 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
St K are looking at Petracca apparently. Roo nearly dead and nothing of note in the tall forward cupboard. Maybe passing up a choice of the two standout talls to get a gun midfielder
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
 |
Stupied
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Defender wrote: | | Stupied wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Stupied wrote: | | inxs88 wrote: | | That's great but can you see Witts, White and Cloke in the forward line at any stage??? |
I don't see how that's relevant. Tall forwards typically take 2-3 years of development before playing consistent senior football. Given that Cloke is turning 27 and White is on a 3 year(?) deal, both will be nearing the end of their time at the pies when Moore and Wright will be due to start playing senior footy. Now is the time to be investing in our future forwards given Cloke's age and question marks over Reid's durability.
Even if Cloke plays in to his 30's (he has been remarkably durable), Moore is very capable at both ends of the ground. We would be negligent from a list management perspective to overlook a top 5 KPF prospect if we had access to him, just because we couldn't fit him in as best 22 from day dot. |
Put it this way, if a quality tall is available, you take em. If you have someone else in their position, the challenge is to the kid, force yourself in and take their role. To succession plan you need to have options. |
Absolutely correct. Quality mids are a hell of a lot easier to come by than quality tall forwards. If we had the opportunity to get both Moore and Wright in the same draft and threw it away for a midfielder I'd be stunned. |
You only need 2 quality KFs though, the more gun mids the better, and that is why Laverde is perfect, he's a utility with the ability to play in the midfield (in time), he can cut his teeth in the seniors in lesser positions and be of value while he matures.
We've invested heavily in out talls over the last few years, our first 2 picks over 2 of the last 3 drafts has been spent on 200cm players, add them to Cloke-Reid-Brown-Witts-Keefe-Frost-Gault-White-Marsh and it's clear we have enough tall timber, what we need now is polish. |
We have one quality KPF in development. Wright would make it two. Gault is not quality. |
|
|
|
|
Stupied
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Breadcrawl wrote: | | St K are looking at Petracca apparently. Roo nearly dead and nothing of note in the tall forward cupboard. Maybe passing up a choice of the two standout talls to get a gun midfielder |
StKildas poor recruiting is of no concern to me. |
|
|
|
|
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Stupied wrote: |
We have one quality KPF in development. Wright would make it two. Gault is not quality. |
I'd class Witts and Grundy as KPF in development. As they progress one may well display a greater capacity for the role, and play there more.
So we put three years into a rookie, blood him against the eventual premiers in the last game, see him acquit himself manfully and then ditch him for a teenager?
Unfortunately if we did take Wright I fear you could put a line through Gault. Seems a strange time in his career to do it.
P.S. Happy 22nd birthday Corey 
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^Let's put it another way: would you pass on drafting a potential star tall forward, even if only a teenager, because we have Gault? I just don't think that makes sense. Limiting yourself to only drafting certain types is just crazy unless the situation is extreme. If there are list balance issues down the track you simply deal with them at the trade table.
_________________
Well done boys!
Last edited by AN_Inkling on Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Rexy17
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Location: Ballarat
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Breadcrawl wrote: | | Stupied wrote: |
We have one quality KPF in development. Wright would make it two. Gault is not quality. |
I'd class Witts and Grundy as KPF in development. As they progress one may well display a greater capacity for the role, and play there more.
So we put three years into a rookie, blood him against the eventual premiers in the last game, see him acquit himself manfully and then ditch him for a teenager?
Unfortunately if we did take Wright I fear you could put a line through Gault. Seems a strange time in his career to do it.
P.S. Happy 22nd birthday Corey |
Gault only got a game because there was no one left stand at the end of the season. Happy to keep him on the rookie list, but would not be surprised if he is delisted by months end.
If Wright is still there at pick 5 we take him, upside is huge
_________________
B.U.M.S ROCK...That's Ballarat United Magpies Supporters.....Long trip but even longer hangovers! |
|
|
|
|
Bob Sugar
Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Location: Benalla
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Stupied wrote: | | Defender wrote: | | Stupied wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Stupied wrote: | | inxs88 wrote: | | That's great but can you see Witts, White and Cloke in the forward line at any stage??? |
I don't see how that's relevant. Tall forwards typically take 2-3 years of development before playing consistent senior football. Given that Cloke is turning 27 and White is on a 3 year(?) deal, both will be nearing the end of their time at the pies when Moore and Wright will be due to start playing senior footy. Now is the time to be investing in our future forwards given Cloke's age and question marks over Reid's durability.
Even if Cloke plays in to his 30's (he has been remarkably durable), Moore is very capable at both ends of the ground. We would be negligent from a list management perspective to overlook a top 5 KPF prospect if we had access to him, just because we couldn't fit him in as best 22 from day dot. |
Put it this way, if a quality tall is available, you take em. If you have someone else in their position, the challenge is to the kid, force yourself in and take their role. To succession plan you need to have options. |
Absolutely correct. Quality mids are a hell of a lot easier to come by than quality tall forwards. If we had the opportunity to get both Moore and Wright in the same draft and threw it away for a midfielder I'd be stunned. |
You only need 2 quality KFs though, the more gun mids the better, and that is why Laverde is perfect, he's a utility with the ability to play in the midfield (in time), he can cut his teeth in the seniors in lesser positions and be of value while he matures.
