Draft Watcher Knightmare 2020 Draft Almanac

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I did some research on Zac Dumsney after seeing him selected for Hawthorn in a phantom draft.

187cm utility. Elite kick. Strong overhead. Very James Sicily like in description. Do we think he has the capability to develop into a top 5 player at whichever club selects him?

Nothing like Sicily. He's a good and bad kick. Can really burn the ball as well.
 
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.

Not everyone is a contested marking beast. And that's not a point I'm making with key forward. There are different ways to impact games if you're a forward, and that includes as key forwards.

Buddy isn't a great mark or contested mark and was prone particularly early days to drop marks, but that's not the primary way he dominates that sets him apart from everyone else at his position. Jack Gunston while a very good mark isn't a contested marking force, being shorter and slighter than most key forwards. Jarryd Roughead - more a good than great mark and not a contested marking beast either, and again someone who doesn't rely on out marking everyone. You can be a good or even a great key forward without being a great mark. That's just going through the best forwards of just one team over the past 10 years. They're all players with different dimensions to their games and as a forward, you dictate how you are defended by how you take advantage of opposition defenders, so you can really have anyone up forward with their own entirely unique games.

I'd personally prefer my best contested marks in defence if given the choice, generally speaking, unless they're kicking 2 goals per game every year. That Jeremy McGovern style control the airways and completely prevent any attempts and long high kicks i50 or else he's taking the contested mark is as influential towards winning as I've seen of any key position player in the competition these past 10 years. And when you bring the pressure up the ground and force those high and long rushed bail-out kicks forward, it makes life so easy for him and enables him to be the most dominant player on the field. Liam Jones, Josh Walker, Majak Daw and I'd even say when Casboult got a taste of playing key defence. Much better players in defence, and other than Casboult, awful as forwards. What do they have in common? They're all able to take a contested grab. That's what clubs need to do if they have a contested marking tall who isn't looking good enough as a forward, and if they have elite endurance in addition to the contested marking capabilities, stick them on a wing and let them get to work. It's looking at what attributes work where on the field. The wing has been a hopefully underutilised position for a long time. We don't have a single elite wing. No one who is on the level of a Dusty, Danger or Fyfe. Or at least not since Riewoldt had that year on a wing and Richo played on a wing. Clubs are entirely missing that opportunity. They're missing that bail-out kick option down the line. They're not realising the opportunity to have someone who can read the game and push forward or back to take a big mark without being opposed by another key position player. It can allow them to take the all important marks. We're going to get that eventually and more of those types work their way onto wings in the future, but that's the way the position will evolve in time as clubs realise that this can be done. I explored this idea in my YouTube video: 'What the wing position should look and how key forwards can maximise their value towards winning'

It is however difficult to be a great key forward, let alone a good key forward if you're not hitting the scoreboard at an at least adequate rate. You need in some capacity to be an avenue towards goal, or you may as well just play small up front. And I'd have absolutely no problem playing a small front half if there was no one of suitable quality. The forward pressure gains could be incredible and there would be so much more movement and creating of space for other forwards. It would just then need to be complimented by a tall wing or two who can push forward and provide that marking option which frankly is a more effective use of a tall if they have the aerobic capacity to play up on a wing anyway as they won't need to get involved in 1v1 tussles forward of centre and can take easier i50 marks and against less capable stoppers when they do push forward.
 
Hi KM,

With Collingwood wanting to move up the ladder as reported, and the unlikelihood of us convincing a club to move out of that top 5 group, do you think there is enough incentive for us to deal with Essendon/Adelaide?

14 + 16 + future 1st for 7 and 8 are a possibility, although losing future 1st would hurt since that could easily be a top 5 - 10 pick in a super draft. Although we probably do need to give up a valuable pick like that to gain something in return, Essendon would certainly be keen on that future pick, as it gives them sufficient currency to pursue Dunkley again.

What worries me about this is that - is there really a meaningful separation between 7/8 and 14/16? The players we would be keen on (Reid, Cox, Macrae etc) are just as likely to be available at 7/8 as 14/16. The quality seems so even past the big 5, and where these players fall precisely seem to be based on clubs' needs rather than their talent.

