2017 Draft thread

[Crusha]

........

Brisbane should not have been allowed to draft Toby Wooler this year, before we had matched bids on Ballenden and Payne (And Gold Coast should not have been allowed to draft Charlie Ballard when they had Brayden Crossley still on the board). Teams such as St Kilda and Melbourne who had picks in the mid to late 30's and then picks in the mid to late 40's should have bid on the Academy boys, to force the two Northern clubs to burn their early 40's picks on their academy players, instead of being able to draft kids from the open player pool....................

I can't believe your serious.

Clubs will select players where they rate them.
Why would a Club risk selecting a player they do not want, in expectation that it will be matched.
They select on their rating of a player ..... not yours, mine, some Phantom Drafter or journalists ratings.... nor where they believe the "Academy Club" may match.

Absurd ........sorry.

 

[irish]

whats the latest with blakey ? article earlier in the year saying he favoured us but much can happen I guess

 

[bungalow_bill]

Oh I see. I suppose if depends on the strength of the KP prospects.

If the King twins and Lukocius (spelling!) have strong years then the likes of Walsh might be around the pick 5 mark I guess. As you say, a long way out though.

Throw in Rankine and pick 5 is about the highest Walsh will go probably and we will likely have a pick around 4-7 or so.

I can't believe your serious.

Clubs will select players where they rate them.
Why would a Club risk selecting a player they do not want, in expectation that it will be matched.
They select on their rating of a player ..... not yours, mine, some Phantom Drafter or journalists ratings.... nor where they believe the "Academy Club" may match.

Absurd ........sorry.

Didn't North get burned doing that one year with one of our academy guys?

 

[briztoon]

I can't believe your serious.

Clubs will select players where they rate them.
Why would a Club risk selecting a player they do not want, in expectation that it will be matched.
They select on their rating of a player ..... not yours, mine, some Phantom Drafter or journalists ratings.... nor where they believe the "Academy Club" may match.

Absurd ........sorry.

Bit of a hard discussion to have online.

Of course I'm serious. Clubs should have an idea where kids are rated by fellow clubs. You can get that sense from listening to Conole on the different podcasts he's been on. So clubs should have an idea where Brisbane is willing to match a bid on X academy player, and where Brisbane won't. Similarly, Brisbane should have an idea which other clubs might bid on our academy kids, and in what range.

What point was there last Friday of Fremantle bidding on Ballenden where they did? Were we likely to use our next pick on selecting a player from the open draft pool or voluntarily drafting our own academy player at that pick?

St Kilda should of bid on Ballenden at pick 35. We would have matched, using pick 41. Then Fremantle should have then bid on Payne at pick 43. We would have matched with pick 45. That would have then meant our last pick, pick 54 would have been our last live pick, and instead of drafting Wooler, we might have drafted a player like Gryan Miers. It might not have guaranteed St Kilda a genuine shot at drafting Wooler, but it would have meant there would have been one extra kid in the mix at St Kilda's pick, that they may have rated higher than the kid they ended up drafting.

The draft is a competition between clubs, where they are trying to accrue as much young talent as possible. Why gift the opposition a higher rated player, when they already have an advantage in having first access to kids you do not.

I do understand what your saying, but in that range I've mentioned, a club is not taking a risk on Brisbane passing on Ballenden. Brisbane's trading for picks in that range during the trade period was a clear indication of the range they expected a bid to come in.

I believe it was a mistake on opposition clubs behalf to allow the Wooler pick.

You don't have to say sorry. I'm happy to have a civil and genuine discussion. Listen to Conole on the latest Raw Deal from about the 36:15 mark, he even explains what he thinks happened with opposition clubs leading up to the Wooler pick.

 

[Kevvo]

Throw in Rankine and pick 5 is about the highest Walsh will go probably and we will likely have a pick around 4-7 or so.




Didn't North get burned doing that one year with one of our academy guys?

This happens every year though. Players rise and fall from their underage rankings. Granted some of those kids look really good, but I'm not sure we can speak in even remotely definitive terms about who will be rated where.

