Draft Watcher Knightmare 2020 Draft Almanac

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jirik13 said:
This thread is really entertaining recently. Nothing is happening on SUNS forum so I appreciate it.

In my view, you are way off in your assessments of North list and North supporters here know what they are talking about and rightly call you on it. But your assessment of Ballenden tops it off. It seems you always stick to your initial draft assessment no matter what and contrary to evidence and are not able to acknowledge mistakes. Sometimes it's OK to step back and re-assess.

Ballenden is a primary candidate to be de-listed next year from the rookie list. You can have a great kick but when the player is soft, can't compete one-on-one it's a very good chance he will not make it. It takes five minutes to watch and see that Payne and Fullarton are another level with regard to potential compared to Ballenden.

This really reminds me your assessment of Hall to be the best SUNS player when he left or how you persisted with Alex Johnston after his 6 ACLs to be the ideal recruit for SUNS and SUNS must get him. You see some nice traits but you completely disregards missing key traits that are necessary to make it - in case of Ballenden the ability to compete physically, mongrel.

Anyway, in the end, it's just sharing views on public forum and people are entitled to different views. It just surprises me how far off you are sometimes.
Click to expand...

That's the fun with assessing players, be it junior players or AFL players, it's subjective because you can rate different things about particular guys. AFL has too many variables for anyone to see every player, and every component of the game the same.

Aaron Hall I thought was terrific for the Suns. Incredibly damaging player offensively. He was one of few who had that speed to balance that midfield. He was an able piece. He's not someone you want as one of your best players, but at the time he was that guy who was generating offense for the Suns in an otherwise one-paced midfield. Jarryd Lyons however was the guy I rated highest on Gold Coast's list at that time, when the likes of Lynch were hurt, as that best midfielder and best player. He's not someone you want to have as your best player, but that's what he was for the Suns. It looked silly at the time and looks even sillier now that he's having success with Brisbane, and really just continuing to build on his strong play and continuing to step his game up.

The Suns since have done well to so quickly put together a good young core and develop them well. The Suns now have reason for optimism. And really it has been surprising with so little in the way of veteran leadership that the Suns are starting to look competitive. It defies the history of player development as it's those teams where there is a strong group of veteran leaders where youth develops best. They've been for me the most interesting and fun team to watch this year. Haven't missed a game. It's been a fascinating watch.

Alex Johnson in the VFL was solid in 2019 for Northern Blues. He's the sort of clubman I'd want on my list. High calibre leader, has remarkable resilience. That's a great example to have for a young group and something a lot of them can learn off of. Obviously didn't see him this year and it's a shame because he's one of those highly motivated workers who may have taken another step up.
 
RUNVS said:
Hey Knightmare, possibly an odd question but how has DGB looked when he has played up forward?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I can't immediately think of a time he has played forward, or that I've seen. He has these past two years played in defence, whether he played forward before that I don't know his u16 and prior history.

It's one of those unexplored things where, maybe he could play forward.

He's great in defence and clubs are more than happy with what they've seen of him in defence. Would be interesting as an academic exercise to see him play forward for a good number of games to see if he has those capabilities.
 
Knightmare said:
I can't immediately think of a time he has played forward, or that I've seen. He has these past two years played in defence, whether he played forward before that I don't know his u16 and prior history.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I thought I heard somewhere that he was moved forward for one game and kicked a couple of goals. Thanks for the correction though.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

perplexed said:
People are interested in his opinions on the draft, which is what this thread is supposed to be about. But when he starts spouting nonsense on topics he clearly knows little about he deserves to be called on it. His comments on North's list management in this thread are laughable.
Click to expand...
Which is fine, I have no problem with respectful disagreement. The problem is people coming in here and going “well I don’t care about your opinion”. If you don’t care, don’t post.
 
Obeanie1 said:
At best?

Allen would be the #1 key forward at Collingwood Apex.

