Bulldogs lack of pace!!!!

[Avoid the rush]

Along with others on this forum I have a concern regarding our lack of pace in the midfield. J.J. , Hrovat, then I'm struggling to find on ballers who are quick of foot. What do you think???

[bulldogtragic]

Along with others on this forum I have a concern regarding our lack of pace in the midfield. J.J. , Hrovat, then I'm struggling to find on ballers who are quick of foot. What do you think???

I think Jong is quicker than some think as well. A few draftees have serious pace, so hopefully they make the grade. But I think the philosophy of taking accuracy by foot over running speed has some merit. Then we need to make sure our kids can kick straight!

[GVGjr]

Along with others on this forum I have a concern regarding our lack of pace in the midfield. J.J. , Hrovat, then I'm struggling to find on ballers who are quick of foot. What do you think???

None of the guys we selected at the National Draft are speedsters in fact most tested in the lower bracket for speed at the Combine.
All of them were very good with the endurance performances though.

In other recent drafts, Bontempelli, Macrae, Hrovat, Fuller and Honeychurch weren't speedsters either which is an indication we aren't placing a high level of importance on pure speed with draft picks.

We need to hope that guys like Hamling, Jong and Johannisen can become regular senior players as they all have good leg speed.

[Twodogs]

What about Bigges from Sydney. Does he have much toe?

[Mofra]

Jong is the quickest player on our list. Stringer is narrowly behind Dahlhaus.
Moving the ball quicker is a far bigger problem than footspeed.

[Greystache]

None of the guys we selected at the National Draft are speedsters in fact most tested in the lower bracket for speed at the Combine.
All of them were very good with the endurance performances though.

In other recent drafts, Bontempelli, Macrae, Hrovat, Fuller and Honeychurch weren't speedsters either which is an indication we aren't placing a high level of importance on pure speed with draft picks.

We need to hope that guys like Hamling, Jong and Johannisen can become regular senior players as they all have good leg speed.

It seems at this draft we made players who are short and slow the priority. As you said, all have good endurance, and are seen to be good decision makers, but all are well below average speed. It's a very high risk strategy because many players who were good decision makers at junior level can really struggle to match that at AFL level, in which case you've got a player who's slow, small, and doesn't have any stand out attribute to help them make the grade.

We really need to hope we can improve the skill level amongst the team, because a team that's small, slow, and can't kick is going to get some beltings. Even more so given we have virtually no proven key defenders.

[1eyedog]

Jong is the quickest player on our list. Stringer is narrowly behind Dahlhaus.
Moving the ball quicker is a far bigger problem than footspeed.

Agreed. While we've all moved on from Geelong's halcyon days they did show us that elite users by foot can make a team look 'quick'. The only real speedsters in their team was the cusp player Wojo and Varcoe. All of Enright, Bartel, Kelly, Corey, Stokes, Hunt, Chapman, Selwood and Ling would not be considered quick. You don't have to be quick to move the ball across the ground 'quickly'.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

Agreed. While we've all moved on from Geelong's halcyon days they did show us that elite users by foot can make a team look 'quick'. The only real speedsters in their team was the cusp player Wojo and Varcoe. All of Enright, Bartel, Kelly, Corey, Stokes, Hunt, Chapman, Selwood and Ling would not be considered quick. You don't have to be quick to move the ball across the ground 'quickly'.

I agree with this. The ball can be moved quickly not just with leg speed but also with well drilled passing and leading, accurate handballing etc. I thought Brisbane's win against us looked embarrassing because often their leg speed burnt us off but whilst it looks good, it's not the only way to move the ball assuredly into the hands of big Tom and Jake et al.

[F'scary]

It seems at this draft we made players who are short and slow the priority. As you said, all have good endurance, and are seen to be good decision makers, but all are well below average speed. It's a very high risk strategy because many players who were good decision makers at junior level can really struggle to match that at AFL level, in which case you've got a player who's slow, small, and doesn't have any stand out attribute to help them make the grade.

We really need to hope we can improve the skill level amongst the team, because a team that's small, slow, and can't kick is going to get some beltings. Even more so given we have virtually no proven key defenders.

You are surely just being provocative.

[mjp]

You are surely just being provocative.

I am sure he is being a bit provocative but we did draft 5 small half-forward types - each of whom is renowned for something OTHER than leg-speed - in the same draft.

I don't think anyone would argue that the players are poor individually but it was interesting to see so many of the same size/shape/type selected in one draft...many supporters see a lack of key defenders on our list and were frustrated that we didn't take a chance on picking another one in the hope of developing him. This is were the 'but we signed the Hammer' arguments come into it - and that is a good argument - but when not many people have seen Joel play (he played 18's in 2012!) it doesn't give them much reason for hope.

[Greystache]

You are surely just being provocative.

Pretty much as MJP has said, we went in to the draft with distinct gaps in 3 areas- Speed, height (KPF, KPD, and Ruck), and skills. After 5 draft and 4 rookie selections you could argue we've perhaps covered skill (although that's pretty questionable). We totally overlooked speed, and did nothing to improve our ruck depth, nor our key position depth.

in the past 5 years we haven't used a single draft pick under 39 on a genuine key position player, and have only used one under pick 80 (Talia). All other selections have been rookie, delisted free agent, or preseason draft pick. We seem to have a clinical phobia of players with pace or height, which coincidentally is the area we get carved up in most on game day.

