Strategy Draft assistance 2023 [Twomey: NMFC get #19 in 2023, x2 end of 1st rd picks in 2024, and x2 extra rookie list spots in 2024; no Sanders/#11]

[Rooboys Rool]

If our pursuit of getting Sanders for free is unsuccessful, I hope it has no bearing whatsoever on who we select at the draft. Especially if we manage to snare GC’s 1st pick, which is right in the sweet spot for him. If we genuinely consider him the next best available at the pick, then take him. But if it’s someone else who we think is next best available, we should take that player and not look back.

Sure there will be numpties like Korn criticise us for it, but who cares. Need to do what’s best for us.

 

[User name required]

Is there an option for a 3-way deal where effectively NM/WC/GC walk away with:

WC - 2, 3
NM - 1, 5
GC - 11 (PP), 14, ++ ?

Adding Melb (or GWS) to the deal maybe gets something fair done?

NM- Give- 2, 3, 15 Get- 1, 6(7)
WC - Give- 1, 34 Get- 2, 5
GC- Give- 5 Get- 14(16), 15, 34
Melb- Give- 6, 14 Get- 3 (or GWS 7, 16 Get- 3)

1. NM - Reid
2. WC- Mckercher
3. Melbourne (GWS)- Duursma
4*. GC - Walter (bid)
5. Haw- Watson/Sanders/Curtin
6. WC. Curtin/Watson/Sanders
7(8).NM- Watson/O'Sullivan/Sanders

Still a bit for us to give up but if we're hell bent on 1 I'd be ok with this. Maybe have 20 coming back to us from WC since they are the winners out of this deal IMO. This is all without using anything we may get in assistance.

 

[Sphynx]

Adding Melb (or GWS) to the deal maybe gets something fair done?

NM- Give- 2, 3, 15 Get- 1, 6(7)
WC - Give- 1, 34 Get- 2, 5
GC- Give- 5 Get- 14(16), 15, 34
Melb- Give- 6, 14 Get- 3 (or GWS 7, 16 Get- 3)

1. NM - Reid
2. WC- Mckercher
3. Melbourne (GWS)- Duursma
4*. GC - Walter (bid)
5. Haw- Watson/Sanders/Curtin
6. WC. Curtin/Watson/Sanders
7(8).NM- Watson/O'Sullivan/Sanders

Still a bit for us to give up but if we're hell bent on 1 I'd be ok with this. Maybe have 20 coming back to us from WC since they are the winners out of this deal IMO. This is all without using anything we may get in assistance.

Jesus.

What is wrong with people.

For the second time in our history we get 2 x top 3 picks and people just want to give them out like candy.

**** West Coast, I hope we have no intention of handing them the strength of our draft hand.

My offer for Pick 1, wouldn't even include Pick 11. It would be Pick 2 and the Port pick, that's it. Take it or leave it.

 

[FootySmartSimpson]

People have to accept the fact that some players wont make it regardless if there is a guaranteed spot or if there is competition.

As much as Simpkin has done an amazing job, I just don't feel he is premiership midfield quality given he doesn't use the ball well from stoppages. Greenwood I don't think will be around long, same as Shiels. Yes, Tasmania is going to go hard for both boys if they are any good and if there was an equivalent talent that was local I would be in favour of them but I value a midfielder with very early picks over flankers or small forwards.

IMO we have 3 options:
a) trade for Reid, will be expensive.
b) take a players like McKercher, Sanders or Curtin who are flight risks
c) trade 2 and 3 for multiple lower picks in the range of 8-15 and take a broad range of KPPs and other type of players.

The main reason we are a bottom four club is our midfield sucks, we can't get the ball enough, we can't hit targets, we can't tackle. I think our forward line is dangerous, we just don't go inside 50 enough or penetrate deep enough, quick enough to get favourable contests. We don't have enough elite ball users.

