-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Resource 2024 AFL Draft discussion thread
- Thread starter dogs105
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yeah he's a gun. I would've thought Richmond would be all over him at #1 after his stint with their VFL team.
If he's under pressure, using a handball to get to a player free on the outside is smarter than a dump kick. If he's using it when he's in the bettter position, not so good. I suspect that it's more the former than the latter, but he does appear to have a high handball ratio.
Agree. At times, it also looks like there's also an element of him trying to bring teammates into the game. Which makes sense given his leadership traits and general character are spoken of so highly.
That balance would need to improve at AFL level, but I'm confident it will.
Where would you play him for year 1 if we drafted him? I’m not sure playing him at HB like a McKercher would suit, but he might get battered purely on the inside, too. Maybe wing with stints in the CBA’s?
jackster83
Killing with a smile
Can he ruck?
Jagga Ormond-Allen
GreyCrow
Make me an Admin!
- Mar 21, 2016
- 80,543
- 131,121
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
I think they are wondering if he handballs to a player just as much under pressure, like Laird.
GreyCrow
Make me an Admin!
- Mar 21, 2016
- 80,543
- 131,121
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
I lean towards the idea that Laird is (unconsciously - maybe) handballing to get himself into a better position for the 1-2
Unless you worded it differently and meant exactly that
Because he handballs to people under pressure
Yes I think that is clearly what he is doing but its high risk and high reward. Not sure its really playing the %. Thats why its useless stat padding half the time.
Essendon in the market for a future first to swop
- Aug 30, 2021
- 18,187
- 35,795
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
What’s your opinion on FOS?
- Sep 3, 2018
- 5,220
- 6,896
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Think he over handballed this year in particular due to lack of match fitness coming back from injury. Much more balanced in his last few games for Panthers league side
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Abridged Article outlining new draft points system for next year with some examples. Miuch fairer system overall and a no brainer to make changes with the amt of Nth Academies incoming. Apologies if someone has already posted as not completely up to date with various threads. And typical Cats whinging about the cheaply acquired nth academy players and even Saints getting pick 8 for Battle. What about their 3 flags built on Ablett, Hawkins and Scarlett - not for a 20% discount but for a bid in the THIRD round as per the rules at the time FFS
No one begrudges any club securing father-son or academy picks.
The less said the better about Victorian clubs like Geelong who have established dynasties with fathers-sons like Matthew Scarlett, Gary Ablett and Tom Hawkins complaining about free agency compensation.
All clubs want are those teams paying a fair price.
They want them to pay on just terms.
The AFL should have pulled the trigger on changes to the bidding system and draft value index this year so the Lions paid a truer value for No. 1 draft prospect Levi Ashcroft and northern academy midfielder Sam Marshall.
But using the Lions’ likely moves in the next week to secure those points compared to the 2025 changes is a very worthwhile exercise.
It shows how footy’s greatest rort will be at least minimised if not eradicated.
Most footy fans’ eyes glaze over when you talk about draft indexes and points values and back-end pick swaps but it is worth making the changes clear using a live example.
In essence they will stop clubs like Brisbane doing exactly what they are currently executing in coming years – using a heap of back-end picks they would never use to draft a pair of top-20 talents.
Brisbane plans to trade pick 20 for four later Richmond picks to accumulate enough draft points to match bids for Ashcroft and Marshall.
A reminder – they don’t need to have the next pick to match a rival bid, they just need to give up the points value of the pick which their rival offers when they bid on the player.
This year every draft pick is assigned a points value – from 3000 for pick 1 to nine points for pick 73.
This year Brisbane will offer pick 20 (worth 912 points) for Richmond’s pick 32, 42, 43 and 45 (worth 1704 points).
So they pretty much double the value of pick 20 because it gives Richmond a quality pick in a great draft.
For argument’s sake, let’s say they have to match bids in the November national draft for Ashcroft at pick 1 and Marshall at pick 20.
Under this year’s rules they get a 20 per cent discount when they match a bid.
So they only need to find 2400 points for Ashcroft (down from 3000 points) and 729 points for Marshall (down from 912 points).