The only reason he is playing 3rd tall at the Eagles is because of his youth plus Kennedy and Darling.

Post Kennedy Allen will be FF, Darling CHF and Williams forward / ruck. Darling will be #1 then Allen.
Click to expand...
He’d be the number 1 key forward like Mihocek is the #1 key forward. ie. out of necessity, not because he’s suited for it. If you think that WC won’t try to get McDonald in just because they have Allen on the books you’re kidding yourself. A McDonald/Allen combo would be the Eagles next Kennedy/Darling for the next decade. Darling will be around for a few more years, but at 28, the Eagles should be planning for life after him.
 
RUNVS said:
I could be wrong but I thought I heard somewhere that he was moved forward for one game and kicked a couple of goals. Thanks for the correction though.
Click to expand...

You aren’t wrong.

He played forward in the second WA all-stars game.

Literally the last game he played.
 
Scham said:
He was moved forward for a half in the last all stars game and went very well.
Click to expand...

Pykie said:
You aren’t wrong.

He played forward in the second WA all-stars game.

Literally the last game he played.
Click to expand...

Glad I am not imagining things. If he can potentially play forward that certainly adds to his value.

One of the King twins was meant to be a defender, but now they are both forwards and both looking very very promising.
 
I'm glad my delisted free agency YouTube video has gotten so much conversation, but with the conversation moving away from productive conversation, let's get back to the draft stuff for this thread perhaps..
 
Hey, Just wondering who would you pick for Hawthorn's list problems between Hollands or Perkins? Also interested in who you would pick between Carroll and Poulter? Thanks.
 
nelk boys said:
Hey, Just wondering who would you pick for Hawthorn's list problems between Hollands or Perkins? Also interested in who you would pick between Carroll and Poulter? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Hollands for me and it's not close. He's the more productive and more damaging of the two, wherever you play him.

Carroll over Poulter, and again I see separation. Carroll has all the class to him, but his contested work is on another level entirely. He's the higher probability of career and to develop into a high level AFL mid. Poulter by comparison is more someone you hope develops the same contested ball winning capabilities for him to realise his upside.
 
Knightmare said:
Hollands for me and it's not close. He's the more productive and more damaging of the two, wherever you play him.

Carroll over Poulter, and again I see separation. Carroll has all the class to him, but his contested work is on another level entirely. He's the higher probability of career and to develop into a high level AFL mid. Poulter by comparison is more someone you hope develops the same contested ball winning capabilities for him to realise his upside.
Click to expand...

So what would you choose for Hawks, just select Hollands or split the pick for Carroll and Perkins
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

nelk boys said:
So what would you choose for Hawks, just select Hollands or split the pick for Carroll and Perkins
Click to expand...

For Hawthorn at 4, Hollands is unlikely to be available. I'm a Will Phillips guy and would look to him to improve Hawthorn's midfield first up. I personally favour him to Hollands as a lower risk selection.

At 24, Carroll is unlikely to be there, but is my pick if he is, I think he'll most likely go first round. Brayden Cook as a forward if there I also like, but again, I think he probably goes first round. Maybe a Sam Berry can be had around that pick if there isn't that kind of notable slider and he's another high quality mid and like Phillips has an immediate game.

Where Hawthorn are in the draft I'd feel very comfortable with. I'd talk to Gold Coast if they're keen to move up a spot, as maybe they want a tall instead of a midfielder, and maybe a bonus pick can be had in addition to a Phillips.

It would be intriguing as to whether a say Essendon would be open to trading picks 6/7 for 4/24, but I'd hold strong as I'd want want of those top-5 guys. I feel like it's a pick too late for Phillips which is what would put me off. He'd be hard to pass on if I know I can get him, as my third rated player in the draft, second if you take out the NGA picks.
 
Knightmare said:
In a key forward competitiveness/physicality helps but in key defenders I'm more than happy to have a finesse ball reader.