Larkey kicked 71 goals despite our s**t ball movement. We had to bring Zurhaar out of the forward line into the midfield because we just couldn't win the ball, we didn't have the luxury of playing Sheezel forward because we are inept moving the ball out of defensive 50.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sheezel is moved forward and someone like Sanders is moved down back if we take him, he is more inside than outside and it will take him a few years to build a body for that role. We don't have any elite wingmen, I am sure if we get McKercher then he will go to a wing and if the GC game is any indication, perhaps Scott moves to a half-back role.

I think what has kept GWS strong despite a revolving door of mids leaving is the fact they continue to invest in mids in almost every draft.

I have queried about McKercher being developed into a winger and posters on here with actual draft knowledge say that he plays 90% of his game inside.

Scott has made one of the wings his own. He could realistically be a starting winger in 14 clubs league wide.

Simpkin had one of the most injury-interrupted seasons without having a single major injury. If he is fit, he is playing. He is the Captain. He will be playing good footy for the majority of his minutes in the middle.

Our midfield sucks to a point. We are strong getting our hands on the ball and average at getting effective possession chains together. What we suck most at in the middle is offensive and defensive running. I could probably count on my fingers how many times we have comfortably beaten a team on the outside in the last decade. Everyone on here makes fun of *’s midfield mix and emphasis on outside over inside but I can think of one win against them in the last 7 or 8 seasons. Little wonder how it happens.

To compound the issue of putrid outside accumulation, our HF and HB lines are particularly weak. We launch so few scores from rebound (despite having and now losing a top 10 intercept marker) and we can’t capitalise on any of the entries we do get through non-existent contested marking across HF. Having this would at least improve the quality of our entries.

I agree that versatile mids (or reliable, running utilities) should be able to play more than one role in any game. Can Sanders and McKercher do this? I like the idea of Sanders using his smarts, skills and accumulation off of HB in the Sheezel mould and allowing Sheez to roam and do his thing on the other wing.

The young inside mids (Powell and Phillips) who constitute our second string are smart and skilled enough to play multiple positions but are not currently fit enough to back it up.

Whoever we take in the top ten should realistically be able to play from an aerobic standpoint from day dot. So much of our current situation doesn’t so much come from drafting unskilled players over the last 15 years but drafting players that have a low aerobic ceiling. This has meant that as the game has moved more and more to versatile, smart, athletic players, our recruitments still within the previous paradigm have sealed our fate.

 

[Sphynx]

I have queried about McKercher being developed into a winger and posters on here with actual draft knowledge say that he plays 90% of his game inside.

Scott has made one of the wings his own. He could realistically be a starting winger in 14 clubs league wide.

Simpkin had one of the most injury-interrupted seasons without having a single major injury. If he is fit, he is playing. He is the Captain. He will be playing good footy for the majority of his minutes in the middle.

Our midfield sucks to a point. We are strong getting our hands on the ball and average at getting effective possession chains together. What we suck most at in the middle is offensive and defensive running. I could probably count on my fingers how many times we have comfortably beaten a team on the outside in the last decade. Everyone on here makes fun of *’s midfield mix and emphasis on outside over inside but I can think of one win against them in the last 7 or 8 seasons. Little wonder how it happens.

To compound the issue of putrid outside accumulation, our HF and HB lines are particularly weak. We launch so few scores from rebound (despite having and now losing a top 10 intercept marker) and we can’t capitalise on any of the entries we do get through non-existent contested marking across HF. Having this would at least improve the quality of our entries.

I agree that versatile mids (or reliable, running utilities) should be able to play more than one role in any game. Can Sanders and McKercher do this? I like the idea of Sanders using his smarts, skills and accumulation off of HB in the Sheezel mould and allowing Sheez to roam and do his thing on the other wing.

The young inside mids (Powell and Phillips) who constitute our second string are smart and skilled enough to play multiple positions but are not currently fit enough to back it up.

Whoever we take in the top ten should realistically be able to play from an aerobic standpoint from day dot. So much of our current situation doesn’t so much come from drafting unskilled players over the last 15 years but drafting players that have a low aerobic ceiling. This has meant that as the game has moved and more and more to versatile, smart, athletic players, our recruitments still within the previous paradigm have sealed our fate.

