Biggest steals of the 2008 draft

[BigBadBambills]

I reckon L Anthony for the roos was great, was he 3rd round? or 2nd maybe, super coach smokey next year. Averaged something like 25+ touches, not many come in and do that straight up in the first half dozen games. I reckon the Irishman will be the steal of 09

 

[Wally Carter]

I reckon L Anthony for the roos was great, was he 3rd round? or 2nd maybe, super coach smokey next year. Averaged something like 25+ touches, not many come in and do that straight up in the first half dozen games.

3rd round, pick 43.

Word is that he is burning it up on the training track.

He went to Croydon. I wouldn't say he was dominating, not like he should be. Joel Smith (ex-hawk) is the one that always catches my eye when we play balwyn. The guy is simply a freak in the EFL! Mcconnel seems to think that because he used to be on an AFL list he is just going to dominate without doing the hard work.

Thanks for that. He did appear to have a very laconic style.

 

[yaco55]

I am curious about the statement 'that another good one fell by the wayside' in reference to McConnell.

Usually if a player fails to make it at one club it continues at his next club.

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

I am curious about the statement 'that another good one fell by the wayside' in reference to McConnell.

Usually if a player fails to make it at one club it continues at his next club.

WCE didn't want to lose him Yaco like I said was playing some very good footy in the wafl.

Would the glandur fever have effected his VO2 max therefore restricting his endurance ?

 

[yaco55]

WCE didn't want to lose him Yaco like I said was playing some very good footy in the wafl.

Would the glandur fever have effected his VO2 max therefore restricting his endurance ?

I suffered from Glandular fever and it can be a debilitating illness - although most AFL players make a full recovery.

I am not doubting that WC wanted McConnell to stay but history shows that if a player doesn't make it at two clubs it is usually because he is not good at enough at that level - notwithstanding serious injuries or similar.

 

[Crow-mo]

Given that Geelong not only didn't pick Smith but went for a completely different player with out first two picks - CHF and FB respectively - I'd suggest Burgan's prediction was simply his tacit admission that Geelong were being particularly tight-lipped.

Perhaps. I'd say its more the point that Geelong were probably tight lipped (as some clubs are) about where - but he was on their radar in general.

 

[Crow-mo]

I was told after last year's draft by someone inside a club that Smith fell due to "character" reasons.

that's not falling, that's being rated below where you might otherwise have been.

 

[Trav 20]

that's not falling, that's being rated below where you might otherwise have been.

The presumption being that someone has fallen past what their pure football ability would suggest.

But yes, I get your point. It's all part of the assessment which governs selection.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

The presumption being that someone has fallen past what their pure football ability would suggest.

But yes, I get your point. It's all part of the assessment which governs selection.

But that does not imply that he is not a steal, it's his output at AFL that will determine if he is a steal or not.

It sounds like Crow-mo is suggesting that "falling" does not exist at all and that when said player is taken at said selection then it was the right one. Something that is not even remotely close to true when taking into all the variables that exist in the world of football.

Westcoast would have had Rich as a top three selection but ended up at 7, the fact other clubs overlooked him does not justify his eventual selection.

 

[Crow-mo]

But that does not imply that he is not a steal, it's his output at AFL that will determine if he is a steal or not.

you make it sound like "steal" is actually a real thing.

It sounds like Crow-mo is suggesting that "falling" does not exist at all and that when said player is taken at said selection then it was the right one. Something that is not even remotely close to true when taking into all the variables that exist in the world of football.

the fact that you don't even think it necessary to mark "falling" against some sort of specific measure tell us all we need to know about your standards of analytic rigour.

Westcoast would have had Rich as a top three selection but ended up at 7, the fact other clubs overlooked him does not justify his eventual selection.

justify? WTF. given his selection is at a point in time, based on imperfect information it doesn't need to be justified.

 

[Trav 20]

Westcoast would have had Rich as a top three selection but ended up at 7, the fact other clubs overlooked him does not justify his eventual selection.

Ipso facto.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Ipso facto.

