time for draft talk

[kingy0701]

Another player we may be interested in is Jon Thompson a 6'4 CHB 91 KG. Aged 18. Plays CHB in SAFL very agile. Been in the best in the seniors 7 times this season already. Also very quick and can play on smalls as well as talls. His leap is also one of the best in the SAFL. Ready to play next year. And probably will go around picks 7-12.

The other thing is he wants to play in Victoria next season.

Does anyone know more about this guy (his club/draft camp/state screening)?

If we pick up Trengove first round, running type players in the second and third rounds (possibly fourth),
could we snare ourselves a bargin with a quality key position defender later on.

[LTN16]

Another player we may be interested in is Jon Thompson a 6'4 CHB 91 KG. Aged 18. Plays CHB in SAFL very agile. Been in the best in the seniors 7 times this season already. Also very quick and can play on smalls as well as talls. His leap is also one of the best in the SAFL. Ready to play next year. And probably will go around picks 7-12.

The other thing is he wants to play in Victoria next season.

Does anyone know more about this guy (his club/draft camp/state screening)?

If we pick up Trengove first round, running type players in the second and third rounds (possibly fourth),
could we snare ourselves a bargin with a quality key position defender later on.

Which SANFL Club doe's this Jon Thompson bloke play for ??

[Saints94]

I don't know about you's but theres this kid called Hynes he played for Victoria in that Telstra Dome match he really tall and can kick goals

[SaintBot]

Another player we may be interested in is Jon Thompson a 6'4 CHB 91 KG. Aged 18. Plays CHB in SAFL very agile. Been in the best in the seniors 7 times this season already. Also very quick and can play on smalls as well as talls. His leap is also one of the best in the SAFL. Ready to play next year. And probably will go around picks 7-12.

The other thing is he wants to play in Victoria next season.

Does anyone know more about this guy (his club/draft camp/state screening)?

If we pick up Trengove first round, running type players in the second and third rounds (possibly fourth),
could we snare ourselves a bargin with a quality key position defender later on.

Which SANFL Club doe's this Jon Thompson bloke play for ??

Have heard along the grapevine we have a very very close eye on two SANFL boys. One kicks a few goals. The other a tall stopper. I have no names - would be interesting if Thompson is the later.

[Art Vandelay]

I heard an interesting discussion on 3AW over the weekend invloving Greg Miller. They were discussing recruiting strategies, and in particular the strategy of recruiting the "best player available" rather than recruiting to fill gaps. Miller made sense (I know, I can't believe I am saying this either) in that he said recruiting to fill gaps on your list was fraught with danger and used Melbourne as an example. He said that under Neill Daniher, Melbourne went down the path of recruiting tall KPP type players which has backfired because most of them haven't turned out to be that good. As a result they have missed out on picking up quality kids and now their list is very weak. At least by recruiting the best player availabe, you can always trade them later on to fill specific needs.
My point is....yes, we definately need some more midfielders, BUT, we need to ensure that we pick the BEST AVAILABLE player. He may not be the "type" of player we require, but at least we can trade them later on for another player that fills a specific need.

[saintsRrising]

I heard an interesting discussion on 3AW over the weekend involving Greg Miller. They were discussing recruiting strategies, and in particular the strategy of recruiting the "best player available" rather than recruiting to fill gaps. Miller made sense (I know, I can't believe I am saying this either) in that he said recruiting to fill gaps on your list was fraught with danger and used Melbourne as an example. He said that under Neill Daniher, Melbourne went down the path of recruiting tall KPP type players which has backfired because most of them haven't turned out to be that good. As a result they have missed out on picking up quality kids and now their list is very weak. At least by recruiting the best player available, you can always trade them later on to fill specific needs.
My point is....yes, we definitely need some more midfielders, BUT, we need to ensure that we pick the BEST AVAILABLE player. He may not be the "type" of player we require, but at least we can trade them later on for another player that fills a specific need.

