The old draft chestnut: best available vs needs based

[Dry Rot]

It looks like we should get two very good midfielders whoever we pick at 5 and 6 so the old argument doesn't apply to us until we get to our pick 22.

But what about other clubs that finished above us? eg Saints IIRC really need a tall defender - should they pick the best player or tall defender at pick 15? Carlton need a tall forward - what should they do?

IMO draft picks this year will be quite interesting - if it is a deep to draft to say pick 20, then it will be interesting to see how what most of the clubs do about the old draft chestnut: best available vs needs based.

[GVGjr]

It's a good question especially for a team that is rebuilding. With the two early picks I just want the best two players but overall I think we a mix of players with the 3 picks in the first round. We don't need 3 mids nor do we need 3 talls.

I think we have to take a balanced approach to our drafting.

[wimberga]

It's a good question especially for a team that is rebuilding. With the two early picks I just want the best two players but overall I think we a mix of players with the 3 picks in the first round. We don't need 3 mids nor do we need 3 talls.

I think we have to take a balanced approach to our drafting.

Agree with this. Being in a rebuilding stage affords us early draft picks which should just go to the best available talent. We need quality players on our list and this gives us the ability to do so.

Those teams playing finals and challenging for a flag may take a different approach whilst their "windows" are open.

Additionally, the fact that probably 60-70% of draftees are midfielders makes it more interesting.

[bornadog]

Teams should go with best available, as these players are not for next year or the year after, but are the future players of the club, and who knows what you need in a few years time.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

IIRC Hawthorn made a point of drafting skillful players, particularly left footers. Although they were beaten in the GF, considering 2008 - you'd have to say it was a success.

Sydney's philosophy is always worth mentioning too.

In our position, we should go with best available, but as DR said it will be interesting to see what teams like Carlton and St. Kilda do.

[Dry Rot]

Yes, the Hawthorn emphasis on skills by foot is interesting and hasn't done them any harm.

As the picks go past #10, "best available" becomes less clear. And I wonder what the Pies will do with their trio of good picks?

[Remi Moses]

It's a good question especially for a team that is rebuilding. With the two early picks I just want the best two players but overall I think we a mix of players with the 3 picks in the first round. We don't need 3 mids nor do we need 3 talls.

I think we have to take a balanced approach to our drafting.

Ditto for me.
Best Available at 5 and 6 and possibly a key position prospect at 22

[Mofra]

I'd liek to say best available, but it needs to be tempered with list management. Do we overlook Grundy if he's available at 5 & 6 because we are set for ruckmen? Probably, but outside of that it's best available.

At 22 there's a fair chance a rated KPF will slide and we'd have to weigh that up against a running type.

[Ghost Dog]

The thing is, nobody has even taught Grundy to Ruck yet! We are crying out for a forward, despite all the talls we have.

How similar is Hunter to the other picks in the top 10? Do we run the risk of getting best available, but adding not much excitement to the team?