Clubs quite often go for needs over best available at the lower end of the draft.
Why I say if we considered Petterd a forward like we should, then a player like Byrne-Jones would've possibly been considered more of a need than a player like Gordon.
We actually just took the guys we rated. Wasn't picked on needs. Heard we would have gone Langdon over Lloyd so that throws that theory out.
that all fine i dont think anyone is criticising the players we took. more that the feeling is we could and should have have gone about it differently.
we have effectively gone
12 lennon 18 yo fwd.
32 hampson 26yo ruck
50 gordon 24yo fwd
66 lloyd 24yo fwd
r/e petterd 25 yo im not sure what, they play him in defence.
right from the outset.
delistings we didnt cut hard enough, and those that went walked.
thru trade didnt go after anyone and paid way overs for a 26 yr old ruckman who is essentially still trying to establish himself with better options available. we also cant be bothered offering a high quality sml forward a contract but then chase unproven forwards with nd picks thats hilarious.
to the nd where after trading out of the second round we use just one nd pick on a kid. taking mature players with nd picks that most other clubs use on kids and wait to take these types later.
to round it off we promise petterd we will promote him when clearly we should not have thus preventing us targeting any good kid that may have slipped.
ppfftt list management its still poor.
