Collingwood Board Phantom Draft

[Bird on a wire]

I am going to have to pull out. Got too much on at work next week now. Good luck with it.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Once we have enough numbers, if we don't have any more jumping out I'll divide up the teams prior to the weekend.

Ta.

I’m in!

The random draw is a good idea other than if some posters particularly want a team eg KM I think wants carlton I think.

But I’m easy to whatever is decided.

Ps separately I think Collingwood (us) are taking Quaynor and Kelly and it’s set in stone.
Quaynor gets 35 number
Kelly gets 23 number.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Ta.

I’m in!

The random draw is a good idea other than if some posters particularly want a team eg KM I think wants carlton I think.

But I’m easy to whatever is decided.

Ps separately I think Collingwood (us) are taking Quaynor and Kelly and it’s set in stone.
Quaynor gets 35 number
Kelly gets 23 number.

If you check the main board phantom draft, both Quaynor and Kelly went to other teams at around pick 15 and 30 respectively. Not quite sure how the academy and F/S are treated in phantom drafts.

 

[partypie]

If you check the main board phantom draft, both Quaynor and Kelly went to other teams at around pick 15 and 30 respectively. Not quite sure how the academy and F/S are treated in phantom drafts.

I think you will find that KM chose not to match bids on them when they came up at picks 14 and 30 respectively.

He also only made the three live picks in Noah Gown, Jack Ross, and Mitch Podhajski (who are all KM specials having followed his rankings and draft prospect discussion across the season) and left picks 54 and 55 on the table.

I'm viewing our haul in the phantom draft as an "alternate universe" scenario where our intention is to not automatically tie ourselves to our FS and academy picks and, to be honest, it's still a pretty solid draft haul, even if it is going in a different direction to what the majority of the media and I'm guessing a lot of fans might be anticipating, especially based on our efforts to maximise our active draft points-carrying picks.

 

[Babylove]

If you check the main board phantom draft, both Quaynor and Kelly went to other teams at around pick 15 and 30 respectively. Not quite sure how the academy and F/S are treated in phantom drafts.

Main board phantoms do have bid matching. I don’t think Knightmare who is selecting for Collingwood on the main board rates either Quaynor or Kelly though as he has previously stated that he doesn’t have either inside his top 50. Knightmare is one that will do phantom drafts based on where he rates someone and what he thinks clubs should do not what he thinks clubs will do.

My opinion is that every move we have done this off season suggests to our draft is all about our NGAs and Father/Sons. If we got get Quaynor and Kelly for picks 15 & 30 which equates to 1323 points if I have worked out the discounts correctly (we have 1361 points before any order changes from bid matches for Swans and Kangaroos) we’d be laughing and it would open the door to matching a late bid for Atu B if one came in (I suspect his fate may be determined by if we are in deficit already for Kelly and Quaynor and if a bid come s in for him or not).

 

[partypie]

My opinion is that every move we have done this off season suggests to our draft is all about our NGAs and Father/Sons. If we got get Quaynor and Kelly for picks 15 & 30 which equates to 1323 points if I have worked out the discounts correctly (we have 1361 points before any order changes from bid matches for Swans and Kangaroos) we’d be laughing and it would open the door to matching a late bid for Atu B if one came in (I suspect his fate may be determined by if we are in deficit already for Kelly and Quaynor and if a bid come s in for him or not).

One slight correction - we have 1260 points in total right now, not 1361.

Otherwise I agree, it looks as if we are positioning ourselves to match bids on Quaynor and Kelly, with one definite and one potential rookie promotion (these will be confirmed before the draft which will clarify our potential strategy a little further).

At this stage before any of the reported / required rookie list changes are made we have 36 senior + 5 rookie (NB: counting Tohill as a Cat A rookie here) = 41 listed players in total.

Assuming we end up promoting Thomas (compulsory) and Mihocek (looking likely) to the senior list and delisting / redrafting Murray and Broomhead as rookies as planned, that would still leave us with three list spots to fill, two of which look like bid matches on Quaynor and Kelly with a third pick coming in one of the drafts.

It also opens up the possibility of being a little sneaky by not drafting a third player, leaving us with an empty list spot so that we can add Jono Marsh to the rookie list in the same way GWS will do with Mumford (Marsh would have to not nominate for either draft in order for that to happen though).

Later on if/when Murray is banned we will be able to add another player to the rookie list to replace him under the new pre-season rookie drafting rules.

 

[Knightmare]

I think you will find that KM chose not to match bids on them when they came up at picks 14 and 30 respectively.

