Bird on a wire
Debutant
- Oct 8, 2018
- 98
- 65
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I am going to have to pull out. Got too much on at work next week now. Good luck with it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Ta.Once we have enough numbers, if we don't have any more jumping out I'll divide up the teams prior to the weekend.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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 .... .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?
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.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.
Jeff Garlett has X Factor.