We all go beyond facts because everyone is opinionated.

Draft placings are not and will never be a linear ranking of players on ability. Would be great if it was that simple.

you make it sound like "steal" is actually a real thing.

It's certainly something that can be suggested on the basis of players natural ability and his eventual draft placing, most people are able to form there own opinions over time. Sure a certain amount of bias comes into such value assessments both pre and post draft, but that alone does not diminish the concept of a "steal".

Most posters value the input of poster who has seen enough of an individual player to make pre draft assessments of said players ability, it's not unreasonable to use such pre-draft commentary when trying to gain an understanding of who and what are on offer.

Using the draft order as a guide to recruiters rankings is just plain crude, but when used alone to rank players on ability it's screams of total ignorance.

the fact that you don't even think it necessary to mark "falling" against some sort of specific measure tell us all we need to know about your standards of analytic rigour.

Has anybody done this? if so then please point me in right direction, if not then perhaps you could do it yourself instead of coming along with your normal informal arguments.

justify? WTF. given his selection is at a point in time, based on imperfect information it doesn't need to be justified.

That's a real revelation, i was simply using Rich as an Example the same can be said of every pick in every round of every draft.

Where did i imply that 2008 selection need justification already? Don't go looking for an argument when one doesn't exist.

 

[Grimreepah]

Draft placings are not and will never be a linear ranking of players on ability. Would be great if it was that simple.

Until they play a game that is the best ranking system we've got.

 

[Crow-mo]

but that alone does not diminish the concept of a "steal".

diminish? you might start by establishing it first.

Most posters value the input of poster who has seen enough of an individual player to make pre draft assessments of said players ability, it's not unreasonable to use such pre-draft commentary when trying to gain an understanding of who and what are on offer.

yes I know, these tend to be the same posters who recycle what they hear from another poster who is usually someone equally uninformed until a group think emerges that has little bearing on reality. they then start screaming steal, or travesty depending on how far out their "opinions" turned out to be from the reality of the professionals.

I am very well aware of the concept, and the types it applies too.

Using the draft order as a guide to recruiters rankings is just plain crude, but when used alone to rank players on ability it's screams of total ignorance.

by crude, I assume you mean inconvenient. reality is often very inconvenient.

Has anybody done this? if so then please point me in right direction, if not then perhaps you could do it yourself instead of coming along with your normal informal arguments.

yes, everyone who claims someone has fallen without putting the proper context around it. including you. this is not a cryptic concept. Rather people (like you, with "unique points of view") use the nebulous concept of a player falling to hide their own qualitative failings of pre-draft assessment.

instead of saying a player fell, relative to where *I* thought they might have gone (which exposes the concept for how silly it is); it's always player X fell relative to their talent, and pre-draft expectations - without mentioning whose expectations and whose assessment of talent. plain and clumsy obfuscation based on nothing more than tedious self aggrandisement.

That's a real revelation, i was simply using Rich as an Example the same can be said of every pick in every round of every draft.

silly comment. of course its a measure at a point in time for every draft pick. that's the only time a draft pick itself has actual real value.

Please point me in the direction of posts where i rain praise on Westcoast players like a lunatic. Also Did i even mention an Eagles player...?

I presume this level of denial is intended to be tongue in cheek. you are very well aware that you are not taken particularly seriously for this very reason. go knock yourself out re-reading your gems in the 2007 thread

 

[Eastern Rangers]

diminish? you might start by establishing it first.

That's hard when we place different levels of importance on the eventual draft order, it's not something that's even close to presenting agreed values.

yes I know, these tend to be the same posters who recycle what they hear from another poster who is usually someone equally uninformed until a group think emerges that has little bearing on reality. they then start screaming steal, or travesty depending on how far out their "opinions" turned out to be from the reality of the professionals.

by crude, I assume you mean inconvenient. reality is often very inconvenient.

