Leunberger

[Doctor Fish]

Mark Robinson on SEN said his inside mail has us picking up Looney with our first pick. Said some of the the other clubs believe this to be so as well. Interesting times...

[BenDoolan]

Mark Robinson on SEN said his inside mail has us picking up Looney with our first pick. Said some of the the other clubs believe this to be so as well. Interesting times...

Well if that's the case, I am convinced that our recruiting department is completely and utterly f*****.

[Crowny]

I fear for the club if this is true

[Sol]

I fear for the club if shortsighted people like some BT'ers are ever on the recruiting team.

Let me start off by admitting I have no idea how good any of the kids in the draft are and that i bet half the people who say they do have some idea are working off no more than heresay from frieds, newpapers, magazines and of course the internet.

But I will catagorically say that we should pick up the best available player regardless of position and only consider the position they play in the event that the best available is a split descision.

From all reports Loony is the second best in the draft followed by Gumby and then Hanson. And if this is the case then Loony should be our pick 2 IMO.

If the guy you pick isnt exactly what you need this year then you would at least be in a strong position at the trade table next year with the ability to trade any of Loony, Ryder or Laycock. Looney or Ryder possibly attracting a very high pick in next years draft/ maybe even no.1 and/or possibly a player of very high caliber. There are also other possibilities like maybe playing Laycock or even Ryder at CHB? who knows?

We have pick 2 we should use pick 2, not downgrade our pick to affectively pick 4 by taking the 4th best player available just because he plays a position we need filled short term. we need to take a long term view.

We can trade for anyone just about any time if you have the quality to trade with. Its not often pick 2 lands at Essendon and it is imperative we get maximum value for this pick.

[BenDoolan]

I fear for the club if shortsighted people like some BT'ers are ever on the recruiting team.

Let me start off by admitting I have no idea how good any of the kids in the draft are and that i bet half the people who say they do have some idea are working off no more than heresay from frieds, newpapers, magazines and of course the internet.

But I will catagorically say that we should pick up the best available player regardless of position and only consider the position they play in the event that the best available is a split descision.

From all reports Loony is the second best in the draft followed by Gumby and then Hanson. And if this is the case then Loony should be our pick 2 IMO.

If the guy you pick isnt exactly what you need this year then you would at least be in a strong position at the trade table next year with the ability to trade any of Loony, Ryder or Laycock. Looney or Ryder possibly attracting a very high pick in next years draft/ maybe even no.1 and/or possibly a player of very high caliber. There are also other possibilities like maybe playing Laycock or even Ryder at CHB? who knows?

We have pick 2 we should use pick 2, not downgrade our pick to affectively pick 4 by taking the 4th best player available just because he plays a position we need filled short term. we need to take a long term view.

We can trade for anyone just about any time if you have the quality to trade with. Its not often pick 2 lands at Essendon and it is imperative we get maximum value for this pick.

You see, this is where I get pissed off. Who actually rates HIM as No.2????
You tell me how these kids are rated and then by whom.....

From all reports Loony is the second best in the draft followed by Gumby and then Hanson. And if this is the case then Loony should be our pick 2 IMO.

You see, you're actually making an assumption based from,

Let me start off by admitting I have no idea how good any of the kids in the draft are and that i bet half the people who say they do have some idea are working off no more than heresay from frieds, newpapers, magazines and of course the internet.

All I f****** know is that we are shitfull at Centre Half f****** Back and that's what we NEED.

[nmgilbert]

He might be the best ruck prospect in years but that still doesnt mean he'd be the most important addition to any side. Rucks just arent that influential.

If u could choose out of Nick Reiwoldt and Dean Cox who would u choose? Id take Reiwoldt everytime.

We need to pass on Looney and get stuck into Hansen or Gumbleton. Unless Selwood is going to be a better player, he is the only other possible option in my book.

[swoodley]

He might be the best ruck prospect in years but that still doesnt mean he'd be the most important addition to any side. Rucks just arent that influential.

If u could choose out of Nick Reiwoldt and Dean Cox who would u choose? Id take Reiwoldt everytime.

We need to pass on Looney and get stuck into Hansen or Gumbleton. Unless Selwood is going to be a better player, he is the only other possible option in my book.

Personally, I'd take Cox because as good as the eagles midfield is, he is the lynchpin. Watch and see how many times he puts the ball onto the chest of Cousins and Judd during a game. His dominance at stoppages is a key for them.

And he doesn't cry when he gets hurt either

[Doctor Fish]

He might be the best ruck prospect in years but that still doesnt mean he'd be the most important addition to any side. Rucks just arent that influential.

If u could choose out of Nick Reiwoldt and Dean Cox who would u choose? Id take Reiwoldt everytime.

Tell that to Grant Thomas Gilbert. It's ironic that the club Reiwoldt plays for is destined to under-achieve until they do get an 'influentual' ruckman. It's the first thing Ross Lyon addressed upon arriving there...

[Sol]

I fear for the club if shortsighted people like some BT'ers are ever on the recruiting team.