[bornadog]

If you look at the players that left (size wise), Tutt, Cooney, Gia, Higgins, are all replaced with similar sized players, so I can't see what the fuss is about with some woofers.

[GVGjr]

Pretty much as MJP has said, we went in to the draft with distinct gaps in 3 areas- Speed, height (KPF, KPD, and Ruck), and skills. After 5 draft and 4 rookie selections you could argue we've perhaps covered skill (although that's pretty questionable). We totally overlooked speed, and did nothing to improve our ruck depth, nor our key position depth.

in the past 5 years we haven't used a single draft pick under 39 on a genuine key position player, and have only used one under pick 80 (Talia). All other selections have been rookie, delisted free agent, or preseason draft pick. We seem to have a clinical phobia of players with pace or height, which coincidentally is the area we get carved up in most on game day.

We actually called part of this out around the draft night.

Our Drafting Philosophy (http://woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?14004-Our-Drafting-Philosophy)

Draft Night Reflections (http://woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?13990-Draft-Night-Reflections-Is-Gia-the-main-man)

[Greystache]

If you look at the players that left (size wise), Tutt, Cooney, Gia, Higgins, are all replaced with similar sized players, so I can't see what the fuss is about with some woofers.

Cooney 187cm
Higgins 186cm
Gryphynn- 190cm
Tutt 177cm
Gia- 183cm

Replaced with

McLean 180cm
Webb 186cm
Hamilton 182cm
Daniel 167cm
Dale 182cm

So we lost 3 big running players and replaced them 5 players of which only one is 6 foot or taller. Yeah, but they're all the same :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that 2 of the players we lost were tall and quick, and have been replaced by short and slow.

[bornadog]

Cooney 187cm
Higgins 186cm
Gryphynn- 190cm
Tutt 177cm
Gia- 183cm

Replaced with

McLean 180cm
Webb 186cm
Hamilton 182cm
Daniel 167cm
Dale 182cm

So we lost 3 big running players and replaced them 5 players of which only one is 6 foot or taller. Yeah, but they're all the same :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that 2 of the players we lost were tall and quick, and have been replaced by short and slow.

I didn't include Griffen, but if you want to I can include Jong who replaces Griffen for height.

I will concede only one player is short and if you take him out then the average is only down by 1cm, hardly anything to worry about.

On the flip we gained Boyd, Hamling, Redpath, Cordy and lost Jones and Williams. So overall we are ahead. :D

If you look at the recruiters and what they are thinking for the future, they are banking on Talia, Roberts, Boyd, Roughead, Redpath, Cordy and Campbell to take us forward.

I think next draft we need to look at talls again, but in the meantime I am happy with the way we have drafted.

[F'scary]

I didn't include Griffen, but if you want to I can include Jong who replaces Griffen for height.

I will concede only one player is short and if you take him out then the average is only down by 1cm, hardly anything to worry about.

On the flip we gained Boyd, Hamling, Redpath and lost Jones and Williams. So overall we are ahead. :D

If you look at the recruiters and what they are thinking for the future, they are banking on Talia, Roberts, Boyd, Roughead, Redpath, Cordy and Campbell to take us forward.

I think next draft we need to look at talls again, but in the meantime I am happy with the way we have drafted.

That is correct, we made our decisions, we had a big turnover of players (biggest ever?). Draft night was mostly spent on acquiring skill, stamina, versatility & flair. We have endeavoured to address KPB and tall BP issues through the trade period and rookie promotion. We have gone for four more primarily defender types with the rookie draft (although I not expecting Goodes to get a call up or promoted again but accept the reasoning for the move to rookie him). Rucks, same thing - technically we have 4 ruckmen on our list. If we get lucky and two of our KPB candidates emerge, then we will have the luxury of utilising Roughead in another role (Ruck, FP or CHF).

[stefoid]

It's a very high risk strategy because many players who were good decision makers at junior level can really struggle to match that at AFL level, in which case you've got a player who's slow, small, and doesn't have any stand out attribute to help them make the grade.

Doesnt matter how quick you are if you cant play. Far riskier to select players for thier physical attributes IMO. We didnt have low enough picks to get a player with good smarts and size/pace combined.

[boydogs]

This thread is worth a read for those interested in the height debate

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2015-list-analysis-and-comparison.1084370/

Speed wise, I agree that speed and accuracy of ball movement is the most important thing. The Geelong crew have already been mentioned, but Lewis, Mitchell & Hodge are Hawthorn's best players yet all are on the slow side. Hawthorn have Hill & Smith, and Geelong had Varcoe, Wojo & Byrnes, but none of those are stars.

A lot of our small players are quick - Dahlhaus, Hrovat, Honeychurch & Daniel. People say we can't play them all in the one side, but I'd be more concerned about playing all our slower players together. Stringer, Wood, Picken & Hamling are quick. Jong is lightning and is a very important piece of the puzzle now as a tall mid with good acceleration.

I'm most concerned about Mitch Wallis, he doesn't have the hurt factor with his disposal to be an attacking mid and doesn't have the pace to be a defensive one. He can compete valiantly and restrict the best players to under 20 disposals, but cost us 2 goals in the last quarter getting burnt off. He has a great footy brain and can win the ball, work it through a contested situation and tackle well, I hope he can improve his pace a yard as it will make him much more effective. But then you could say the same thing about Daniel Cross

[1eyedog]

This thread is worth a read for those interested in the height debate

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2015-list-analysis-and-comparison.1084370/

Speed wise, I agree that speed and accuracy of ball movement is the most important thing. The Geelong crew have already been mentioned, but Lewis, Mitchell & Hodge are Hawthorn's best players yet all are on the slow side. Hawthorn have Hill & Smith, and Geelong had Varcoe, Wojo & Byrnes, but none of those are stars.

