Resource 2024 AFL Draft discussion thread (Wed Nov 20 to Fri Nov 22)

[George Kramer]

Complete madness imo to give away a future 1st to get a player ranked around the same mark.

There will be a very good player available at pick 4.

I think he’s taking his name literally, he’s bored of the draft and wants to spice it up.

 

[Eddie Murphy]

If they were downgrading, they getting that every day of the week, and then some. Upgrading a pick in the top 5 costs a 1st at a minimum.

Missing the crucial context that if North are entertaining a downgrade it’s very likely because they want to be targeting a KPP with their first pick anyway, whether they’re using pick 2 on him or using a later pick and getting extra value. I asked the North board if they’d consider 2 for 4 and F2 which was met with a generally positive response. In a draft as even as this coughing up the F1 would be complete madness.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I think he’s taking his name literally, he’s bored of the draft and wants to spice it up.

As long as AFC are not thinking along similar lines as would be up there as our most stupid trade of all time.

Would be a different story if a standout top 2 players, but this year it's pretty even to our pick.

 

[Eddie Murphy]

Completely different as they did that to stop us bidding on Tom Green so they could get an extra 1st round pick in before a bid was coming for him. So they essentially moved their F1 into the draft of the day

On top of that, if we draft Serong, Young, Day instead of McAsey at pick 6 we suddenly make out like complete bandits in that deal.

You’re trading for players, not the pick number, hence the value changes every year. You could almost justify the pick 2 & 3 asking price for Harley Reid, or the godfather offer for JHF but it’d obviously be completely laughable this year.

 

[George Kramer]

Someone check on Mutineer

 

[Mutineer]

No surprise that Charlie West would be a family friend of Lukosius, his grandfather is Wayne Jackson who played for West Torrens and was the AFL's CEO for a period, Jack's father Robert played for Woodville/West Torrens. Charlie is a decent prospect too, one of the best contested marks in this draft.

 

[latinoheat]

No surprise that Charlie West would be a family friend of Lukosius, his grandfather is Wayne Jackson who played for West Torrens and was the AFL's CEO for a period, Jack's father Robert played for Woodville/West Torrens. Charlie is a decent prospect too, one of the best contested marks in this draft.

And he’s a crow fan as well !

 

[Crow till I die]

And he’s a crow fan as well !

Not for much longer it looks

 

[Thunderstruck]

Someone check on Mutineer

Good to see some articles on him finally. He's the best key position prospect out of SA this year.

 

[latinoheat]

Good to see some articles on him finally. He's the best key position prospect out of SA this year.

Why we couldn’t find a list spot for him is bewildering.

 

[GameofSloanes]

People do realise that even if we did have list spots and assuming we still traded in cumming peatling and ANB, we wouldn't have early picks? Like none until 60+. Could've had one in the 40s if we'd chosen not to trade it.
Maybe we could've traded future picks to get back in, but that assumes a club wants to trade out of this draft which if it is so great we'd likely have to pay overs to convince them

 

[Draft Bored]

Complete madness imo to give away a future 1st to get a player ranked around the same mark.

There will be a very good player available at pick 4.

Not giving away a first round pick.

It's approximately a 12 spot downgrade in a draft that doesn't sound great for a 2 spot upgrade at the pointy end of a draft that is great.

Next year we also have access to 2x future firsts (2026, 2027) we can trade to get back in or trade for players. There are teams with academy picks that will be trading out of the first round. So I don't actually feel like we're compromising our trading next year due to those 2027 picks being available.

The only way it's a bad trade is if the Crows have another stinker which I think is highly unlikely.

Also this assumption that all players in the top 10 are similar quality is not realistic. I think there are tiers and I want a selection in the very top tier.

 

[Draft Bored]

Unfortunately it falls over at the first hurdle for me.

4 + F1 is not a price I am willing to entertain. Not in a draft where there is a smorgasbord of talent up to and including pick 4

There's a lot of talent but you have to remember each club has their preferred players sorted in a ranked list, or at the very least tiers. So unless you know Hamish and know he has ranked the top 5 players evenly then it's just crazy saying we're happy with the guy we get at 4 because they're all so even. That's simply not true.

We would have a clear ranking with this top 4. So what you're saying is you're happy settling for the guy we have potentially 4th on our list. I'm saying, I'd rather slide our first back to norths second next year and get the guy we want 1st or 2nd most in this draft.

 

[Captain Furious]

There's a lot of talent but you have to remember each club has their preferred players sorted in a ranked list, or at the very least tiers. So unless you know Hamish and know he has ranked the top 5 players evenly then it's just crazy saying we're happy with the guy we get at 4 because they're all so even. That's simply not true.

We would have a clear ranking with this top 4. So what you're saying is you're happy settling for the guy we have potentially 4th on our list. I'm saying, I'd rather slide our first back to norths second next year and get the guy we want 1st or 2nd most in this draft.

