Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Breadcrawl wrote: 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.

an excellent analysis. The draft order of any year versus the eventual rating of that draft year is so completely askew that it would seem that exposed form as a junior counts for absolutely nothing.

gurugeoff wrote:

Breadcrawl wrote: 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.

an excellent analysis. The draft order of any year versus the eventual rating of that draft year is so completely askew that it would seem that exposed form as a junior counts for absolutely nothing.

Am I missing something here? Reid was pick 8 & Brown pick 10

Breadcrawl wrote: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

I'm actually not big on us drafting a tall either. I'd prefer a mid. And if there is a key position player and a midfield player we rate similarly I'd expect we'd take the latter. But if the tall is rated significantly above the other prospects we should not be shying away from him for balance reasons, that can lead to some terrible mistakes.

AN_Inkling wrote:

Breadcrawl wrote: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

I'm actually not big on us drafting a tall either. I'd prefer a mid. And if there is a key position player and a midfield player we rate similarly I'd expect we'd take the latter. But if the tall is rated significantly above the other prospects we should not be shying away from him for balance reasons, that can lead to some terrible mistakes.

Yeah I'm happy with that position

Breadcrawl wrote: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

I'd love to know how Hine rated Grundy in comparison to Wright, to me Grundy would get the nod because of his aggression, I just can't see him pulling the trigger on Wright a pick 5, but to be fair I don't think he would've drafted Grundy at 5 either.

Just thinking out loud here, but has a 200cm+ KF ever kicked 100 goals in a season? I've known a few who were on track and there's been many promising ones, but for one reason or another they always break down.

If quality mids are so easy to come by then I would suggest we go and get one. You can never have enough elite midfielders and we are well stocked for key position players.

A great midfield can turn average forwards into All Australians (Cam Mooney says hi). Quality KPFs with poor delivery from a substandard midfield can look ordinary (Travis Cloke says hi).

If we swapped Roughead for Cloke, how many goals would they kick at their respective teams?

gurugeoff wrote:

Breadcrawl wrote: 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.

yes, but the year that franklin and Roughhead were taken, Tambling was taken in the top 10 as well. for every hit there is a miss at just about every draft number. all that changes is that your probablitity goes up the higher you pick (that is your chance of a hit increases). given the increased professionalism of footballers and the recruiting process, its very rare for a top 10 to be an abject failure absent career type injuries. Look at the quality of the top 10 from last year.

an excellent analysis. The draft order of any year versus the eventual rating of that draft year is so completely askew that it would seem that exposed form as a junior counts for absolutely nothing.

The big issue here is that we are in a cat and mouse game with GWS whgo have us by the nuts! They have the two picks after us. what this means is that if they think we need a small, the can happily leave Wright on the board at 4 and go with the best small available since Wright will be there at number 6 and 7 for them! they are in a great spot.

Pies will need to show up with two mids they'd be happy to take, or somehow make GWS worry that wright would be ours if they pass on him.

Of course, that might actually be the case since wright seems like he could be groomed for CHF or CHB (just as Peter Moore could). so the pies could potentially lock up the two very important key positions for the next 15 years if GWS let's Wright through its fingers.

And lets face it, if we bottom out next year, then next year, we could pick up a couple of great mids (and it absolutely doesnt hurt to give your big guys an extra year of development over your little guys.

If we balls up 2015 and somehow snag two more top 10 picks, we would have a pretty formiddable pack of top 10 pick by 2016.

^ that's way overthinking things. i don't think it matters who gws pick at 4 or even want at 6 & 7. the club will have ranked each player and planned for the different scenarios that could eventuate. if the preferred player is still available at 5 then you'd expect them to select him.

John Wren wrote:^ that's way overthinking things. i don't think it matters who gws pick at 4 or even want at 6 & 7. the club will have ranked each player and planned for the different scenarios that could eventuate. if the preferred player is still available at 5 then you'd expect them to select him.

No, its not. If GWS know that we are not interested in wright for example, that would be a very bad fact. They could leave Wright for pick 6 and take the guy that hine may have as his favorite player.

If on the other hand, GWS perceive even a slight risk that we would be happy to pounce on Wright if they let him go, then they will likely take him at 4 leaving us to pick the guy we want.

Its not a Huge Huge deal, but it does make some difference.

To wit, i understand Pendles was the twinkle in Hine's eye and would have gone number 1 if we only had one pick and it was number 1. however, Hine knew that Hawthorn were very serious about Daisy at number 3 and he was also relatively confident that Pendles would slip to 5 so he took Thomas at 2 and Pendles at 5, even though he rated Pendles the better player.

Draft manouvering is a very important part of draft day when teams have multiple picks in the same neighborhood as GWS does (and as we did in that particular case).

Agreed that we should be going for Laverde but if he was to go at pick 4 I think the next best mid could be Lachie Weller!

E wrote:
To wit, i understand Pendles was the twinkle in Hine's eye and would have gone number 1 if we only had one pick and it was number 1. however, Hine knew that Hawthorn were very serious about Daisy at number 3 and he was also relatively confident that Pendles would slip to 5 so he took Thomas at 2 and Pendles at 5, even though he rated Pendles the better player.

Great point. Pendles rated higher by Hine but didn't take him at two. Because he expected him to still be there at 5, and didn't expect Daisy to still be there at 5.

Great, great point.

If GWS want Wright and Laverde, knowing the profile of our list, they have a better chance of securing both if they take Laverde at 4.

If they do, and in the process suck us into getting the next Justin Koschitzke when we weren't even after a tall...because he was the 'best available'...

Perhaps we would prefer Wright over Laverde.

Perhaps we would prefer Langford over Laverde.

Perhaps GWS have no idea at all who we are after.

The last one seems a most likely scenario don't you think.

Perhaps.

Dr. Jinx wrote:Agreed that we should be going for Laverde but if he was to go at pick 4 I think the next best mid could be Lachie Weller!

Agreed.

Breadcrawl wrote:

E wrote:
To wit, i understand Pendles was the twinkle in Hine's eye and would have gone number 1 if we only had one pick and it was number 1. however, Hine knew that Hawthorn were very serious about Daisy at number 3 and he was also relatively confident that Pendles would slip to 5 so he took Thomas at 2 and Pendles at 5, even though he rated Pendles the better player.

Great point. Pendles rated higher by Hine but didn't take him at two. Because he expected him to still be there at 5, and didn't expect Daisy to still be there at 5.

Great, great point.

If GWS want Wright and Laverde, knowing the profile of our list, they have a better chance of securing both if they take Laverde at 4.

If they do, and in the process suck us into getting the next Justin Koschitzke when we weren't even after a tall...because he was the 'best available'...

obviously, "best available" is a subjective thing. i don't think any posturing by gws will make a difference to whom we pick up.