A lot of our small players are quick - Dahlhaus, Hrovat, Honeychurch & Daniel. People say we can't play them all in the one side, but I'd be more concerned about playing all our slower players together. Stringer, Wood, Picken & Hamling are quick. Jong is lightning and is a very important piece of the puzzle now as a tall mid with good acceleration.

I'm most concerned about Mitch Wallis, he doesn't have the hurt factor with his disposal to be an attacking mid and doesn't have the pace to be a defensive one. He can compete valiantly and restrict the best players to under 20 disposals, but cost us 2 goals in the last quarter getting burnt off. He has a great footy brain and can win the ball, work it through a contested situation and tackle well, I hope he can improve his pace a yard as it will make him much more effective. But then you could say the same thing about Daniel Cross

Agree with all of this. With regard to Wallis I remember Bomber fans saying a similar thing about Watson when he was 40-50 games in.

[LostDoggy]

This thread is worth a read for those interested in the height debate

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2015-list-analysis-and-comparison.1084370/

Speed wise, I agree that speed and accuracy of ball movement is the most important thing. The Geelong crew have already been mentioned, but Lewis, Mitchell & Hodge are Hawthorn's best players yet all are on the slow side. Hawthorn have Hill & Smith, and Geelong had Varcoe, Wojo & Byrnes, but none of those are stars.

A lot of our small players are quick - Dahlhaus, Hrovat, Honeychurch & Daniel. People say we can't play them all in the one side, but I'd be more concerned about playing all our slower players together. Stringer, Wood, Picken & Hamling are quick. Jong is lightning and is a very important piece of the puzzle now as a tall mid with good acceleration.

I'm most concerned about Mitch Wallis, he doesn't have the hurt factor with his disposal to be an attacking mid and doesn't have the pace to be a defensive one. He can compete valiantly and restrict the best players to under 20 disposals, but cost us 2 goals in the last quarter getting burnt off. He has a great footy brain and can win the ball, work it through a contested situation and tackle well, I hope he can improve his pace a yard as it will make him much more effective. But then you could say the same thing about Daniel Cross

I'd have Cross back tomorrow. Mitch's will make it, give him time.

[Greystache]

Agree with all of this. With regard to Wallis I remember Bomber fans saying a similar thing about Watson when he was 40-50 games in.

The difference is Watson was fat, unfit, and uncommitted to AFL footy. It was only when he put his head down and worked hard that he was able to realise his talent. Wallis has been as committed and professional as anyone in the AFL since day one, he just doesn't have much talent to work with.

I still think Mitch can get to 100 games through pure determination, but as we improve he's going to find it harder and harder to keep up.

[Mofra]

Cooney 187cm
Higgins 186cm
Gryphynn- 190cm
Tutt 177cm
Gia- 183cm

Replaced with

McLean 180cm
Webb 186cm
Hamilton 182cm
Daniel 167cm
Dale 182cm

So we lost 3 big running players and replaced them 5 players of which only one is 6 foot or taller. Yeah, but they're all the same :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that 2 of the players we lost were tall and quick, and have been replaced by short and slow.
Have to add the 'talls' in too - Cordy & Hamling (a kid & super-skinny unproven type Geelong let go) for Williams and Austin, who for any flaws in their game were able to hold down a key post when on the park.

Our 2015 KPD stocks are arguably weaker than in 2014, and quite a few posters (myself included) question the strategy of taking 5 players of similar attribute in the same draft.
One big tick I'll give us is the acquisition of Biggs via trade - I really like what I've seen of the kid.

[LostDoggy]

The difference is Watson was fat, unfit, and uncommitted to AFL footy. It was only when he put his head down and worked hard that he was able to realise his talent. Wallis has been as committed and professional as anyone in the AFL since day one, he just doesn't have much talent to work with.

I still think Mitch can get to 100 games through pure determination, but as we improve he's going to find it harder and harder to keep up.

Before Mitch got injured he was having a terrific run, nearly one of our best players (finished top 10 in the B&F) barring injury he is without doubt a 200 gamer.

[stefoid]

Not saying we dont need to add quality quicks and talls, but I think our game plan didnt help us much its emphasis on defence at all costs. Reckon it probably made us look slower/more inept up forward than we really are. Towards the end of 2013 we didnt look so slow and we scored well.

[kruder]

It seems at this draft we made players who are short and slow the priority. As you said, all have good endurance, and are seen to be good decision makers, but all are well below average speed. It's a very high risk strategy because many players who were good decision makers at junior level can really struggle to match that at AFL level, in which case you've got a player who's slow, small, and doesn't have any stand out attribute to help them make the grade.

We really need to hope we can improve the skill level amongst the team, because a team that's small, slow, and can't kick is going to get some beltings. Even more so given we have virtually no proven key defenders.

Greystache,

we are still well and truly into the development faze we just need to target AFL players. Forget a singular attribute, its the least of our worries we need players that are AFL standard as so many on our list are or were not. You would have to back Daly over his past perfromances and IMO I think he has again selected a couple of little beauties who will entertain in the years to come.

