Picks 21 and 22 options

[saintsRrising]

Actually just watched the Cockatoo highlights reel, and whilst factoring in that it's a highlights package, if the kid can get the ball 20 times a game and show that evasiveness, vision and pace, then I'm sold. Backs himself instinctively to beat them with pace and looks for options the second he gets possession. He looks to me like he is quick thinking, as well as being fleet of foot, and that is very much the difference between blokes that seem to have time when they have the ball, against blokes that always seem rushed.

Problem is that you would not use 1 on him, and would doubt that he is there at 21.

[Con Gorozidis]

Actually just watched the Cockatoo highlights reel, and whilst factoring in that it's a highlights package, if the kid can get the ball 20 times a game and show that evasiveness, vision and pace, then I'm sold. Backs himself instinctively to beat them with pace and looks for options the second he gets possession. He looks to me like he is quick thinking, as well as being fleet of foot, and that is very much the difference between blokes that seem to have time when they have the ball, against blokes that always seem rushed.

Problem is that you would not use 1 on him, and would doubt that he is there at 21.

Yep - it seems like long-shot for us to get him.
Draft can be weird. Lets say most clubs have him ranked at 20. A few clubs have him at 10 but they way the draft falls those clubs manage to get a player that they ranked 8th or 9th fall to them in the teens and therefore he slips down to 21.
Low odds though.

I guess overall predicting who we will get at 20 and 21 is is very hard no matter what. Lets assume there are 20 blokes who could go anwywhere between 10 and 30. we have a 2/20 or 10% chance of getting it right. Nakers probably fits in there some where.

So no real point getting excited about any player in the draft after the top 5 - because it becomes a raffle after that.

[bergholt]

Any thoughts/ preferences according to Emma's list ?

Based purely on what she says - because I don't know heaps about any of them. You'd reckon everyone down to about 16 is out of the question for us. That leaves two from these 14: Langford, Ellis, Weller, Neal-Bullen, Viojo-Rainbow, Smith, Goddard, Dawson, Garlett, Menadue, Marchbank, Vickers-Willis, Blakely, Maynard.

I reckon we should only take true midfielders so that rules out 5: Langford, Smith, Goddard, Marchbank and Vickers-Willis. Also probably not pure inside players so that seems to rule out: Neal-Bullen, Blakely, Maynard. So now we're picking from six:

Ellis (184/72, Western Jets): "discipline, reliability and calmness", "make the most of almost every chance", "very good, in almost every area".
Weller (182/77, Southport): "does most things well", "kicks the ball nicely", "professional", "will adapt to an AFL environment easily".
Viojo-Rainbow (184/82, Western Jets): "courage", "you could watch this guy kick left-footers all day long".
Dawson (189/83, Aspley): "inventive", "willing to move with the ball", "speed, versatility and doesn't wait around for things to happen".
Garlett (180/69, South Fremantle): "speed machine with endurance to match", "huge work ethic and a lot of drive".
Menadue (187/69, Western Jets): "skinny", "super quick", "can take marks through the midfield", "huge scope".

Looks to me like those guys are roughly in order of how badly we'd want them. The first three are good kicks so they'd be no-brainers if they're still there. The last three are a bit more uncertain - sounds like they've got pace which is also good. One from group one and one from group two would be favourite - say Viojo-Rainbow and Menadue? But any of them could be good really.

[Megamaguire]

Bergholt suggested the 6 below as being the group we should or most likely will pick from on the day .

I tend to agree reg: drafting 2 midfielders @ 21 & 22. along with a widely regarded genuine MID talent @ pick 1 as it gives us a better chance of building the vital midfield that we will need to progress.

Assuming it is Petracca with our 1st. pick that would make 3 genuine mids. I'd assume the recruiters would desire a speedy option as one of the 3 ? but a sliding backman may tempt as well. Plenty of permutations (eg) with Bruce to be tried up fwd and Wright on a wing. At the same time I wouldn't be surprised if the recruiters were uneasy at going for 3 MIDs (incl.Petra) and given a mid thet felt confident about @ 21 then pick a good rated tall (if available) @ 22.
After all the work and build up over the season it will be fascinating.

What a job !!


Ellis (184/72, Western Jets): "discipline, reliability and calmness", "make the most of almost every chance", "very good, in almost every area".
Weller (182/77, Southport): "does most things well", "kicks the ball nicely", "professional", "will adapt to an AFL environment easily".
Viojo-Rainbow (184/82, Western Jets): "courage", "you could watch this guy kick left-footers all day long".
Dawson (189/83, Aspley): "inventive", "willing to move with the ball", "speed, versatility and doesn't wait around for things to happen".
Garlett (180/69, South Fremantle): "speed machine with endurance to match", "huge work ethic and a lot of drive".
Menadue (187/69, Western Jets): "skinny", "super quick", "can take marks through the midfield", "huge scope".