Why not use the Cats as an example?

Last draft they knew Egan was in doubt and so took the older Harry Taylor so that they would have another tall option down back.

So has that backfired on them not taking "best available" ?



I think however that best available is definitely the way to go for the top 4 to 8-sh picks depending on the talent available in any given year. But with picks much beyond that balancing your list comes into it as there is often little difference in the players.

ie Pick 2 vs pick 6 there is often a marked difference.

But pick 1o vs pick 18......often it is marginal..and so you are better going off for what you are most short of on your list.

So a if you need a key defender and your pick is pick 14.....and you reckon the best FB still available will not still be their by pick 28....you probably should go for the FB if your need is strong.

[bigcarl]

Iwe need to ensure that we pick the BEST AVAILABLE player. He may not be the "type" of player we require, but at least we can trade them later on for another player that fills a specific need.

agree with that as a general philosophy. draft the best available footballer and trade, if necessary, to fill holes in the list. cannot afford to pass up good footballers.

[saintsRrising]

Iwe need to ensure that we pick the BEST AVAILABLE player. He may not be the "type" of player we require, but at least we can trade them later on for another player that fills a specific need.

agree with that as a general philosophy. draft the best available footballer and trade, if necessary, to fill holes in the list. cannot afford to pass up good footballers.

So say in the next draft we have Pick 14.

Our pick comes up....and the way you rank the players on best available your next three choices are:

* half back flanker
* midfield
* full back key defender

So we go with the half back flanker because he is best availalble?


er no thanks..I will take the full back.

[bigcarl]

Iwe need to ensure that we pick the BEST AVAILABLE player. He may not be the "type" of player we require, but at least we can trade them later on for another player that fills a specific need.

agree with that as a general philosophy. draft the best available footballer and trade, if necessary, to fill holes in the list. cannot afford to pass up good footballers.

So say in the next draft we have Pick 14.

Our pick comes up....and the way you rank the players on best available your next three choices are:

* half back flanker
* midfield
* full back key defender

So we go with the half back flanker because he is best availalble?


er no thanks..I will take the full back.

each to his own. i'd prefer to grab the best talent available and shuffle what you have around. you can always find a spot for a good player and often they are much more versatile than you would think.

cannot afford to pass up good players.

[saintsRrising]

each to his own. i'd prefer to grab the best talent available and shuffle what you have around. you can always find a spot for a good player and often they are much more versatile than you would think.

My point is that at say pick 14...is that there is no real difference in ranking.....pick 16 might as well be 14..

But at say pick 4......it is prbably quite clear who is 3, 4 and 5.


At 14...you don't take a FB even if you want one.....if you think the next dozen players are not all full backs.

Going into a draft....you will not want all of the one playing type...
You will have saya shopping list of various types....


With your very first pick if you are inside the first 10 I would lean to just taking best available...but above that I would always lean to my shopping list as I believe that players are probaly realistically ranked in bands rather than ina pure number order.

That is.

You rank say the best TopTten in the draft in number order...but after that you probably have bands of players who are about the same ability (even though they will be different player types.

So you might have something like this in ability order:

Top 10..ranked 1 to 10.

Pool A: players 11 to 18..ranked equally

Pool B: players 19 to 26

Pool C : players 26 to 40

Pool D: players 41 to 50

Pool E players 51 to 65

Pool F players 66 to 79

After that you get into say all players left that you would only take as a rookie selection.

Within the pools each player is ranked equally...but each pool is ranked weaker. The pools can be of any size..all that matters is that yourank the players equally.

When each Pick comes up...you have your shopping list of required player types (apart from top 10 selection) where you simply take your most needed player type from that pool.
If your most needed player type is not availble in that pool...you then move to your next most required player type and take it from the pool.









I see little point in entering a draft and taking every pick on a so called best available criterion when in reality with later selections you cannot be that precise and where if you leave it to such a random process you could gain players of types that you may have little need for.