I think that would play if there were guys in that top mix that weren't needs for us, inside mids, talls etc. But all of those 4 guys that everyone is talking about + a bunch of others, are great fits for us. If we miss on 3, the 4th is great. They all have either speed, skill or a dynamic style that our midfield mix needs. To give up a F1 to get one over another, probably isn't wise.

And if we're talking about next year not being a strong draft...that's what they said last year about the 2024 crop. Our list is pretty decent for B graders (and I use that term respectfully, I reserve A grade for the elite talent of the game) what we lack are A graders. To get more elite talent in - whether that's a NWM or a shot at a Dyson Sharp or someone off radar right now, we need that 1st in hand.

 

[Shifty Crow]

I think that would play if there were guys in that top mix that weren't needs for us, inside mids, talls etc. But all of those 4 guys that everyone is talking about + a bunch of others, are great fits for us. If we miss on 3, the 4th is great. They all have either speed, skill or a dynamic style that our midfield mix needs. To give up a F1 to get one over another, probably isn't wise.

And if we're talking about next year not being a strong draft...that's what they said last year about the 2024 crop. Our list is pretty decent for B graders (and I use that term respectfully, I reserve A grade for the elite talent of the game) what we lack are A graders. To get more elite talent in - whether that's a NWM or a shot at a Dyson Sharp or someone off radar right now, we need that 1st in hand.

The draft strength could change really quickly - I was speaking to a friend who works as a recruiter for a Vic base club and he said the assessment on the 2024 draft 12 months out was good however the assessment of the draft got stronger throughout 2024


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Big Dub]

There's a lot of talent but you have to remember each club has their preferred players sorted in a ranked list, or at the very least tiers. So unless you know Hamish and know he has ranked the top 5 players evenly then it's just crazy saying we're happy with the guy we get at 4 because they're all so even. That's simply not true.

We would have a clear ranking with this top 4. So what you're saying is you're happy settling for the guy we have potentially 4th on our list. I'm saying, I'd rather slide our first back to norths second next year and get the guy we want 1st or 2nd most in this draft.

I think that you are correct that there would be be a ranking list and talent tiers. Most teams would have Lalor, FOS, Smith, Draper and Langford as the top tier, but probably in different orders.

You would expect a high price to move between tiers, but not a heap to move within a tier.

North are apparently willing to drop out of that "top tier" because they want a tall. For them, that tall is top tier, so they would be happy to get not a heap for dropping a few spots, but could get a high price from someone just outside the top tier.

But if Melbourne at pick 5 have that tall in their top tier, North would need a heap to drop below them in any trade.

We could offer not a lot to move a couple of spots and still be North's best option.

I don't think it's worth a future first to move up 2 spots, but I don't think a future third is going to get it done.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

People do realise that even if we did have list spots and assuming we still traded in cumming peatling and ANB, we wouldn't have early picks? Like none until 60+. Could've had one in the 40s if we'd chosen not to trade it.
Maybe we could've traded future picks to get back in, but that assumes a club wants to trade out of this draft which if it is so great we'd likely have to pay overs to convince them

We could use our futures to trade back in to the draft if there was a slider we liked... but currently we have no list spots.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Not giving away a first round pick.

It's approximately a 12 spot downgrade in a draft that doesn't sound great for a 2 spot upgrade at the pointy end of a draft that is great.

Next year we also have access to 2x future firsts (2026, 2027) we can trade to get back in or trade for players. There are teams with academy picks that will be trading out of the first round. So I don't actually feel like we're compromising our trading next year due to those 2027 picks being available.

The only way it's a bad trade is if the Crows have another stinker which I think is highly unlikely.

Also this assumption that all players in the top 10 are similar quality is not realistic. I think there are tiers and I want a selection in the very top tier.

It is giving away a 1st rounder for a 2nd rounder as would still end up with a player of similar value this year.

It's very even between the 1st 4 players, which is why this trade would be crazy!

We are not in a position to give away points for the hell of it.

 

[George Kramer]

People do realise that even if we did have list spots and assuming we still traded in cumming peatling and ANB, we wouldn't have early picks? Like none until 60+. Could've had one in the 40s if we'd chosen not to trade it.
Maybe we could've traded future picks to get back in, but that assumes a club wants to trade out of this draft which if it is so great we'd likely have to pay overs to convince them

If we had list spots we wouldn’t have traded away 45.