So Brisbane would only need to trade out a Dev Robertson or find another mid-range pick to accumulate a few more points, and Ashcroft and Marshall are theirs on draft night.
Next year under the DVI (draft value index) the league has stripped 10,000 points from the system so the value of picks drops off a cliff after the first round, with no points for any picks after No. 54.
Clubs also only get a 10 per cent discount (reduced from 20 per cent) when they match bids from picks 1-18, then an 84 point discount when they match bids after pick 18.
So if Brisbane tried to trade pick 20 it would only be worth 757 points anyway and Richmond’s picks (32, 42, 43, 45) would be worth a paltry 941 points compared to this year’s 1704 points.
The Lions would need to find 2700 points for the Ashcroft equivalent and 673 points for the Marshall equivalent.
But even if they got a sweetheart deal using pick 20, they would accumulate only 757 points for those four Richmond picks and they would need to find a total of 3373 points for Ashcroft and Marshall.
On the DVI, picks five (1795) and seven (1543) next year would be worth 3338 points.
Good luck trying to trade into picks five and seven.
They would still have their first-rounder but they might need to trade out someone like a Cam Rayner or Keidean Coleman to find enough points.
So clubs with multiple academy or father-son picks will need to find a ridiculous amount of points if they want to match bids.
They might decide to overlook some of those players, which would put them back into the overall pool.
As it turns out clubs will surely allow Ashcroft past the first handful of picks so it will get even easier this year for the Lions to nail their strategy.
Only next year will we find out if the AFL has gone hard enough on the DVI changes given clubs will find more legal rorts to game the system.
But at least Collingwood (Tom McGuane), Sydney (Lachie Carmichael, Noah Chamberlain) and Brisbane (Daniel Annable) will creep closer to paying on just terms for their future stars in 2025.
No one begrudges any club securing father-son or academy picks.
The less said the better about Victorian clubs like Geelong who have established dynasties with fathers-sons like Matthew Scarlett, Gary Ablett and Tom Hawkins complaining about free agency compensation.
All clubs want are those teams paying a fair price.
They want them to pay on just terms.
The AFL should have pulled the trigger on changes to the bidding system and draft value index this year so the Lions paid a truer value for No. 1 draft prospect Levi Ashcroft and northern academy midfielder Sam Marshall.
But using the Lions’ likely moves in the next week to secure those points compared to the 2025 changes is a very worthwhile exercise.
It shows how footy’s greatest rort will be at least minimised if not eradicated.
Most footy fans’ eyes glaze over when you talk about draft indexes and points values and back-end pick swaps but it is worth making the changes clear using a live example.
In essence they will stop clubs like Brisbane doing exactly what they are currently executing in coming years – using a heap of back-end picks they would never use to draft a pair of top-20 talents.
Brisbane plans to trade pick 20 for four later Richmond picks to accumulate enough draft points to match bids for Ashcroft and Marshall.
A reminder – they don’t need to have the next pick to match a rival bid, they just need to give up the points value of the pick which their rival offers when they bid on the player.
This year every draft pick is assigned a points value – from 3000 for pick 1 to nine points for pick 73.
This year Brisbane will offer pick 20 (worth 912 points) for Richmond’s pick 32, 42, 43 and 45 (worth 1704 points).
So they pretty much double the value of pick 20 because it gives Richmond a quality pick in a great draft.
For argument’s sake, let’s say they have to match bids in the November national draft for Ashcroft at pick 1 and Marshall at pick 20.
Under this year’s rules they get a 20 per cent discount when they match a bid.
So they only need to find 2400 points for Ashcroft (down from 3000 points) and 729 points for Marshall (down from 912 points).
So Brisbane would only need to trade out a Dev Robertson or find another mid-range pick to accumulate a few more points, and Ashcroft and Marshall are theirs on draft night.
Next year under the DVI (draft value index) the league has stripped 10,000 points from the system so the value of picks drops off a cliff after the first round, with no points for any picks after No. 54.
Clubs also only get a 10 per cent discount (reduced from 20 per cent) when they match bids from picks 1-18, then an 84 point discount when they match bids after pick 18.
So if Brisbane tried to trade pick 20 it would only be worth 757 points anyway and Richmond’s picks (32, 42, 43, 45) would be worth a paltry 941 points compared to this year’s 1704 points.