[n1ck]

Oracle: Have you heard anything about Matt Welburn from WA??

[bigcarl]

each to his own. i'd prefer to grab the best talent available and shuffle what you have around. you can always find a spot for a good player and often they are much more versatile than you would think.

My point is that at say pick 14...is that there is no real difference in ranking.....pick 16 might as well be 14..

But at say pick 4......it is prbably quite clear who is 3, 4 and 5.


At 14...you don't takea FB even if you want one.....if you think the next dozen players are not all full backs.

Going intoa draft....you will not wnat all of the one playing type...
You will have saya shopping list of various types....


With your very first pick if you are inside the first 10 I would lean to just taking best available...but above that I would always lean to my shopping list as I believe that players are probaly realistically ranked in bands rather than ina pure number order.

That is.

You rank say the best Top ten in the draft in number order...but after that you probably have bands of players who are about the same ability (even though they will be different player types.

So you might have something like this in ability order:

Top 10..ranked 1 to 10.

Pool A: players 11 to 18..ranked equally

Pool B: players 19 to 26

Pool C : players 26 to 40

Pool D: players 41 to 50

Pool E players 51 to 65

Pool F players 66 to 79

After that you get into say all players left that you would only take as a rookie selection.

Within the pools each player is ranked equally...but each pool is ranked weeker.

When each Pick comes up...you have your shopping list of required player types (apart from top 10 selection) where you simply take your most needed player type from that pool.
If your most needed player type is not availble in that pool...you then move to your next most required player type and take it from the pool.

I see little point in entering a draft and taking every pick on a so called best available criterion when in reality with later selections you cannot be that precise and where if you leave it to such a random process you could gain players of types that you may have little need for.

i can see what you're saying.

the danger is in taking a player at 14, who in reality is the 26th most talented player available (a trap that clubs have fallen into before) simply because he fits a certain "type".

also i don't think it is an exact enough science to be able to say, "this kid will be max's replacement at full back".

it takes them a couple of years to come through, for a start, and by that time the entire landscape might have changed.

fwiw, i think gilbert can replace max down the track. has all the attributes. good closing speed, good mark, long arms. needs to work on his upper body strength a bit before we lose max.

[saintsRrising]

Oracle: Have you heard anything about Matt Welburn from WA??

I don't think that The Oracale
has posted for a while (July???)...so you might want to PM him the question.

[saintsRrising]

i can see what you're saying.

the danger is in taking a player at 14, who in reality is the 26th most talented player available (a trap that clubs have fallen into before) simply because he fits a certain "type".

also i don't think it is an exact enough science to be able to say, "this kid will be max's replacement at full back".

.

Which is why..even though if your next ranked need is a FB..if there is not one in that pool...that you do not take him..and instead take from the pool your next most ranked need that is in the pool.


Rembr too that your "pool" rankings will be different from other clubs...and so when say our pick 44 comes up...there might say be only one player left from your highest remaining pool...so you take him.

[bigcarl]

i can see what you're saying.

the danger is in taking a player at 14, who in reality is the 26th most talented player available (a trap that clubs have fallen into before) simply because he fits a certain "type".

also i don't think it is an exact enough science to be able to say, "this kid will be max's replacement at full back".

.

Which is why..even though if your next ranked need is a FB..if there is not one in that pool...that you do not take him..and instead take from the pool your next most ranked need that is in the pool.


Rembr too that your "pool" rankings will be different from other clubs...and so when say our pick 44 comes up...there might say be only one player left from your highest remaining pool...so you take him.

too scientific for me.

just get a kid who looks like he's going to be a player, regardless of "type".

let's face it, you always find a place for a very good player

[Legendary]

The other point is that unless you have a pick in the top 5-6, there is never normally a standout, obvious choice.

So the very nature of the draft gives you a lot of flexibiity with needs vs. best available.

If you rate a key defender and a back flanker equally ... then obviously you go for the key defender to fill need.