Let me start off by admitting I have no idea how good any of the kids in the draft are and that i bet half the people who say they do have some idea are working off no more than heresay from frieds, newpapers, magazines and of course the internet.

But I will catagorically say that we should pick up the best available player regardless of position and only consider the position they play in the event that the best available is a split descision.

From all reports Loony is the second best in the draft followed by Gumby and then Hanson. And if this is the case then Loony should be our pick 2 IMO.

If the guy you pick isnt exactly what you need this year then you would at least be in a strong position at the trade table next year with the ability to trade any of Loony, Ryder or Laycock. Looney or Ryder possibly attracting a very high pick in next years draft/ maybe even no.1 and/or possibly a player of very high caliber. There are also other possibilities like maybe playing Laycock or even Ryder at CHB? who knows?

We have pick 2 we should use pick 2, not downgrade our pick to affectively pick 4 by taking the 4th best player available just because he plays a position we need filled short term. we need to take a long term view.

We can trade for anyone just about any time if you have the quality to trade with. Its not often pick 2 lands at Essendon and it is imperative we get maximum value for this pick.

You see, this is where I get pissed off. Who actually rates HIM as No.2????
You tell me how these kids are rated and then by whom.....

By a number of so called experts from various media. But ultimately like I said, I'm going off oppinions from not necessarily reliable sources and as such, the point of my arguement is not to support taking Loony, it is that we shouldn't discount him just because we dont necessarily need another ruckman.

From all reports Loony is the second best in the draft followed by Gumby and then Hanson. And if this is the case then Loony should be our pick 2 IMO.

You see, you're actually making an assumption based from,

No as i pointed out above it is just an example of why not to discount him.

Let me start off by admitting I have no idea how good any of the kids in the draft are and that i bet half the people who say they do have some idea are working off no more than heresay from frieds, newpapers, magazines and of course the internet.

All I f****** know is that we are shitfull at Centre Half f****** Back and that's what we NEED.

Again who cares!! Let me make it cleaer since you have obviousely completely missed the point. I am not saying we shouldpick Loony I am simply using him as an example that no matter what you take the BEST player avilable. Your logic is that theoretically we should pick the type of player we need ahead of the better talent, so you might take a Barry Hall ahead of say a Judd if you needed a FF more than a midfielder even though Judd is clearly a once in a generation type player and Hall is just a very very good full forward. Sorry mate I'd have Judd thanks, I could probably trade him for a Hall and a Davis in next years trade period if I was stupid enough.

I dont care what position we get in the draft, but at No.2 pick in apparently the strongest draft of the decade we better pick someone who will be a bloody champion of the club for the next 10+ years.

[BenDoolan]

I dont care what position we get in the draft, but at No.2 pick in apparently the strongest draft of the decade we better pick someone who will be a bloody champion of the club for the next 10+ years.

Then f****** pick HANSEN!

And using your logic, if there's a Full Forward who is rated the BEST in the Draft, we should pick him even though we have Lloyd, despite the fact we have no CHB!

Is it too f****** hard to figure out that we have 3 ruckmen on our list, one that Sheedy describes as "the next Polly Farmer" and that we have an obvious hole in our backline?

[2QIK4U]

And another on the rookie list - Lachlan McKinnon.

[antcl]

But I will catagorically say that we should pick up the best available player regardless of position and only consider the position they play in the event that the best available is a split descision.

From all reports Loony is the second best in the draft followed by Gumby and then Hanson. And if this is the case then Loony should be our pick 2 IMO.

If the guy you pick isnt exactly what you need this year then you would at least be in a strong position at the trade table next year with the ability to trade any of Loony, Ryder or Laycock. Looney or Ryder possibly attracting a very high pick in next years draft/ maybe even no.1 and/or possibly a player of very high caliber. There are also other possibilities like maybe playing Laycock or even Ryder at CHB? who knows?

We have pick 2 we should use pick 2, not downgrade our pick to affectively pick 4 by taking the 4th best player available just because he plays a position we need filled short term. we need to take a long term view.

We can trade for anyone just about any time if you have the quality to trade with. Its not often pick 2 lands at Essendon and it is imperative we get maximum value for this pick.

I disagree. Its one thing to trade a surplus midfielder/forward/defender, where they can be playing and showing off their skills. However, if we take Leunberger, in the belief that at least one of Laycock/Ryder will come on, plus that we've got Hille, then that means we either:
a) Play Hille & one of Ryder/Laycock, knowing the game time invested will be 'sold' to another club, and that the 2nd one of Ryder/Laycock + Leuenberger will get no game time.

b) Invest game time in Leuenberger, knowing the 'extra' ruckman we plan to trade won't be proven and will thus get a worse trade offer.

Its a damned either way situation. The only way it works is if both Ryder AND Laycock are failures and so worth nothing, in which case Leuenberger is a good replacement.

PS. BenDoolan, could you swear a bit less? Its hardly necessary.