I think McKercher will play off the wing initially. It doesn't make him a natural wingman though.

His best work is breaking from stoppage and getting repeat possessions in chains from stoppage.

I've compared him to a shorter, left footed LDU and stand by that comparison.

He's got a much bigger engine than LDU does or did though and I'm comparing him to the current LDU, which has no problems getting it 30+ times a game, not the 18 year old one.

I don't like the Zach Merrett comparisons, he's a much better contested player than Merrett, alot stronger in the contest and I think he's physically a step up from Merrett. Merrett however is a much better kick than McKercher.


No side in the league could match the footspeed in a center bounce of LDU, Wardlaw and McKercher - That is a just a nuts potential starting onball combo.

 

[roos 10]

With that we take:

2. McKercher
5. Sanders
11. Croft, O’Sullivan, Murphy, Caddy
14. Edwards, Read, Wilson, Leake, Windsor

Trade F Dog’s first back into the teens for a ruck/HB or keep it for 20

Jesus.

What is wrong with people.

For the second time in our history we get 2 x top 3 picks and people just want to give them out like candy.

* West Coast, I hope we have no intention of handing them the strength of our draft hand.

My offer for Pick 1, wouldn't even include Pick 11. It would be Pick 2 and the Port pick, that's it. Take it or leave it.

Totally agree with this

 

[Bojan KantKick]

So the AFL asked us to get creative. We did. They don't like it so are giving us a very watered down version of a previous assistance package.

The stupidity of these people never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

Everyone agrees 1,1 for wardlaw and sheezel plus change was correct? (Almost everyone)

Forget pick numbers, if our preferred players are Reid, plus Watson, and Watson is available at 5 (6) what's the big deal?

Does it make people feel better for drafting the same player at pick 3, instead of 6?

Either option, to hold, or to trade up has its merits.

Bit rich to call one option extreme failure over the other imo.

Either a way we can't lose. Not worth getting upset over as we won't know for 5 years which course of action was better.

 

[justroyal]

So the AFL asked us to get creative. We did. They don't like it so are giving us a very watered down version of a previous assistance package.

The stupidity of these people never ceases to amaze me.

‘North. Thank you for your revised list. But we were thinking a little less Picasso, and perhaps a little more Carl Andre?’

 

[The Filth Wizard]

Jesus.

What is wrong with people.

For the second time in our history we get 2 x top 3 picks and people just want to give them out like candy.

* West Coast, I hope we have no intention of handing them the strength of our draft hand.

My offer for Pick 1, wouldn't even include Pick 11. It would be Pick 2 and the Port pick, that's it. Take it or leave it.

It's pertinent to note getting 2 & 3 last year cost us pick 1 and a "generational wantaway". This year we will already have lost McKay to get one of these picks. One thing to trade into 1, trade into the later picks in the top 10 we might get nobody we're interested in.

 

[ferball]

Next years draft is very midfielder heavy we have used all our first round picks in the last 5 years on midfielders. If we take Mckercher and sanders it will be the worst list management decision since the Polec trade.

This isn't really accurate.

2018 - traded out of first round, matched for TT who was considered a forward. (Traded for Polec and Pittard.)
2019 - had no first round picks. Closest to a mid was Mahoney.
2020 - Powell and Phillips. Both mids.
2021 - TCO who was then traded out for a pick in 2022.
2022 - Sheezel, a forward who can run thru the middle but played mostly off HBF and a replacement mid for Courage Boy.

So in those five drafts we took effectively took three players in the first round who are mids. Four if you count JHF and ignore that we replaced him with a like for like (ish) player. We don't need Sheezel in the midfield, we do need him elsewhere and the fact Thomas will end up there is an unexpected bonus.

Six years ago we drafted a mid - LDU and the year before that we drafted a forward flanker who worked so hard he got himself a place in our midfield. So from the last five years of first round picks we have three midfielders.

We may have drafted four but one left and we used the pick we traded in to replace him. If we'd got a different position player then we'd have two mids from the last five years first round picks.