 

[bungalow_bill]

This happens every year though. Players rise and fall from their underage rankings. Granted some of those kids look really good, but I'm not sure we can speak in even remotely definitive terms about who will be rated where.

True - think Worpel was rated top 5 at one point.

 

[briztoon]

Throw in Rankine and pick 5 is about the highest Walsh will go probably and we will likely have a pick around 4-7 or so.

Really depends on how next year unfolds, but at this stage I believe Walsh's genuine range is picks 3 - 6. I could see Brisbane favouring Walsh over Rankine. At this stage. Next year's draft is a long way away, lots to happen between now and then.

Didn't North get burned doing that one year with one of our academy guys?

Yes. North bid on Watson at pick 34 and we passed. I said on the night that the looks on the North recruiters faces, well they didn't look happy.

 

[Crusha]

Bit of a hard discussion to have online.

Of course I'm serious. Clubs should have an idea where kids are rated by fellow clubs. You can get that sense from listening to Conole on the different podcasts he's been on. So clubs should have an idea where Brisbane is willing to match a bid on X academy player, and where Brisbane won't. Similarly, Brisbane should have an idea which other clubs might bid on our academy kids, and in what range.

What point was there last Friday of Fremantle bidding on Ballenden where they did? Were we likely to use our next pick on selecting a player from the open draft pool or voluntarily drafting our own academy player at that pick?

St Kilda should of bid on Ballenden at pick 35. We would have matched, using pick 41. Then Fremantle should have then bid on Payne at pick 43. We would have matched with pick 45. That would have then meant our last pick, pick 54 would have been our last live pick, and instead of drafting Wooler, we might have drafted a player like Gryan Miers. It might not have guaranteed St Kilda a genuine shot at drafting Wooler, but it would have meant there would have been one extra kid in the mix at St Kilda's pick, that they may have rated higher than the kid they ended up drafting.

The draft is a competition between clubs, where they are trying to accrue as much young talent as possible. Why gift the opposition a higher rated player, when they already have an advantage in having first access to kids you do not.

I do understand what your saying, but in that range I've mentioned, a club is not taking a risk on Brisbane passing on Ballenden. Brisbane's trading for picks in that range during the trade period was a clear indication of the range they expected a bid to come in.

I believe it was a mistake on opposition clubs behalf to allow the Wooler pick.

You don't have to say sorry. I'm happy to have a civil and genuine discussion. Listen to Conole on the latest Raw Deal from about the 36:15 mark, he even explains what he thinks happened with opposition clubs leading up to the Wooler pick.

As bungalow_bill has already referred ... ask Nth Melbourne how that works out when you get that hunch/guess wrong.
I still recall the shocked looks on their faces when Brisbane declined to match NM's bid on Corey Wagner. The end result was that he was de-listed at the earliest opportunity. Whilst it could be argued that may have been for other reasons, I am of the view that they won't make that "mistake" again.

Even if you think you "know" where an "Academy Club" will match a bid going into the Draft......you are risking the impact of players who have slid down the draft (in the eyes of the Academy Club, and not yours) may have on their ranking for matching the bid on the Academy kid on the night.
Club's don't play games when drafting ..... that's for "Footy Forums".

As for Conole's comments re "overlook them" .... Or not risk picking .....who really knows.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[Tairy Greene]

Yes. North bid on Watson at pick 34 and we passed. I said on the night that the looks on the North recruiters faces, well they didn't look happy.

What the hell, you just made your own point about St Kilda bidding on Ballenden null & void then. And we would have let him go for that price.

 

[Sproj]

Hard to believe our golden generation is now so long ago that their kids are coming through as part of our next run at flags.

 

[bungalow_bill]

What the hell, you just made your own point about St Kilda bidding on Ballenden null & void then. And we would have let him go for that price.

Think we would have matched Ballenden with pick 41. Still a risk though for the Saints.

 

[briztoon]

What the hell, you just made your own point about St Kilda bidding on Ballenden null & void then. And we would have let him go for that price.

Where?

I'm not talking about a hard and fast rule or draft strategy. Think of it as a draft philosophy.

Each academy player and team, where their draft picks are situated, all impact on how a club should approach such a situation and decision.