 

[johnnypanther]

People do realise that even if we did have list spots and assuming we still traded in cumming peatling and ANB, we wouldn't have early picks? Like none until 60+. Could've had one in the 40s if we'd chosen not to trade it.
Maybe we could've traded future picks to get back in, but that assumes a club wants to trade out of this draft which if it is so great we'd likely have to pay overs to convince them

I think our big failure this trade/draft period is not
(i) not delisting players to make say 1 or 2 more list spots available since as you point out our draft picks would only be around 60+ which probably come into about 50+, but even one pick around 50 may have been useful.
(ii) but rather is our failure to trade out 1 or 2 players in order to receive some picks in that 30-50 range.
I thought perhaps Berry should have been one but we dont seem to have any other tradeworthy options (excluding players we want to keep). I do think, however, that we should have been more ruthless and tried a Houston style push-out with Crouch & Laird in order to get some draft capital. I believe that those 2 players will hinder our player development towards a premiership thrust.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Not giving away a first round pick.

It's approximately a 12 spot downgrade in a draft that doesn't sound great for a 2 spot upgrade at the pointy end of a draft that is great.

Next year we also have access to 2x future firsts (2026, 2027) we can trade to get back in or trade for players. There are teams with academy picks that will be trading out of the first round. So I don't actually feel like we're compromising our trading next year due to those 2027 picks being available.

The only way it's a bad trade is if the Crows have another stinker which I think is highly unlikely.

Also this assumption that all players in the top 10 are similar quality is not realistic. I think there are tiers and I want a selection in the very top tier.

Who you moving up 2 spots for and why ?

Also how do you know same player won’t be there at 4 ?

More than any other year this is year without a consensus top 10 or even 5

Don’t get why you’re so set on this unless you think there’s a player who can’t be missed , who is that player ?

 

[Mostyn]

Not giving away a first round pick.

It's approximately a 12 spot downgrade in a draft that doesn't sound great for a 2 spot upgrade at the pointy end of a draft that is great.

Next year we also have access to 2x future firsts (2026, 2027) we can trade to get back in or trade for players. There are teams with academy picks that will be trading out of the first round. So I don't actually feel like we're compromising our trading next year due to those 2027 picks being available.

The only way it's a bad trade is if the Crows have another stinker which I think is highly unlikely.

Also this assumption that all players in the top 10 are similar quality is not realistic. I think there are tiers and I want a selection in the very top tier.

Look, I know this board can sometimes get angry at things that haven't actually happened.

Let me add to that by getting angry at your horrendous draft proposal.

The top five are all VERY similar in future potential. There is no one worth sacrificing future draft assets to guarantee getting.

 

[Mostyn]

I think our big failure this trade/draft period is not
(i) not delisting players to make say 1 or 2 more list spots available since as you point out our draft picks would only be around 60+ which probably come into about 50+, but even one pick around 50 may have been useful.
(ii) but rather is our failure to trade out 1 or 2 players in order to receive some picks in that 30-50 range.
I thought perhaps Berry should have been one but we dont seem to have any other tradeworthy options (excluding players we want to keep). I do think, however, that we should have been more ruthless and tried a Houston style push-out with Crouch & Laird in order to get some draft capital. I believe that those 2 players will hinder our player development towards a premiership thrust.

I think they know that Laird would never approve of a trade interstate, and we don't have any Vic players that we'd be happy to move.

Crouch would just be a delisting - we wouldn't get anything for him.

Smith is the disappointment, but life is sometimes disappointing ...

 

[George Kramer]

I think they know that Laird would never approve of a trade interstate, and we don't have any Vic players that we'd be happy to move.

Crouch would just be a delisting - we wouldn't get anything for him.

Smith is the disappointment, but life is sometimes disappointing ...

Especially being a Crows supporter

 

[Big Dub]

I think our big failure this trade/draft period is not
(i) not delisting players to make say 1 or 2 more list spots available since as you point out our draft picks would only be around 60+ which probably come into about 50+, but even one pick around 50 may have been useful.
(ii) but rather is our failure to trade out 1 or 2 players in order to receive some picks in that 30-50 range.
I thought perhaps Berry should have been one but we dont seem to have any other tradeworthy options (excluding players we want to keep). I do think, however, that we should have been more ruthless and tried a Houston style push-out with Crouch & Laird in order to get some draft capital. I believe that those 2 players will hinder our player development towards a premiership thrust.

Getting picks for fringe players makes us feel like we are doing something. Unfortunately, it's probably not something good.

You could maybe get decent draft picks for barely top 22 players that are unover 28, or fringe players that are under 24 (who may still improve significantly). These players make us better now and in the future.

The team losing the player tends to lose the trade, so long term you likely don't get a better player. It also takes the new player some years to get to their peak, setting your short to medium term back even further. Whatever pick you get is still a loss.

I'd rather cut the players who we know won't make us better in 2 years time and take the late picks. You don't need many later picks to make it to be a winning strategy, because it didn't cost us much, if anything, to do it.

And there are plenty of 28+ not best 22 players and/ or under 28 never-going-to-make-it's on our list.

We got Peatling, a future 3rd rounder and a future 4th rounder for a future second. Hard to see how that makes GWS better. Yes, Peatling's way better than Berry. But what draft picks do you think we'd get for Berry?