Are we average bears?

[stellation]

The question of the current poll on the official Swans website is

What position do you think is most important for the Sydney Swans to fill at the 2004 National Draft?

To satisfy my curiosity, I thought I might post this question here with the same options to see how closely redandwhiteonline.com responses match the survey results of regular browsers to sydneyswans.com.au... now this may, of course, be as bad as posting a full article... but I don't know so... anyway...

What position do you think is most important for the Sydney Swans to fill at the 2004 National Draft?

[Bleed Red Blood]

Tall defender, defintitly.

Full forward to be Saddington.

[chammond]

Our defensive and forward groups are among the best in the AFL. It would be a luxury to bolster those stocks.

But if the on-ballers could generate more inside-50s . . . . then we really would be contenders.

Gimme a ball-winner every time.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by chammond
Our defensive and forward groups are among the best in the AFL. It would be a luxury to bolster those stocks.

Like hell it is, we NEED depth in these positions, more than we need another young midfielder who won't get a game next year because of the clubs policy on first year players.

We have no back up for Hall and O'Loughlin other than play one of our ruckmen at FF, our key defender back up stocks consist of LRT and three players (M. Davis, Dempster and Powell) who fit better as tall midfielders or 3rd or 4th defenders, but NOT key positions and Goodes and Saddington who clearly can't handle CHB let alone FB.

We need to draft at least 2 Key Position Players and leave the other pick for either a midfielder or ruckman. Whatever happens we aren't going to draft a midfielder who'll turn us into Premiers, we need what we already have to step up.

[liz]

No-one we draft this year is going to be the difference between a premiership next year or not. Drafting needs to be for the future.

I'd like to see maybe one more midfielder, one young key defender and one slightly older key defender cum forward, who can at least provide some back-up support next year.

[chammond]

Originally posted by robbieando
Like hell it is, we NEED depth in these positions, more than we need another young midfielder who won't get a game next year because of the clubs policy on first year players.

That doesn't make sense on any level.

Why do we NEED more depth in our forward or back line than we do in our on-ballers?

And why would a first year defender or forward be any more likely to get a game than a first-year midfielder?

We have no back up for Hall and O'Loughlin other than play one of our ruckmen at FF, our key defender back up stocks consist of LRT and three players (M. Davis, Dempster and Powell) who fit better as tall midfielders or 3rd or 4th defenders, but NOT key positions and Goodes and Saddington who clearly can't handle CHB let alone FB.

What's the point in recruiting back-ups when we need matchwinners? We did okay last season without O'Loughlin and Schauble. And we get along very nicely without a traditional CHB

We need to draft at least 2 Key Position Players and leave the other pick for either a midfielder or ruckman. Whatever happens we aren't going to draft a midfielder who'll turn us into Premiers, we need what we already have to step up.

Can't see how drafting backup players is going to turn us into premiers. If we can't generate more forward-50 play then even recruiting Riewoldt and Rivers wouldn't make us champions.

But if we could slot in Judd, or even Dal Santo, then we'd really have a team.

However, bearing in mind what Liz said, I was really thinking about recruiting a player to have an impact in 2005. If we're actually talking about drafting 17 or 18 year-olds, then I think the only sensible strategy is to take the best player available at the time. These young players won't hit their peak for 6 or 7 years, and it's impossible to predict what the club will need that far down the track.

[BonBon]

Definitely Tall Defender

[Rushed Behind]

Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
.

Full forward to be Saddington.

And i thuoght i ssmoked lots of drugs. I'm with chammond, get someone whos gonna get the ball to the forwards. if the midfeild its doin its job our backs can hold there own. a decent chb wuld be handy but midfeild firts

[swansrule100]

tall defender would be good

also young tall forwards
cos they take a while to develop

[robbieando]

Originally posted by chammond
That doesn't make sense on any level.

Why do we NEED more depth in our forward or back line than we do in our on-ballers?

Because numbers wise we have more than enough midfielders, yes the quailty is lacking right though that group, but we aren't going to find a matchwinner we need to improve the group with the picks we have (unless of course we pull a Simon Black). Personally I wouldn't care less if we drafted a midfielder at 31, but it has to be the RIGHT midfielder and one we didn't expect to be available (simular to Luke Ablett). I certainly would go into the draft with any plans to pick one position over another, but our needs depth wise need to be looked at.

And why would a first year defender or forward be any more likely to get a game than a first-year midfielder?

Injuries to our key positions would be the likely reason, but in all honesty a key position player wouldn't be anymore likely to get a game than a midfielder, nor do I expect it to happen with any 1st year KPP we select if we go down that path. That being said the draft must be used with an eye on the future and in the next few years we don't have the players to come though in the key positions that we do in the midfield.

What's the point in recruiting back-ups when we need matchwinners?