I don't know where clubs had Declan Watson ranked last year, certainly none of the media or phantom drafters had Watson ranked anywhere near as high.

My view on last year, and it was discussed at the time, that North tried to get cute and it back fired on them. Last year, Brisbane didn't have any mid lottery picks to match bids made in the second or early/mid third round. It was widely discussed last year leading up to the draft that unless we were prepared to go in to deficit on our 2017 second round pick or third round pick, we couldn't match a bid before pick 43. And that was mainly discussing Allison who was widely regarded as the higher rated of the two players.

Last year where the clubs later picks were situated, it was obvious we wouldn't match an early bid.

Each draft, each player is a seperate calculation and decision.

 

[briztoon]

What the hell, you just made your own point about St Kilda bidding on Ballenden null & void then. And we would have let him go for that price.

What price? the price of matching a bid made at pick 34?

Pick 34 to match, would have cost us 345 points. Pick 41 is worth 412 points.

If you want to look at it, as was discussed on here before the draft, we originally had pick 40 and pick 44 in that range before the draft and before father son and academy bidding on the night. Pick 40 is worth 429 points and can match a bid from pick 31 or lower. Or from pick 30, carrying over a 3 point deficit on to our next pick, but 3 points off of pick 44 does not move it at all.

So in effect the club is saying, we value Ballenden at around pick 30. And we have back up points if a club bids a little earlier and we chose to match.

I highly doubt the club would have let Ballenden go for the price of pick 34. It just doesn't make any sense to.

 

[SizeMatters]

I just don't see what a club will gain from if they bid on an academy player that they don't rate at their pick. They have much to lose for very minimal gain.

 

[briztoon]

I just don't see what a club will gain from if they bid on an academy player that they don't rate at their pick. They have much to lose for very minimal gain.

I'm not saying clubs should bid on players they don't rate at their pick. But when you are picking in the 30's or later, you're going to have a number of players on your list in that zone. Sometimes we see clubs pick player y on a need basis when the commentators are sitting there saying, well surely x player should be the next player drafted on a talent basis. Granted the commentators don't know how club recruiters value kids in a draft class and in what order

But you look at this years draft, only one player in the top 12 wasn't in the regular discussion for months leading up to the draft, and that was O'Brien. Only two players picked in the top 25 weren't in that discussion for the months leading up to the draft, and they were Starcevich and Powell. The deeper you go in the draft, the more variance there was. But, by and large, all the draft watchers had most of the kids in the zones where they were drafted.

The big sliders. Charlie Constable, Patrick Naish, Connor Ballenden, Jack Petruccelle. And each of those players were talked about sliding a week out from the draft when the rumours went in to over drive. Still Naish and Ballenden were bid on much later than most people thought they would be.


Admittedly, increasing the open draft pool by one or two players looks like a minimal gain at this stage, from teams bidding at a perceived fair pick, because we didn't see a heavily compromised draft this year, with GWS having their academy zone re-drawn. But next year looks to be a very different case.

It's a bit hard to see when you're one of the clubs benefiting from the perceived inequity. Cal Twomey has been talking about for 3 years now, when he says clubs should bid on x player with y pick to make the team pay fair value. And many fans on the draft and trade forum have bemoaned the academy system giving the northern clubs a shot a double dipping on high end talent.

Well next year we are going to see a lot of Father Son, and NGA academy kids and Northern Academy kids in the draft.

If teams don't bid on the kids where they are valued at, and let the FS or NGA clubs have an extra live pick, they are going to see a very diminished draft pool in terms of talent by the second half of the draft.

 

[Tairy Greene]

I highly doubt the club would have let Ballenden go for the price of pick 34. It just doesn't make any sense to.

It most definitely does when there were still other players on the board that the club rated higher than Ballenden for pick 41.

 

[KissKiss]

I can see what you are saying Briztoon, there is a bit of an art to not just picking up who you want at your current pick and also seeing what is available later and that influencing your picks. So yes you do want to make sure that you are making clubs pay fair price, but you also dont want to miss out on who you want and get caught with the wrong player. So far clubs have probably been a little too conservative in bidding for academy players but we can all understand why and at the moment that helps us a bit

 

[dlanod]

Think we would have matched Ballenden with pick 41. Still a risk though for the Saints.