Cordy gives me nightmares he is that bad, and after using a first round pick and 6 years developing him I'd much rather buy a guy like Campbell who has a few years of development under his belt and at least shown promise against men.

Agree that our defence is looking scary particulally this year but buying a skinny athletic kid won't improve that in the short term. FA and trading is where the big players are had and it looks like we will use this route once our house is in order and we are pushing into the top 8 again.

[Mantis]

One big tick I'll give us is the acquisition of Biggs via trade - I really like what I've seen of the kid.

From what I hear he is impressing many within the club with how he is travelling.

[Greystache]

Greystache,

we are still well and truly into the development faze we just need to target AFL players. Forget a singular attribute, its the least of our worries we need players that are AFL standard as so many on our list are or were not. You would have to back Daly over his past perfromances and IMO I think he has again selected a couple of little beauties who will entertain in the years to come.

Cordy gives me nightmares he is that bad, and after using a first round pick and 6 years developing him I'd much rather buy a guy like Campbell who has a few years of development under his belt and at least shown promise against men.

Agree that our defence is looking scary particulally this year but buying a skinny athletic kid won't improve that in the short term. FA and trading is where the big players are had and it looks like we will use this route once our house is in order and we are pushing into the top 8 again.

Just because a player is short and slow doesn't somehow mean he's an AFL standard player. The players we selected are just as speculative as those chosen by other clubs who are taller, or quicker, and just as equally unproven. Facts are at best 2-3 of the players chosen during at this draft will be solid to good AFL players, which ones they are we don't know yet. What we do know is, whoever they are, they'll be short and slow because that's all we chose.

So because a key position defender won't an impact next year that is the basis for not recruiting one? Using that logic we'd never draft another key position player. How many quality key position players have we been able to trade for or secure through free agency? The answer is zero, the closest we've come is Boyd, who while having a good pedigree, has played 9 pretty average games of AFL footy, and we paid $1 million a season and gave up our captain and early first round pick for him. I had no problem doing the deal due to the circumstances, but if that's an indication of what a key position player is going to cost from another club then we'll be lucky to get another this decade. The thinking you can build the pillars of a team via trade and free agency is obsurd. An 18 year old won't make a difference next year, but the year after they'll be 19, and the year after 20, all waiting for another 2-3 years to draft one means is they're still another 2-3 years away from making a difference.

Dalrymple has done a good recent job in selecting some quality players, but he's also had some very early selections to do it. He's also recruited about 10 players so far to replace Gilbee (Howard, Fuller, Tutt, Pearce, JJ, Darley ect) and we still don't have anyone locked into that role, so I'd suggest his ability to identify a quality small ball user is actually pretty poor. His best pick thus far would be Hrovat, and again he was a first round selection.

His refusal to draft key position players, and in particular early in the draft, is bordering on an irrational fear. He's been our head recruiter for 6 years and our key defence still centre around Roughead and Morris who were at the club before he took over. We have only Talia and Roberts developing and they are both still highly speculative.

[1eyedog]

Just because a player is short and slow doesn't somehow mean he's an AFL standard player. The players we selected are just as speculative as those chosen by other clubs who are taller, or quicker, and just as equally unproven. Facts are at best 2-3 of the players chosen during at this draft will be solid to good AFL players, which ones they are we don't know yet. What we do know is, whoever they are, they'll be short and slow because that's all we chose.

So because a key position defender won't an impact next year that is the basis for not recruiting one? Using that logic we'd never draft another key position player. How many quality key position players have we been able to trade for or secure through free agency? The answer is zero, the closest we've come is Boyd, who while having a good pedigree, has played 9 pretty average games of AFL footy, and we paid $1 million a season and gave up our captain and early first round pick for him. I had no problem doing the deal due to the circumstances, but if that's an indication of what a key position player is going to cost from another club then we'll be lucky to get another this decade. The thinking you can build the pillars of a team via trade and free agency is obsurd. An 18 year old won't make a difference next year, but the year after they'll be 19, and the year after 20, all waiting for another 2-3 years to draft one means is they're still another 2-3 years away from making a difference.

Dalrymple has done a good recent job in selecting some quality players, but he's also had some very early selections to do it. He's also recruited about 10 players so far to replace Gilbee (Howard, Fuller, Tutt, Pearce, JJ, Darley ect) and we still don't have anyone locked into that role, so I'd suggest his ability to identify a quality small ball user is actually pretty poor. His best pick thus far would be Hrovat, and again he was a first round selection.

His refusal to draft key position players, and in particular early in the draft, is bordering on an irrational fear. He's been our head recruiter for 6 years and our key defence still centre around Roughead and Morris who were at the club before he took over. We have only Talia and Roberts developing and they are both still highly speculative.

As you know really good KPP come at a high cost. I'm also not too sure what the percentages are of getting a really good one at pick 26+ but I do know that it is considerably less likely than at picks 1-12. We have selected MaCrae, Stringer and Bonti and brought in Boyd (pick 4) with our top 12 picks and to be honest the only really good KPP over the past few drafts outside of Patton, Boyd and McCartin (all out of our reach) anywhere near picks 4-6 over the past few drafts is McCarthy who went to GWS obviously at pick 14.