The Lions would need to find 2700 points for the Ashcroft equivalent and 673 points for the Marshall equivalent.
But even if they got a sweetheart deal using pick 20, they would accumulate only 757 points for those four Richmond picks and they would need to find a total of 3373 points for Ashcroft and Marshall.
On the DVI, picks five (1795) and seven (1543) next year would be worth 3338 points.
Good luck trying to trade into picks five and seven.
They would still have their first-rounder but they might need to trade out someone like a Cam Rayner or Keidean Coleman to find enough points.
So clubs with multiple academy or father-son picks will need to find a ridiculous amount of points if they want to match bids.
They might decide to overlook some of those players, which would put them back into the overall pool.
As it turns out clubs will surely allow Ashcroft past the first handful of picks so it will get even easier this year for the Lions to nail their strategy.
Only next year will we find out if the AFL has gone hard enough on the DVI changes given clubs will find more legal rorts to game the system.
But at least Collingwood (Tom McGuane), Sydney (Lachie Carmichael, Noah Chamberlain) and Brisbane (Daniel Annable) will creep closer to paying on just terms for their future stars in 2025.
Had him at #1 coming into the year
His season was a bit of a mystery , the finger injuries really had effect on his confidence
In terms of traits he has it all and is the classiest of the lot and athletically he’s good too
He’s right up there just after Smith Lalor and Travaglia for me and just before Draper but they’re all v close with strengths weaknesses and some doubts
In the SANFL, probably yes. I think that he showed plenty of composure in the nationals, where he was also handball heavy, but the focus was on moving the ball to our forwards quickly while still under pressure. I don't mind that mindset, and the composure should improve as he gets used to the speed of AFL (and has an uninterupted pre-season and therefore fitness base).
Time will tell. I have him below Lalor and FOS and only above Smith because of the Vic Metro go-home factor. I don't know how I feel about Langford yet.
Ranking them on class I have him last of those guys and I’ve also got Travaglia in my list of 6-7
But Draper brings burst speed / endurance and is a real goer / competitor . Not sure that’s enough for pick 4 in a midfielders draft
Suns won’t be able to get them all next year and players will start to enter the pool
This is what should happen and shows investment is working as northern states will start to produce more players in the pool
yep agreed and becomes more equitable for all other teams.
i do wonder if any academy player showing exceptional ability at 16 ish has any manipulation to 'shield' them away and help tank their value??..would be tempting surely if you are the Nth club? I am not saying this was the case but Gulden went from a picks in the low 30's to winning a rising star nomination in round one the following year. clearly massive step up ability over these few mths (yes I must be getting cynical as I age haha, but clearly the temptation could be there)
edit - the other huge benefit of getting locals is a lack of 'go home' factor that most other interstate clubs have suffered from over the years - esp GWS and Suns
Typical Melbourne view. Clearly it's the northern acadamies that misbalance the comp, not the GF being in Melbourne every year!
Something I wrote in my work footy tipping comp when the compatative balance review came out, with a bit tongue-in-cheek Vic interpretation:
The AFL has just come out with its “competitive rebalance” mechanisms. Off the back of Victorian teams winning 15 of the last 17 premierships and Gold Coast (no finals appearances ever) getting 4 academy players last year, the AFL has decided to “rebalance” competitiveness by making Gold Coast pay more for its academy players and opening up top-end NGA talent for Victorian clubs. While this does seem particularly ridiculous, even for the V/AFL, if you go just a little bit deeper you will see that the AFL actually had a proven rebalancing mechanism that could have solved an even bigger imbalance that is not as readily recognised.
Gold Coast’s chairman helpfully set out 13 competitive imbalances within the AFL, which were ever so slightly self-serving. I have reduced this down to 6 current imbalances, roughly in order, set out below:
“Fixture” above needs a bit of explanation. While most non-Victorians claim that the travel burden is the biggest impact of the fixture, the prevalence of neutral ground games for Victorians v home/ away state games for non-Victorians is the big difference. Bad non-Vic teams pick up wins on a home state ground that Vic teams would lose on a neutral ground, and good non-Vic teams lose games on away state grounds that good Vic teams would win on a neutral ground. So it’s easier for a bad non-Vic team to get off the bottom of the ladder (and miss out on a top 2 draft pick) but harder for a good non-Vic team to get to the top 4 (and get a home preliminary final). Both scenarios make it harder for non-Vic teams to win a flag.