Schache similarly shouldn't be played forward. He either needs to play as a tall wing where he can sneak forward and doesn't have to engage in 1v1 marking contests. Maybe he can do that because he has the endurance, has the skills, can take his leadup marks, and can sneak forward for some easier marks and make the most of his opportunities when he does get a shot at goal. Or alternatively he needs to switch into defence. He can read it, he covers the ground, has the skills.

With talls, as with any position on the field. I advocate assessing the strengths of a player. Look at the compatibility of a player at each position. Do their mix of strengths and weaknesses lend themselves to playing their present positions? What about this other position?

That's why all year I've been speaking about Tim English as a tall wing. He's non competitive through the ruck. Whether it's going for the hitout, or following up. On the other hand, he's an elite endurance runner who covers as much ground as midfielders and he has the ball reading and marking gifts. By position that would be an incredible weapon, and he's not by position going to get as exposed, with his strengths to look even better as on a wing he's not going to be matched up with anyone who can remotely compete with him.

Positions need to be looked at logically. If they've got key forward talent and can kick 1.5+ goals a game, and do that every year, keep them forward and don't mess around with a good thing. It doesn't matter what way they're doing it - whether they're a freak at ground level or contested marking force. If you can read the ball in flight to a high level and take a mark but don't have key forward talent. Put them in defence. So many key forwards who have moved back have looked great, and particularly those better ball reading, better marking types, who may not necessarily have the speed or the ground level craft. If they're a good mark and elite endurance athlete, I'd love to see them on a wing and see what kind of problems they can cause through there.



Why did Ballenden start high on my board in 2017? Performance. Have to reward a game with 9 marks (3 contested) and 5 goals v Tasmania. Seeing him during the u18 Champs is when he feel back and I starting feeling like he's a key defender, and not someone I'd want to draft as a forward.

His draft year and NEAFL play was even solid, there were by the end of the season a few others I slightly preferred by the end of the season with Ballenden less-so dropping as much as feeling more positive about others. Seeing a top-11, Ballenden was solidly in that next group which was pretty even.



As a key forward when you're not kicking a goal per game, not good for 100+ marks per 20 games, that's not good enough by position. McStay because he has the contested marking capabilities would at least be more reasonable in defence. Absolutely his forward pressure is good and that's why he's there aside from his contested marking/bringing it to ground, but my position I'd still have higher output expectations.

Ballenden has never been an athlete. Wasn't in his draft year and isn't now. Key defenders don't have to be athletes. If they can read it like he can, take intercept marks and use it, he's already at an advantage. He's someone where you need to look at his strengths. When you're a tall who reads the ball to a high level, and you don't have the game to make it as a forward, put him back.
Click to expand...
You don’t watch the Lions or understand McStay’s role.

He is not asked to mark the ball. He’s asked to bring the ball to ground for the smalls to crumb, and lock the ball in the forward 50.

This is his specific role as dictated by Fagan and the teams strategy.

You’re trying to judge someone on kpi’s that he’s not asked to do.
 
briztoon said:
You don’t watch the Lions or understand McStay’s role.

He is not asked to mark the ball. He’s asked to bring the ball to ground for the smalls to crumb, and lock the ball in the forward 50.

This is his specific role as dictated by Fagan and the teams strategy.

You’re trying to judge someone on kpi’s that he’s not asked to do.
Click to expand...

That's fine if that's what Brisbane want him to do. That's just not something I value as a primary directive for a key forward, if indeed that is what Brisbane's coaches tell McStay to do.

I'd rather a key forward mark me the ball first and gain possession, rather than bring it to ground which then means it's a 50/50 ball there to be won. From a mark, you're under no pressure. You have the ball. You have the time to do what you want, when you want. You can take a set shot if you're in range, or you can kick the ball i50 at your pace of choice. I'd much rather that than still have to win the ball, and if I do, be pressured and not have the time I want with it, or alternatively if the other team wins it have to pressure and try to create another turnover only to have a chance to get my hands on it again. That's a lesson we can all learn from West Coast in particular.

