robbieando's 2005 Phantom Draft

[robbieando]

For those who asked for it and for those interested in looking at how I see the draft panning out on Saturday I've posted my Phantom Draft over at my "other" site.

http://www.swansblog.com/archives/2005/11/robbie_andoas_2.php

Discuss if you wish

[Charlie]

I think you have our first pick spot on - the best available key position player (be it Obst or someone else).

I'm not sure I understand the Bailey logic - we have four developing ruckmen to squeeze into (probably) one spot in the 22. Besides, it's more likely that he'll be gone by our picks.

Addison is a chance at 59, but given there's only going to be 6-10 picks after ours, I'd prefer to see us take the chance that he'll be there in the rookie draft, and pick up Beetham or Armstrong. Addison isn't going to play senior football in 2006, which should be at the forefront of our plans. If we think the Dogs are serious, pick him at 54 and a mature-aged player at 59. We don't need a ruckman.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Charlie
I think you have our first pick spot on - the best available key position player (be it Obst or someone else).

Agree, though I rather it be a defender rather than a forward, but just adding to our Key Position stocks has to be goal number one.

I'm not sure I understand the Bailey logic - we have four developing ruckmen to squeeze into (probably) one spot in the 22. Besides, it's more likely that he'll be gone by our picks.

Bailey is the only ruckman that could be available at this selection that I would want to draft. Depth wise on paper we are alright in the ruck department but we all know that an injury or two (Doyle.......) and we could be stuffed. Take Bailey if available and groom him like we have Ericksen and in 5 years time we could have a very handy could of ruckman and no longer the need to trade high picks away to cover holes in this area.

Having said that if Bailey is taken by our second pick I say go with either another K/Position player or follow the path you suggested below.

Addison is a chance at 59, but given there's only going to be 6-10 picks after ours, I'd prefer to see us take the chance that he'll be there in the rookie draft, and pick up Beetham or Armstrong.

Yes the chance is something I'm willing to take but personally I rather give the game in NSW a boost by getting at least one local drafted. If not that and we do go down the mature aged path yet again, I rather go with Sundqvist (who really has done little wrong to get the chop) rather than the two you suggested because they really don't "add" anything to the squad other than depth and block the path of the likes of Malceski, Moore, McVeigh and Willoughby.

Addison isn't going to play senior football in 2006, which should be at the forefront of our plans.

I think we have a squad more than capable of being up to the standard of playing AFL footy next year. I rather focus on the future rather than block the path of our promising batch of kids that are ready for their shot at senior footy

[Charlie]

Originally posted by robbieando

Bailey is the only ruckman that could be available at this selection that I would want to draft. Depth wise on paper we are alright in the ruck department but we all know that an injury or two (Doyle.......) and we could be stuffed. Take Bailey if available and groom him like we have Ericksen and in 5 years time we could have a very handy could of ruckman and no longer the need to trade high picks away to cover holes in this area.

We all also know that if Barry and Roberts-Thomson are injured we're in deep trouble down back. We can't have unlimited coverage for each position. Five ruckmen (plus Goodes as the wildcard) has to be enough. No problem with putting one on the rookie list, but that's all.

Having said that if Bailey is taken by our second pick I say go with either another K/Position player or follow the path you suggested below.

Yep. My preferred result is the two best talls (regardless of whether they are forwards or defenders - we can mold one into the other) plus a midfielder in his early 20s.... leaving Addison for the rookie list.

Yes the chance is something I'm willing to take but personally I rather give the game in NSW a boost by getting at least one local drafted. If not that and we do go down the mature aged path yet again, I rather go with Sundqvist (who really has done little wrong to get the chop) rather than the two you suggested because they really don't "add" anything to the squad other than depth and block the path of the likes of Malceski, Moore, McVeigh and Willoughby.

Sundqvist also hasn't done anything to suggest that he will get a game. Realistically he's competing for a spot on the flanks or wings... spots that are currently taken by Kennelly, Dempster, Goodes, Davis, O'Keefe and Fosdike. If Saddington couldn't get a game, Sundqvist isn't going to.

I think we have a squad more than capable of being up to the standard of playing AFL footy next year. I rather focus on the future rather than block the path of our promising batch of kids that are ready for their shot at senior footy

We are going for premierships now. If we can get players that can contribute to that (especially players that will be at their prime in three years anyway), we should go for them. If Green somehow falls through to us, we should get him. If Stevens falls to us, we should get him. We are living for now.

[liz]

Originally posted by Charlie

We are going for premierships now. If we can get players that can contribute to that (especially players that will be at their prime in three years anyway), we should go for them. If Green somehow falls through to us, we should get him. If Stevens falls to us, we should get him. We are living for now.