He also only made the three live picks in Noah Gown, Jack Ross, and Mitch Podhajski (who are all KM specials having followed his rankings and draft prospect discussion across the season) and left picks 54 and 55 on the table.

I'm viewing our haul in the phantom draft as an "alternate universe" scenario where our intention is to not automatically tie ourselves to our FS and academy picks and, to be honest, it's still a pretty solid draft haul, even if it is going in a different direction to what the majority of the media and I'm guessing a lot of fans might be anticipating, especially based on our efforts to maximise our active draft points-carrying picks.

I left 54 as I assume Brody Mihocek will be promoted.

I also went with Marty Hore as a rookie who offensively offers a lot more than Quaynor with his kicking/intercepting a lot better. The last two rookie picks sadly were already reserved for Broomhead/Murray so I couldn't pull out anyone else I liked.

 

[jackcass]

Main board phantoms do have bid matching. I don’t think Knightmare who is selecting for Collingwood on the main board rates either Quaynor or Kelly though as he has previously stated that he doesn’t have either inside his top 50. Knightmare is one that will do phantom drafts based on where he rates someone and what he thinks clubs should do not what he thinks clubs will do.

My opinion is that every move we have done this off season suggests to our draft is all about our NGAs and Father/Sons. If we got get Quaynor and Kelly for picks 15 & 30 which equates to 1323 points if I have worked out the discounts correctly (we have 1361 points before any order changes from bid matches for Swans and Kangaroos) we’d be laughing and it would open the door to matching a late bid for Atu B if one came in (I suspect his fate may be determined by if we are in deficit already for Kelly and Quaynor and if a bid come s in for him or not).

I reckon worst case scenario Atu will survive until the later 3rd round (maybe North with there picks 47/48/49) so if we do match, as I understand it, we'd receive a hit to our 2019 3rd round pick if we go into deficit which I think we could live with.

 

[partypie]

I reckon worst case scenario Atu will survive until the later 3rd round (maybe North with there picks 47/48/49) so if we do match, as I understand it, we'd receive a hit to our 2019 3rd round pick if we go into deficit which I think we could live with.

As you've said before it will be tight, but I suspect we'll could very well be in deficit alreaady after matching a second round bid for Kelly, so we may not be able to match a bid on Atu if one comes before pick 56.

 

[TradeDraft]

Main board phantoms do have bid matching. I don’t think Knightmare who is selecting for Collingwood on the main board rates either Quaynor or Kelly though as he has previously stated that he doesn’t have either inside his top 50. Knightmare is one that will do phantom drafts based on where he rates someone and what he thinks clubs should do not what he thinks clubs will do.

My opinion is that every move we have done this off season suggests to our draft is all about our NGAs and Father/Sons. If we got get Quaynor and Kelly for picks 15 & 30 which equates to 1323 points if I have worked out the discounts correctly (we have 1361 points before any order changes from bid matches for Swans and Kangaroos) we’d be laughing and it would open the door to matching a late bid for Atu B if one came in (I suspect his fate may be determined by if we are in deficit already for Kelly and Quaynor and if a bid come s in for him or not).

Knightmare said he did not match there Bids just for something New

 

[Knightmare]

In the bigfooty official phantom I've always been about drafting the best players.

With each choice, I picked the guy I had highest in my power rankings.

Quaynor and Kelly were rated behind each of my national draft choices.

I could have gone Atu, and I wouldn't mind seeing Collingwood take him, but I liked Hore and a couple of other mature agers slightly more on immediacy of impact.

 

[TradeDraft]

In the bigfooty official phantom I've always been about drafting the best players.

With each choice, I picked the guy I had highest in my power rankings.

Quaynor and Kelly were rated behind each of my national draft choices.

I could have gone Atu, and I wouldn't mind seeing Collingwood take him, but I liked Hore and a couple of other mature agers slightly more on immediacy of impact.

Fair Enough. Nothing against your Ratings Knightmare but Find you have quite a Few Different Rating on Players then what is Normally Thought

 

[Knightmare]

Fair Enough. Nothing against your Ratings Knightmare but Find you have quite a Few Different Rating on Players then what is Normally Thought

If everyone rates talent the same, you'll never identify anyone good others don't rate.

Ben Brown is the easiest example to support my case. I called him a first round quality key forward the two years before he gets drafted and advocated strongly he get drafted both years. Spends that third year in the VFL then gets drafted and now he's a seriously good key forward.

Equally, there are misses. Reece McKenzie to stick to the key forward flavour given my previous example - though I still feel like he had the game to be better than McCartin/Wright if he didn't have his issues.

