Pick 48


#322

Fair enough.

If you think this kid could step in and fill either Hooker or Stewarts roles now then he must be good.

Guess that raises the question why he would be available at 48.


#323

Ignoring the strawman, do you know of anyone who will be available at 48, who doesn’t have significant weaknesses and definitely will demand a spot in the next two years?

To me it looks like inconsistent kid vs consistently bad kick vs state league guy vs tall kid who’s going to take 2 years to fill out. They’ve all been passed on, 2 or 3 times, for various reasons.
Like any pick 48, the most likely result is they don’t make it

You could argue our situation means we can afford (better than most) to spend time developing a tall kid - if we rate him, that is.


#324

From my perspective I think talls in general carry far greater risk and in particular forwards.

The success rate for picking a smaller player would be far greater and considering we still require depth in small defenders and midfielders that’s where I would be looking. That’s just me though.


#325

Sure. And that’s why clubs are shying away from using top 5 picks on talls, there’s too many Paddy McCartin type failures, not to mention the lead/development time.
But we’re not talking pick 1. The risk in pick 48, in a (reportedly) weakish draft is waaaaaay down. Average game for that pick is 52, according to draftguru.

If I look at it as a risk benefit analysis, if there’s someone there who we rate top 20, it’s a no brainer.


#326

No player will be kept on a list for that if they haven’t cracked it for a senior game, that would make them some sort of record breaker for list clogging.


#327

That was why I didn’t think we would look at somebody like him.

Clubs turnover lists so fast these days and as Morgan showed this year, two years on a list is a long time without getting games.

For us to draft a forward we would want to be sure he could compete within the next two years.

We have a deep list of tall and medium forwards already. And they are all talented.


#328

Because of the depth and quality we have in the forward line at present, l would allow an extra, third year, before l would be expecting a young player to start producing and being ready to move into the starting senior line up. Given that, things could change quickly due to injuries.


#329

The decision may not be with us though. Players want to know that they are in the plans of the clubs before being drafted.

If he wasn’t going to be picked up at all then I’m sure he wouldn’t mind working for a role, but if the opportunity to go to a club with far less depth were there then I’m sure that’s what he would prefer.

List management decisions aren’t so short sighted that it’s all about the club. We would need to weigh up whether we could give him opportunities.

We currently have Joe, Hooker, Stewart, Laverde, Begley, Langford, Stringer and Smack as medium/tall forwards and also Francis and Lavender if required.

I just see that as plenty of quality and depth and mostly young.


#330

I don’t understand you guys.

Is there a need next year for a KP forward? No. Could there be in a couple of years. Yes.

Is a 193cm player a KP? Depends. (And I bet if he is 193 now he’ll have magically “grown” to 195 by the time he’s playing seniors. Plenty of 191 guys who are now “195”.)

If we rate him as the best available prospect at our pick I don’t think we’re so stocked for quality young talls that we should not take him in that basis. If he can run and take a grab he could play anywhere. Intercept marking hb? Sure. Mobile wing? Why not?

Now I know nothing about Tom McCartin, but i reckon a KP is on our thoughts somewhere. It sounds like he’s no hope of making it to 48 anyway, but if he did we wouldn’t be taking him as some sort of “list clogger”, we’d be taking him because of those available we liked his chances of becoming something worthwhile the best.


#331

You do know that the more people post about a player the less likely Jackets will pick him?
Especially with the special of Pick 48 to work with.
Just by discussing this guy at length he’s been kyboshed.

More likely are those with the unusual, weird or wonderful names as mentioned earlier.
Jackets seems to have a predilection there; Hooker, Orazio, Mutch.


#332

We were trying to get Schache, a developing kpf will be part of clubs strategy in draft IMO

The question will be though is anyone worthwhile left at 48, and also that 2018 draft meant to be stacked for talls.


#333

I don’t get this thinking. Is there any role in the side where a 18 year old player wouldn’t be 4th or 5th in line to get a role? And the assumption appears to be that everyone in front of him will still be there. If a player comes into the system and performs, then between injuries and form there will be opportunities.

Look at our small depth. We’ve taken a tonne of smalls across the last 4 drafts, and the only under 23 tall we’ve taken is Francis. Why focus on how a tall draftee will get a game, and ignore smalls? Hell, across the midfield and forward line we’ve got Mutch, Langford, Begley, Laverde, Clarke who all want game time. Ridley, Redman, Dea down back. Hell, Morgan just left because there wasn’t enough opportunity. At least with a tall, especially one who is draftable by 2 days and doing their VCE next year, they probably won’t expect to play for the next two years anyway!

On a different note, talls are probably our most important vacancy other than lock down defender. Hurley and Hooker are neither spring chickens, and along with JD the three pillars of our spine. Although we have plenty of other talls (Stewart, Ambrose, Brown, Hartley + rucks), they are all decent to good. None are in the calibre to replace Hurley and Hooker. Francis might be, but he also might bugger off to SA next year as well, or never have the engine. Getting some talls in is actually pretty important, and if one we rate falls to #48 we should jump at it.


#334

So you think this kid is of the caliber to replace half the talls on our list?

Again I need to ask how you think he will slide to pick 48.

As I pointed out you have a far higher rate of success if you pick a small. Seems pretty logical to me.


#335

You have a far higher rate of success at any pick with a small. Doesn’t mean you don’t draft Michael Hurley when you could draft Daniel Rich.

And we have many times said “if we rate”. It’s not even about McCartin, but any tall at this point. It might be Ben Miller, or whoever else. If we rate him. You are aware of where we drafted Hooker right? You don’t get these guys out of thin air, you have to draft them somewhere.


#336

Yeah, that’s fine, it’s just my opinion.

I personally think we need to continue to add depth in small.

For every Hooker there are many failures.

If Dodoro were to select him then I definitely would back in his judgement. He has proven that he has a great eye for tall players.


#337

I think most would agree with this as an overall strategy. I just don’t think 1 out of ~7 additions constitutes a big departure from that.

And when we’ve taken talls with late picks recently, it’s been pretty positive hit rate: Draper, Hartley & Mitch Brown, Gach Nyuon (OK…), SMack, Fraser Thurlow and Sean Gregory (see G Nyuon), Ambrose, Cramers, Luke Davis (yeah…), Josh Jenkins.

Ignoring Draper as too soon to judge, that’s 10 picks, for 6 guys who’ve had handy careers. And the earliest pick used for that lot is 54. Likewise, cheap trades for talls (Leunie, Stewart) have been fruitful.
I know next to nothing about this draft pool, but going talls late and cheap has been a very successful strategy for us.


#338

I wouldn’t have counted Luke Davis as a tall.


#339

I thought we drafted him to be a rebounding third tall but honestly all I remember is @saladin having a big ole boner for him.


#340

Not a KAV!!!-sized boner. That was like a rogue elephant.


#341

That was indecent.