I think Ollie Wines just goes to show how hard it is for scouts and clubs at draft time... Is someone dominating because they're just bigger kids or maybe have reached their full potential early... after a great first couple of seasons they sometimes get found out and never lift to another level
Think Jack Higgins from last year, slipped through to Pick 17 even though he was one of (if not the most) dominant kids we've ever seen... it seems they all thought he couldnt get any better... ripper of a debut season, then struggled this year to repeat... a sign of second year blues or a sign of things to come???
It is very hard to identify when drafting which category a ‘ready made’ or bigger junior will fall into.
For every Dangerfield, Cripps, Yeo, Fyfe, and Martin who were solider players without necessarily the tank early on they all developed into absolute superstars who have game breaking, match winning styles in their play. Even Darling, Heeney, Greene and De Goey are similar to the above but as forwards.
Then there’s the Selwood’s, JPK’s, Boak’s, Priddis’ who were good from day dot and although didn’t have those same game breaking attributes like Danger, Fyfe or Martin they capitalised and still managed to improve themselves year on year and get the best out of their talents and skills.
Then there is the guys who had some impact from day 1 with their bodies compared to other players their age such as Wines, David Swallow, Viney, Stringer, Petrecca who all looked very good early on but a combination of poor skills, poor kicking, poor tanks or other factors sees them unable to maximise their body and talents and (likely) plataue into the region of ‘good’ but never near the superstars or top echelon of players like the above 2 groups.
There’s players like Clayton Oliver that you’re not sure if he will fall into group 3 with Wines or into group 2 with Selwood/Priddis or into group 1 and become a bonafide match winning superstar.
Then there’s the crop of man child’s that are supposed to be ready made that just didn’t eventuate like David Myers, Dom Tyson, Andrew Moore or Jack Trengove.
So even if your big sized rookie has a good first year; is he going to go down the path of a Bont and continue to be a superstar, still be a superstar but not a match winning one like Priddis but maximise all their talent, taper out and not improve on their first year much like Wines or simply regress like a Stringer?
If your rookie doesn’t start out well there’s hope he can still be a superstar like Danger or Martin turned into..or they could simply just have looked better than they were at the junior levels due to their size and never live up to that potential at all like a Trengove, Moore, Myers or Tyson.
It’s so hard identifying which category a player will fall into when they’re bigger than a lot of other juniors but don’t have a lot more size or height to add. Will Gould is an example this year of a man child..although more a back flanker will he just be a Sam Mayes or be a Daniel Rich?