I half agree with you on recycled players but I'm not sure of the benefits on getting another Spriggs - ie a NQR midfielder without any standout characteristics ala Armstrong or Stevens. At least Spriggs excels in one area - namely endurance.

My view is that we have four or five young midfielders stewing away in the reserves who are all ready to stand up and play senior football next season. We can't expect any of them to become outstanding senior players in one year, but nor is it out of the question that they could make contributions like Schneider and Bevan did in their debut senior years, or even contributions not far off Monty or Nog's contributions this year.

If we are going after older players in the draft, addressing a big lack of depth in key positions would seem to be the go. There aren't too many recycled taller players going around though. Norman can play but his "issues" are well documented. Gilham is another possible, though he's shortish for a true KPP.

Another possible source for a more mature KPP body is the lower leagues. After the success of Vogels, it wouldn't surprise me if Barham plucks another one out from one of the satellite leagues.

As for Addison, he was clearly the most consistently impressive of the top-up players who played with the reserves team this year. That said, he doesn't have "definite AFL" written all over him. Given that the Swans are certainties to get their hands on him if he slips to the rookie list (assuming they want him) I'd rather they take the punt that he won't get taken by another club and try to find a bottom aged player, like Schneider or Davis, who they can afford to nuture for a few years. Ryan Cook is one such player who seems to have been linked with Sydney.

If another club really does want Addison they'll have to take him in the main draft, and I'd be inclined to let them have him.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by liz
I half agree with you on recycled players but I'm not sure of the benefits on getting another Spriggs - ie a NQR midfielder without any standout characteristics ala Armstrong or Stevens. At least Spriggs excels in one area - namely endurance.

My view is that we have four or five young midfielders stewing away in the reserves who are all ready to stand up and play senior football next season. We can't expect any of them to become outstanding senior players in one year, but nor is it out of the question that they could make contributions like Schneider and Bevan did in their debut senior years, or even contributions not far off Monty or Nog's contributions this year.

All fair points. My interest in Beetham and Armstrong is primarily for security... we do have plenty of slightly younger kids that need a chance, but outside of the premiership 22, we don't actually have a half-decent midfielder ready to come in. So to some extent we are banking on one or more of the youngsters making a big impact. Perhaps I'm being too conservative in that regard, though - Malceski is certainly one that I expect to do very well in 2006 (he could well play every game).

My comment on Green and Stevens is most likely superfluous anyway. North will snaffle Green, and the Dogs are supposed to be interested in Stevens.

If we are going after older players in the draft, addressing a big lack of depth in key positions would seem to be the go. There aren't too many recycled taller players going around though. Norman can play but his "issues" are well documented. Gilham is another possible, though he's shortish for a true KPP.

Norman can keep his poison away. Gilham hasn't really impressed me much.

Another possible source for a more mature KPP body is the lower leagues. After the success of Vogels, it wouldn't surprise me if Barham plucks another one out from one of the satellite leagues.

Certainly every chance of that - I actually half-expect that there will be at least one name read out that I nor anyone else here has heard of.

As for Addison, he was clearly the most consistently impressive of the top-up players who played with the reserves team this year. That said, he doesn't have "definite AFL" written all over him. Given that the Swans are certainties to get their hands on him if he slips to the rookie list (assuming they want him) I'd rather they take the punt that he won't get taken by another club and try to find a bottom aged player, like Schneider or Davis, who they can afford to nuture for a few years. Ryan Cook is one such player who seems to have been linked with Sydney.

If another club really does want Addison they'll have to take him in the main draft, and I'd be inclined to let them have him.

That's pretty much my attitude as well. He doesn't sound like anything that we should be specifically targeting - we'd be picking him up largely because he's a NSW boy.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Charlie All fair points. My interest in Beetham and Armstrong is primarily for security... we do have plenty of slightly younger kids that need a chance, but outside of the premiership 22, we don't actually have a half-decent midfielder ready to come in.

What I've highlighted is a major reason why your idea of topping up is flawed. Why bring in a mature aged player for security when they end up blocking the path to regular senior footy of the players who you say "need a chance"?

So to some extent we are banking on one or more of the youngsters making a big impact. Perhaps I'm being too conservative in that regard, though - Malceski is certainly one that I expect to do very well in 2006 (he could well play every game).

Conservative is a nice way of putting it. I really don't see the need for more midfield depth, unless that midfielder happened to be 185cm plus (which the ones suggested certainly aren't). In Malceski, McVeigh, Willoughby, Schmidt and Moore we have a core group of kids ready and able to step up to the senior level if and when required. Drafting an Armstrong or Beetham while adding short term depth won't make the overall impact in the difference between us winning the 2006 flag or not, just like drafting Spriggs last year didn't impact upon us winning the 2005 flag this year.

Norman can keep his poison away. Gilham hasn't really impressed me much.