We've invested heavily in out talls over the last few years, our first 2 picks over 2 of the last 3 drafts has been spent on 200cm players, add them to Cloke-Reid-Brown-Witts-Keefe-Frost-Gault-White-Marsh and it's clear we have enough tall timber, what we need now is polish. |
We have one quality KPF in development. Wright would make it two. Gault is not quality. |
Most of our talls are kids really, even Reid hasn't peaked yet IMO, I reckon we get our midfield right (which has been severely weakened since our hey day) and then go to FA when the times right for a quality KF if none of our kids come on.
_________________
Defender...........
On the day before the first, Daicos created God.
You like this. |
|
|
|
|
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't see why you wouldn't just avoid them at the draft table.
It's a lottery. The 'best available' stance assumes that the perceived order of quality is close to the actual order of quality. It like, never is.
Tall players are particularly hard to spot as juniors. Even Reid and Brown who have been good players would not be in the top ten players of that draft. Neither would Scott Gumbleton (pick 2) or Lachlan Hansen (pick 3). Kurt Tippett was 32 and Todd Goldstein was 37. Goldsack was 63 and Justin Westhoff was 71. Jessie White was 79. Mitch Thorp was 6.
Meanwhile Gibbs, Boak, Selwood, Armitage - the mids taken in the top 10 - all solid to elite players.
You couldn't expect Wright to perform better than another guy we could have playing in his stead for at least three years. I think we can challenge before then and I'd like to see us draft a guy who can improve our best 22 in 1-3 years. Like a Laverde, Weller or Pickett
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Okay maybe Reid would be in the top ten.
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Defender wrote: | | Jezza wrote: | Ideally I'd love McCartin but I think Melbourne will either take him at pick 2 or 3. Petracca is certainly going to be the number 1 pick as St.Kilda are very eager on him.
It's likely that Laverde will go to Collingwood unless GWS does something unexpected at pick 4 or Hine decides to go with someone out of the blue at pick 5. I'd be very pleased to take Leverde at pick 5 and I'm set on him now but who knows what may transpire within the next month. |
McCartin could slide out of the top 4 if clubs aren't willing to gamble on his health issues (highly unlikely), from what I've read he's the clear no1 KF on exposed form. |
He's definitely the number one key forward of the draft without question.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
axl13
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I reckon brown and Reid were both top 10 draftees including buddy at 6 |
|
|
|
|
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Buddy was a different draft, but yes Reid and Brown were 8 and 10.
The point is that the top 10 was not the top ten, not by a long shot and the talls were where the errors were made
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
Stupied
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Reid is easily top 10 of his draft year.
This discussion is probably moot anyway. I can't see GWS passing on Wright. He ticks too many boxes for them. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Breadcrawl wrote: | I don't see why you wouldn't just avoid them at the draft table.
It's a lottery. The 'best available' stance assumes that the perceived order of quality is close to the actual order of quality. It like, never is.
Tall players are particularly hard to spot as juniors. Even Reid and Brown who have been good players would not be in the top ten players of that draft. Neither would Scott Gumbleton (pick 2) or Lachlan Hansen (pick 3). Kurt Tippett was 32 and Todd Goldstein was 37. Goldsack was 63 and Justin Westhoff was 71. Jessie White was 79. Mitch Thorp was 6.
Meanwhile Gibbs, Boak, Selwood, Armitage - the mids taken in the top 10 - all solid to elite players.
You couldn't expect Wright to perform better than another guy we could have playing in his stead for at least three years. I think we can challenge before then and I'd like to see us draft a guy who can improve our best 22 in 1-3 years. Like a Laverde, Weller or Pickett |
This is a different argument to passing on players due to perceived squad balance issues. Yes, talls can be more difficult to pick because they do take longer, that doesn't mean you pass on one you think will be a star.
The balance issues you mention come down to: we have Gault as a developing tall forward along with Moore (who may be more likely to play in defense). Not to be unkind but Gault is a marginal prospect. Being able to split our eggs between his basket and say a Wright's is not going to do any violence to our squad balance. If Gault doesn't come on he gets delisted. Without Wright on the list that could leave us short at the position. At the least it would probably force us to play Moore forward and reduce our flexibility. With Wright on the list, we're still good. On the other hand, if Gault does come on as well as Wright, then you keep the best of them and trade the other. The balance argument is not a strong one here, we don't have a major glut of high end talent in the position.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I see the arguments as connected because if we had a need for a tall then I would consider it a necessary risk. Because we have what I see as the opposite of a need (a potential problem) I don't think the risk is justified.
It's all moot anyway coz we ain't making any calls Stup ;D
I hope GWS take Wright at 4 as that should mean we can have Laverde if Hine wants him
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