Another deal that has been rumoured is -
Pies: 16 Future 1st 2021
Crows: 9, 23, 24.

Not a fan of this either, but could see us going for it to guarantee dodging a McInnes bid?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

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!
Would you want a player with the ceiling of Lever at pick 6/7/8?

Even at Lever's peak pre-injury, he was quite overrated, and only good instead of being great.

A lot of players seem to be able to play his role too - Howe, Collins, Stewart, Haynes, Rampe, Ridley, Sicily

And just look at how easily they replaced Lever with Doedee lol... Being an unaccountable 3rd tall is not a difficult role, and the previous 6-6-6 rule change has essentially made that role obsolete, unless you can also defend like the players above.

Even Sicily who was essentially the same player as Lever, but just all around better, has been shifted to a more defensive KPD rule, since in modern football you sacrifice too much to make that "Lever role" work.
 
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.
Interesting that you think Hollands at pick 4 is unlikely. Talent wise I'd take him over Phillips, but with the top 3 likely to be shaping up as:

(1) Adelaide - Thilthorpe
(2) North - Mcdonald
(3) Sydney - DGB

You'd think Hollands is the most likely pick at 4 right? Followed by Phillips at 5.

Clubs are increasingly emphasizing KPP at the top end of the draft, and every year these KPP seem to be selected earlier than their talent suggest simply due to their rarity.

This year, these top 3 KPP available (ignoring Ugle-Hagan) actually deserve to be in that range on talent alone, even if you don't factor in their lack of supply. Can't see them being overlooked for either Phillips or Hollands despite the latter being exceptional future draftees.

This probably leads to Hawthorn/GC feeling like they receiving bargains with Hollands/Phillips at 4 and 5, they are probably quite likely to just lock them in as no-brainer selections. This significant separation between the top 5 from the rest also appear to be much larger than most years, meaning Essendon's draft hand is MUCH WEAKER than it looks, since most years you'll get someone close to the top of your draft board around 6/7/8 as sliders, but that seems highly unlikely this year.
 
Hi KM,

With Collingwood wanting to move up the ladder as reported, and the unlikelihood of us convincing a club to move out of that top 5 group, do you think there is enough incentive for us to deal with Essendon/Adelaide?

14 + 16 + future 1st for 7 and 8 are a possibility, although losing future 1st would hurt since that could easily be a top 5 - 10 pick in a super draft. Although we probably do need to give up a valuable pick like that to gain something in return, Essendon would certainly be keen on that future pick, as it gives them sufficient currency to pursue Dunkley again.

What worries me about this is that - is there really a meaningful separation between 7/8 and 14/16? The players we would be keen on (Reid, Cox, Macrae etc) are as likely to be at 7/8 as they're at 14/16. The quality seems so even past the big 5, and where these players fall precisely seem to be based on clubs' needs rather than their talent.

Another deal that has been rumoured is -
Pies: 16 Future 1st 2021
Crows: 9, 23, 24.

Not a fan of this, but could see us going for it to guarantee dodging a McInnes bid?

A trade with Essendon and Adelaide is plausible I feel.

Collingwood have a few trade chips on hand with picks 14+16 and 2021 1st.

What Collingwood if considering that need to be thinking carefully about is where a bid on Reef McInnes comes from. Some talk lately that Essendon may consider him, so does that mean Collingwood have to move those pick all the way up to Essendon's first, and then Collingwood can secure both Reef and a first round pick?

Collingwood also in my view at least should be nervous about trading that 2021 pick. With the trades of Treloar, Stephenson and Phillips, and how those former two trades went down. Could the playing group be upset and not attack 2021 with the same energy? Is there the youth to compensate for the loss of Treloar in particular? I don't have Collingwood in my top-8 for 2021 and while I think a finish something like 9th-12th is probable, I wouldn't be shocked if a lower finish was to occur, if the trade ordeals from this offseason really impact the playing group.

The Pies almost need to be prepared for two different scenarios. If they hear clear word a bid will come before their pick 14. And alternatively if a bid won't come before their picks. I feel like a completely different gameplan is needed for both scenarios.