G O S A I N T S!

[Con Gorozidis]

Not a bad piece of deduction work there berg.

we might then pick up a taller kid at 41.

[Zed]

Actually just watched the Cockatoo highlights reel, and whilst factoring in that it's a highlights package, if the kid can get the ball 20 times a game and show that evasiveness, vision and pace, then I'm sold. Backs himself instinctively to beat them with pace and looks for options the second he gets possession. He looks to me like he is quick thinking, as well as being fleet of foot, and that is very much the difference between blokes that seem to have time when they have the ball, against blokes that always seem rushed.

Problem is that you would not use 1 on him, and would doubt that he is there at 21.

Yep - it seems like long-shot for us to get him.
Draft can be weird. Lets say most clubs have him ranked at 20. A few clubs have him at 10 but they way the draft falls those clubs manage to get a player that they ranked 8th or 9th fall to them in the teens and therefore he slips down to 21.
Low odds though.

I guess overall predicting who we will get at 20 and 21 is is very hard no matter what. Lets assume there are 20 blokes who could go anwywhere between 10 and 30. we have a 2/20 or 10% chance of getting it right. Nakers probably fits in there some where.

So no real point getting excited about any player in the draft after the top 5 - because it becomes a raffle after that.

some years it appears that most recruiters agree on what the top 10 maybe 20 will look like. This year it sounds like they cant even agree on much past pick 5 or so, with picks 5 - 30 a bit of a toss up as to where they will land (with the exception of those zone or FS selections already made).

I reckon the success of Bontempelli last year will embolden some club to give up what might be perceived as slightly overs on the hope that Nakers will blossom in an AFL environment. I don't think he will be available at 21, but I do think that whoever we pick will be touted as a slider who should have gone top 10

[kosifantutti]

Viojo-Rainbow.

I don't know where he's from.
I don't know where he plays.
I haven't seen his highlight reel.
I don't know what he looks like.

But you can't go past a bloke called Viojo-Rainbow.

[stinger]

elliott sounds okay

Elliott Le Grice (Sandringham, 19, 194cm, 90kg)

Dedicated and disciplined, strong and skilful, the well-regarded former Sandringham Dragon came through as a key defender in his first season with the Zebras.

Sandy named the 2013 Vic Metro representative their best first-year player and he earned a training stint at St Kilda.

[Dave McNamara]

I reckon Lennys highlights wouldn't have been as good as LJ Conners. And im sure if they had a draft camp back then he would have tested very poorly in a few areas. I will take notice of the people who see more than one highlights package.

Hi Pluggs, I do actually largely agree with you re the caution required when assessing 'highlights' packages. Now of course there's way more to look at (like attitude, otherwise the likes of Colin Sylvia would have consistently been stars), but again, here's my logic when looking at footage (for you, and anyone else, to disagree with )...

I look for attributes that could be trasnfered to playing against AFL-sized men. Nakia's already big enough, and will no doubt be able to put on even more muscle if required. He's bloody quick and elusive, has endurance, happy to scrap for a kick...,but as pointed out by TB and others...
it's the balance... and the vision that grabbed my attention.
Nakia looks like he will be able to transfer what he currently does to the AFL big stage. He looks like a footballer.
Also, the super talented bargain sliders tend to be blokes who got injured at the 'wrong time'. (Our Blake A will prove to be one such example.)

Nakia will be a star!

I compare what he shows to that shown by the likes of...
- McKenzie, who despite a considrable size advantage has been unable to perform against better defenders. So how do you think he's likely to go against AFL sized 'better' defenders...?
- Wright is 203cm and 100kg, yet needs to improve his contested marking...? Seriously?
He's already a man mountain, as in, it's not like he still needs to bulk up like say a Lew Peirce, yet Wright struggles to outmark kids??? How do you think he's going to go against AFL size and quality players?
Oh, and apparently he may already have 'back issues'.
- McCartin doesn't take contested marks, has to get them on the lead... and can only play full forward. How do you think he's going to go in the AFL...?

Now all the above three blokes may eventually end up rated as the all-time three greatest in AFL history, however, looking logically, they have very major issues when competeing at junior level, which would make it very unlikely that they will ever be able to dominate at senior AFL level.