It's the same story for me in defence, when you have guys who can mark the ball. I'd rather they mark the ball and get possession for my team when they're in a position to as a primary objective. Why nullify when you can gain possession? The AFL is a game of gaining possession, and when you can gain possession under no pressure as occurs from marks, that's optimal and gives the player in possession time and options to either move it in a hurry or make the right decisions and not have to worry about getting pressured into mistakes, and in turn helps you reduce scores against off the turnover.

There is a time and place for bringing the ball to ground, and when neither you, nor your teammate can mark it, then absolutely it's a great choice when you have some crumbers at ground level who you can direct the ball down to, particularly when you're choosing between that or letting your opponent mark, with no opportunity for you to take the grab. It just shouldn't be a primary directive or a primary function. It's like having a tagger to just tag without looking for them to win any of their own ball or try to do anything the other way, or a defender to just shut down an opponent and never look to intercept or rebound. It's a net negative at that position and takes away from winning on average if you're not getting any offense to go with it.
 
Knightmare said:
That's fine if that's what Brisbane want him to do. That's just not something I value as a primary directive for a key forward, if indeed that is what Brisbane's coaches tell McStay to do.

I'd rather a key forward mark me the ball first and gain possession, rather than bring it to ground which then means it's a 50/50 ball there to be won. From a mark, you're under no pressure. You have the ball. You have the time to do what you want, when you want. You can take a set shot if you're in range, or you can kick the ball i50 at your pace of choice. I'd much rather that than still have to win the ball, and if I do, be pressured and not have the time I want with it, or alternatively if the other team wins it have to pressure and try to create another turnover only to have a chance to get my hands on it again. That's a lesson we can all learn from West Coast in particular.

It's the same story for me in defence, when you have guys who can mark the ball. I'd rather they mark the ball and get possession for my team when they're in a position to as a primary objective. Why nullify when you can gain possession? The AFL is a game of gaining possession, and when you can gain possession under no pressure as occurs from marks, that's optimal and gives the player in possession time and options to either move it in a hurry or make the right decisions and not have to worry about getting pressured into mistakes, and in turn helps you reduce scores against off the turnover.

There is a time and place for bringing the ball to ground, and when neither you, nor your teammate can mark it, then absolutely it's a great choice when you have some crumbers at ground level who you can direct the ball down to, particularly when you're choosing between that or letting your opponent mark, with no opportunity for you to take the grab. It just shouldn't be a primary directive or a primary function. It's like having a tagger to just tag without looking for them to win any of their own ball or try to do anything the other way, or a defender to just shut down an opponent and never look to intercept or rebound. It's a net negative at that position and takes away from winning on average if you're not getting any offense to go with it.
Click to expand...
Except for Ben Brown, most marks inside the forward 50 are contested marks, and by nature a 50/50 contest.

If you don’t mark the ball, then the opposition does, and the ball rebounds back down the other end for a goal.

100% guarantee you that’s what the coaches are asking of McStay.
 
Knightmare said:
That's fine if that's what Brisbane want him to do. That's just not something I value as a primary directive for a key forward, if indeed that is what Brisbane's coaches tell McStay to do.QUOTE]
I think the biggest criticism is that you don't seem to understand nuance. Either that or you are choose to ignore it. Every team has players who don't look amazing on a stats sheet, but are highly valued internally. The aggregate of the team is greater than the contribution of the individuals. Each of the players are asked to play their role. Once of the main reasons a lot of club B&Fs look significantly different to Brownlow voting.

I don't know McStay's role, but I know enough about him to understand if his contribution was based on stats alone, he'd probably have been delisted. And he probably wouldn't have appeared on your 'delisted players to look at list'... And with Charlie Cameron at McStay's feet, well, Brisbane coaches are probably ok with that...

Anyway - I have enjoyed reading some of the stuff you've written over time.
Click to expand...
 