What I would try to avoid doing though, mostly out of lack of confidence around how Collingwood perform in 2021 is moving that 2021 pick just yet. I'd prefer to talk into next offseason with the flexibility to utilise that pick during the trade period if at all possible, as I can't help but feel it will be more valuable then, than it is today.

What I'd do if there was word a say Essendon were to bid on Reef? I'd move down, mostly out of not being in a hurry to move that 2021 first. I'd move 14+16 and make it into something like Adelaide's picks 22+23 and Adelaide's 2021 future second. Or Melbourne's picks 18+19, and a future second round pick at the same time. And then any other swaps to help with pick matching beyond that to get into the positions the club want from there.

If no bid is set to happen before those picks 14+16, I'd hold firm with the picks as they are. While the likes of Cox and Reid should both be picked by then, the players I'd want around Essendon's picks, a number of those should still be available, so on that basis I don't see a massive advantage to moving up.

I can't say I'd be moving into the top-10 for a Cox or Reid. I'd rather take a Callow later on, with in my view more-so mids around those Essendon picks and that Adelaide pick 9 more-so where I see the value.
 
A trade with Essendon and Adelaide is plausible I feel.

Collingwood have a few trade chips on hand with picks 14+16 and 2021 1st.

What Collingwood if considering that need to be thinking carefully about is where a bid on Reef McInnes comes from. Some talk lately that Essendon may consider him, so does that mean Collingwood have to move those pick all the way up to Essendon's first, and then Collingwood can secure both Reef and a first round pick?

Collingwood also in my view at least should be nervous about trading that 2021 pick. With the trades of Treloar, Stephenson and Phillips, and how those former two trades went down. Could the playing group be upset and not attack 2021 with the same energy? Is there the youth to compensate for the loss of Treloar in particular? I don't have Collingwood in my top-8 for 2021 and while I think a finish something like 9th-12th is probable, I wouldn't be shocked if a lower finish was to occur, if the trade ordeals from this offseason really impact the playing group.

The Pies almost need to be prepared for two different scenarios. If they hear clear word a bid will come before their pick 14. And alternatively if a bid won't come before their picks. I feel like a completely different gameplan is needed for both scenarios.

What I would try to avoid doing though, mostly out of lack of confidence around how Collingwood perform in 2021 is moving that 2021 pick just yet. I'd prefer to talk into next offseason with the flexibility to utilise that pick during the trade period if at all possible, as I can't help but feel it will be more valuable then, than it is today.

What I'd do if there was word a say Essendon were to bid on Reef? I'd move down, mostly out of not being in a hurry to move that 2021 first. I'd move 14+16 and make it into something like Adelaide's picks 22+23 and Adelaide's 2021 future second. Or Melbourne's picks 18+19, and a future second round pick at the same time. And then any other swaps to help with pick matching beyond that to get into the positions the club want from there.

If no bid is set to happen before those picks 14+16, I'd hold firm with the picks as they are. While the likes of Cox and Reid should both be picked by then, the players I'd want around Essendon's picks, a number of those should still be available, so on that basis I don't see a massive advantage to moving up.

I can't say I'd be moving into the top-10 for a Cox or Reid. I'd rather take a Callow later on, with in my view more-so mids around those Essendon picks and that Adelaide pick 9 more-so where I see the value.
Exactly, probably not worth moving up.

I think the only thing that might push it over the line is that - let's say we obtain 7 & 8, with Essendon rumoured to be super into Perkins, I think they'd go for him instead if they only had 1 pick in that range. So by weakening Essendon's draft hand at that range, it saves us the need to move even higher up.

Even if Essendon does bid at 6, that doesn't mean McInnes is their #1 pick at that range, but more so because this makes Collingwood lose the most amount of points, while not affecting the selections.
 
Would you want a player with the ceiling of Lever at pick 6/7/8?

Even at Lever's peak pre-injury, he was quite overrated, and only good instead of being great.

A lot of players seem to be able to play his role too - Howe, Collins, Stewart, Haynes, Rampe, Ridley, Sicily

And just look at how easily they replaced Lever with Doedee lol... Being an unaccountable 3rd tall is not a difficult role, and the previous 6-6-6 rule change has essentially made that role obsolete, unless you can also defend like the players above.