Or looking back with the almighty hindsight...
- Kruiser. Not big/strong enough to compete against the big AFL ruckmen, not agile enough to hold down CHF or FF. So where does he actually play? Ok, not a total dud (like Wattshegoodfor), but is it really that surprising that he's not looking any chance to live up to his No 1 draft billing?
- Josh Fraser was somewhat similar. Too small to ruck against the big blokes. Whilst more agile than Krusier, simply not good enough to hold down CHF or FF. So again, is it that surprising he was the worst No 1 pick till Wattshegoodfor came along...?


So IMHO, of course there's no such thing as a draft certainty, but I really reckon that with certain blokes it can be pretty obvious that they will have problems transferring their tricks from the lower/younger levels... onto the AFL big stage.

[Dave McNamara]

I reckon Lennys highlights wouldn't have been as good as LJ Conners. And im sure if they had a draft camp back then he would have tested very poorly in a few areas. I will take notice of the people who see more than one highlights package.

PS: Pluggs, I haven't seen LJ Connor's nor Lenny's junior highlights packages. However, I'd be pretty confident that LJ's would show him doing stuff that required him to have junior sized opponents. There are heaps of blokes touted on here and elsewhere whose highlights look great, but they don't inspire confidence that their tricks could be repeated against AFL opponents.

Lenny, who knows(?), but I wouldn't be surprised if he showed traits (like vision?) that showed that he'd be able to step up to AFL level.

PPS: I knew you'd like the Birchell assessment, Pluggs. And I stand by it.
Put a good marking forward on him to actually make him accountable, and lets see how he goes.
His type are very, very exploitable.

[Con Gorozidis]

I reckon Lennys highlights wouldn't have been as good as LJ Conners. And im sure if they had a draft camp back then he would have tested very poorly in a few areas. I will take notice of the people who see more than one highlights package.

Except that Lenny went pick 11 and Elijay 70.

So Lenny's highlights would have been miles better than Elijays. Hence he got picked up at 11 - which is light years ahead of 70.

They also have better video technology nowadays. So I think Lenny's highlights would have been outstanding and exciting if he was 17yo now.

Its not just about highlights alone or test results alone.. Clearly Nakers looks like he can play footy and clearly he has the athletic tools.

[stinger]

I reckon Lennys highlights wouldn't have been as good as LJ Conners. And im sure if they had a draft camp back then he would have tested very poorly in a few areas. I will take notice of the people who see more than one highlights package.

Except that Lenny went pick 11 and Elijay 70.

So Lenny's highlights would have been miles better than Elijays. Hence he got picked up at 11 - which is light years ahead of 70.

They also have better video technology nowadays. So I think Lenny's highlights would have been outstanding and exciting if he was 17yo now.

Its not just about highlights alone or test results alone.. Clearly Nakers looks like he can play footy and clearly he has the athletic tools.

i don't know why you bother conversing with posters who talk utter garbage.......lenny was a standout as a junior....a morrish medal winner ffs.....

...from wikipedia....


"Hayes grew up in suburban Sydney and began playing junior football with Pennant Hills in the Sydney AFL.

In 1998, Hayes was a standout player for NSW/ACT in the representative TAC Cup, taking out the Morrish Medal as the best player in the competition.
Hayes sporting his famous No. 7 jumper

Hayes debuted the following year in the AFL. Although he started well, he improved throughout the year, earning an AFL Rising Star nomination in the final round of the season (R22)."

[Jimmy O'Dea]

Emma Quayle's latest

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/2 ... 1nfn5.html

Take 2
According to this ---- Things are changing - looks like Cackatoo is now out of our scope - but Goddard - who people where well up for is now in our range..... Fun times

Goddard's performaces this year have been very very ordinary (being kind here), I just laugh how they try and justify pushing him forward by claiming he was OK when moved into defence. Sure he has good size but on performances alone he should be nowhere near top 30. Can't wait to see how he stands up against big bodies at state level let alone AFL.

[bergholt]

i don't know why you bother conversing with posters who talk utter garbage.......lenny was a standout as a junior....a morrish medal winner ffs.....

The Morrish means nothing. Have a look at how many Morrish winners went on to be stars:

https://www.draftguru.com.au/awards/morrish-medal

The year before Lenny it was Derek Murray. The year after it was Matthew Stolarczyk. Where are they now?

[stinger]

i don't know why you bother conversing with posters who talk utter garbage.......lenny was a standout as a junior....a morrish medal winner ffs.....

