List Mgmt. 2019 Draft and Trade Hypotheticals Thread - Part II
- Thread starter Cadsky
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Agreed that’s why I’m nervous taking a defender with our highest pick. There’s some decent defenders in the second round.
- Oct 2, 2016
- 12,631
- 26,363
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Should rate draft picks off of their career, not their first 2 seasons
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
They aren’t looking good. Players need to be more than a good kick
- Banned
- #8,855
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
We need mids- if we don’t take 3 out of 4 that are I’d have questions, and no Ling reaches please
- Oct 2, 2016
- 12,631
- 26,363
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Stoddart is doing fine, not sure you're knock on him while Ling has been injured - fail to see what that's got to do with him being a good kick
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Reaching for players is an issue though
TheMase
Brownlow Medallist
Rowbottom looks like a good call...
- Oct 2, 2016
- 12,631
- 26,363
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Stoddart was projected as a player in the mid 20s and we got him with pick 53. Don't see how that's reaching
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Rowbottom was fine it’s the other one.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
That’s value, it’s when you go the other way that’s the issue especially when better players were there
TheMase
Brownlow Medallist
The one who hasn’t really been able to get his body together and get any continuity?
Rowbottom was as much a reach to expected draft position as Ling... from what I’ve read anyway...
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Ling was a massive reach injuries aside it still looks that way. Almost certainly Rowbottom was thought to be a solid second rounder and was taken in that range.
Request a trade back to Essendon?
TheMase
Brownlow Medallist
A couple I read had him in the 40s...
Ling was 5-6 above the start of his expected range (20-30).
Swans obviously didn’t consider him a reach. I hope they are proven right.
- Jul 5, 2014
- 3,231
- 6,080
- AFL Club
- Sydney
how was he a massive reach when he was predicted as a late first rounder and we took him at 14?
btw stoddard was ranked 21 in twomeys phantom draft of that year, does that then make him a steal?
- Feb 5, 2012
- 5,818
- 6,208
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Yeah he's looking like going 7th-10th.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
I'd be shocked if Ling was ever predicted a late first- even on the coverage they stated that it was an absolute reach. Trust my judgement too (I sort of have to), and pretty sure I had him in the late 30's, and that was being generous at the time. My biggest issue with it at the time came down to value, could have traded out 14, and got him in the mid 20's, plus banked an extra selection somewhere.
Stoddart was a nice value pick, and at the range well worth it.
Everything does come back to value. By all means have a list but don't overpay, you can always trade back if a player will be there 10 spots later.
RobbieK
Cancelled
- Aug 20, 2009
- 5,731
- 10,804
- AFL Club
- Sydney
On Ling:
Knightmare's mock draft in November 2017 had him at 22 (https://www.espn.com/afl/story/_/id/21381638/knightmare-november-phantom-draft-first-three-rounds)
Twomey had him 23 (https://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-11-22/callum-twomeys-2017-phantom-draft)
Fox Sports had him at 22 (https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...t/news-story/fb03f7cc10948dcf2f465211f3e85446)
The Footyology one had him at 22 too (https://footyology.com.au/bede-briscombs-afl-mock-draft-where-the-best-may-end-up/)
So, to say he was some crazy reach out of nowhere isn't really on the mark. He was expected by many to go in the early 20s and we picked him in the mid teens.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Each to their own, that’s still close to 10 spots lower to what we took him, so again, personally that’s not value that’s overpaying. Now if he turns out to be an A grade talent you’d tip your hat to the recruiters, but until that time I stand by my statement that we overpaid and we could have traded down and banked an extra 3rd or something.
Drafting is all about value and playing the system. We shouldn’t be worried about trading down if a target is going to be there a few spots lower.
Drafting is all about value and playing the system. We shouldn’t be worried about trading down if a target is going to be there a few spots lower.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
The Venn diagram of people who bitch relentlessly about every aspect of the club and people who make massive claims without being able to back it up is essentially a circle.
Classic. Might take this as my signature
When I find myself despairing over our draft picks, many who have struggled to reach our aspirations for them, I look to how other clubs have fared. Rarely are their draftees much better and often they are much worse. Drafting, it seems, is an imprecise science, infallible in retrospect and best assessed in hindsight.
Analysing our drafts over the last 16 years, based purely on the number of games played since being drafted*, turns up some surprising results.
The good news is our last 10 years have seen a big improvement since the dismal years of 2003-2008. Our top picks over those 6 years played a total of 102 games or an average of just 17 games over their entire careers. Worse still, taking away Jared Moore's 68 and Veszpremi's 23 games leaves just 11 games in total between four of our first picks.
Over 16 years a quarter of our first picks have played one or fewer games but on average our first picks managed a slightly more respectable 50 games. Perhaps surprisingly, we do better with our 2nd picks with an average of 56 games each. Even more surprisingly, there's not that much difference between our first picks (50 average) and our last picks (43 average).
Perhaps the Swans' old strategy of trading early picks for players made sense. Short of our priority picks it would seem that a monkey with a dart board could do just as well when it comes to draft picks.
*The number of games played is probably a reasonable indicator of a player's utility, especially for earlier recruits where it wraps up both ability and durability. For more recent recruits it's biased more towards a player's readiness to step up to senior AFL.
The good news is our last 10 years have seen a big improvement since the dismal years of 2003-2008. Our top picks over those 6 years played a total of 102 games or an average of just 17 games over their entire careers. Worse still, taking away Jared Moore's 68 and Veszpremi's 23 games leaves just 11 games in total between four of our first picks.
Over 16 years a quarter of our first picks have played one or fewer games but on average our first picks managed a slightly more respectable 50 games. Perhaps surprisingly, we do better with our 2nd picks with an average of 56 games each. Even more surprisingly, there's not that much difference between our first picks (50 average) and our last picks (43 average).
Perhaps the Swans' old strategy of trading early picks for players made sense. Short of our priority picks it would seem that a monkey with a dart board could do just as well when it comes to draft picks.
*The number of games played is probably a reasonable indicator of a player's utility, especially for earlier recruits where it wraps up both ability and durability. For more recent recruits it's biased more towards a player's readiness to step up to senior AFL.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