Even Sicily who was essentially the same player as Lever, but just all around better, has been shifted to a more defensive KPD rule, since in modern football you sacrifice too much to make that "Lever role" work.

Lever, Howe, Collins, Stewart, Haynes, Rampe, Ridley, Sicily. They're all very good footballers. Are those guys based on performance worth top-10 picks if you can have them for their careers? While other than Haynes they didn't take top-10 picks to acquire, I do actually like the value they each present honestly. I do like my intercepting defenders though and do rate good defenders at AFL level highly. They all in draft re-do's if we look back at their careers, they all realistically could be seen in their respective pools as roughly top-10 picks, some inside, some just outside, but firmly in that conversation when you go through those names.

It's more in the context of Reid, I don't see him in the conversation with those guys on quality. He's a project you just hope comes good by comparison. And maybe some like him more as a ruck. He could be either a key defender or ruck depending on a club's vision for his development.

Doedee however I rate a fair bit below those guys, less-so based on performance but more-so based on lack of durability. Still just 30 career games? He's someone I'd be trading if I could get any kind of value for him in a hurry, at that rate, as a 24 year-old in March.

Interesting that you think Hollands at pick 4 is unlikely. Talent wise I'd take him over Phillips, but with the top 3 likely to be shaping up as:

(1) Adelaide - Thilthorpe
(2) North - Mcdonald
(3) Sydney - DGB

You'd think Hollands is the most likely pick at 4 right? Followed by Phillips at 5.

Clubs are increasingly emphasizing KPP at the top end of the draft, and every year these KPP seem to be selected earlier than their talent suggest simply due to their rarity.

This year, these top 3 KPP available (ignoring Ugle-Hagan) actually deserve to be in that range on talent alone, even if you don't factor in their lack of supply. Can't see them being overlooked for either Phillips or Hollands despite the latter being exceptional future draftees.

This probably leads to Hawthorn/GC feeling like they receiving bargains with Hollands/Phillips at 4 and 5, they are probably quite likely to just lock them in as no-brainer selections. This significant separation between the top 5 from the rest also appear to be much larger than most years, meaning Essendon's draft hand is MUCH WEAKER than it looks, since most years you'll get someone close to the top of your draft board around 6/7/8 as sliders, but that seems highly unlikely this year.

The scenarios matter.

If Adelaide take McDonald at 1 (and they still very well may) then I think Hollands goes at 2.

If we get Thilthorpe to Adelaide, McDonald to North, then Sydney may like Hollands, as I can't say I have definite word they'll take Grainger-Barras. It's reasonable to think they could go either way there based on their list needs.

It's hard to see Hollands slipping outside those first four picks (bids not included).

I do think Phillips will be there for Gold Coast at 5 though, with the others taken before that pick. That's why I've been talking up pick 5 and why I spoke about a trade of Treloar for Collingwood needing to yield at least pick-5 for it not to be salvageable.

And Gold Coast, while I don't have any inside intel, should be happy with Phillips given he played alongside Rowell and Anderson, and I'm sure those two will have spoken to the Suns recruiters about how legit Phillips is and that he's someone I'm sure they'd be more than open to playing alongside again.
 
Exactly, probably not worth moving up.

I think the only thing that might push it over the line is that - let's say we obtain 7 & 8, with Essendon rumoured to be super into Perkins, I think they'd go for him instead if they only had 1 pick in that range. So by weakening Essendon's draft hand at that range, it saves us the need to move even higher up.

Even if Essendon does bid at 6, that doesn't mean McInnes is their #1 pick at that range, but more so because this makes Collingwood lose the most amount of points, while not affecting the selections.

Collingwood would need pick 6 in any dealings with Essendon. It's not a kind of deal I'd want to do personally, but if moving x2 first round picks for x1, seeing no meaningful difference in that range between where Collingwood are and those picks above, I'd want that first choice at 6 to ensure I get my guy, just to be able to justify it.
 