The advantage of having a different draft board practically is if you rate a guy no one else does, you can get them a lot later than you believe they should feature and you'll come out feeling like you've got a bargain. And if you don't rate a guy a lot of others do, it means you can let someone else draft them, and you can pick someone who you actually like.

I'll produce my 10 underrated prospects list for ESPN in a weeks time.

Last year the first player I mentioned was Bailey Banfield (overager) who played 20 games for Fremantle and probably (only slightly) had a better year than Fremantle's first pick, in Brayshaw who went at 2 overall. Not bad from a guy who goes 5 in the rookie draft.

Brayden Crossley was another on that list of mine last year. No one bids on him as an Academy selection and now he's playing regularly alongside Jarrod Witts and remarkably playing ahead of the established Tom Nicholls earning 10 games as a mostly forward who relieves through the ruck. Pretty great from a ruckman (don't normally come good until mid 20s) who goes pick 52 after not being bid on.

James Worpel was another on that list. Pick 45 and plays 11 games for Hawthorn.

When making your own evaluations as I make, understanding the drafting, feeling like - clubs are underrated mature age talent, underrating contested ball winners, overrating pace, not evaluating KPPs correctly - you can come up with these kinds of picks others don't rate as highly as you do, and get the calls right as I did last year. I went into some of that in my 3 draft trends piece from yesterday pointing out what clubs are rating more correctly than previously/overrating/underrating.
Doesn't mean you get all of them right, and sometimes they go earlier than expected as Liam Ryan and Callum Coleman-Jones both did last year.

But having your own, independent, different draft views I consider absolutely essential if you want to get your picks right. That's how Stephen Wells won the 1999 and 2001 drafts and built that incredible Geelong side that won three flags in five years through the draft.

 

[TradeDraft]

But having your own, independent, different draft views I consider absolutely essential if you want to get your picks right. That's how Stephen Wells won the 1999 and 2001 drafts and built that incredible Geelong side that won three flags in three years through the draft.

Can work Both Way's. You can be Spot on or Miles Offer. You Live and Die by the Sword

Equally, there are misses. Reece McKenzie to stick to the key forward flavour given my previous example - though I still feel like he had the game to be better than McCartin/Wright if he didn't have his issues.

Being a Outsider Looking In means you only see the Footy Talent and not the Person himself. He Might of been Rated Highly as a Player but his Issues off-field make players not wanting to Touch Him with a Ten Foot Poll

The advantage of having a different draft board practically is if you rate a guy no one else does, you can get them a lot later than you believe they should feature and you'll come out feeling like you've got a bargain. And if you don't rate a guy a lot of others do, it means you can let someone else draft them, and you can pick someone who you actually like.

You said Wells does that. I also Reckon Hine does as well. He takes players in 3rd Round or Later and they turn out to be Great Picks

 

[Knightmare]

Can work Both Way's. You can be Spot on or Miles Offer. You Live and Die by the Sword



Being a Outsider Looking In means you only see the Footy Talent and not the Person himself. He Might of been Rated Highly as a Player but his Issues off-field make players not wanting to Touch Him with a Ten Foot Poll



You said Wells does that. I also Reckon Hine does as well. He takes players in 3rd Round or Later and they turn out to be Great Picks

No one hits every time. So your first point is a given.

Your second point also is right - depending on how deeply you get into that. And I don't feel it's my business to do that. My job is to talk talent. Not talk - this guy doesn't show up at school or is having trouble with drugs, may not have the passion for the game or whatever may be the case, it's not my place and doesn't belong in the public domain. If you're inside a club. Absolutely. That's your job. Go do it. But in the media? It's something you don't want to go too deep into beyond just a very surface level understanding of some of those key players.

Agree Hine has done well late/rookie. Probably more in his very early days with rookies. More recently, Tom Langdon and Tom Phillips as overagers late I've been in agreement with Hine over. Mihocek was a good get last year.

You find though all teams have variety on their draft board compared to everyone else. All clubs have their different values and rate different things.

 

[BPikkers]

As you've said before it will be tight, but I suspect we'll could very well be in deficit alreaady after matching a second round bid for Kelly, so we may not be able to match a bid on Atu if one comes before pick 56.

Wouldn’t it be a surprise if Atu got bid on that early? I don’t think he will be drafted by other clubs and maybe more a rookie selection. But what do I know? I really have absolutely no idea on most of these kids.

 

[BPikkers]

If everyone rates talent the same, you'll never identify anyone good others don't rate.

Ben Brown is the easiest example to support my case. I called him a first round quality key forward the two years before he gets drafted and advocated strongly he get drafted both years. Spends that third year in the VFL then gets drafted and now he's a seriously good key forward.