9 Victorian teams make up 53% of the (average 17 team) competition over the AFL era, but have taken home 22 of the 34 flags (65%) and 15 of the last 17 (88%). This equates to 23% above expectations (assuming a fair league) over the AFL era and 74% above expectations over the last 17 years. They get a definite home ground advantage in grand finals, more favourable fixturing, almost a win a year each from iffy umpiring and get net positive player movement (more good players come than go). The only thing they don’t get is an AFL academy.
But this doesn’t apply to St Kilda. St Kilda are the only Victorian team to not win a flag in the AFL era. They have played in 3 grand finals (4 if you count the draw) and didn’t win any of them. They even lost one of those to a non-Vic team, so they clearly don’t have a home ground advantage when playing in grand finals. They don’t have gun players wanting to move to them and iffy umpiring decisions don’t seem to go in their favour. They would have had a single gun father son, but missed out on Cam Mackenzie when the AFL temporarily changed the NGA rules. We could have lumped them in with the expansion teams of GWS and Gold Coast, who share most of their problems (plus some iffy umpiring). But the expansion teams have only been playing for 25 years combined (not the 34 of the Saints) for their no premierships and they at least get an academy. It’s the classic, if there was a prize for missing out the Saints would probably miss out on that too. So they are in their own group, UnVictorian team/s.
The Cows, Power and Freo (Traditional footy state teams) have won a combined 3 premierships, which is 35% below expectations for the time they have spent in the league. They regularly lose games late to iffy umpiring decisions and haven’t been around long enough to benefit from father-son leg ups (the state league father-son rules being designed not to work). But they have almost been in the league long enough for the father-sons to start coming in and maybe nearly long enough for the umpiring to even out a bit.
Because the three ex-VFL teams (Sydney, Brisbane and West Cost) are actually more successful than the Victorian teams over the AFL era, taking home 9 flags (26%) at 51% above expectations. Which, at face value, suggests that the newer AFL teams just need more time in the league to get as successful as Vic teams. Yes, the ex-VFL teams don’t get a home grand final or favourable fixturing, but don’t get the iffy umpiring (North over West Coast this year evened up by Sydney over Adelaide last year), have positive player movement and as good a father-son advantage as anyone. However, what Sydney and Brisbane also got was a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) from 1998 until 2013. When this period is excluded, the ex-VFL teams only won 3 flags from 20 seasons, at 6% below expectations (Vic clubs going at 32% above expectations over this same period). But it does give us an idea what a successful competitive mechanism should be.
Saint Kilda need COLA
Attachments
That is a massive change.
Would love to know who it benefits the most, it's always after the wash-out you see what the changes will actually mean. I reckon the end of the first round / start of the second becomes filled with better players being available - that suits the clubs at the top of the ladder .. .right?
I don't think you can do these things in isolation, they need to look at the whole system including the entire draft and Free Agency.
This is a good start, but there needs to be more.
It takes too long to rebuild, the current system allows some clubs to game the system too easily.
I'm all for extra help for the bottom 4 in picks / cap, no free-agents to prelim finalists, maybe even first 20 picks being for the bottom 10 - ie bottom 10 get 2 picks before the top 8 get their first.
I suppose it's something, but the AFL are known for decisions that end up being a different problem rather than a good overall solution.
I said this at the start of the year and that his handballs were actually really poor (inaccurate and set up his teammates). His 2023 futures game shows that. As this season went on and specifically at sanfl level, that improved a lot imo. I think his disposal in general improved as the year went on. Must have been something he worked on. That being said he still likes a handball.
His agility, speed and strength for a smaller guy are elite and he's very tough defensively. Knows how to find the ball with ease. I would still prefer Lalor, but I'd still be happy with draper at our pick (and with FOS or Smith). Finally we have some good genuine midfield options at our pick.
Similar threads
- Poll
