Live Event 2021 AFL Draft live discussion

[tigs2010]

This draft is a lot stronger though.

Stronger than 2018? Surely you jest?

 

[Muddiemoose]

Have you got any contrary evidence? It is a well known thing.
Let's move on.

I want to see these quotes stating that the 2021 draft is “a lot stronger” than the 2018 draft since it’s so well known and everyone says it

 

[Marcel Proust]

I think the story goes the tigers had Rcd ahead of stocker in the draft board.

Hobbs went at 13. It doesn't seem that outrageous to compare him to stocker @ 19

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

You said it was a stronger draft than 2018 and all the recruiters said so

Got any quotes for that?

Here you go.The 2018 draft was very strong too now that I look at it .

Draft depth enthuses Tigers

Richmond is well placed to capitalise on its strong hand in this year’s AFL national draft.

www.richmondfc.com.au

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

I want to see these quotes stating that the 2021 draft is “a lot stronger” than the 2018 draft since it’s so well known and everyone says it

Ok it's not 'a lot stronger' but this is a very strong draft.
What have you heard about this years draft depth or what is your opinion of the depth of this years draft?

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

I want to see these quotes stating that the 2021 draft is “a lot stronger” than the 2018 draft since it’s so well known and everyone says it

Here's another one about the depth,

The final AFL Draft Power Rankings for 2021 are here, with an extended Top 50 prospects for the upcoming nights of November 24 and 25.

The 2021 AFL draft class boasts a deep talent pool with star-factor evident throughout and a heavy lean towards midfielders of the future. In part due to underage competition cancellations throughout the country, there isn’t much to split prospects from 20 to 40.

Adding to the 2003-born cohort are the mature-agers, who have come on in leaps and bounds after another interrupted season in 2020 with five mature-age prospects making the AFL Draft power rankings.

 

[boxxie2022]

Says all the recruiters and experts based on their eyes.

what pick did he go? Surely if he is the best pure midfielder he goes in the first couple

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

what pick did he go? Surely if he is the best pure midfielder he goes in the first couple

He was 5 or 6 in a lot of phantom drafts .

 

[Calcium Man]

He was 5 or 6 in a lot of phantom drafts .

So was Gibcus.

 

[boxxie2022]

He was 5 or 6 in a lot of phantom drafts .

Phantom drafts aren’t real drafts or true reflection of what recruiters are seeing or saying.
The only draft that matters was National Draft and he went 13 or 11 without Father/sons.
So he wasnt even top 10 which means he wasn’t rated as highly by the recruiters as he is here.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Phantom drafts aren’t real drafts or true reflection of what recruiters are seeing or saying.
The only draft that matters was National Draft and he went 13 or 11 without Father/sons.
So he wasnt even top 10 which means he wasn’t rated as highly by the recruiters as he is here.

In the Phantom drafts that go on the best players ,not what clubs will pick, Hobbs was always near the top.
We picked Gibcus on needs as there weren't many kpd in the draft.

 

[Profop]

In the Phantom drafts that go on the best players ,not what clubs will pick, Hobbs was always near the top.
We picked Gibcus on needs as there weren't many kpd in the draft.

Sorry but all the phantoms I saw had Gibcus just as high of not higher so I can’t see how you label it as a needs selection?

 

[Rich01]

I think we might regret not taking Hobbs.
Gibcus is a solid pick but he won't be the next Fyfe or Dusty.

I don’t think Hobbs will be either.

JHF, Callaghan, Diacos are the three that look likely AA mids from this draft.

Ward and Hobbs make up that second tier.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Sorry but all the phantoms I saw had Gibcus just as high of not higher so I can’t see how you label it as a needs selection?

That's what the club said, we needed a kpd and if didn't get Gibcus there were limited choices.

 

[boxxie2022]

In the Phantom drafts that go on the best players ,not what clubs will pick, Hobbs was always near the top.
We picked Gibcus on needs as there weren't many kpd in the draft.

sorry you don’t pin a players rating on a “phantom” if he was the best midfielder he gets taken in the top 10 or even top 5. Fact is recruiters didn’t rate him as high as the phantoms who are written 9 times out of 10 by a journo.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

sorry you don’t pin a players rating on a “phantom” if he was the best midfielder he gets taken in the top 10 or even top 5. Fact is recruiters didn’t rate him as high as the phantoms who are written 9 times out of 10 by a journo.

