Opinion 2024 AFL Draft - Nights 1 & 2, from 7pm AEST

[Callipygian]

List Mgmt. - 2024 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals

www.bigfooty.com

I would say pretty poorly in the end

He got Sam Lalor, Sid Draper, and Bo Allan right. But including Olli Hotton was a lowlight.

 

[Bloods86]

I wasn't talking about them, though I disagree with them on the last point. We've got **** all small forwards. We were playing Parker, Campbell, Cleary, and Adams there this year (i.e. not forwards).

The fact that we're playing midfielders out of position as forwards is a pretty clear signal that we lack quality small and medium forwards.

At best you could call our players that I listed forward-rotating midfielders. Look at Brisbane's forward line this year - Daniher, Hipwood, Morris, Cameron, Rayner, Bailey, Ah Chee, McCarthy. Every single one of them are forwards or forwards that rotate through the midfield. They have no need to play midfielders out-of-position in the forward line because they have so many damaging options there that can contribute elsewhere.

I've already gone over this many times in the draft thread, so it's pretty frustrating to have to keep repeating myself.

In the Lions premiership team:

Cameron - traded in, the only legitimate small forward at time of drafting
Bailey - was an inside mid at time of drafting, like Cleary
Ah Chee - was a half forward/outside mid at time of drafting, like Campbell

Our problem is not the lack of small forward options or that those options are somehow fundamentally the wrong types to be trying out up forward, it's the selectors not picking and playing them there, outside of a few promising glimpses from Cleary and Campbell this year. Corey W showed some promise, was then scapegoated during/after the Port game, Hanily has shown promise, but must be invisible.

Rayner and Lohmann yes, are medium forwards, or at least partially at time of drafting. We definitely had medium forward as a need this draft, I'd just have preferred to go with one of the other 3 or 4 available with more proven records than Bowman (Davis, Murphy, at least, and Day-Wicks, Sulzberger in the conversation).

But of course, the people who come in late and troll a bit over the unhappiness of others, know more than some of us who are unhappy.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

He got Sam Lalor, Sid Draper, and Bo Allan right. But including Olli Hotton was a lowlight.

Got the type we wanted first up Berry or Dattoli wasn’t fussed. Just needed a small forward

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Tonight is Cochran & Kennedy night methinks.

Or Cockenne - actually, never mind.

Definitely Cochran, 1 or 2 others maximum (according to McKirdy)

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Definitely Cochran, 1 or 2 others maximum (according to McKirdy)

Better be 2 others and hope Cochran slips to the rookie draft

 

[Dubai Quacker]

I haven’t found cause to melt thus far.

I feel I am betraying Bigfooty ideals & letting the side down.

I will do better.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I haven’t found cause to melt thus far.

I feel I am betraying Bigfooty ideals & letting the side down.

I will do better.

When we overlook Davis is coming

 

[Bloods86]

When we overlook Davis is coming

We already have, with the Bowman pick.

 

[Callipygian]

I can't help wondering whether we would have taken Hannaford, Faull or Oliver if they were available. We had been strongly linked to Faull and Hannaford in the phantom drafts. I know it's pointless to speculate but I'm still curious.

Conversely, our lack of interest in the other talls was vindicated to a degree because no other clubs were interested early either.

*****

In terms of list spots, by my reckoning we have 38 spots taken (including Francis and Hamling) + another 2 taken last night (Dattoli, Bowman) which leaves us a maximum of 4 more spots.

I have found it hard to keep up with who are the rookies. Thinking about it: Francis, Hamling, Edwards (B), Kirk (B), Buller. If that's (a) correct and (b) complete, then I think we can only take one rookie apart from Francis and Hamling. But we have 3 senior list spots remaining.

I'll be very excited if we wind up taking 5 players in total at the ND plus a rookie. That's a lot of new blood.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

We already have, with the Bowman pick.

Don't discount taking another medium but after the next one. Take Kennedy

 

[Kiama Chris]

If you had the choice of picking just one out of Miers, one of the best small forwards or J Cameron, who would you pick.
I would always pick the bigger bodied player hence I'm surprised we didn't take Armstrong.

Listening to Armstrong describing how happy he was to be at Richmond with a couple of great mates I got a sense that he may not have welcomed a bid from us. This is the imponderable that we rarely know about. Even if they don't out and out say "don't pick me" sometimes they give you enough clues. The country kids know they're leaving home no matter what.

 

[SSwans2011]

I've already gone over this many times in the draft thread, so it's pretty frustrating to have to keep repeating myself.

In the Lions premiership team:

Cameron - traded in, the only legitimate small forward at time of drafting
Bailey - was an inside mid at time of drafting, like Cleary
Ah Chee - was a half forward/outside mid at time of drafting, like Campbell

Our problem is not the lack of small forward options or that those options are somehow fundamentally the wrong types to be trying out up forward, it's the selectors not picking and playing them there, outside of a few promising glimpses from Cleary and Campbell this year.