As you go down the drafter order agreed values change quickly. While you are very right Smith is not a first rounder in any recruiters mind he might well have been worth a second round selection to many recruiters (went early third round). To call him a steal might be over the top, especially when he is yet to play a game but he might represent value to someone who had a bias pre draft. If he slipped for reasons beyond his football ability such as Character the ability for him to turn into a steal in time does exists in 90% of BF posters minds.

I know you will go back to the basis of his value at draft day but it's his value as a player that will be measured and then compared against his draft position.

yes, everyone who claims someone has fallen without putting the proper context around it. including you. this is not a cryptic concept. Rather people (like you, with "unique points of view") use the nebulous concept of a player falling to hide their own qualitative failings of pre-draft assessment.

silly comment. of course its a measure at a point in time for every draft pick. that's the only time a draft pick itself has actual real value

When you look through the whole draft and look at how clubs seem to have rank players the concept of players sliding and thus becoming a steal is a simple concept not and cryptic at all, when you take into recruiters own value assessment and layer them on top of the eventual draft order every Recruiter will find discrepancy after discrepancy between there own rankings and the eventual draft order.

Pre draft assessments from credible posters come are useful and have real value. As for pre draft group think, nobody is immune to it.

As for context, i know you would not go into every relevant fact surrounding a players draft position. (these would again be different for each club btw).

instead of saying a player fell, relative to where *I* thought they might have gone (which exposes the concept for how silly it is); it's always player X fell relative to their talent, and pre-draft expectations - without mentioning whose expectations and whose assessment of talent. plain and clumsy obfuscation based on nothing more than tedious self aggrandisement.

Without a doubt people do this on Bigfooty but do you really need to take it so seriously? It's Quite easy to spot the difference between someone who is writing about a player they have seen and a player they have heard about.

I presume this level of denial is intended to be tongue in cheek. you are very well aware that you are not taken particularly seriously for this very reason. go knock yourself out re-reading your gems in the 2007 thread

I suggest you go back and look at all pages of the thread.

I hardly participated in that thread till i came across your gross underestimation of Ebert as a football talent, especially when compared to his peers like Masten, Ward, Palmer, Myers ect... While his eventual draft position is pretty much right when reevaluated i found your post based more of general Bigfooty group thought than actual exposure to Ebert as a player.

 

[goodie23]

Can't list them as big steals yet, but last night showed why I'm very happy with Saints drafting that year. Alistair Smith looks like a goer (pick 62), Nick Heyne is on his way (pick 48) and big Rhys Stanley looks like an absolute beauty (pick 47)

 

[jonesy86]

Can't list them as big steals yet, but last night showed why I'm very happy with Saints drafting that year. Alistair Smith looks like a goer (pick 62), Nick Heyne is on his way (pick 48) and big Rhys Stanley looks like an absolute beauty (pick 47)

Haha, Leigh Brown showed more than all of them

 

[goodie23]

Which is more an indictment of your forward options than a reflection on our youth

 

[The Panther]

Which is more an indictment of your forward options than a reflection on our youth

Anthony would be superior to any young KPP St. Kilda have.

 

[goodie23]

No way to verify that unless Koschitzke or Riewoldt go down.

 

[The Panther]

No way to verify that unless Koschitzke or Riewoldt go down.

75 goals in his first 35 game more than verifies that.

 

[goodie23]

Which sets a benchmark, which no young Saints tall forward can have a crack at until they play 35 games.

 

[The Panther]

Which sets a benchmark, which no young Saints tall forward can have a crack at until they play 35 games.

Given only 1 afl player has done it in the last 10 years, I suggest you will be waiting for a while.

 

[Crow-mo]

Given only 1 afl player has done it in the last 10 years, I suggest you will be waiting for a while.

evidence?

Anthony is a really good 3rd option, and I'd take him in a heartbeat but he ain't a player you build your forward line around.

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

Can't list them as big steals yet, but last night showed why I'm very happy with Saints drafting that year. Alistair Smith looks like a goer (pick 62), Nick Heyne is on his way (pick 48) and big Rhys Stanley looks like an absolute beauty (pick 47)

Ray and Stanley for pick 32.

Not bad.