My point is valid. There were heaps of mids available and very few KPD's.
Gibcus's value went up because of that.
I like him as a player, he looks really classy.

 

[boxxie2022]

My point is valid. There were heaps of mids available and very few KPD's.
Gibcus's value went up because of that.
I like him as a player, he looks really classy.

but doesn’t take away from the fact he was not rated as highly by recruiters as he was by you. It’s a moot point anyway as he is a bomber. Find it amazing that people are claiming him as the 2nd coming and he was a teen pick

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

but doesn’t take away from the fact he was not rated as highly by recruiters as he was by you. It’s a moot point anyway as he is a bomber. Find it amazing that people are claiming him as the 2nd coming and he was a teen pick

Hobbs slid partly due to clubs snapping up the talls available , but he yes he slid nonetheless.
Ward and Hobbs were the only mids taken after Daicos in the top 20 I'm pretty sure.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Sorry but all the phantoms I saw had Gibcus just as high of not higher so I can’t see how you label it as a needs selection?

Gibcus was not a ‘needs’ selection. Richmond’s list management team said ad-nauseum leading in our first picks would be ‘best available’. Then look at needs a bit more 28-30. This rang true on draft night picking a HBF at #17 and not a KPF or midfielder.

The best inside-mid of the last 5-years is Tom Mitchell. Next best at that height maybe Boak. So Hobbs absolute best case scenario as a 6-foot mid is Mitchell or Boak. I’m sorry, but whilst Mitchell and Boak are excellent players I’m just not sure players like that win you games of football. You need game-breakers - Dusty, Bont, Petracca, B. Smith, Butters, Zac Bailey. Explosive, dynamic, kick goals, break the lines, cause havoc.

I think Hobbs will be an excellent player. He may even win a Brownlow and multiple B&F’s, who knows ..? But with his skillset and lack of explosive speed from contest or height, I just can’t see him regularly being ‘the difference’.

Gibcus on the other hand …… 196cm+ athletically gifted KPD who is an elite interceptor …. now they are very hard to find and they can make a huge difference! Demons won a flag on the back of elite intercepting from Lever, May and Rivers. In 3-years that’s Gibcus, Balta and Brown.

I’m very glad we went Gibcus over Hobbs, as recent history tells you flags are won by teams containing X-factor mids, not accumulators.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[tigerfan1961]

That's what the club said, we needed a kpd and if didn't get Gibcus there were limited choices.

No way is that right. Clarke 100% said they picked “best available” or top of their rankings for both first round picks. Day 2, they were more looking at list needs. You’re wrong Mate

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

No way is that right. Clarke 100% said they picked “best available” or top of their rankings for both first round picks. Day 2, they were more looking at list needs. You’re wrong Mate

As if he's gonna say 'we rated 5 players better but we needed a kpd'.

 

[boxxie2022]

As if he's gonna say 'we rated 5 players better but we needed a kpd'.

clutching at straws mate.
Let it go Hobbs has gone. We didn’t rate him as high as Gibcus. Probably would have taken him at 17 (maybe) but we haven’t got him so it’s not our problem

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

clutching at straws mate.
Let it go Hobbs has gone. We didn’t rate him as high as Gibcus. Probably would have taken him at 17 (maybe) but we haven’t got him so it’s not our problem

I don't care that much about Hobbs, I'm just talking about the dynamics of the draft and how it panned out .
I just hope we've made the right decision to not pick a pure mid with our first or second pick.

 

[Rich01]

Hobbs slid partly due to clubs snapping up the talls available , but he yes he slid nonetheless.
Ward and Hobbs were the only mids taken after Daicos in the top 20 I'm pretty sure.

Erasmus and Sheldrick say hello.
Mate for someone with such a strong opinion on the draft, you have little idea on the basics.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Erasmus and Sheldrick say hello.
Mate for someone with such a strong opinion on the draft, you have little idea on the basics.

Erasmus is a mid/forward .Sheldrick a mid. You get my point though?
Not many mids taken from pick 4 to 20 odd.
If people want to believe that we and other clubs took the best available at every pick they can.