Agree on Norman. Haven't seen enough of Gilham to say one way or the other. But I doubt we'll be draft an AFL expirenced K/P Player.

Certainly every chance of that - I actually half-expect that there will be at least one name read out that I nor anyone else here has heard of.

Still don't know who Matthew Davis is

That's pretty much my attitude as well. He doesn't sound like anything that we should be specifically targeting - we'd be picking him up largely because he's a NSW boy.

That and he is 185cm. We lack depth in height within our midfield corps and he is one for the future no doubt. But you get the feeling he'll be a Swan in 2006, be it on the senior or rookie list.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by robbieando
[B]What I've highlighted is a major reason why your idea of topping up is flawed. Why bring in a mature aged player for security when they end up blocking the path to regular senior footy of the players who you say "need a chance"?

Conservative is a nice way of putting it. I really don't see the need for more midfield depth, unless that midfielder happened to be 185cm plus (which the ones suggested certainly aren't). In Malceski, McVeigh, Willoughby, Schmidt and Moore we have a core group of kids ready and able to step up to the senior level if and when required. Drafting an Armstrong or Beetham while adding short term depth won't make the overall impact in the difference between us winning the 2006 flag or not, just like drafting Spriggs last year didn't impact upon us winning the 2005 flag this year.

No, they probably wouldn't. I'm just thinking that another semi-experienced midfielder couldn't hurt. Excluding Spriggs, who won't play another game, we only have one midfielder outside the premiership 22 that has played more than five games. We have a lot of depth, but not AFL-hardened experience. I think its worth pick 59 to address that (minor) problem, though I won't be devastated if we don't get them.

Agree on Norman. Haven't seen enough of Gilham to say one way or the other. But I doubt we'll be draft an AFL expirenced K/P Player.

Same here.

Still don't know who Matthew Davis is

What are the odds there'll be a similar signature come Saturday?

That and he is 185cm. We lack depth in height within our midfield corps and he is one for the future no doubt. But you get the feeling he'll be a Swan in 2006, be it on the senior or rookie list. [/QUOTE]

Yep. Addison will be one of the three NSW rookies. I'm looking forward to seeing who the others are (although they'll only be names to me ).

[liz]

Originally posted by Charlie
Yep. Addison will be one of the three NSW rookies. I'm looking forward to seeing who the others are (although they'll only be names to me ).

They'll probably come from James Bennett, Troy Barlett, Trent Goodrem, the chap from North Shore currently training with the team (Davies??) and maybe Kieran Jack.

The first 3, along with Addison, all played with the reserves team this year. Not sure about the other two.

[ugg]

Dean Davies, who won the Phelan Medal (SFL B&F) as well as the Rising Star award, I think should get a gig. Kieren Jack did also play with the reserves.

[SimonH]

Thanks for having a red-hot Aussie go, and I'll be giving you even more thanks if Alan Obst is still available @ 51. I would be shocked. In a good way. Looking at only one name above, the Dons would be real blue-sky optimists if they preferred Cheetham to Obst. (Their needs are equally pressing at both ends, with Lloyd, Fletcher and Lucas all getting on in age.)

Predictions always come back to bite you, but I will confidently predict that Dylan Addison will be drafted #54 by Sydney or not at all. Burgan is not an expert on individual players' skills and styles, but he is an expert on who's putting out feelers to whom, and he has only the Dogs (picks #55 and 57) interested in him.

No question at all that Sydney has an excess of midfielders, particularly marginal midfielders. It's notable that the recruits who were in their early 20s who've succeeded (Jolly, CBolt and on current evidence Vogels is a success) are non-midfielders, and the one who's failed (Spriggs) is one. That doesn't mean "don't draft Armstrong", though, it just means "don't draft him for some amorphous thing called 'depth'-- only draft him if you're confident that he's good enough to be a first 22 pick for round 1, and stay there for the whole year". Brett Kirk's path to AFL stardom was haphazard to say the least, but he was a guy in his early 20s playing country footy when we finally decided we wanted him, so it's not impossible to do it as a midfielder.

Armstrong is still plenty young. Unless you have picks 1-5 in the draft, and so are reasonably confident of getting a ready-to-play 18 year old, the difference between drafting a 21 year old and an 18 year old, all else being equal, is simply that an 18 year old spends 3 years occupying a spot on your list while you work out if he'll 'make it', while with a 21 year old you'll know more or less straight away. If you hit the jackpot, they're both capable of playing 10 or so productive seasons. Recognition of this very obvious fact (amazingly ignored by most clubs) is one of the factors behind Paul Roos & Ricky Barham's list-building success.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by SimonH
Recognition of this very obvious fact (amazingly ignored by most clubs) is one of the factors behind Paul Roos & Ricky Barham's list-building success.

Shhh!