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!

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.

I guess my mindset is that spine players are hard to get, and that Gibbs truly would want to be a once in 5 years midfielder for us to overlook such good key position prospects (ie. he would want to be better than a Goddard or a Cooney or even a Deledio. He'd want to be a Judd or a Buckley, or a Murphy!).

It leads me to questions I am hoping to ask Cazz if he'll allow himself to be subject to the TC forum after the draft (and here's keeping fingers crossed that he is willing to subject himself to questions again this year - although I will hardly blame him if he won't).

Two definite questions for mine would be - in terms of overall ratings, just how close were the top five prospects the club wanted? And was there a narrower gap between the top players in 2006 than there was last year? (of course - it is possible only WH could answer this!)

I'm not sure of the process, but the club somehow found out about his skills, and he now has a position with the recruiting team.

Siegfried,

there are more learned posters on here than me that will probably correct me if I am wrong. But Cazz spent much time a few years back (during his days at The Blue View) giving us overviews of junior talent coming through the ranks at under 18 level. Similar to the player penpics that Mojo provided for this year. I'm not sure of the process, but the club somehow found out about his skills, and he now has a position with the recruiting team.

TalkingCarlton was particularly fortunate last year in that he opened up for questions after both the national draft and the preseason and rookie drafts. The pages went quite a long way back (although they never reached the length of the Gibbs thread). I'm just hoping he'll do the same this year - although obviously you can see good reason why he would choose not to do so.

I remember in 2003, Kepler Bradley was supposed to be a rare talent too. Some wanted us to use pick 2 on him. I know he's not a ruck but maybe tall players arent as simple to judge at the age of 17-18