Who are the KPP you would have drafted at the picks we've had that appealed more than Talia, Roberts and Hamling? Hopefully Roughie can hold down full back and it would be nice to have one of Talia, Hamling or Roberts progress this year but there is no reason we cannot secure a KPP as a free agent during our next premiership window (e.g. a Frawley) to shore up our spine. Do we really need to draft in more KPP in the 30s to clog up the list and compete with a spot against Roberts, Talia, Hamling, Smith and potentially Cordy (who some have earmarked as a KPP). Obviously we've had needs across the ground and bringing in Hamling, Kelly and Cordy seems to have sated the desperate need for another speculative tall back, at least for now.

Getting good KPPs is fine but it is hard when your pick starts at 26. I reckon they become far more speculative in this draft range than a close to the ground player with good goal sense which is why I think we selected Hrovat, Honeychurch, Webb, Hamilton and McLean rather than another Talia, Roberts, Smith, Cordy or Hamling.

If you want a really good KPP you get a pick in the top 5 or be prepared to chop off the proverbial for one. We've had two top 5 picks and picked up Boyd and Stringer both of whom will be playing KPP roles this season.

[stefoid]

Just because a player is short and slow doesn't somehow mean he's an AFL standard player. The players we selected are just as speculative as those chosen by other clubs who are taller, or quicker, and just as equally unproven. Facts are at best 2-3 of the players chosen during at this draft will be solid to good AFL players, which ones they are we don't know yet. What we do know is, whoever they are, they'll be short and slow because that's all we chose.

Dalrymple has done a good recent job in selecting some quality players, but he's also had some very early selections to do it. He's also recruited about 10 players so far to replace Gilbee (Howard, Fuller, Tutt, Pearce, JJ, Darley ect) and we still don't have anyone locked into that role, so I'd suggest his ability to identify a quality small ball user is actually pretty poor. His best pick thus far would be Hrovat, and again he was a first round selection.

His refusal to draft key position players, and in particular early in the draft, is bordering on an irrational fear. He's been our head recruiter for 6 years and our key defence still centre around Roughead and Morris who were at the club before he took over. We have only Talia and Roberts developing and they are both still highly speculative.

I see evidence in the type of smalls we picked this year that our recruiters are learning form past mistakes.

[Greystache]

As you know really good KPP come at a high cost. I'm also not too sure what the percentages are of getting a really good one at pick 26+ but I do know that it is considerably less likely than at picks 1-12. We have selected MaCrae, Stringer and Bonti and brought in Boyd (pick 4) with our top 12 picks and to be honest the only really good KPP over the past few drafts outside of Patton, Boyd and McCartin (all out of our reach) anywhere near picks 4-6 over the past few drafts is McCarthy who went to GWS obviously at pick 14.

I hear this all the time, we never have pick 1 so we can't draft tall. How many team's first choice key defenders were early first round draft picks?

Hooker #54
Carlise #24
Merret #30
Jamison Rookie
Rowe #44
Dawson Rookie
Lonergan #22
Taylor #17
Rivers #26
Lake #71
Gibson Rookie
Thompson #37
Carlise #44
Trengove #22
Rance #18
Mckenzie #29
Roughead #31

Virtually none. To suggest pick #26 is too late a pick to go for a tall defender is absurd.

A couple of things you can be certain of is; the key defender you don't pick will never make it. And Jake Carlisle at the "speculative" pick of #24 is a much better chance to make it than the "safe" selection of nicely skilled defender/mid Christian Howard.

[LostDoggy]

As you know really good KPP come at a high cost. I'm also not too sure what the percentages are of getting a really good one at pick 26+ but I do know that it is considerably less likely than at picks 1-12. We have selected MaCrae, Stringer and Bonti and brought in Boyd (pick 4) with our top 12 picks and to be honest the only really good KPP over the past few drafts outside of Patton, Boyd and McCartin (all out of our reach) anywhere near picks 4-6 over the past few drafts is McCarthy who went to GWS obviously at pick 14.

Who are the KPP you would have drafted at the picks we've had that appealed more than Talia, Roberts and Hamling? Hopefully Roughie can hold down full back and it would be nice to have one of Talia, Hamling or Roberts progress this year but there is no reason we cannot secure a KPP as a free agent during our next premiership window (e.g. a Frawley) to shore up our spine. Do we really need to draft in more KPP in the 30s to clog up the list and compete with a spot against Roberts, Talia, Hamling, Smith and potentially Cordy (who some have earmarked as a KPP). Obviously we've had needs across the ground and bringing in Hamling, Kelly and Cordy seems to have sated the desperate need for another speculative tall back, at least for now.

Getting good KPPs is fine but it is hard when your pick starts at 26. I reckon they become far more speculative in this draft range than a close to the ground player with good goal sense which is why I think we selected Hrovat, Honeychurch, Webb, Hamilton and McLean rather than another Talia, Roberts, Smith, Cordy or Hamling.

If you want a really good KPP you get a pick in the top 5 or be prepared to chop off the proverbial for one. We've had two top 5 picks and picked up Boyd and Stringer both of whom will be playing KPP roles this season.

Good post and great points. If we want to draft a quality KPP we're going to have to purposefully tank, because with the talent we DO have, we are not going to win the spoon without actively aiming for it. There are plenty of teams down in the dumps with us, all of whom are crying out for the same players we are. Add to that compo picks, draft concessions, etc. and that theory is shot to pieces.

We can bitch about it or we can work with what we have. Picking a talented yet small midfielder who ends up being surplus to requirements is going to net you more come trade time than a dud tall.

