But your saying we shouldn't pick him becasue the percentages don't fall in his favour. Nothing to do with if he's any good or not.

I will say this one more time, then stop, as I am sure that people are getting bored with reading my thoughts over and over, and I don't want to be someone who sits here all day ranting about the same belief...

I am saying that given that he is not a stand out over the other candidates for pick 1, and given that we want to pick someone who is going to play football of the highest standard for 10 or more yeards, for 250+ games, then ONE of the things that we need to consider is which of the potential options we can choose (as it seems that people believe them all to be of similar standard) is most likely to give us that.

If we consider that player X is more likely (for whatever reason) to play 250 games at elite level than player Y, then surely that must be taken into account by WH. The percentages (as well as talent, and character, and personality, and leadership skills etc) MUST be taken into account.

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

What about the percentage of players wanting to return to their home state? That may rule out a number of the top five or six.

Yep, I would take that into account as well, although what weighting you give to it I'm not sure.

As discussed on radio recently, if a club provides the right kind of environment for a player, most (but clearly not all) players will be happy enough to stay (eg Pavlich, Judd).

Also, unless a club is incredibly unlucky, there will at least be compensation if a player wants to return home. So if we drafted Gibbs, and he wanted to go home, unless Port or Adelaide finished bottom and had pick 1 in the PSD, we'd get comensation for him. Same with Leuenberger, who even though is a Carlton supporter, may still get homesick and want to return. Same with Selwood, who even though he is a Victorian, may decide he wants to go to WC or Bris to play with his brother.

All these things need to be considered. At least the go home factor is something that the clubs generally have SOME control over...if they create the right environment, players are generally happy to stay (but not always, this is true). The longevity factor is something that clubs may not have the same control over. History has showed us that ruckmen recently have been unable to play at the elite, dominating level for more than a handful of years, for whatever reason.

So, for ME, that is a much more significant issue to consider than the go home factor (although I would certainly be doing everything in my power at Carlton to make sure non-Vic players are happy at the club and in Melbourne), so I would give that more importance in the decision I make as to who to draft. You may see it differently. WH may see it a third way, for all we know.

None of this is 'right' or 'wrong' of course. It's merely beliefs or opinions. I have stated my opinions and the reasons why I hold those opinions. Some will agree with me, some will disagree. And that's cool.

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

I agree with Verbs.

Agree with what exactly?

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides

You're all nuff nuffs.

you would think that it would be relief to get out of SA let alone want to return there.

_________________
Ich bein ein Carltonian

The recruitment of Ackland won't have any bearing on the decision who we draft and drafting Ackland will give him breathing space to develop. The Eagles allegedly favour him ahead of Gumbleton and Hansen and that's despite their key forwards being good honest players. Ditto for Melbourne who rate him top three and ahead of one of Gibbs, Gumby and Hansen. And they need a tall defender or forward as much as the WCE.

There appear to be no right and wrong answers this year and Leuenberger will be a very good player for the Blues if we pick him at one.

Jeff White, but then he was #1 pick.

Juzz, Ziggy (you will take that nickname and YOU WILL LIKE IT) makes an excellent point based on the last 15 years of competition, but hopefully the rule changes that have been put in place will go a long way to increasing the output of rucks in today's game.

Cox is 25 and reaping the rewards of the rules as they stand (and I'm not at all suggesting that they're unfair) and Luke Darcy is the only decent ruckman put out of the game for an extended period in the last two seasons (I think), and he's 31.

Come the day Cox retires I would suggest we'll have seen a patch of games that meets Ziggy's criteria.

But let's look at Cox, our prototypical ruckman if you will:

- Didn't get a gig until he was 20 (two full years on the rookie list developing)
- Had a fruitless 2001 even though he played 17 games (another development year - I think he played KP for a good chunk of it?)
- Had some good years in 2002 and 2003, averaging around 10 disposals and 15 hitouts in those years.
- Moved on from this to 3 outstanding seasons of footy

3 years before Cox was a solid contributor and 5 before he was at the elite level.

Given the quality of this draft, I would consider selecting Leuenberger at number one as selling ourselves short. The risk and the time before we yield real results (which I estimate as a little over 2 seasons for Matt, and that's not to suggest he will reach a better or similar level to Cox after that) is paying too much for too little no matter which way you look at it.

I know it's always going to be that way when selecting a ruckman in the top 5 or 10, but this year it's just too much to ask with pick 1.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

Jimmae, Jimmae, Jimmae...

Can you honestly, in your heart of hearts, ever imagine...

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

Maxwell Smart calling Siegfried 'Ziggy'?????

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

I have no idea, but I'm afraid I'll continually mispell your name if I'm not paying attention.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

Then pay attention lad!!

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

Ianh wrote



Well said Ian.

If we did DRAFT a promising rookie every year since 2000, we wouldn't be having this argument...and we wouldn't have short, or second string ruckmen we have to obtain from other clubs....we would have our own.

