


#316

I doubt he would be good enough to break into our side if he’s still available at pick 48.

plenty of other sides need forwards and they would take him beforehand.

If he’s available still at 48 then that to me is a clear indication he has major deficiencies.

If you take players then the expectation is you have to play them within the first couple of seasons.

He would be about 5th in line for an opportunity. As I said above we are stacked for forwards.


#317

Mutch was taken at pick 42 and I wouldn’t say he has major issues, same with Jack Graham who played in a premiership and went at pick 53

You draft for talent and trade for needs because you never know what will happen and we have seen that quality key talls can be worth a lot. Personally don’t think we need his type but you just don’t pass up on a talent like that if there isn’t anyone more talented at that pick


#318

Like Hooker
Or Fanta
Or Tippa


#319

I’m not arguing on quality.

I am saying how would he get a game in our forwardline.


#320

Who do you think he would get a game in front of in the next two years?


#321

If we’re picking an 18yo tall for the first 2 years, we’re doing it wrong.
With that said, if you cast your mind back to our last game, Hooker went down, we didn’t have a replacement for him who we thought was worth playing - so there’s one example. I like Stewart, but he’s certainly not a locked-in-for-the-next-5-years type talent - so there’s a second. And Hooker’s 29 now, might not have more than 2-3 years left, at which point we’d want Francis or another young player to take over.

Like I said, it’s not an urgent need, but it wouldn’t be crazy either.