[LostDoggy]

I hear this all the time, we never have pick 1 so we can't draft tall. How many team's first choice key defenders were early first round draft picks?

Hooker #54
Carlise #24
Merret #30
Jamison Rookie
Rowe #44
Dawson Rookie
Lonergan #22
Taylor #17
Rivers #26
Lake #71
Gibson Rookie
Thompson #37
Carlise #44
Trengove #22
Rance #18
Mckenzie #29
Roughead #31

Virtually none. To suggest pick #26 is too late a pick to go for a tall defender is absurd.

A couple of things you can be certain of is; the key defender you don't pick will never make it. And Jake Carlisle at the "speculative" pick of #24 is a much better chance to make it than the "safe" selection of nicely skilled defender/mid Christian Howard.


How many were wasted to get those?

[Greystache]

How many were wasted to get those?

How many Andrew Hooper's does it take to find a Brent Harvey?

How many Christian Howard's does it take to find a Lindsay Gilbee?

How many Jason Tutt's does it take to find a Nathan Eagleton?

Why bother drafting at all when some won't make it?

[1eyedog]

I hear this all the time, we never have pick 1 so we can't draft tall. How many team's first choice key defenders were early first round draft picks?

Hooker #54
Carlise #24
Merret #30
Jamison Rookie
Rowe #44
Dawson Rookie
Lonergan #22
Taylor #17
Rivers #26
Lake #71
Gibson Rookie
Thompson #37
Carlise #44
Trengove #22
Rance #18
Mckenzie #29
Roughead #31

Virtually none. To suggest pick #26 is too late a pick to go for a tall defender is absurd.

A couple of things you can be certain of is; the key defender you don't pick will never make it. And Jake Carlisle at the "speculative" pick of #24 is a much better chance to make it than the "safe" selection of nicely skilled defender/mid Christian Howard.

That's what 7 players greater than pick 26+ across all clubs through drafts stretching back 10 years. Going by your numbers there's no reason why one of Talia, Roberts, Hamling, Kelly or even Cordy won't be first choice key back. How many do you want to stockpile?

[Greystache]

That's what 7 players greater than pick 26+ across all clubs through drafts stretching back 10 years. Going by your numbers there's no reason why one of Talia, Roberts, Hamling, Kelly or even Cordy won't be first choice key back. How many do you want to stockpile?

There's 12 in that list alone that were pick #26 or later, and that's off the top of my head.

Kelly and Cordy are short, Talia's undersized, Hamling's already been delisted once. That leaves Roberts as the best chance, we're hardly talking about the cream of the cream in that list.

[1eyedog]

There's 12 in that list alone that were pick #26 or later, and that's off the top of my head.

Kelly and Cordy are short, Talia's undersized, Hamling's already been delisted once. That leaves Roberts as the best chance, we're hardly talking about the cream of the cream in that list.

Talia is taller than Taylor, Jamison, Thompson and Rance so height isn't his issue. I'll go with MJP when he states that Hamling will be a good player. Anyway I just don't know how many more of these later pick KPPs we should have on the list.

[bornadog]

Talia is taller than Taylor, Jamison, Thompson and Rance so height isn't his issue. I'll go with MJP when he states that Hamling will be a good player. Anyway I just don't know how many more of these later pick KPPs we should have on the list.

I would have liked one on the rookie list instead of Goodes, otherwise, I think we have to see how the current crop goes and then we can think about KPPs again in the next draft.

[soupman]

Talia is taller than Taylor, Jamison, Thompson and Rance so height isn't his issue. I'll go with MJP when he states that Hamling will be a good player. Anyway I just don't know how many more of these later pick KPPs we should have on the list.

We do seem to be happy to stockpile half forward flankers, which are easier to recruit anyway, than average KPP prospects.

I would have liked to have seen us look to get another tall on the list, like you I am optimistic about our defensive prospects, but tbf apart from Roughead they are all possible delistings at the end of the season, and while Roberts and Talia have shown promising signs, without ever really being strong performers at AFL level, the rest are completely unproven.

It would have been a worthwhile exercise brining in another tall prospect I think when you consider the key defender we delisted in Mark Austin is better credentialed than any of the other young guys on the list, and our entire genuine key forward group is Boyd and Redpath.

[1eyedog]

We do seem to be happy to stockpile half forward flankers, which are easier to recruit anyway, than average KPP prospects.

I would have liked to have seen us look to get another tall on the list, like you I am optimistic about our defensive prospects, but tbf apart from Roughead they are all possible delistings at the end of the season, and while Roberts and Talia have shown promising signs, without ever really being strong performers at AFL level, the rest are completely unproven.

It would have been a worthwhile exercise brining in another tall prospect I think when you consider the key defender we delisted in Mark Austin is better credentialed than any of the other young guys on the list, and our entire genuine key forward group is Boyd and Redpath.

I understand where you are coming from and I agree that another KPP player would be worthwhile but I would like to increase the chances of getting a good one next draft with our first pick or even giving something up to get one rather than take another speculative 30+ something pick. Maybe that's just me. HFF really should be able to play HBF too if they can kick, midfield and FP are also options. Key position play key position and that's it. They are not versatile but that is not a reason to not picking them obviously. I guess I'm sick of having a swathe of no-good KPP over a long period of time. Next year I'd like to select the best we can get with our first pick. That's my point. I want one but I want to increase our chances of getting a decent one.