Gee, if only it was that easy. Lets only ever draft matchwinners, thats sure to work

Chances are ANY selection this year will be as a backup, until such time they prove otherwise. You can't tell that a player is a matchwinner until they produce that form in the AFL, until then its just a crapshoot as to whether or not they will become matchwinners.

We did okay last season without O'Loughlin and Schauble. And we get along very nicely without a traditional CHB

and yet the premiership we all want is getting further and further away from us. The last two seasons have seen us just make do, and done it well at that, yet come the middle of September it falls to pieces because we need a CHB or we need a matchwinner in the midfield. The only way to fill those needs and have an impact right off the bat is to trade for them, but as we have seen the last two seasons that is very hard to do without giving up something of value, which we have very little of save our 1st Round draft pick.

If we can't fill our needs though the trade period, that leaves us the draft and with the picks we traditional have the chances are slim of getting what we need.

Can't see how drafting backup players is going to turn us into premiers. If we can't generate more forward-50 play then even recruiting Riewoldt and Rivers wouldn't make us champions.

It won't win us a premiership in the next two years unless we hit it lucky and draft the next Rivers or Simon Black, what we must do is get our junior development to produce solid players for 2007 and beyond and at the moment we have plenty of midfielders to work with, but very little in the way of key position players.

Its nice to think we could trade for a Barry Hall, Wayne Schwass or Tony Lockett every year, but as we have seen getting these players is the easy part, surrounding them with teammates of simular quailty to push for the premiership isn't easy.

However, bearing in mind what Liz said, I was really thinking about recruiting a player to have an impact in 2005.

and going by that basis I would agree also, if we could draft a Chris Judd I would be all for it but when I answered I was looking to the future because I know thats what the draft will be for us.

These young players won't hit their peak for 6 or 7 years, and it's impossible to predict what the club will need that far down the track.

Impossible yes, but looking at our squad we don't have many key position players who'll around at the stage, that there tells you what we should be looking at, but of course lets not rule out midfielders, we just don't know whats there when we pick.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by liz
I'd like to see maybe one more midfielder, one young key defender and one slightly older key defender cum forward, who can at least provide some back-up support next year.

I think thats the likely path we'll take, with the muture age guy to be possibly James Podsiadly who is training with us and did well in the VFL last season with Werribee.

[ScottH]

Tall defender, just slightly ahead of a gun Midfielder.

[Jeffers1984]

If we can nab Earl Shaw and Ed Clarke from this draft/rookie draft
then i will be a very happy chappy. They worked superbly in tandem for the Rams. Could be a great investment for the future.

[sharp9]

Now I'm the silly bugger who voted (outrageously) for a full forward? Why, you may ask. Well you can turn the right sized player with a decent brain and good skills into a CHB or FB even if they weeren't born to it. Hopefully one of our three youngsters will become that. However full forward requires, pretty much, two thing...a right sized bloke who can MARK IN ONE GRAB and KICK GOALS FROM A SET SHOT.

As far as I know none of our big youngsters would run back with confidence to kick a set shot from 50. Seeing as scoring goals is the point of the game I think this is an area that needs addressing. Even our talented smalls (Schneider, Buchanan, Bevan and Fosdike) are not sharp shooters.

I guess if, in the next couple of weeks, our spies see lots of Jolly, Saddo and Donkey practising their set shots, then maybe that is where the staff are heading. But I get nervous about makeshift forwards being loaded with the responsibility of kicking a fiver.

I think we should target any kid from 190 up who has the epithet "magnificent shot for goal."

With regard to the fact that we had the worst record in the league for getting the ball inside fifty....we've already drafted to fix that problem and if we got the wrong players last year then we really are stuffed.

[Jeffers1984]

Originally posted by sharp9
Now I'm the silly bugger who voted (outrageously) for a full forward? Why, you may ask. Well you can turn the right sized player with a decent brain and good skills into a CHB or FB even if they weeren't born to it. Hopefully one of our three youngsters will become that. However full forward requires, pretty much, two thing...a right sized bloke who can MARK IN ONE GRAB and KICK GOALS FROM A SET SHOT.

As far as I know none of our big youngsters would run back with confidence to kick a set shot from 50. Seeing as scoring goals is the point of the game I think this is an area that needs addressing. Even our talented smalls (Schneider, Buchanan, Bevan and Fosdike) are not sharp shooters.

I guess if, in the next couple of weeks, our spies see lots of Jolly, Saddo and Donkey practising their set shots, then maybe that is where the staff are heading. But I get nervous about makeshift forwards being loaded with the responsibility of kicking a fiver.

I think we should target any kid from 190 up who has the epithet "magnificent shot for goal."

With regard to the fact that we had the worst record in the league for getting the ball inside fifty....we've already drafted to fix that problem and if we got the wrong players last year then we really are stuffed.

Agreed, Full Forward needs to be addressed either in this draft or next. If only Ryan Willits would last till our pick........