Both Sheezel and Thomas are capable of playing midfield but have also played on the forward line and the back line this season.

 

[User name required]

Jesus.

What is wrong with people.

For the second time in our history we get 2 x top 3 picks and people just want to give them out like candy.

* West Coast, I hope we have no intention of handing them the strength of our draft hand.

My offer for Pick 1, wouldn't even include Pick 11. It would be Pick 2 and the Port pick, that's it. Take it or leave it.

It's not a hell of a lot of difference to 2 and 14, just pick 3 sliding to pick 6 or 7 where we'd get players we'd be considering at 3 anyway in Watson/O'Sullivan/Sanders. Difference is that this deal may get WC over the line. As stated, I'm not even sold on the deal, just a plausible solution for IF we were desperate for Reid

 

[hilly]

Having 12 and 16 on draft night would be great for either trading up or back. We could net a future 2nd and move back to 14 and 16 as an example.

On SM-S901E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ferball]

Everyone agrees 1,1 for wardlaw and sheezel plus change was correct? (Almost everyone)

Forget pick numbers, if our preferred players are Reid, plus Watson, and Watson is available at 5 (6) what's the big deal?

Does it make people feel better for drafting the same player at pick 3, instead of 6?

Either option, to hold, or to trade up has its merits.

Bit rich to call one option extreme failure over the other imo.

Either a way we can't lose. Not worth getting upset over as we won't know for 5 years which course of action was better.

I think its that people see things differently and don't have Reid and watson as our highest needs.

 

[blackshadow]

11,14 AND next yrs end of F1 is too steep. Way to steep, it's not pick 1 ffs.


Who you taking at 5 that warrants three first round picks?

Happy to let dogs 'win' this one

Way too steep.
We can **** their academy trading right up by bidding at our picks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 98541]

I think its that people see things differently and don't have Reid and watson as our highest needs.

Fair enough, but I just plucked those names, the point is, if the people holding the draft board think it works for their rankings, does it really matter what actual draft picks we hold if they get their targets?

 

[FootySmartSimpson]

Everyone agrees 1,1 for wardlaw and sheezel plus change was correct? (Almost everyone)

Forget pick numbers, if our preferred players are Reid, plus Watson, and Watson is available at 5 (6) what's the big deal?

Does it make people feel better for drafting the same player at pick 3, instead of 6?

Either option, to hold, or to trade up has its merits.

Bit rich to call one option extreme failure over the other imo.

Either a way we can't lose. Not worth getting upset over as we won't know for 5 years which course of action was better.

What you are saying in your first few sentences was the spirit of the JHF trade.

WC, GWS and NM were all honest with who they wanted in the draft and everyone looked at the situation practically and cooperatively and got it done.

If North have three players identified in their top 6 and get three of them that would be a huge win, even if from the outside it may look at first like North lose out.

While teams like Essendon, Port and Hawthorn have driven hard bargains in the past, I think that if a greater number of clubs can stop the BS theatrics (in order to win some sort of pissing contest that 90% of fans forget about in a week), then more clubs will be able to get the trades they want completed.

 

[Tas]

GWS is pretty good at trading in one team's trash and turning them into assets such as Hogan & Bedford and also nailed on post first round picks such as Taylor, Buckley, Daniels, Briggs, etc. Even then last year they paid a lot just to secure a top KPP prospect in the draft. We don't have the same list building savvy that they do and it shows in the W/L column.

Your assumption that we didn't do X or Y in the past so we wont do it in the future is a negative presumption, on that basis we should just fold the club because we are never going to make the top 8 if we don't radically improve on what we have done in the past.

I think a big issue is we didn't want to invest picks 1-3 into KPP and history would suggest that is wise not to. We would be far better off planning to get a good quality one who is on the market and just pay the picks for a proven performer. But you really have to hunt them a long time before they become available.

Our midfield sucks because it's really young and a lot of our better players weren't available for large parts of the season. No more than 15 games for LDU and Thomas, 17 for Phillips (2 subbed on and off) and only 8 for Wardlaw. When guys like Phillips, Sheezel and Wardlaw were running through there it looked much better. Hell, even Lazzaro looked good in the one game he was allowed frequent CBAs. Phillips, Wardlaw, LDU, Thomas and Sheezel have enough talent to complete what should be at the very least a good CBA rotation.