PPS. I would take Hall over Judd any day of the week. There are heaps of midfielders a small step below Judd. Aint many players with Hall's impact going around, and the step down to the next level is huge.
And I'm not sure if Hall doesn't have more impact regardless. Not sure if Judd would be so good without the blocking, Cox, and the midfielders around him to take pressure off.

[bombercol]

The thought of picking up the big fella at number 2 would not surprise given that Sheedy told Cartledge (when delisted) that he believed the game was heading toward over 200cm ruckmen. The boy has also tasted first grade footy in the WAFL.

I would like to see Ryder somewhere else on the ground, maybe as a tall backman picking up the other team's 3rd or 4th forward.

You may see McPhee spending a fair bit of time at CHB next year.

I agree that if Leuneburger (I sure we'll spell it right when he's wearing our colours) is the best available at no 2 grab him with both hands. The draft is deep and we have 3 top 20 picks, so another tall KPP type I'm sure will be there for our second pick.

[tom9779]

I will be more than happy with whoever the clubs picks.

From what is being said all clubs can't really can't go wrong with their first round pick.

heaps of talent.

Leuenberger would be awesome. 200+cm with midfielder pace and great skills?

imagine how hard the guy would be to match up on.

i say get him. No doubt we will snag a good midfielder with our pick 18.

[antcl]

[quote="bombercol"]I would like to see Ryder somewhere else on the ground, maybe as a tall backman picking up the other team's 3rd or 4th forward.

You may see McPhee spending a fair bit of time at CHB next year.quote]

McPhee can't play CHB. And I'd be very surprised if Ryder turns out as anything except a ruckmen. Doesn't move the right way (IMO) to successfully play anywhere else.

Oh, and tom9779, anyone believe the picks are locked in certainties is dreaming. Probably up to half of the top 20 from the 2001 draft haven't made it or have serious question marks. And Ryan Campbell is proof that talent doesn't necessarily have any impact.

[tom9779]

I would like to see Ryder somewhere else on the ground, maybe as a tall backman picking up the other team's 3rd or 4th forward.

You may see McPhee spending a fair bit of time at CHB next year.quote]

McPhee can't play CHB. And I'd be very surprised if Ryder turns out as anything except a ruckmen. Doesn't move the right way (IMO) to successfully play anywhere else.

Oh, and tom9779, anyone believe the picks are locked in certainties is dreaming. Probably up to half of the top 20 from the 2001 draft haven't made it or have serious question marks. And Ryan Campbell is proof that talent doesn't necessarily have any impact.

I'd back our recruitment team to make the right decision.....

what I have read in the paper is that Gibbs, Leuenberger, Hansen, Gumbleton, Selwood are all awesome players.

of course you can't predict if any player drafterd at 17 years of age will turn out to be an out and out champion at AFL level, but they are all champion players at junior(and some senior interstate) level.

We will get a special player at #2. and if you look at the history of the draft, we could easily end up picking our best player at 18/20, 36 or later....the draft is a lottery.

but what we all know for sure is 200cm+ co-ordinated, fast and skillful players do not grow on trees....looey is something special from all reports.

there are plenty of 180cm odd players with pace and skill who could be anything. and thats why leunenberger will go high, and we should really consider taking him.

[ealesy]

And Ryan Campbell is proof that talent doesn't necessarily have any impact.

Are you talking about the former WA wicketkeeper or some footballer I don't know about??!!

Because from what I saw of Ryan Campbell he was a decent to good state cricketer but was always about 4th in line for the Aussie job for mine. He was obviously behind Healy, and then Gilchrist but also Seccombe and Haddin.

[Essendon4eva]

The fact remains we don't need anymore ruckmen. We have Hille who can handle the load as the number one ruckman and Jason Laycock who jsut needs to stay injury free. We also have a young kid named Patrick Ryder, who we hope will develop into a Adam Goodes type ruckman. Add to that the part time ruckman in Kepler Bradley we have 4 ruckman at our exposure. We lack Key Defenders and are fine with Ruckamn. Why would we even consider drafting another ruckman is beyond me.

[antcl]

And Ryan Campbell is proof that talent doesn't necessarily have any impact.

Are you talking about the former WA wicketkeeper or some footballer I don't know about??!!

Because from what I saw of Ryan Campbell he was a decent to good state cricketer but was always about 4th in line for the Aussie job for mine. He was obviously behind Healy, and then Gilchrist but also Seccombe and Haddin.

Something short circuited between my head and my hands. Meant to write Ryan Fitzgerald, the guy who went (I think) #2 or #4, meant to be really talented, but kept getting injured.

[Crowny]

And Ryan Campbell is proof that talent doesn't necessarily have any impact.

Are you talking about the former WA wicketkeeper or some footballer I don't know about??!!

Because from what I saw of Ryan Campbell he was a decent to good state cricketer but was always about 4th in line for the Aussie job for mine. He was obviously behind Healy, and then Gilchrist but also Seccombe and Haddin.

Something short circuited between my head and my hands. Meant to write Ryan Fitzgerald, the guy who went (I think) #2 or #4, meant to be really talented, but kept getting injured.

And I think he ended up on big brother, where there is no talent whatsoever