Rayner and Lohmann yes, are medium forwards, or at least partially at time of drafting. We definitely had medium forward as a need this draft, I'd just have preferred to go with one of the other 3 or 4 available with more proven records than Bowman.

But of course, the people who come in late and troll a bit over the unhappiness of others, know more than some of us who are unhappy.

It's not trolling, more an observation, and again you're acting like I'm singling you out or even targeting you at all. There's plenty in here that have just been complaining for the sake of complaining. I have no want to get happy about the misery of others, but this place has been miserable since the GF and there's certainly some that are just moping for the sake of moping. Whatever works for them I guess, but God it does make reading threads on here tedious.

I don't see why it matters what style of players the Lions forwards were drafted as, or why it matters whether they were drafted or traded in. The latter is especially irrelevant and doesn't dictate what their value would be in a draft if it were held today. They evidently had attributes to become forwards, which not all players will. We would be looking at players with attributes most suited to small-medium forwards if those are the roles we're trying to fill.

I agree Cleary and Campbell looked alright as forwards this year, but neither would get a game in that Brisbane forward line, and I'd rather see them get a crack in the midfield given that's where they've been developed and it's a very obvious area that we can improve from within next year.

Whether Bowman was the best option is a separate argument, but can we stop with this false narrative that he was plucked from nowhere? Richmond were also said to be interested in him as a late first round selection and West Coast and Geelong were said to be interested on night two. Where he sits on a phantom draft doesn't mean anything. How we and opposition clubs rated him is all that's relevant.

 

[Bloods86]

Don't discount taking another medium but after the next one. Take Kennedy

I'd maybe look at an undersized KPF like Charlie West (194), Bailey McKenzie (192), even a swingman like Barrat (193), which would then allow us to grab Cochran, a small defender (rookie) and another KPD late.

 

[Swansujelly]

wondre if Bowman might still grow a bit. was 186cm in an earlier profile, 187 in the AFL profile, could he nudge 190 in the end? not that it really matters, Fritchis 188, and how many times last season were people daying we need a "Fritch type".

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I can't help wondering whether we would have taken Hannaford, Faull or Oliver if they were available. We had been strongly linked to Faull and Hannaford in the phantom drafts. I know it's pointless to speculate but I'm still curious.

Conversely, our lack of interest in the other talls was vindicated to a degree because no other clubs were interested early either.

*****

In terms of list spots, by my reckoning we have 38 spots taken (including Francis and Hamling) + another 2 taken last night (Dattoli, Bowman) which leaves us a maximum of 4 more spots.

I have found it hard to keep up with who are the rookies. Thinking about it: Francis, Hamling, Edwards (B), Kirk (B), Buller. If that's (a) correct and (b) complete, then I think we can only take one rookie apart from Francis and Hamling. But we have 3 senior list spots remaining.

I'll be very excited if we wind up taking 5 players in total at the ND plus a rookie. That's a lot of new blood.

Think we would have taken Hannaford over Dattoli but a bit of a guess there, he did seem to be rated fractionally higher, but I love the Dattoli pick. Faull was an interesting one he was a bit of a late bolter

 

[bedford]

I haven’t found cause to melt thus far.

I feel I am betraying Bigfooty ideals & letting the side down.

I will do better.

Good to have some other views , it's getting monotonous

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'd maybe look at an undersized KPF like Charlie West (194), Bailey McKenzie (192), even a swingman like Barrat (193), which would then allow us to grab Cochran, a small defender (rookie) and another KPD late.

Still would take Kennedy first, don't discount a guy that WANTS to come here, we made the error with Serong and even though I understood it, can we not repeat history.

 

[Punts]

lol Logan will not be a backman. He’s the CHF we need to really come on next year.

Most overrated player on our list. Guy won’t ever be a difference kpp.

nothing more than a tall hff

 

[Wheresbuddy]

I don't think we take a KPF to be honest. Kennedy with the next and we have to wait and see whether we get a pick before or after the bid. Maybe we take a fly pick on a KPP no one has heard of late

Re talls, down back we have McCartin, Melican, Rampe, Francis, Edwards and Snell with Mills, Blakey and Fox all capable of playing 3rd tall if required.

Forward we have Logan, Mclean, Amartey, Buller, Hamling with Ladhams and Green available to play ruck / forward. This is plenty especially if we go with only 2 talls up forward.

So quantitatively, we have these positions covered. The question obviously is do we have the quality and depth if we cop a few injuries or form slumps.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Re talls, down back we have McCartin, Melican, Rampe, Francis, Edwards and Snell with Mills, Blakey and Fox all capable of playing 3rd tall if required.

Forward we have Logan, Mclean, Amartey, Buller, Hamling with Ladhams and Green available to play ruck / forward. This is plenty especially if we go with only 2 talls up forward.

So quantitatively, we have these positions covered. The question obviously is do we have the quality and depth if we cop a few injuries or form slumps.