Our midfield was shit when the starting midfield was Cunners, Simpkin, LDU, Shiels and Howe, and that wasn't a young midfield group. The more of this group that exited the midfield, the better we became. We looked at our best when it was Phillips, Wardlaw, Sheezel, Scott, Powell and Thomas late in the season. This group isn't physically ready to play 22+ games a season.

The way we setup was bad and our ability to pressure was bad, it resulted in too much uncontested ball into our defensive 50 and made it easier for the opposition to score. Once the ball get out of a stoppage, our ability to pressure or tackle just evaporated.

I think our biggest issues lie down back imo, every finals team remaining has at least one AA contending full back and I don't see one in our wings developing especially if McKay leaves (who i think doesn't has that in him in the first place). We need Curtin, I don't care about the flight risk because there's always a risk in taking none.

You could have put the AA backline into our back six and we would still have lost the games we put zero pressure everywhere else on the ground. You just can't defend that kind of football. We win a stoppage and turn it over, players who are spreading are caught off guard and aren't super quick so are zero chance to pressure. We go into the middle and turn it over, bang it out of stoppages and turn it over, rebound out of defensive 50, turn it over. The structure and style of game we play doesn't suit the players we have on the park.

We don't have the cattle to play Clarkson's brand of footy, we either have to get that cattle or change the brand. Do you think Clarkson is at Arden Street thinking I have to change the way I want the team to play?

Take one midfielder in the first round, at the most, in my opinion.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, if everyone we draft reached their potential we wouldn't need to draft anyone else for 5 years. Sadly, it just doesn't pan out that way. I am sure some will turn into serviceable players, but building a premiership team is different to building a team that can compete. We have talent but we are low on elite performers.

 

[Sphynx]

Your assumption that we didn't do X or Y in the past so we wont do it in the future is a negative presumption, on that basis we should just fold the club because we are never going to make the top 8 if we don't radically improve on what we have done in the past.

I think a big issue is we didn't want to invest picks 1-3 into KPP and history would suggest that is wise not to. We would be far better off planning to get a good quality one who is on the market and just pay the picks for a proven performer. But you really have to hunt them a long time before they become available.



Our midfield was s**t when the starting midfield was Cunners, Simpkin, LDU, Shiels and Howe, and that wasn't a young midfield group. The more of this group that exited the midfield, the better we became. We looked at our best when it was Phillips, Wardlaw, Sheezel, Scott, Powell and Thomas late in the season. This group isn't physically ready to play 22+ games a season.

The way we setup was bad and our ability to pressure was bad, it resulted in too much uncontested ball into our defensive 50 and made it easier for the opposition to score. Once the ball get out of a stoppage, our ability to pressure or tackle just evaporated.




You could have put the AA backline into our back six and we would still have lost the games we put zero pressure everywhere else on the ground. You just can't defend that kind of football. We win a stoppage and turn it over, players who are spreading are caught off guard and aren't super quick so are zero chance to pressure. We go into the middle and turn it over, bang it out of stoppages and turn it over, rebound out of defensive 50, turn it over. The structure and style of game we play doesn't suit the players we have on the park.

We don't have the cattle to play Clarkson's brand of footy, we either have to get that cattle or change the brand. Do you think Clarkson is at Arden Street thinking I have to change the way I want the team to play?



Everyone is entitled to their opinion, if everyone we draft reached their potential we wouldn't need to draft anyone else for 5 years. Sadly, it just doesn't pan out that way. I am sure some will turn into serviceable players, but building a premiership team is different to building a team that can compete. We have talent but we are low on elite performers.

We functioned best this year when Wardlaw was in the side and not sore. He brought a defensive intensity and intent that was frankly embarrassing for the rest of the side.

