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

[LukeParkerno1]

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.

Furthermore with talls you have to give them time so you aren't just wasting 2-3 years you are wasting 5 years, first rounders command a longer contract too. Do we need a tall maybe, but after looking a bit more in depth it's not as pressing as I originally thought

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Also, has it occurred to anyone that Swans may always appear to choose “bolters” because we are one of the few clubs that don’t divulge to the Cal Twomey’s of the world who we are planning to pick?

Twomey mostly sets his order based on who he hears clubs are prioritising. Several clubs may see a player rated 16 and think that it is nuts and way too early, but we would never know. That doesn’t mean that the pick is not a “bolter”.

 

[Swansujelly]

Furthermore with talls you have to give them time so you aren't just wasting 2-3 years you are wasting 5 years, first rounders command a longer contract too. Do we need a tall maybe, but after looking a bit more in depth it's not as pressing as I originally thought

need Edwards and Buller to come on, and congrats on not getting Hynes lol

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Also, has it occurred to anyone that Swans may always appear to choose “bolters” because we are one of the few clubs that don’t divulge to the Cal Twomey’s of the world who we are planning to pick?

Twomey mostly sets his order based on who he hears clubs are prioritising. Several clubs may see a player rated 16 and think that it is nuts and way too early, but we would never know.

Cal rarely gets ours right, he did however get the type we were looking for in a small forward (Hannaford). Getting Green right was like the first in years

 

[LukeParkerno1]

need Edwards and Buller to come on, and congrats on not getting Hynes lol

Jeepers they made me nervous, then the Dogs saved my sanity!

 

[Bloods86]

Also, has it occurred to anyone that Swans may always appear to choose “bolters” because we are one of the few clubs that don’t divulge to the Cal Twomey’s of the world who we are planning to pick?

Twomey mostly sets his order based on who he hears clubs are prioritising. Several clubs may see a player rated 16 and think that it is nuts and way too early, but we would never know. That doesn’t mean that the pick is not a “bolter”.

Twomey has 2 different lists. Rankings, which Bowman didn't seem to be anywhere near all year (nor on most). And then phantom draft, based on indications from clubs (which is where Bowman came in).

 

[Bloods86]

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.

I'll give them a chance, just like I gave Konstanty, Vickery etc a chance from 2022, when they were not at all what I would have done.

 

[Kbroome]

Twomey has 2 different lists. Rankings, which Bowman didn't seem to be anywhere near all year. And then phantom draft, based on indications from clubs.

Yep Bowman was probably realistically ranked in the 40s-50s but with some of the clubs needing a medium forward players can jump up 10-20 positions

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Possible copy and paste from other sources, but this is from HSun - a few repeat names:

With their remaining picks, the Swans could look to add to their defence and are believed to be fans of key defender Noah Mraz, who is still on the board. They have also been linked to WA bolter Hugh Boxshall – a 188cm midfielder – along with South Australian half-back Angus Clarke, Demons NGA key defender Riak Andrew - the brother of Mac - ruckman Jacob Molier, small defender Blake Leidler.

Also mentions Charlie McCartin

 

[JackHiscoxWasFast]

Draft picks come down to playing the percentages.

Sometimes long shots come in, most of the time they don’t. Our form of being too cute with picks continues unabated.

Odds on we’ve picked another ‘delisted with zero games’ type of player.

Sometimes feels like a CV highlight our list team is going for eg I picked a bolter and now he’s AA.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

It was also refreshing to hear Keane talk of balancing needs and ranked order of talent, and also that it appears that his ranked order seemed to largely line up with how our needs were assessed.

To people saying the Swans learned nothing from the grand final, my take is that they learned that we need a more dynamic and smaller forward line. Seems sensible to me.

I would also love a KPF and KPD, but you only have so many early picks and you need to work with the talent available as well.

 

[Bloods86]

Yep Bowman was probably realistically ranked in the 40s-50s but with some of the clubs needing a medium forward players can jump up 10-20 positions

As a needs based advocate for drafting, I'm not against reaching to make sure you get the type of player you need, before others get in. I just don't really see how Bowman was ahead of several others with seemingly better track records, and some that played at a higher level.