[GVGjr]

I get the argument of how many KP defenders do we need given the players we have but we chased Lonergan hard which indicates that despite having the likes of Roberts, Talia and now Hamling we did see it as an area we wanted to fix in the short term.

I also get that we didn't rate the KP defenders in the draft once our picks come around and I think there is plenty of merit in that.

It's an area that we need to address soon and we simply can't keep deferring it.

[boydogs]

I get the argument of how many KP defenders do we need given the players we have but we chased Lonergan hard which indicates that despite having the likes of Roberts, Talia and now Hamling we did see it as an area we wanted to fix in the short term.

We chased Lonergan before we got Hamling

[boydogs]

Talia's undersized

Yet you included Josh Gibson in your list of late pick KPD's

[Greystache]

Yet you included Josh Gibson in your list of late pick KPD's

I'll make an exception for an undersized dual premiership player who's been a key pillar in defence. Not for a player who's undersized and looked out of their depth in their 3rd season. Pretty straight forward.

[GVGjr]

We chased Lonergan before we got Hamling

And that's why I said in the "short term". Hamling is not a 15 game senior player in 2015.

[boydogs]

I'll make an exception for an undersized dual premiership player who's been a key pillar in defence. Not for a player who's undersized and looked out of their depth in their 3rd season. Pretty straight forward.

So is it that we don't have enough KPD's, that they're not tall enough, or that they're not good enough?

We have 7 KPD's on our list, more than Hawthorn. 6 are aged 24 or below and have a lot of improvement left in them

[boydogs]

And that's why I said in the "short term". Hamling is not a 15 game senior player in 2015.

He's not an 18 year old either. We didn't have a lot of success with KPD's last year, Austin & Young were delisted at the end of the season and Talia & Roberts didn't get many games. Redpath transitioned to a forward, as did Williams who retired. It was sensible to look at a short term option in Lonergan or Merrett, and to get Hamling at 21 over say Oscar McDonald

[GVGjr]

He's not an 18 year old either. We didn't have a lot of success with KPD's last year, Austin & Young were delisted at the end of the season and Talia & Roberts didn't get many games. Redpath transitioned to a forward, as did Williams who retired. It was sensible to look at a short term option in Lonergan or Merrett, and to get Hamling at 21 over say Oscar McDonald

I'm not quite sure of the point you are making, we lose Williams and we delist two players others that could play some senior football plus we have Morris with a limited shelf life. We try and secure Lonergan to quickly address that gap and when that falls short we add Hamling who hasn't played a senior game. We might have enough numbers of key defenders but we are very thin on quality.
Sooner rather than later we have to address it

As for Redpath, he was always a forward who played some games in the back line before being moved back forward. After landing Boyd perhaps Redpath's best chance is a key defender. Not his natural position but it might be a good chance for him.

[Greystache]

So is it that we don't have enough KPD's, that they're not tall enough, or that they're not good enough?

We have 7 KPD's on our list, more than Hawthorn. 6 are aged 24 or below and have a lot of improvement left in them

I can't follow the point you're trying to make, but if it helps you out we have 4 key position defenders on our list- Roughead, Talia, Roberts, and Hamling. 3 have serious doubts on them and we didn't add to that this year in the draft.

[boydogs]

We might have enough numbers of key defenders but we are very thin on quality.
Sooner rather than later we have to address it

So who makes way?

We're building a side of an unprecedentedly similar age to all peak together. We haven't followed the "cut them at 30" rule as hard as Melbourne did but between some poor drafting, the mature aged player trading Eade did and this season's exodus, we've managed to amass 36 players aged 25 or younger.

Talls take a while, if the issue is quality then give them a few years. If we want the side to peak together, then it's normal that in its early stages the mids are outperforming the talls.

[Twodogs]

Someone mentioned Merret before. If we couldn't get Lonergen then I would have thought Merret might have been pursuing as a backup.

I wonder if we asked and he said no.

[Eastdog]

At the end of 2015 where would we go to secure that key defender?
Would we pursue one in the trade period or pursue one in the national draft.
I believe for where our team is at the national draft would be the best place to go as if you were wanting a short term replacement from the trade period you would be in a premiership window which is what we did at the end of 2009 in acquiring a key forward in Barry Hall.

I hope Roughead has a good 2015.

[Remi Moses]

I was personally pleased we didn't end up with Lonergan .
The contract was silly at his age and smacked of desperation, and by the time we're half decent he'd be in his slippers in retirement.
I'd heard a whisper that Lonergan might have had a major issue with a player who has departed the Cattery.
Pretty sordid turn of events

[Go_Dogs]

I can't follow the point you're trying to make, but if it helps you out we have 4 key position defenders on our list- Roughead, Talia, Roberts, and Hamling. 3 have serious doubts on them and we didn't add to that this year in the draft.

Yep, this is the key point for mine.

I'm not unhappy with the players we selected, as I think they may offer us a bit moving forward, however it was very surprising we didn't look to at any KPP at all with our 5 live selections. Most of us presumed given our lack of options/quality we would look to add at least one, perhaps two. I do wonder if Nielson was one we had our eye on, and North took him the selection before McLean, but we also passed on McDonald and Dear who at various stages I had seen mentioned as players we might be looking at.