IIRC the draft night list, we probably would have matched - but I also think that this topic is only coming up because we have that information in retrospect. If we didn't have our own draft listings we would not have known whether or not we would have matched, for example most of us would have expected a Watson match... until we didn't.

 

[Len S]

It most definitely does when there were still other players on the board that the club rated higher than Ballenden for pick 41.

Bottom line,he would not have lasted,there were at least 3 clubs,in waiting.

 

[briztoon]

IIRC the draft night list, we probably would have matched - but I also think that this topic is only coming up because we have that information in retrospect. If we didn't have our own draft listings we would not have known whether or not we would have matched, for example most of us would have expected a Watson match... until we didn't.

I don't believe that would have been the case with Watson last year.

It was discussed by those of us who follow the draft, after the trade period, that we were unlikely to match a bid on Allison or Watson last year before pick 43 because we didn't have the points to cover a bid.

As for the topic, this is the third time I have tried to generate a discussion on it. It was part of my discussion when I first joined and was talking list building strategy after the 2015 draft, and again in the lead up to the trade period in 2016.

Two of my posts on draft night from 2016.

We wanted Watson. But we couldn't afford to match a second round bid and carry a deficit over to next years draft and see our 2017 second round pick half wiped out.

Did anyone pay attention to the North Melbourne draft table when we didn't match the bid on Watson?

There were a lot of "not happy", "ah crap" looks going around the table.

What's the projection for North next season, are they top 8 contenders, or more likely to hold a high draft pick?

I have a feeling they were trying to play silly buggers and get our 2017 2nd round pick down graded with having to carry a points deficit.

 

[BuntonRules]

IMO academy drafting will always be like this. First round, and early second, clubs will bid because they rate that player as best/best fit at that pick. But any later there is so much less surety about a kid's future prospects, and so little difference in value. So they will leve the boy to the club that nurtured him and pick another - untill it gets to the Freo stage when he is seriously undervalued. Means more local talent on NSW/Qld lists - just not the Heeneys and Millses.

 

[briztoon]

It most definitely does when there were still other players on the board that the club rated higher than Ballenden for pick 41.

But there was no guarantee any of those payers would remain on board between pick 34 and pick 41. By pick 41 there was only one player left on the board that the club rated higher than Ballenden.

 

[briztoon]

IMO academy drafting will always be like this. First round, and early second, clubs will bid because they rate that player as best/best fit at that pick. But any later there is so much less surety about a kid's future prospects, and so little difference in value. So they will leve the boy to the club that nurtured him and pick another - untill it gets to the Freo stage when he is seriously undervalued. Means more local talent on NSW/Qld lists - just not the Heeneys and Millses.

I agree with this to an extent.

But with the introduction of the Next Generation Academies, and even the new AFL Development Academy for KPP's (Gold Coast have a kid in it for next year), and to a lessor extent Father Son prospects, there are going to be a lot more kids through out the draft tied to clubs. This year was a little out of line with previous two drafts with no highly rated kids.

If you look at next years AFL Academy, and I know that doesn't guarantee the kids will all be high picks, there are 7 kids out 31 tied to AFL clubs already. And many more potential father son prospects, and lessor rated Northern Academy kids.

 

[Viceregal]

Would there be an element of choosing not to potentially damage a potential trading relationship with another team for the sake of a 6 point movement in the third round? Or of not wanting to be 'that club' especially with all clubs having F/S options and their own version of Academies?

 

[Lazza16]

I agree with this to an extent.

But with the introduction of the Next Generation Academies, and even the new AFL Development Academy for KPP's (Gold Coast have a kid in it for next year), and to a lessor extent Father Son prospects, there are going to be a lot more kids through out the draft tied to clubs. This year was a little out of line with previous two drafts with no highly rated kids.

If you look at next years AFL Academy, and I know that doesn't guarantee the kids will all be high picks, there are 7 kids out 31 tied to AFL clubs already. And many more potential father son prospects, and lessor rated Northern Academy kids.

It is continually evolving and will continue to evolve whilst influential men have their say.