Swiggy said:
KM when will you final phantom draft drop?
Click to expand...

Will finalise it the day before the draft and it will drop on ESPN the morning of draft day (Dec 9th).

Always happy to answer questions in the meantime though and have my 2 round phantom draft up to wet the appetite until then.

briztoon said:
Except for Ben Brown, most marks inside the forward 50 are contested marks, and by nature a 50/50 contest.

If you don’t mark the ball, then the opposition does, and the ball rebounds back down the other end for a goal.

100% guarantee you that’s what the coaches are asking of McStay.
Click to expand...

When Brown is kicking 60+ goals per year and taking 100+ marks, playing 22 games every year, and comparing that to someone with a career average well under 1 goal per game and never exceeding 100 marks in a season, and we're talking about players in entirely different classes.

I'm not disagreeing with your view that when you can't take a mark, you bring it to ground. There isn't anything to disagree on there. Bringing the ball to ground is better than allowing the opponent a mark. My argument is that you want guys who a lower proportion of the time need to bring it to ground, as those who are taking more marks, and more marks in good positions are going to be more valuable. It's more a case of when you can mark, take the mark, and guys who take more will as in the Brown/McStay comparison be more valuable. Particularly with Brown taking more of his marks closer to goal where they're even more valuable and Brown has historically done a great job at making the most of his opportunities.
 
Apex36 said:
He’d be the number 1 key forward like Mihocek is the #1 key forward. ie. out of necessity, not because he’s suited for it. If you think that WC won’t try to get McDonald in just because they have Allen on the books you’re kidding yourself. A McDonald/Allen combo would be the Eagles next Kennedy/Darling for the next decade. Darling will be around for a few more years, but at 28, the Eagles should be planning for life after him.
Click to expand...

Like drafting a chf named Brander who is similar in type to Gunstan?

And adding Williams at 199cm who looks like a good forward who can also ruck?

On top of Allen, all three now entering their 3rd and 4th years. That sort of planning?

The Eagles have nowhere near the pick to land McDonald and are in need to bring in young mids. Thats the reality. As is they have already drafted and have been developing Kennesy's replacement, and Hurn's and Jetta's.

Would they pick McDonald if they had pick 2 or 3? Maybe they would. But then they would have so many kp forward options someone would need to leave to get a game. They are already pushing 192cm Waterman onto a wing and relocating Brander down back.

Allen has more upside than Mihocek and when finally given the chance in the next couple of years will prove that.
 
Last edited:
Obeanie1 said:
Like drafting a chf named Brander who is similar in type to Gunstan?

And adding Williams at 199cm who looks like a good forward who can also ruck?

On top of Allen, all three now entering their 3rd and 4th years. That sort of planning?

The Eagles have nowhere near the pick to land McDonald and are in need to bring in young mids. Thats the reality. As is they have already drafted and have been developing Kennesy's replacement, and Hurn's and Jetta's.

Would they pick McDonald if they had pick 2 or 3? Maybe they would. But then they would have so many kp forward options someone would need to leave to get a game. They are already pushing 192cm Waterman onto a wing and relocating Brander down back.

Allen has more upside than Mihocek and when finally given the chance in the next couple of years will prove that.
Click to expand...
If you’re putting your eggs in the Brander basket I fear you’re going to end up disappointed. Anyway, I never said the Eagles would try to draft him, I said they’re likely to make a play for him in a couple of years, so I have no idea why you’re going down that path.
 
Hi Knightmare, loving your insights for this draft crop.

Do you think Zach Reid might be flying under the radar a bit due to how high profile some of the other talls are this year? The fella looks a good character, great mover/endurance, great intercept mark and an elite kick. Seems to be a comparable prospect to Lever?

If he fills out a bit physically... watch out!
 
FlyingV said:
Hi Knightmare, loving your insights for this draft crop.

