i understood the point quite well thank you. it was made to sound like geelong used heaps of late picks that yr when the reality was the bulk of them was 3rd rnd or better.
Please point out where this was stated or inferred.
"But it kept a lot of picks and chose lots of new kids especially with 2nd and 3rd round draft picks." Doesn't state or infer "heaps of late picks" to me.
in fact have a look at their premiership side i think 17 were taken 3rd rnd or better. then there was the trades mooney harley and ottens and rookies byrnes and rooke to round out the 22.
The post was about how Geelong rounded out their premiership winning list with a large number of picks - nothing to do with where all their list was picked up at/from. It only mentioned 9 successful picks from 19 over 3 years. Their premiership team was built over many more years than that so to put all those successful picks up as your argument against the original point is not fair or relevant.
while i agree we need to use many picks i think when comparing to geelong we need to not distort exactly what picks were taken. geelong are proof that top 50 picks or picks in the first 3 rounds are paramount.we need to ofload as many players as possible for picks in this area if we are to duplicate what geelong are about.
Agree wholeheartedly but part of that duplication is to accept that quantity is just as important as quality. We have had a significantly larger number of top picks over recent years then most but without large numbers of picks in total and less application of 'nouse' we have only had very average successes. Just the point of the original poster.
quite clearly to state chapman was their 5th pick it can be implied he was a 5th rounder ditto with the ling and enright statement.
the majority of the geelong list was built in 99 and 01 there was no rounding out about it at all. whilst i agree with useing as many picks as possible and have for a long time it is important to learn where most of the decent players come from and in what quantity.the comparisons where players are taken as a whole is very relevant. its relevant because it shows us how to go about it.
unfortunately for us we have so many glass half full types that at the moment we are better of taking a punt on a kid with a late pick rather than keep the mediocre performer it cant get any worse.
as for quantity ive often stated if you need a couple of kpfs for instance but with your 1st and 2nd rounder the mids are to good to knock back take a tall next but load up late take a couple in the rookie ldraft take one late in other words target the area take 3 or 4 in the hope of finding one decent one.yep theres nothing wrong with lots of picks if done right.
at the end of 07 i knew cotchin was coming to us he was in the top 2 players easily. i had pears and collier two kpds pencilled in at 18 19. of course rance slipped and we took him if we had 19 i would have taken pears targeting one area and then not having to worry about it the following draft.
one of the biggest crimes if you like is wallace and millers stupidity in useing just 3 nd pick in 3 out of 5 drafts. the annoying thing you always cop na its alright its a shallow draft.
finally one reason im all for many nd picks is the number that i think has to go. i make no bones about saying as many as 28 over 3yrs has to go. i would rather replinish the list with as many picks as possible in the first three rounds the geelong example is there for all to see.
anyway i think we agree on most things spoken about what we disagree on is the inference of the post in question which i hope i have cleared up at the start of this post.