Equally, there are misses. Reece McKenzie to stick to the key forward flavour given my previous example - though I still feel like he had the game to be better than McCartin/Wright if he didn't have his issues.

The advantage of having a different draft board practically is if you rate a guy no one else does, you can get them a lot later than you believe they should feature and you'll come out feeling like you've got a bargain. And if you don't rate a guy a lot of others do, it means you can let someone else draft them, and you can pick someone who you actually like.

I'll produce my 10 underrated prospects list for ESPN in a weeks time.

Last year the first player I mentioned was Bailey Banfield (overager) who played 20 games for Fremantle and probably (only slightly) had a better year than Fremantle's first pick, in Brayshaw who went at 2 overall. Not bad from a guy who goes 5 in the rookie draft.

Brayden Crossley was another on that list of mine last year. No one bids on him as an Academy selection and now he's playing regularly alongside Jarrod Witts and remarkably playing ahead of the established Tom Nicholls earning 10 games as a mostly forward who relieves through the ruck. Pretty great from a ruckman (don't normally come good until mid 20s) who goes pick 52 after not being bid on.

James Worpel was another on that list. Pick 45 and plays 11 games for Hawthorn.

When making your own evaluations as I make, understanding the drafting, feeling like - clubs are underrated mature age talent, underrating contested ball winners, overrating pace, not evaluating KPPs correctly - you can come up with these kinds of picks others don't rate as highly as you do, and get the calls right as I did last year. I went into some of that in my 3 draft trends piece from yesterday pointing out what clubs are rating more correctly than previously/overrating/underrating.
Doesn't mean you get all of them right, and sometimes they go earlier than expected as Liam Ryan and Callum Coleman-Jones both did last year.

But having your own, independent, different draft views I consider absolutely essential if you want to get your picks right. That's how Stephen Wells won the 1999 and 2001 drafts and built that incredible Geelong side that won three flags in five years through the draft.

KM, what is it that you look for when determining an underrated prospect? Is it purely based on how you rate a prospect and compare it with the ‘talk’ among recruiters etc? Or is it based on potential improvement or other factors which may have hindered their last 12 months and so harmed their chances of being recruited in the first round?

 

[Knightmare]

KM, what is it that you look for when determining an underrated prospect? Is it purely based on how you rate a prospect and compare it with the ‘talk’ among recruiters etc? Or is it based on potential improvement or other factors which may have hindered their last 12 months and so harmed their chances of being recruited in the first round?

Part of it is my own talent identification. Part of it is knowing what to look for.

The latter is perhaps the more interesting and can come from looking through past drafts and evaluating in really fine detail what works and what doesn't.

Mature agers remain an undervalued commodity. Analytics have mature agers as having value around the late second round mark.

Overagers often remain undervalued - though Collingwood have done well with Elliott/Langdon/Phillips to exploit this. Podhajski is my one of those this year after identifying Langdon/Phillips myself previously also.

High volume contested ballers is another. Clubs are overlooking particularly the slower contested ball winners when they're still very much capable contributors.

Then you've got your speedy and athletic types without the contested side to their games who clubs are overrating.

They're the indicators I'm looking at and not seeing the right weightings in the recruiting world.

For a bit more on this, I think you'd enjoy reading my 3 draft trends piece - see signature for link. I go into a bit about where clubs are improving and regressing somewhat in their weightings of a few types of talents and why we're seeing what we're seeing on draft day compared to what is expected.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Part of it is my own talent identification. Part of it is knowing what to look for.

The latter is perhaps the more interesting and can come from looking through past drafts and evaluating in really fine detail what works and what doesn't.

Mature agers remain an undervalued commodity. Analytics have mature agers as having value around the late second round mark.

Overagers often remain undervalued - though Collingwood have done well with Elliott/Langdon/Phillips to exploit this. Podhajski is my one of those this year after identifying Langdon/Phillips myself previously also.

High volume contested ballers is another. Clubs are overlooking particularly the slower contested ball winners when they're still very much capable contributors.

Then you've got your speedy and athletic types without the contested side to their games who clubs are overrating.

They're the indicators I'm looking at and not seeing the right weightings in the recruiting world.

For a bit more on this, I think you'd enjoy reading my 3 draft trends piece - see signature for link. I go into a bit about where clubs are improving and regressing somewhat in their weightings of a few types of talents and why we're seeing what we're seeing on draft day compared to what is expected.

