Ready Mades Or Young Guns?

[wedge.maverick]

With our picks very late in the draft ,52,55 and 61, should we go for ready made players or have a punt on a possible future gun.The risk with a pick of a young player at 50 plus is that there is a huge chance he will be a dud.
I think we have the depth on our list to have a punt on at least 2 kids and maybe a ready made on the other pick eg. A Podsiadly type.
What do you think?

[BeeEmmAre]

Unless there's someone that Ricky's got hidden away that may slip through the net, I'd use them on young local talent such as Jack, Davies or Addison.
Either that or wait till the pre-season draft - there's rarely a ready made in the national draft that isn't a delistee so we'd be better off going for the uncontracted type who walked out on his club - could Matty Lappin be available??

[wedge.maverick]

It's a year that everyone suggests that it is very shallow however having watched a bit of TAC Cup I believe that there are a number of diamonds in the rough waiting to be drafted.Ricky and the team could still find one yet.

[Charlie]

A mix of both. I'd like to see at least one mature aged tall - not necessarily a recycled player, but someone who has slipped through the net in the past, like Vogels.

The other two picks should be on youngsters - we're allowed one bottom-age player (Schneider was one, Matty Davis another), and we could look for an injured player who missed national championships and draft camp (this is how we got Malceski late in the 2002 draft).

[liz]

Originally posted by BeeEmmAre
Unless there's someone that Ricky's got hidden away that may slip through the net, I'd use them on young local talent such as Jack, Davies or Addison.
Either that or wait till the pre-season draft - there's rarely a ready made in the national draft that isn't a delistee so we'd be better off going for the uncontracted type who walked out on his club - could Matty Lappin be available??

The NSW boys have "rookie list" written all over them.

As the list stands at the moment, there are only 4 spots available - 3 if Vogels is promoted, as most suspect he will be. That could yet change but its hard to see the club rushing to delist more players given the picks it has.

Waiting until the pre-season draft for an uncontracted player doesn't address the issue that the club has to use at least 3 picks in the National Draft. There is little chance of them picking up a quality recycled player in the PSD with pick 16.

The only point of keeping a pick back for the PSD is if they have a handful of possibles that they want to see a little more of up close. In the period between the two drafts they can have outside players training with them, which gives the club a chance to find out a bit more.

I wouldn't be surprised to see one delisted player taken in the ND but I hope the other picks are used as Charlie suggests - very bottom-age players who are a bit of a long-shot but might turn out to be diamonds. Given that most of the draftees from the last two or three years are now close to ready to play AFL footy (at least from a physical development point of view), the resources should be available to work with some very raw young players.

[liz]

Originally posted by Charlie

The other two picks should be on youngsters - we're allowed one bottom-age player (Schneider was one, Matty Davis another),

The club is allowed 3 bottom aged players if it wishes, though history suggests the club won't go this way.

[humphrey bear]

Originally posted by BeeEmmAre
Unless there's someone that Ricky's got hidden away that may slip through the net, I'd use them on young local talent such as Jack, Davies or Addison.
Either that or wait till the pre-season draft - there's rarely a ready made in the national draft that isn't a delistee so we'd be better off going for the uncontracted type who walked out on his club - could Matty Lappin be available??

We need to get away from this obsession with NSW born players. We are wasting spots on the rookie list on them and wasted a high pick on McVeigh who was never going to have the build to be a regular contributor.

We should take the best players available in both the draft and for the rookie list regardless of their origin.

[Ruda Wakening]

Given RWO's previous record of being keen to delist or trade three quarters of the 2005 premiership side...

I don't find threads like this helpful.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by liz
The club is allowed 3 bottom aged players if it wishes, though history suggests the club won't go this way.

I thought the draft rules only allowed one player these days who would be 17 after a certain date (ie, bottom age)?

[liz]

Originally posted by humphrey bear
We need to get away from this obsession with NSW born players. We are wasting spots on the rookie list on them and wasted a high pick on McVeigh who was never going to have the build to be a regular contributor.

There is no issue with McVeigh's build - far skinnier players have made it at AFL level and McVeigh still has plenty of time to become a very good AFL player.

As far as your comment on NSW rookies, you miss the point that the club is allowed 3 local rookies in addition to their normal quota. So these players do not take up spots on the list.

Furthermore, there are currently 4 players on the Swans list who have played senior football and who started on the Sydney rookie list. One came through a very different channel (ie as an International Recruit) while two of the other 4 are NSW boys. Meiklejohn is another "local" who played senior footy off the rookie list.

[liz]

Originally posted by Charlie
I thought the draft rules only allowed one player these days who would be 17 after a certain date (ie, bottom age)?

Used to - rules were changed a few years back.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by humphrey bear
We need to get away from this obsession with NSW born players. We are wasting spots on the rookie list on them and wasted a high pick on McVeigh who was never going to have the build to be a regular contributor.

We should take the best players available in both the draft and for the rookie list regardless of their origin.

We have three spots on the rookie list that can only be used for NSW players. That's why we have three more spots than the Vic/SA/WA teams.

As for our 'obsession' with NSW players, in the past three national drafts we've taken one. Hardly an 'obsession'.

The only draft in which we seemingly targeted NSW players was 2001 - we picked up Powell, Roberts-Thomson and Schneider. Two out of three isn't bad at all.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by liz
Used to - rules were changed a few years back.

Interesting. With no shortage of young players that need to be brought through next year, I wouldn't mind seeing two or even three bottom age kids picked up.

[Captain]

Originally posted by liz
There is no issue with McVeigh's build - far skinnier players have made it at AFL level and McVeigh still has plenty of time to become a very good AFL player.

Disagree with this.

To me build is extremely important and essential if a midfielder is to go from average to very good.

The Jude Bolton v Fosdike debate of a few years ago is the classic example. Fosdike was a superior runner/athlete and had slightly better skills, however Bolton was always going to be the better player, partly because of his attack on footy but a lot due to the fact that he has the perfect solid build for a midfielder.

Cousins, Buckley, Black, Harvey, Goodwin, Ricciuto are some of the best midfielders of the past decade. All have solid to very solid builds.

I think Moore will be a better player than McVeigh in years to come. A lot of this is due to the fact he has the better build to surrive. Unless a small player has the pace of a Judd they will always be up against it.

Whilst McVeigh might get a regular game in years to come he is unlikely to set the world on fire, a disappointing result for a very high draft pick.

[liz]

Originally posted by Captain

The Jude Bolton v Fosdike debate of a few years ago is the classic example. Fosdike was a superior runner/athlete and had slightly better skills, however Bolton was always going to be the better player, partly because of his attack on footy but a lot due to the fact that he has the perfect solid build for a midfielder.
...

Whilst McVeigh might get a regular game in years to come he is unlikely to set the world on fire, a disappointing result for a very high draft pick.

Surely it's all about variety, and having different players for different roles.

I doubt that McVeigh will ever be a player in the J Bolton mould, but not because of his build. There's not much - physically - to Brett Kirk but that never stopped him.

Every team needs some big, bullocking midfielders but they also need fleet of foot, skillful ball carriers too, especially those who can navigate through traffic. Nick Dal Santo isn't hugely built, but that doesn't stop him being effective through the middle, as well as on the flanks.

It's also worth noting McVeigh Snr's build. He was pretty slight when he started and took time to bulk up, but he is now pretty developed in his upper body.

Following your argument through, we might as well bin Malceski now too - his build is just as slight as McVeigh's.