I swear to you know what I threw up mu lunch you listing Ladhams as a forward! Tell me I didn't read that!

 

[Bloods86]

It's not trolling, more an observation, and again you're acting like I'm singling you out or even targeting you at all. There's plenty in here that have just been complaining for the sake of complaining. I have no want to get happy about the misery of others, but this place has been miserable since the GF and there's certainly some that are just moping for the sake of moping. Whatever works for them I guess, but God it does make reading threads on here tedious.

I don't see why it matters what style of players the Lions forwards were drafted as, or why it matters whether they were drafted or traded in. The latter is especially irrelevant and doesn't dictate what their value would be in a draft if it were held today. They evidently had attributes to become forwards, which not all players will. We would be looking at players with attributes most suited to small-medium forwards if those are the roles we're trying to fill.

I agree Cleary and Campbell looked alright as forwards this year, but neither would get a game in that Brisbane forward line, and I'd rather see them get a crack in the midfield given that's where they've been developed and it's a very obvious area that we can improve from within next year.

Whether Bowman was the best option is a separate argument, but can we stop with this false narrative that he was plucked from nowhere? Richmond were also said to be interested in him as a late first round selection and West Coast and Geelong were said to be interested on night two. Where he sits on a phantom draft doesn't mean anything. How we and opposition clubs rated him is all that's relevant.

You're not the only one I'm really responding to, so wasn't singling you out either. There's been a few "enjoying the melts" comments from people I don't recall stumping up with any meaningful commentary before the draft. It's just trolling.

As for "types", you were the one who made the claim that the Lions small forwards are actually small forwards, in the context of us taking a legitimate small forward at the draft, instead of trying out existing options that may not have been drafted as legitimate small forwards. Which doesn't make any sense, given that the Lions smalls were mostly not small forwards originally. How would we know if Campbell, Cleary, Warner, Hanily etc could become like them, if we never bother to try and find out, or ignore promising signs from them, instead just keep spending picks on small forwards that aren't them under the guise of not having any options.

My objection to Bowman isn't that he's not a need, or even necessarily that he's a reach/not a reach, it's that there were multiple more proven options available. And also people trying to say we needed a medium with X-factor (as opposed to more boring alternatives), as if we didn't draft one 2 years ago and then played him in the backline/wing (even when our VFL team improved in supplying forwards), before delisting him.

 

[Bloods86]

Still would take Kennedy first, don't discount a guy that WANTS to come here, we made the error with Serong and even though I understood it, can we not repeat history.

Sorry, yeah I would take a mid versus another KPD, but a smaller KPF might be the go if we were thinking of reducing size, having more pressure. Charlie West is known for his follow up work, and is quite quick at 194cm, for example.

But happy enough if we go a mid, then a late KPF, match Cochran before or after, then either a small defender or KPD at rookie draft.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You're not the only one I'm really responding to, so wasn't singling you out either. There's been a few "enjoying the melts" comments from people I don't recall stumping up with any meaningful commentary before the draft. It's just trolling.

As for "types", you were the one who made the claim that the Lions small forwards are actually small forwards, in the context of us taking a legitimate small forward at the draft, instead of trying out existing options that may not have been drafted as legitimate small forwards. Which doesn't make any sense, given that the Lions smalls were mostly not small forwards originally. How would we know if Campbell, Cleary, Warner, Hanily etc could become like them, if we never bother to try and find out, or ignore promising signs from them, instead just keep spending picks on small forwards that aren't them under the guise of not having any options.

My objection to Bowman isn't that he's not a need, or even necessarily that he's a reach/not a reach, it's that there were multiple more proven options available. And also people trying to say we needed a medium with X-factor (as opposed to more boring alternatives), as if we didn't draft one 2 years ago and then played him in the backline/wing (even when our VFL team improved in supplying forwards), before delisting him.

Only thing I will say go back to Brisbane's draft thread when they 'reached' for Kai Lohmann it has an eerily similar statement to what you said in regards to Bowman. They saw something, maybe we have.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Sorry, yeah I would take a mid versus another KPD, but a smaller KPF might be the go if we were thinking of reducing size, having more pressure. Charlie West is known for his follow up work, and is quite quick at 194cm, for example.

But happy enough if we go a mid, then a late KPF, match Cochran before or after, then either a small defender or KPD at rookie draft.

This is why I've been for trading in a future so we can do both, you get a West type or whatever, and then take Kennedy all before a Cochran bid.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

I think a few on here need to be giving both Bowman and Keane a chance.

From what I have seen of Keane, he seems quietly confident in his judgement for a first year being in charge. The easy thing would have been to pick safe options, but he backed his judgement in and thought Bowman was the best.

I suspect there will be a few talls chosen in the later rounds, which I don’t mind. If you don’t rate the early tall talent, it can be a sinkhole of draft picks, list spots and salary cap to go too early.

If in two to three years time it becomes evident that Keane’s picks have been terrible, then by all means sink the boot in.