I always value your work and opinion, and the dignity you retain under pressure. May not always agree, but then I don't know anything about these draftees and overagers compared to you.Also I like the way you treat every question with equal respect. Enough sucking .... .

You don't think we need more of the speedy athletic types as opposed to the slower contested ball winners? Or do you think we have achieved a good balance in this respect?

 

[Knightmare]

I always value your work and opinion, and the dignity you retain under pressure. May not always agree, but then I don't know anything about these draftees and overagers compared to you.Also I like the way you treat every question with equal respect. Enough sucking .... .

You don't think we need more of the speedy athletic types as opposed to the slower contested ball winners? Or do you think we have achieved a good balance in this respect?

I'm not talking Collingwood when talking speedy guys. I'm talking competition-wide there are too many of those picked too early.

To quote my 3 draft trends piece 'Matthew Ling (Sydney - pick 14), Wil Powell (Gold Coast - pick 19), Will Walker (North Melbourne - pick 23), Tom De Koning (Carlton - pick 30) and Brayden Ainsworth (West Coast - pick 32) were among those expected to be selected later than they were.'

Would you take any of those guys ahead of: 'Jack Higgins (Richmond - pick 17) and mature-agers Tim Kelly (West Coast - pick 24), Liam Ryan (West Coast - pick 26) and Bayley Fritsch (Melbourne - pick 31) all had immediate impacts for their clubs. Even last year's youngest prospect, Tom McCartin (Sydney - pick 33), also exceeded expectations and has to date outperformed quicker types in 2018.'
?

That's not to say there isn't a place for speed. But I'm just talking in generalities that speedy types in 2017 were taken earlier than they were expected and probably should have been and I'm expecting the same overweighting in clubland towards speed this year with clubs to think the game is opening up and those types as a result become more viable - which is marginally the case, but the game with the rule changes won't have changed so drastically that these speedier types will be taken in the right range compared to the relatively slower contested ballers.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I'm not talking Collingwood when talking speedy guys. I'm talking competition-wide there are too many of those picked too early.

To quote my 3 draft trends piece 'Matthew Ling (Sydney - pick 14), Wil Powell (Gold Coast - pick 19), Will Walker (North Melbourne - pick 23), Tom De Koning (Carlton - pick 30) and Brayden Ainsworth (West Coast - pick 32) were among those expected to be selected later than they were.'

Would you take any of those guys ahead of: 'Jack Higgins (Richmond - pick 17) and mature-agers Tim Kelly (West Coast - pick 24), Liam Ryan (West Coast - pick 26) and Bayley Fritsch (Melbourne - pick 31) all had immediate impacts for their clubs. Even last year's youngest prospect, Tom McCartin (Sydney - pick 33), also exceeded expectations and has to date outperformed quicker types in 2018.'
?

That's not to say there isn't a place for speed. But I'm just talking in generalities that speedy types in 2017 were taken earlier than they were expected and probably should have been and I'm expecting the same overweighting in clubland towards speed this year with clubs to think the game is opening up and those types as a result become more viable - which is marginally the case, but the game with the rule changes won't have changed so drastically that these speedier types will be taken in the right range compared to the relatively slower contested ballers.

I knew you weren't talking Collingwood specifically. Perhaps I wouldn't have taken the speedier types you mention over the ball winners. Nevertheless, we did rather well selecting speedy types in Stephenson and De goey as first round picks. Speedy skillful players are surely worth good currency if they have x factor to burn, and the best of them would be early picks.

 

[Knightmare]

I knew you weren't talking Collingwood specifically. Perhaps I wouldn't have taken the speedier types you mention over the ball winners. Nevertheless, we did rather well selecting speedy types in Stephenson and De goey as first round picks. Speedy skillful players are surely worth good currency if they have x factor to burn, and the best of them would be early picks.

The key with x-factor or speedy types to term them that way is they have the proven production behind them and can win the contested ball.

De Goey and Stephenson both ticked those boxes. De Goey wasn't drafted because he has speed. It's more that strength/power/ball winning that intrigued with him and to a lesser extent his marking and goalkicking which have come on more since.

Rankine is a great example this year. Terrific athlete and has all the speed/agility/evasion, but he's winning it in the contest, producing at the highest level. So you can have that kind of x-factor type when they're doing that.

Sydney Stack is another I have in that same conversation. He's impacting games in a big way and has the speed/agility/evasion but he's finding and winning a lot of contested footy which suggests - if he puts in the work, he can make it in a big way.

It's just knowing what to look for and what to avoid.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

And when does our prognostications commence?

 

[Bored_Pie]

Jeff Garlett has X Factor.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Jeff Garlett has X Factor.