We seem to have gone for x-factor and highlights, though we emphasised his athleticism and he's been talked about as a potential half back flanker too (which worries me). As we've discussed, we already drafted an x-factor medium forward 2 years ago, didn't play them there and then delisted them.

 

[Bloods86]

It was also refreshing to hear Keane talk of balancing needs and ranked order of talent, and also that it appears that his ranked order seemed to largely line up with how our needs were assessed.

To people saying the Swans learned nothing from the grand final, my take is that they learned that we need a more dynamic and smaller forward line. Seems sensible to me.

I would also love a KPF and KPD, but you only have so many early picks and you need to work with the talent available as well.

I'm all for a medium forward, but we already had several options for small forwards, that we just don't bother trying out for more than a game or two.

 

[Bloods86]

Possible copy and paste from other sources, but this is from HSun - a few repeat names:

With their remaining picks, the Swans could look to add to their defence and are believed to be fans of key defender Noah Mraz, who is still on the board. They have also been linked to WA bolter Hugh Boxshall – a 188cm midfielder – along with South Australian half-back Angus Clarke, Demons NGA key defender Riak Andrew - the brother of Mac - ruckman Jacob Molier, small defender Blake Leidler.

Also mentions Charlie McCartin

If we think Mraz is over injury concerns, then he could be a KPD/KPF pick, see where he ends up (O'Farrell and Barrat similar vein). Then there's a few mids that could last until our next pick, if Cochran isn't bid on earlier, though Boxshall would be gone (e.g. Hargrave, Urquhart, Grego). Leidler in the rookie draft doesn't sound like a bad option, though I've been harping on Loch MacTaggart there (also small/medium defender).

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm all for a medium forward, but we already had several options for small forwards, that we just don't bother trying out for more than a game or two.

The ones you listed have not played a game (Hanily), barely played a game there (Campbell) or aren't good enough (Wicks). Dattoli WANTS to be here, how about we learn from our mistakes and draft guys who we can develop and not worry about retention.

All well and good to say play Campbell there but he has barely played more than a couple of games there.

Dattoli won't just be a small forward either in time can be a burst mid

 

[Bloods86]

The ones you listed have not played a game (Hanily), barely played a game there (Campbell) or aren't good enough (Wicks). Dattoli WANTS to be here, how about we learn from our mistakes and draft guys who we can develop and not worry about retention.

All well and good to say play Campbell there but he has barely played more than a couple of games there.

Dattoli won't just be a small forward either in time can be a burst mid

They've all played forward at a higher level than Dattoli. And I haven't listed Wicks today.

Yes, that is part of my point, we should play our existing options there, instead of not doing that, then using first rounders under the guise we don't have options.

Campbell has played there by the way, that's part of the reason he was so highly rated.

 

[SSwans2011]

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 one of the Lions forwards (Bailey) was drafted as a pure midfieler and let's be honest, he's displayed more nous around goal than any midfielders we've tried there (except Heeney) since his debut season.

Ah Chee and Rayner were hybrids and in Ah Chee's case it took him several years to develop (and then redevelop) his game to be an effective forward. Not every player will have that from day dot, but you're more likely to find it in someone that's spent most of their youth career playing there.

My point with Brisbane's forward line is that they were all very capable forwards. I think you would agree that this was not the case with our forward line this year. That's something that we need to address ASAP while we're in our window, so it makes sense to target the players most likely to help make that happen.

Cleary was solid (though I think a touch overrated by some on here) in his two full games there this year. Campbell had that incredible quarter in the EF but outside of that he's had a few chances there and hasn't done much. I think both deserve a crack next year, but I haven't seen enough from either to be confident that they're the answer to our forward troubles, and like I've previously said, I want to see both go to the midfield sooner rather than later to help address some of our issues there.

Hanily's not invisible, but he also hasn't played a game and was behind the likes of Adams and Parker who we would be looking for upgrades for if we're serious about winning a flag, not the next best option. Hanily may yet become that, but having alternatives won't hurt.

I just think that looking at what we already have and our issues, small forwards are the area we're most likely to be able to improve via the draft while still in our window. Young KPD/KPFs and midfielders won't be upgrades on what we already have in the next 2-3 years.

