RWO Draft Thread

[chammond]

Regarding taller back-up players, don't we have Richards and Vogels for the short-term, and Grundy and Davis for the medium term? Do we need more than that?

I think the Swans have been pretty conservative with the drafting this year, and simply went for the best available player each time.

Laidlaw looks like a 'ready-made' type (or as much as any 18 yo can be) who might push for selection next year.

Thornton is the 'project' pick, who probably won't be anywhere near ready until at least 2009. Could be a real bargain, given that he had the potential to be an early selection in next year's draft.

Brabazon is the 'smokey' - the best player in the WAFL Colts, yet totally ignored by all the 'experts'? Could turn out to be the coup of the draft.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
We lost Saddington (Sort of KP), James, Schuable, Powell (Could have developed into one, who knows).

Not one of those cut it in our top 22. So at worst we have replaced them with Vogels, Grundy and Richards.

And not everyone agrees we have too many midfielders. Especially not Ricky Barham or Paul Roos.

[Ryan Bomford]

Originally posted by robbieando
Two kids from WA and a Victorian

It's not the decision to pick 3 midfielders that's my issue, it's the decision to pick 2 Sandgropers. How many 18 YO from that part of the country have we drafted before? It's a big move for a kid that age to come to Sydney facing the reality he's unlikely to play until 2007, all things going well.

I hope the Swans did their homework.

[Bleed Red Blood]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Not one of those cut it in our top 22. So at worst we have replaced them with Vogels, Grundy and Richards.

They were depth. My point being that we have lost all that depth. Vogels, Grundy and Richards aren't enough.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
They were depth. My point being that we have lost all that depth. Vogels, Grundy and Richards aren't enough.

Of the four people we lost, how many of them were fit to play this year anyway? All four of them were injured regularly over the last two seasons, so their benefit as 'depth' was minimal at best.

My point is that at worst we have traded one set of players for another, and then we also have the rookie list to turn to if we have to (like with Vogels).

[chammond]

I'm not convinced we need more talls, but I guess it will make the rookie draft that much more interesting, especially with so many picks at our disposal.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
We don't have any depth for these positions. One or two players at most. You still need bigger players, we have a bare minimum.



Micky O is a genuine FF. He is still pretty tall, he's just not bulky. But the way he uses his body to mark he may as well be one.



That's nice, but where are we going to fit them all?




Leo, Micky and Barry will be 29 next season. Unconvential as they are, that's still old, we need to be drafting replacements. It's not going to be 05 for much longer.

Although I do understand your thoughts of talls, mediums and shorts, the fact is we as good as recruited 3 talls by elevating Shaw, Vogels and Grundy.

I simply gave a reason why they are using the current strategy. It clearly worked in 2005 and by recruiting the way they did today tells me that Roos intends to be around for some time yet and intends to employ the same strategies on the field into the foreseeable future.

On your other points:
Micky O is only at FF because he has a permanent knee injury that restricts him from roaming far and wide.

Dur, even blind Freddy can see you can only field 22 in any game. The abundance of midfielders means we only field the best. They have obviously gone for depth in the midfield and medium players to suit their intended team structure.

How in the heck are Leo, Micky and Barry unconventional.
Micky - a natural forward
Barry - a natural and hard forward, be that FF or CHF
Leo - a natural, maybe eccentric backman who played forward and failed early in his career.
Of these only Micky could be seen as perhaps in the twighlight of his career. You would expect at least 3 good years from the other 2.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
We lost Saddington (Sort of KP), James, Schuable, Powell (Could have developed into one, who knows). Richards hasn't proven to be a key position player, and says he wants to be a flanker.

The ruckman we got hasn't to my knowledge played in a key position.

We already had enough midfielders by anyone's reckoning.

It was posted a couple of weeks ago that Chambers had been playing FB in the 2's for the Cats, and that may be the reason we traded for him. To trade for him, the astute Ricky Barham and his scouts must have seen something that caught their eye. Darren Jolly ring a bell?

Sounds feasible given the promotion of Shaw.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
They were depth. My point being that we have lost all that depth. Vogels, Grundy and Richards aren't enough.

Depth is only of value if they are any good. The only value those blokes had in the end was to make up the numbers if we had a run of injuries, and we would have lost with that bunch all playing at once or even a couple of, so much had they gone "off".

At last count we still had 38 on the list, so there will always be someone to make up the numbers.

[Nico]

Originally posted by chammond
I'm not convinced we need more talls, but I guess it will make the rookie draft that much more interesting, especially with so many picks at our disposal.

Agreed, for us the Rookie draft will be far more exciting. This is where the real value will be for us.

This Brabazon bloke looks pretty interesting to me.

Did someone say Thornton might be ready by 2009? Strewth that's a long way off in footy terms.

[chammond]

Originally posted by Nico
Agreed, for us the Rookie draft will be far more exciting. This is where the real value will be for us.

This Brabazon bloke looks pretty interesting to me.

Did someone say Thornton might be ready by 2009? Strewth that's a long way off in footy terms.

From memory, I think he'd still be younger than Dempster was when he debuted?

[OldE]

Seany D was 3 months past his 21st birthday when he debuted, IIRC,

[Doctor]

As, naturally, concerned as many of you are for the medium to long term future of the Swans list, I think we need to trust that the PTB of the club know what they're doing. Results speak for themselves. We're Premiers!!! ( I just can't get sick of saying that!)

Those who have mentioned the stats for the percentage of players drafted down the list who have actually gone on and done anything are spot on. Our chances aren't that high, despite what Adam Goodes, for example, has achieved. I wouldn't be surprised if the club already had an eye on next year's draft when the rules change. There's no use pinning your hopes on too much under the priority pick system.

[liz]

Originally posted by Doctor
There's no use pinning your hopes on too much under the priority pick system.

Don't get that.

Had the new priority pick rules been in force, our first round pick would have been 16 rather than 19 - ie not that much difference, especially in a year where the professionals were saying that you could throw a blanket over most of the players beyond the first few.

The impact of the priority pick change is going to be felt by clubs that finish 9-13th or so, not by the premiers.

[liz]

Originally posted by Reggi
SEN were discussing our unconventional drafting. One stat they came up with Sydney have 12 players under 180cm.

The AFL average is 3. So we have some vertically challenged types in our side.

There are a few, but not that many. According to the 2005 AFL Guide:

Williams, Crouch, Schneider, Fosdike, Moore, Schmidt, Spriggs, Willoughby