It's quite a contrast to the approach Port took, who were quite content to use a couple of late picks on more speculative/development talls in Dougal Howard and Logan Austin, who will take some time but could develop into KPP in a couple of seasons. Whilst our list isn't as good as Port, who are better poised to take a few speculative selections late, if they strike gold with those players, or McDonald or Dear become solid AFL players, it will mean we've missed some opportunities with our approach.

[1eyedog]

Yep, this is the key point for mine.

I'm not unhappy with the players we selected, as I think they may offer us a bit moving forward, however it was very surprising we didn't look to at any KPP at all with our 5 live selections. Most of us presumed given our lack of options/quality we would look to add at least one, perhaps two. I do wonder if Nielson was one we had our eye on, and North took him the selection before McLean, but we also passed on McDonald and Dear who at various stages I had seen mentioned as players we might be looking at.

It's quite a contrast to the approach Port took, who were quite content to use a couple of late picks on more speculative/development talls in Dougal Howard and Logan Austin, who will take some time but could develop into KPP in a couple of seasons. Whilst our list isn't as good as Port, who are better poised to take a few speculative selections late, if they strike gold with those players, or McDonald or Dear become solid AFL players, it will mean we've missed some opportunities with our approach.

Port had to take speculative talls. Westhoff, Trengrove and Carlisle are all 25+, Schultz too. We don't have to take anymore speculative talls...yet. Let's see if Talia, Roberts or Hamling come on a bit this year - they may surprise. Kelly @ 192 is short but is also in the wings. If not we draft one next year. There's no irrational fear with regarding to drafting talls. I'm with GVGjr on this in that I think we didn't rate the talls when it came around to our turn. Either that or we have some confidence in what we've got. I'm also not sure why WOOFERs don't think we can secure a really good KPP as a free agent in the next 2-3 seasons.

[Go_Dogs]

Port had to take speculative talls. Westhoff, Trengrove and Carlisle are all 25+, Schultz too. We don't have to take anymore speculative talls...yet. Let's see if Talia, Roberts or Hamling come on a bit this year - they may surprise. Kelly @ 192 is short but is also in the wings. If not we draft one next year. There's no irrational fear with regarding to drafting talls. I'm with GVGjr on this in that I think we didn't rate the talls when it came around to our turn. Either that or we have some confidence in what we've got. I'm also not sure why WOOFERs don't think we can secure a really good KPP as a free agent in the next 2-3 seasons.

Port still have Clurey, Shaw, Butcher, Harvey and Hombsch as developing talls, as well as Trengove who is the same age as Roughie, albeit an established player.

Whilst they have some quality players over 25, they are continuing to stockpile young options.

[Eastdog]

Port still have Clurey, Shaw, Butcher, Harvey and Hombsch as developing talls, as well as Trengove who is the same age as Roughie, albeit an established player.

Whilst they have some quality players over 25, they are continuing to stockpile young options.

But where also a club that is going for the youth now something we certain have over teams like North Melbourne and Fremantle who have the oldest lists and not much youth coming through which bodes well for our future.

[Maddog37]

I can't follow the point you're trying to make, but if it helps you out we have 4 key position defenders on our list- Roughead, Talia, Roberts, and Hamling. 3 have serious doubts on them and we didn't add to that this year in the draft.

Z Cordy is considered kpd by the club too I feel.

[boydogs]

I'm not unhappy with the players we selected, as I think they may offer us a bit moving forward, however it was very surprising we didn't look to at any KPP at all with our 5 live selections. Most of us presumed given our lack of options/quality we would look to add at least one, perhaps two.

I didn't, given we already picked up Hamling & Cordy

Is there any club with more than 7 KPD's on the list?

I'm surprised this has been such a focus, I would have thought the 3 rucks would be more of a discussion point, or a ruck/forward option now that Jordan Roughead has transitioned to defense

[1eyedog]

Port still have Clurey, Shaw, Butcher, Harvey and Hombsch as developing talls, as well as Trengove who is the same age as Roughie, albeit an established player.

Whilst they have some quality players over 25, they are continuing to stockpile young options.

Why do you think the recruiting staff bypassed more KPP?

[Go_Dogs]

Why do you think the recruiting staff bypassed more KPP?

Hopefully for the reasons which have been put forward, that we're confident our current crop will work out and didn't rate the options available, along with the need to improve our skills being seen as a greater deficiency.

Clearly some other sides have thought the KP's we passed on worthy of selection, and it will be sometime before we know if our approach was the right one, and whether our assessments on those players were right.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Agree with the notion that we are short on key defenders - been banging on about this for a few years now.

I do take comfort in knowing that key defenders are easier to find in both drafting and trading terms. There are quite a few examples of this being the case, so we could - theoretically - poach a key defender via FA next season and then draft one. This would then allow us to push Roughead into his more natural position (ruck/forward).

We still need another key forward too. Crameri/Stringer are great second or third talls, but the only legitimate KPF we have on our list is Boyd and an upgraded unlikely-to-make-it-rookie in Redpath.

It'll be interesting to see how we address these issues in the next 2 years.

[Twodogs]

At the end of 2015 where would we go to secure that key defender?
Would we pursue one in the trade period or pursue one in the national draft.
I believe for where our team is at the national draft would be the best place to go as if you were wanting a short term replacement from the trade period you would be in a premiership window which is what we did at the end of 2009 in acquiring a key forward in Barry Hall.

I hope Roughead has a good 2015.


It's really important to us that he does. If he can hold down one of the key defensive posts then it means we can trial the other KPDs in the team. Hopefully his shoulders are OK.