LDU - as good as he is, has the same issues Cunners did. He's a liability defensively. He doesn't run two ways. He saves all his petrol tickets for his contested work and running forward for his own ball. You can forgive it, because of how damaging he is trying to win the ball and when he does win it.

Now the problem for the side is, Jy is exactly the same. He certainly loves a swinging arm in and around the contest, he's got a big engine, but he lacks leg speed to impact defensively around stoppage and he doesn't run both ways. He doesn't chase in transition and often sits the attacking side of play. The problem with Jy is, he isn't nearly as damaging as LDU and having both of them in the midfield means we are a defensive sieve.

Shiels is just well past it tbh and Howe is just shit and deer in the headlights most of the time.

Phillips has better defensive instincts than both Jy and LDU, but he doesn't have the tank or the body strength of Wardlaw to really be a threat. Yet.


It's no wonder we looked transformed when Wardlaw came in. 1. Because he has LDU's leg speed and can chase down players who break stoppage. For years those balls would have just waltzed out of the stoppage. 2. Because he brought a physicality and intent to defend that no one else ever shows, because they simply don't do it (defend)....

It's also why we looked good at times with Greenwood in a ruck role, because he brought a similar defensive intent to Wardlaw but could balance out LDU and Simpkin's defensive liabilities by being around stoppage all-be-it in an odd position.

 

[ajd9 roo]

Actually I believe Sanders told North he was not willing to be pre-listed, and the alternative- matching a bid- wasn’t something North were keen on, so instead they asked for picks.

It's funny that every Wet Toast fan that comes in here is shocked, almost offended, by the 'fake news' rumour that Reid doesn't want to go to there. "He and his management have publicly said he's happy to go there... blah blah blah".

Then this bloke comes in here and then actually believes the Sanders made the call that he doesn't want to play for North (yeah... even after he made the application for our NGA)

.... jog on.

 

[R00StaR]

This isn't really accurate.

2018 - traded out of first round, matched for TT who was considered a forward. (Traded for Polec and Pittard.)
2019 - had no first round picks. Closest to a mid was Mahoney.
2020 - Powell and Phillips. Both mids.
2021 - TCO who was then traded out for a pick in 2022.
2022 - Sheezel, a forward who can run thru the middle but played mostly off HBF and a replacement mid for Courage Boy.

So in those five drafts we took effectively took three players in the first round who are mids. Four if you count JHF and ignore that we replaced him with a like for like (ish) player. We don't need Sheezel in the midfield, we do need him elsewhere and the fact Thomas will end up there is an unexpected bonus.

Six years ago we drafted a mid - LDU and the year before that we drafted a forward flanker who worked so hard he got himself a place in our midfield. So from the last five years of first round picks we have three midfielders.

We may have drafted four but one left and we used the pick we traded in to replace him. If we'd got a different position player then we'd have two mids from the last five years first round picks.

Both Sheezel and Thomas are capable of playing midfield but have also played on the forward line and the back line this season.

Again why im on the Reid wagon, but not at any cost.
Every team needs a solid group of mids, but theres injuries and then guys that just arent on that day. Having the likes of Sheez, TT and Reid give so much flexibility to cover injuries and put out spot fires or just create havoc on the overlap.

 

[munsonned]

Gold Coast need points. Lucky for us 11 and 14 are worth more points than 10 and 17, so we’re in a good position. If the Dogs want to lose the plot and offer a future 1st then let them do it.

Final 2023 AFL Draft Order - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

Apparently Melb are super keen on Pick 4 also. And they have a better points hand than we do. Ie Pick 5 (6) & Pick 13 (14)

 

[giantroo]

 

[justroyal]

Fukc off cal. Couldn’t sound anymore disappointed.
Fukc you fukc you fukc you.

Now what did that wc poster say about sanders?

 

[tazaa]

James Gallagher is primed for big things though.
No pushover.

Id be quietly confident he will get things done and we will be okay.

FWIW this time last year we had Amarfio with both feet out the door phoning in our submission to Brad who was balls deep into getting the gig at Tulla.

Fingers crossed this is different but our bloke is a good operator.

Any credit for landing Sanders goes to this man btw