-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2025 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
List Mgmt. 2021 Draft and Trade Hypotheticals
- Thread starter SwansProudly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
He's a brute who extracts the footy & is then very effective at dishing off by hand. The knock on his kicking is overstated - he has a booming kick on the run. And a burst of speed to escape a pack.
The decision making aspect is probably a fair knock, but young players can often improve in that area.
He just stood out to me in the WAFL Colts as a player we will really need in a post-JPK (and Parker) world.
Admittedly, I'm probably a bit biased - as he attends my son's school, so I've seen a lot more of him than other potential draftees.
Wolftone
Cancelled
- Feb 1, 2012
- 6,415
- 5,732
- AFL Club
- Sydney
That sounds a bit like Chad at the same stage. Hard as in the middle and great by hand. His 18yo highlights demonstrate that. His kicking is still probably his weakest skill but has improved significantly.
Don't know enough to say "grab him" but one reason we lost to GWS was that we were not physically strong enough in the midfield without JPK and Mills.
replicant
Premiership Player
He had a video just prior to the draft. It classed all the players as "best 5 in league", "best 5 on list", "best 18" "best 22" etc... Gulden didn't make the lsit, was mentioned at the end of the video as prob won't make it as he's too short and not high enough quality.
Can't be bothered finding the video.
- Apr 26, 2016
- 39,984
- 82,607
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Moderator
- #13,180
Much discussion about 'reaching' in regards to the draft. I find the concept a bit tired personally. It's fine to have a general draft ethos you subscribe to (mids > talls, draft for needs etc.) but when assessing an individual, their worth at any given pick is subjective. A person on here may think a prospect is worth x, y or z, but our recruiters might think differently.
And our recruiters are the ones with "reaches" that include Rowbottom at pick 25, Warner at pick 39, and McInerney at pick 44. Rowbottom, Warner and McInerney were barely mentioned in any of the phantom drafts or power rankings prior to getting drafted, yet we'd happily take a talent of their caliber with our pick 16.
The whole concept of a "reach" is a myth because it's an opinion that's measured relative to those draft sources like phantom drafts and power rankings. And they in themselves are just the subjective views of draft-watchers. The draft is not a fixed system separated into tiers based on anything concrete. Once you accept that, it's much easier to look at all the draft conjecture from the "experts" as just a collection of opinions, no different to the opinions of our recruiters.*
*In fact, less important than the opinions of our recruiters, as they are the ones armed with the most knowledge of all the prospects to make an informed decision.
And our recruiters are the ones with "reaches" that include Rowbottom at pick 25, Warner at pick 39, and McInerney at pick 44. Rowbottom, Warner and McInerney were barely mentioned in any of the phantom drafts or power rankings prior to getting drafted, yet we'd happily take a talent of their caliber with our pick 16.
The whole concept of a "reach" is a myth because it's an opinion that's measured relative to those draft sources like phantom drafts and power rankings. And they in themselves are just the subjective views of draft-watchers. The draft is not a fixed system separated into tiers based on anything concrete. Once you accept that, it's much easier to look at all the draft conjecture from the "experts" as just a collection of opinions, no different to the opinions of our recruiters.*
*In fact, less important than the opinions of our recruiters, as they are the ones armed with the most knowledge of all the prospects to make an informed decision.
Certainly open to getting an inside mid with one of our 2nd or 3rd picks (subject to KPD selection/likelihood), and probably also picking up Anderson from the Academy.
Probably not our greatest need, but we did also lose the guy who blitzed the field in tackles and pressure acts vs GWS.
Hard to know.
Wasn't even on the board in phantom drafts a month ago, but is now generally appearing in the 30's. I sense he could go earlier - particularly after he did very well on Horne-Francis in a juniors game recently.
- Apr 26, 2016
- 39,984
- 82,607
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Moderator
- #13,183
Tbh I thought our midfield actually did really well against GWS, all things considered. We were a little slow out of the gate but for most of the game it felt like we were winning plenty of clean ball out of the centre and creating good scoring opportunities, just failing to convert them.
I felt where we really lacked JPK and Mills was in our transitioning from defence, which is the backbone of our game plan. Our set-ups up the field coming out of defence were a bit sloppy, and it forced us to do a lot of uncharacteristic bombing to outnumbered contests. The exits were just haphazard in general; lacked our usual schtick of knowing when to go fast and when to go slow when rebounding. Though they're not involved in that personally as inside mids, I reckon Mills and JPK's on-field leadership is pretty key in the way we structure and the tempo we play at. So even though we were super competitive and should've won, it never felt like we got the game on our terms at a tempo that suited our game-plan.
(Should probably acknowledge that Blakey's absence, as well as quieter games from our rebounding crew did not help in this regard.)
I think it's an interesting topic as we have no clue how other teams rate prospects.
I completely agree with your feelings on reaching, and though many see Ling and Stephens as reaches, the simple fact of the matter is we chose the players that we thought were the best for our team, and even though hindsight always wins, we know the recruitment staff have way more wins than Bigfooty.
On that note, when I talk about trading down, it's more in regards to what will give our team the most benefit. I feel the choices we are looking at IF we draft a tall defender is Van Rooyen and pick 33 or if we trade stuff around 24 and Bazzo, and I feel that the second option gives us greater benefits.
This is of course assuming we'll take a tall defender, and I have no clue what our plans are. Imo, I'm just along for the ride, our decision depends more on what players are taken before us than our own decisions at this point.
love this work mate
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Highlights the stupidity of it last year! They could have got a top 2 pick AND Daicos
ScrewInStuds
Club Legend
- Mar 24, 2013
- 2,210
- 5,710
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Miami Heat
It will be a proud day for Collingwood.
Brander to GWS, will be interesting where they play him, if at all
- Oct 18, 2018
- 5,429
- 12,680
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Thankyou
- Oct 18, 2018
- 5,429
- 12,680
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Thankyou
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Defence apparently
- Oct 2, 2016
- 12,649
- 26,414
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Both from Australia's largest toilet paper producer
sataris
Chief Toastie Officer
- Feb 15, 2015
- 10,694
- 21,693
- AFL Club
- Sydney
My arseh*le is too good for them.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Personally would be a choice between Sonsie and Sinn
- Apr 26, 2016
- 39,984
- 82,607
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Moderator
- #13,197
I have gone on record saying I'd prefer a key defender with our first this year. However I would appreciate the irony if we got Sonsie.
Given that this time last year I was saying how we needed a midfielder and that whoever got Sonsie would be getting an absolute gun, and a year later we get Sonsie the midfielder and I'm complaining about it
Given that this time last year I was saying how we needed a midfielder and that whoever got Sonsie would be getting an absolute gun, and a year later we get Sonsie the midfielder and I'm complaining about it
sataris
Chief Toastie Officer
- Feb 15, 2015
- 10,694
- 21,693
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Is this image for ants?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