 

[SSwans2011]

The ones you listed have not played a game (Hanily), barely played a game there (Campbell) or aren't good enough (Wicks). Dattoli WANTS to be here, how about we learn from our mistakes and draft guys who we can develop and not worry about retention.

All well and good to say play Campbell there but he has barely played more than a couple of games there.

Dattoli won't just be a small forward either in time can be a burst mid

Campbell spent some time there last year as well. He looked promising towards the end of the season and is definitely worth a crack next year but I agree we shouldn't be expecting him to become that extra gun small forward that we really need.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

They've all played forward at a higher level than Dattoli. And I haven't listed Wicks today.

Yes, that is part of my point, we should play our existing options there, instead of not doing that, then using first rounders under the guise we don't have options.

Campbell has played there by the way, that's part of the reason he was so highly rated.

Campbell is a chance, but can we try it at the reserve level first. We needed a small forward, was no1 on my needs list and we took it. It's the correct call. If you aren't listing Wicks you have Hanily and Campbell as options that's it! Game has changed you need mediums and smalls to keep the ball in. Our midfield was terrible in the GF 100% but you know what was worse- the ability to keep the ball in when we actually got it forward. It was pathetic.

 

[SSwans2011]

Yes, that is part of my point, we should play our existing options there, instead of not doing that, then using first rounders under the guise we don't have options.

You can make this argument for every single position. It's not under the guise that we don't have options, it's under the guise that our options evidently aren't currently good enough.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Campbell spent some time there last year as well. He looked promising towards the end of the season and is definitely worth a crack next year but I agree we shouldn't be expecting him to become that extra gun small forward that we really need.

Yeah look I'm not against it, but it's smart to get another one on the list in case it doesn't work out. No issue trying Campbell there first.

 

[Bloods86]

Only one of the Lions forwards (Bailey) was drafted as a pure midfieler and let's be honest, he's displayed more nous around goal than any midfielders we've tried there (except Heeney) since his debut season.

Ah Chee and Rayner were hybrids and in Ah Chee's case it took him several years to develop (and then redevelop) his game to be an effective forward. Not every player will have that from day dot, but you're more likely to find it in someone that's spent most of their youth career playing there.

My point with Brisbane's forward line is that they were all very capable forwards. I think you would agree that this was not the case with our forward line this year. That's something that we need to address ASAP while we're in our window, so it makes sense to target the players most likely to help make that happen.

Cleary was solid (though I think a touch overrated by some on here) in his two full games there this year. Campbell had that incredible quarter in the EF but outside of that he's had a few chances there and hasn't done much. I think both deserve a crack next year, but I haven't seen enough from either to be confident that they're the answer to our forward troubles, and like I've previously said, I want to see both go to the midfield sooner rather than later to help address some of our issues there.

Hanily's not invisible, but he also hasn't played a game and was behind the likes of Adams and Parker who we would be looking for upgrades for if we're serious about winning a flag, not the next best option. Hanily may yet become that, but having alternatives won't hurt.

I just think that looking at what we already have and our issues, small forwards are the area we're most likely to be able to improve via the draft while still in our window. Young KPD/KPFs and midfielders won't be upgrades on what we already have in the next 2-3 years.

As I've already pointed out many times, I don't think is a very consistent argument, especially due to our refusal to keep or introduce players playing forward after showing promise. And we just disagree on how good Cleary looked, especially his first game forward, and how Campbell looked in the game (Bombers) he was played forward the most (after spending a lot of time there pre-draft).

 

[Bloods86]

Campbell spent some time there last year as well. He looked promising towards the end of the season and is definitely worth a crack next year but I agree we shouldn't be expecting him to become that extra gun small forward that we really need.

He had one full game and then was part time in some others.

 

[Bloods86]

Campbell is a chance, but can we try it at the reserve level first. We needed a small forward, was no1 on my needs list and we took it. It's the correct call. If you aren't listing Wicks you have Hanily and Campbell as options that's it! Game has changed you need mediums and smalls to keep the ball in. Our midfield was terrible in the GF 100% but you know what was worse- the ability to keep the ball in when we actually got it forward. It was pathetic.

I give up

 

[Bloods86]

Yeah look I'm not against it, but it's smart to get another one on the list in case it doesn't work out. No issue trying Campbell there first.

We did get another on the list