The Morrish means nothing. Have a look at how many Morrish winners went on to be stars:

https://www.draftguru.com.au/awards/morrish-medal

The year before Lenny it was Derek Murray. The year after it was Matthew Stolarczyk. Where are they now?

i'm talking about highlight packages ffs.....not an entry in "where are they now..."..


if he was good enough in that year to attract enough votes to win the morrish medal ...where he actually had a stand out year...i'd say his highlights package may have been a tad better than connors....


and that was the whole point of my post......someone was talking crap..... :roll:and i was pointing that out to con...not you

[Con Gorozidis]

The Morrish means nothing. Have a look at how many Morrish winners went on to be stars:

https://www.draftguru.com.au/awards/morrish-medal

The year before Lenny it was Derek Murray. The year after it was Matthew Stolarczyk. Where are they now?

How did Lenny win it? Wasnt he from Pennant Hills (Spike McVeigh country)?
Did we recruit him under age or did his parents drive him down every week? Or did NSW have a team or something back then?

Some great names. Gary Moorcroft. Always remembered for that mark.

And what every happened to Fortunato Caruso? Never heard of him until now.

[stinger]

The Morrish means nothing. Have a look at how many Morrish winners went on to be stars:

https://www.draftguru.com.au/awards/morrish-medal

The year before Lenny it was Derek Murray. The year after it was Matthew Stolarczyk. Where are they now?

How did Lenny win it? Wasnt he from Pennant Hills (Spike McVeigh country)?
Did we recruit him under age or did his parents drive him down every week? Or did NSW have a team or something back then?

Some great names. Gary Moorcroft. Always remembered for that mark.

And what every happened to Fortunato Caruso? Never heard of him until now.

actrams.....played in the under 18's competition....fantastic side...lenny was captain.....

[bergholt]

and that was the whole point of my post......someone was talking crap..... :roll:and i was pointing that out to con...not you

Touchy!

[plugger66]

I reckon Lennys highlights wouldn't have been as good as LJ Conners. And im sure if they had a draft camp back then he would have tested very poorly in a few areas. I will take notice of the people who see more than one highlights package.

Except that Lenny went pick 11 and Elijay 70.

So Lenny's highlights would have been miles better than Elijays. Hence he got picked up at 11 - which is light years ahead of 70.

They also have better video technology nowadays. So I think Lenny's highlights would have been outstanding and exciting if he was 17yo now.

Its not just about highlights alone or test results alone.. Clearly Nakers looks like he can play footy and clearly he has the athletic tools.

I don't think you get it at all Con. He went 11 because people had seen him play and didn't just look at highlights. If they did he wouldn't have gone 11 and the types of you who are sucked in by highlights would have been appalled at the decision to take him. He couldn't mark, he was slow, he didn't kick goals. All it would show is great tackling, great baulking and a very good kick. EL video would show a good kick with great pace and could kick a goal. It would also show he was no good over head. What highlights videos don't show is what is in their heart and brain and more also their lowlights. Highlights videos are very overrated. Luckily recruiters see more than highlights videos.

[plugger66]

I reckon Lennys highlights wouldn't have been as good as LJ Conners. And im sure if they had a draft camp back then he would have tested very poorly in a few areas. I will take notice of the people who see more than one highlights package.

PS: Pluggs, I haven't seen LJ Connor's nor Lenny's junior highlights packages. However, I'd be pretty confident that LJ's would show him doing stuff that required him to have junior sized opponents. There are heaps of blokes touted on here and elsewhere whose highlights look great, but they don't inspire confidence that their tricks could be repeated against AFL opponents.

Lenny, who knows(?), but I wouldn't be surprised if he showed traits (like vision?) that showed that he'd be able to step up to AFL level.

PPS: I knew you'd like the Birchell assessment, Pluggs. And I stand by it.
Put a good marking forward on him to actually make him accountable, and lets see how he goes.
His type are very, very exploitable.

Wow. That is an innovation. Put some on Brichall to make him accountable. No other coach would have tried that.

[plugger66]

i don't know why you bother conversing with posters who talk utter garbage.......lenny was a standout as a junior....a morrish medal winner ffs.....