Do you think Zach Reid might be flying under the radar a bit due to how high profile some of the other talls are this year? The fella looks a good character, great mover/endurance, great intercept mark and an elite kick. Seems to be a comparable prospect to Lever?

If he fills out a bit physically... watch out!
Click to expand...

Definitely taller than Lever. Genuine ruck height. Very good kick for someone his height. Can intercept, but not nearly on the same level as Lever and that's where I see Lever having the most substantial separation. Reid is still thin and needs to improve 1v1 also, with Lever also developing that component to his game later and certainly not coming into the competition with that being established.

Reid somewhat reminds me of slightly better Lachlan Keeffe if I'm going with a player comparison more-so than a plays stylistically comment. Light like Keeffe and needs to develop 1v1, can intercept here/there and is of the two the better aerially, good ball user and again although Keeffe is a good ball user by position, but Reid is the better ball user and uses it as cleanly as a flanker. I'd say Reid is more mobile for someone his height than quick and hopefully he doesn't lose too much as he gets stronger. He's being spoken about as a possible top-10 pick, but for me he's more appropriate to speculate on closer to pick 20, if not 25 for me. So if I'm a selector this year, he's more someone I'd let another team draft.

I see this year definite separation with the likes of Jamarra/Logan/Riley/Denver all much better. Chapman better though may not fully develop into a KPP, Callow better performed, Cox also favourable in my view of the pair. The industry view and the view amongst most recruiters is that Reid is a lot better than I'm rating him at least. A bit like with Cox though, as the Victorian's haven't played this year, it's guesswork how much he may have improved this year and it makes making the call on his probability of career and ceiling all the harder as someone who was still last year very much a developing players.
 
Knightmare said:
Will finalise it the day before the draft and it will drop on ESPN the morning of draft day (Dec 9th).

Always happy to answer questions in the meantime though and have my 2 round phantom draft up to wet the appetite until then.



When Brown is kicking 60+ goals per year and taking 100+ marks, playing 22 games every year, and comparing that to someone with a career average well under 1 goal per game and never exceeding 100 marks in a season, and we're talking about players in entirely different classes.

I'm not disagreeing with your view that when you can't take a mark, you bring it to ground. There isn't anything to disagree on there. Bringing the ball to ground is better than allowing the opponent a mark. My argument is that you want guys who a lower proportion of the time need to bring it to ground, as those who are taking more marks, and more marks in good positions are going to be more valuable. It's more a case of when you can mark, take the mark, and guys who take more will as in the Brown/McStay comparison be more valuable. Particularly with Brown taking more of his marks closer to goal where they're even more valuable and Brown has historically done a great job at making the most of his opportunities.
Click to expand...
How many genuine contested marking tall forwards are in the league today?

There’s a genuine lack of them league wide.

So if you don’t have one, you find another avenue to goal.

As for Ben Brown, apparently the Lions coaches don’t value his style of forward as they believe his type of uncontested marking doesn’t hold up under finals pressure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

DQ 4EVER
Phantom Draft Phantom Drafts Advent Calendar
Replies
2
Views
495
RedmanWasHere
RedmanWasHere
PMBangers
Draft Expert PMBangers 2024 Draft Thread and psuedo general draft discussion apparently
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
457
Views
66K
PMBangers
PMBangers
blueiris
2024 Phantom draft all invited
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
466
Views
19K
Lingsface
Lingsface
eDPS
Phantom Draft eDPS Rankings & Draft Discussion 2024
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
133
Views
25K
eDPS
eDPS
Cleric
Prediction Your top 5 phantom draft.
2 3 4 5
Replies
105
Views
7K
Mutineer
Mutineer
Cleric
Draft Profile 2024 Full Combine Results?
Replies
0
Views
340
Cleric
Cleric
ronpingwins
Rumour Draft Rumours 2024 - No rumours allowed
56 57 58 59 60
Replies
1K
Views
69K
LukeParkerno1
LukeParkerno1

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top