This is dannyboy's point. We fail to develop our own and only attract second best. For a club that is rebuilding, we are yet to embrace our dire need to develop our own ruckmen.

We just seem to devalue the ruck position, year after year, whilst other teams build a group of good big ruckman, who incidently, down the track can provide a good trade return...have a look at Port. Whilst having Primus, Lade and French, they also drafted Brogan and Ackland. They traded French for 11 and Ackland. They followed up however drafting 3 more ruckmen....and as a result never have to look outside their own list to fill the ruck position, regardless if they are hit with early retirement or injury. In addition, they provide an atmosphere of fierce competition for rucks to gain a place in the first 22; this keeps the output high and fast tracks skills development of their rookie rucks.

Have a look at another rebuilding club in the Hawks. They have been able to develop their own and let go, yes, let go an elite ruckman in Everitt as they were not going to be held to ransom. They run their club on their terms.

jimmae wrote



Is that too costly in the short term and long term jimmae? IMO if we don't take Leuenberger, the cost will be greater for us, and cost us far more in the long term. Same goes with Hansen.

The bigger guys are rare commodities, especially these 2 players (plus Gumby).

So what do you expect us to achieve in the short term without our ruck, and defensive KP's intact? I assume you imply 3 years as short term?

Lets get the spine sorted, and that includes the ruck. I know we've got Hartlett and Bower coming through, but they are not guarantees, they are kids taken at picks 20,;and still no guarantee.

What pick was Simpson? 45. There will always be good midfielders amongst our 6 picks to choose from.

We a need Rucks now to develop between 2007-2010.
We need a CHB now to develop between 2007-2009.
We need a FB now to develop between 2007-2009.

Gibbs is ready now. Sure we can't lose, but wont there be good midfielders available at picks 17, 19, 35 and 51?...and in the first 3 rounds of 2007 draft?

Our midfielders are playing defensive roles to support a weak defence, and this is the reson we are not seen as a team that can attack beyond the HF line; they are all in the back half, and can't provide a link up down the ground for 2 reasons: 1. they are all in the back have and have noone to go to; 2. they are still young and haven't developed the speed and stamina to match the output of the WCE midfield brigade (maybe rotations have something to do with this).

Pick the best and rarest commodities. Big white men that can jump and play....Leuey or Hansen....

and I'm still waiting for that 2002 PP.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Unfortunately I think jimmae actually has no idea who Maxwell Smart and Siegfried are.

Blame Foxtel because the old re-runs have ended up there.


Don't slam the dartboard.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

This post just proves we should draft Leuenberger.

Interesting that some people think that we shouldn't draft Leuey because he will take a couple more years to develop.

If we were realistically gunning for a flag within the next couple of years I could understand this argument however under our present circumstances this shouldn't be an issue.

Lachie or Luey for mine!

_________________
There is no footy god

Let's consider this issue from another perspective (and as usual, a learned post from BondiBlue has provoked my thinking on this one).

We need to consider the draft from a total viewpoint. That is, our strategy (and I'm sure the one WH will employ) needs to work out the quality of what will be left at 17 and 19 in particular, but also 35, etc. This should help to inform our number one pick (keeping in mind that in terms of quality the top 5 prospects are meant to be very, very close). Let's consider who we might take at number one. I'll limit it to Gibbs / Hansen / and Leueunberger. Now considering that our three biggest needs are class onballers, ruckmen, and a key defensive player, the following needs to be worked out by the recruiters:

1. if we take Gibbs, will there still be quality ruckmen and key positions defenders available at 17 and 19?
2. if we take Hansen, will there still be quality ruckmen and midfielders available at 17 and 19?
3. if we take Leueunberger, will there still be quality key position defenders and midfielders available at 17 and 19?

From all the draft reports I read, the biggest given in any of those scenarios is that there will still be quality mids available at 17 and 19. The likelihood of quality rucks available at 17 or 19 is almost zilch (the reports of Renouf and Tippert are not entirely glowing, and there is debate that they are not worth a 17 or 19 pick), and the likelihood of a quality key position defender being available seems to be 50 / 50 (Nathan Brown being the name I'm most hearing mentioned).

Such thinking, combined with the apparent eveness between the top 5 prospects, and keeping in mind Bondi's assertion that sorting out the spine is priority number one leads me to think that we really should be looking at Leuey or Hansen in preference to Gibbs.

The only proviso on this thinking is that we actually come to the conclusion that Gibbs is not discernably a better footballer than Hansen or Leuey. If the recruiting staff genuinely believe that Gibbs is ahead of the others in terms of talent, upside, and whatever other psychological / physiological measure they choose to use then of course he is the right choice. However, all the information coming from a variety of sources indicates to me that it is not cut or dried that Gibbs is the best player. Hence, we should be looking very, very hard at Leuey and Hansen.

Top work as usual BondiBlue!