The Morrish means nothing. Have a look at how many Morrish winners went on to be stars:

https://www.draftguru.com.au/awards/morrish-medal

The year before Lenny it was Derek Murray. The year after it was Matthew Stolarczyk. Where are they now?

i'm talking about highlight packages ffs.....not an entry in "where are they now..."..


if he was good enough in that year to attract enough votes to win the morrish medal ...where he actually had a stand out year...i'd say his highlights package may have been a tad better than connors....


and that was the whole point of my post......someone was talking crap..... :roll:and i was pointing that out to con...not you

Stinger you just don't get it at all. Its highlights. It doesn't show the whole year. It may show 2 minutes of 20 games. Its like talking to a pot plant. And its complete hindsight to mention Morrish Medal. Its a weak argument. If we recruited another morrish medal winner the likes of you would be pointing out all the failures if the guy we recruited didn't make it and you would be telling us the morrish medal guarantees nothing. I don't even get your standout year thing. That's a given. So did Caruso. Who is that you ask. Yep that's my point.

[stinger]

and that was the whole point of my post......someone was talking crap..... :roll:and i was pointing that out to con...not you

Touchy!

[Hallalj#3]

I reckon Lennys highlights wouldn't have been as good as LJ Conners. And im sure if they had a draft camp back then he would have tested very poorly in a few areas. I will take notice of the people who see more than one highlights package.

Except that Lenny went pick 11 and Elijay 70.

So Lenny's highlights would have been miles better than Elijays. Hence he got picked up at 11 - which is light years ahead of 70.

They also have better video technology nowadays. So I think Lenny's highlights would have been outstanding and exciting if he was 17yo now.

Its not just about highlights alone or test results alone.. Clearly Nakers looks like he can play footy and clearly he has the athletic tools.

I don't think you get it at all Con. He went 11 because people had seen him play and didn't just look at highlights. If they did he wouldn't have gone 11 and the types of you who are sucked in by highlights would have been appalled at the decision to take him. He couldn't mark, he was slow, he didn't kick goals. All it would show is great tackling, great baulking and a very good kick. EL video would show a good kick with great pace and could kick a goal. It would also show he was no good over head. What highlights videos don't show is what is in their heart and brain and more also their lowlights. Highlights videos are very overrated. Luckily recruiters see more than highlights videos.

I remember having the same discussion with you last yr about highlight packages..
I wanted Lewis Taylor last yr on the back of his package and he played exactly the same way throughout the yr..

Judging a player on their highlights package is a positive if you just know what your looking for.. I always look for decision making.. That's my number 1 thing..

That's why Corey Ellis if available is a must and I'd also take Daniel Mckenzie on the back of his highlight package.. Both showed they make really good decisions..

[Con Gorozidis]

I reckon Lennys highlights wouldn't have been as good as LJ Conners. And im sure if they had a draft camp back then he would have tested very poorly in a few areas. I will take notice of the people who see more than one highlights package.

Except that Lenny went pick 11 and Elijay 70.

So Lenny's highlights would have been miles better than Elijays. Hence he got picked up at 11 - which is light years ahead of 70.

They also have better video technology nowadays. So I think Lenny's highlights would have been outstanding and exciting if he was 17yo now.

Its not just about highlights alone or test results alone.. Clearly Nakers looks like he can play footy and clearly he has the athletic tools.

I don't think you get it at all Con. He went 11 because people had seen him play and didn't just look at highlights. If they did he wouldn't have gone 11 and the types of you who are sucked in by highlights would have been appalled at the decision to take him. He couldn't mark, he was slow, he didn't kick goals. All it would show is great tackling, great baulking and a very good kick. EL video would show a good kick with great pace and could kick a goal. It would also show he was no good over head. What highlights videos don't show is what is in their heart and brain and more also their lowlights. Highlights videos are very overrated. Luckily recruiters see more than highlights videos.

No I dont think you get it.
Lenny would have good highlights. Better than Elijay. Because he was a much better player. A professional recruiter would be able to tell that Lenny was a better player than Elijay from looking at vision because they know what they are looking for.Its also not rocket science (despite what they sometimes try to make out).

Noone has said we should only pick anyone just on highlights. So dont create a strawman out of that.
But lenny still would have had good highlights. Noone is suggesting we would have picked him on highlights alone - but reality is he would have had good highlights cos he was a good player and dominated in his age group (Morrish medalist).

I would also suggest recruiters would need to rely on video footage to some extent in a national comp. They cant go to every game everywhere. If they only chose on live games alone - it would result in massive biases towards local players and a rubbish list. Any side who did that would be no good.

Id say the recruiters would have only seen Acres play live only once or twice if it all before we picked him top 20 given he lived in perth and was injured most of the year.

But either way - Lenny still would have had better highlights than Elijay.

I also understand the Eagles and Norf are interested in Nakia - so maybe call them up and tell them they are idiots.

[Con Gorozidis]

As usual p-66 'gets it' and is 'right' and everyone else are idiots.

Is this how you feel?