Not everyone is a contested marking beast. And that's not a point I'm making with key forward. There are different ways to impact games if you're a forward, and that includes as key forwards.

Buddy isn't a great mark or contested mark and was prone particularly early days to drop marks, but that's not the primary way he dominates that sets him apart from everyone else at his position. Jack Gunston while a very good mark isn't a contested marking force, being shorter and slighter than most key forwards. Jarryd Roughead - more a good than great mark and not a contested marking beast either, and again someone who doesn't rely on out marking everyone. You can be a good or even a great key forward without being a great mark. That's just going through the best forwards of just one team over the past 10 years. They're all players with different dimensions to their games and as a forward, you dictate how you are defended by how you take advantage of opposition defenders, so you can really have anyone up forward with their own entirely unique games.

I'd personally prefer my best contested marks in defence if given the choice, generally speaking, unless they're kicking 2 goals per game every year. That Jeremy McGovern style control the airways and completely prevent any attempts and long high kicks i50 or else he's taking the contested mark is as influential towards winning as I've seen of any key position player in the competition these past 10 years. And when you bring the pressure up the ground and force those high and long rushed bail-out kicks forward, it makes life so easy for him and enables him to be the most dominant player on the field. Liam Jones, Josh Walker, Majak Daw and I'd even say when Casboult got a taste of playing key defence. Much better players in defence, and other than Casboult, awful as forwards. What do they have in common? They're all able to take a contested grab. That's what clubs need to do if they have a contested marking tall who isn't looking good enough as a forward, and if they have elite endurance in addition to the contested marking capabilities, stick them on a wing and let them get to work. It's looking at what attributes work where on the field. The wing has been a hopefully underutilised position for a long time. We don't have a single elite wing. No one who is on the level of a Dusty, Danger or Fyfe. Or at least not since Riewoldt had that year on a wing and Richo played on a wing. Clubs are entirely missing that opportunity. They're missing that bail-out kick option down the line. They're not realising the opportunity to have someone who can read the game and push forward or back to take a big mark without being opposed by another key position player. It can allow them to take the all important marks. We're going to get that eventually and more of those types work their way onto wings in the future, but that's the way the position will evolve in time as clubs realise that this can be done. I explored this idea in my YouTube video: 'What the wing position should look and how key forwards can maximise their value towards winning'

It is however difficult to be a great key forward, let alone a good key forward if you're not hitting the scoreboard at an at least adequate rate. You need in some capacity to be an avenue towards goal, or you may as well just play small up front. And I'd have absolutely no problem playing a small front half if there was no one of suitable quality. The forward pressure gains could be incredible and there would be so much more movement and creating of space for other forwards. It would just then need to be complimented by a tall wing or two who can push forward and provide that marking option which frankly is a more effective use of a tall if they have the aerobic capacity to play up on a wing anyway as they won't need to get involved in 1v1 tussles forward of centre and can take easier i50 marks and against less capable stoppers when they do push forward.
And yet that was the very metrics you went and criticised McStay for, as underperforming by position. :rolleyes:
 
And yet that was the very metrics you went and criticised McStay for, as underperforming by position. :rolleyes:

You can be there as someone who isn't a marking forward and still 100+ per 22 games is really a scraping through bare minimum. Buddy, Gunston and Roughead who I spoke about. They're not contested marking beasts, yet took more than enough marks. Gunston had 179 marks one year. Roughead 149. Lance Franklin 158. McStay only may be able to get to 100+ marks in defence.

Never managed even 250 disposals in a season?

Not good for even a goal per game? McStay needs to double his goal per game output. A career 0.7 per game is atrocious. Do that and a new position needs to be explored. That's the most egregious part. It doesn't matter how defensively focused your role as a forward may be. If you're a key forward, you can't kick less than a goal per game, and on a top-4 team? And that's aside from not taking enough marks or finding enough of it. He's not someone I would consider for selection as a forward. Period. I'd rather have a small or medium sizer playing in his place if there isn't an alternative key forward able to play in his place.

To be effective as a key forward. Kicking goals is a non negotiable. You need to be some kind of threat to ensure your opponent remains accountable and doesn't just peel off, ignore you and go on an intercept marking rampage. It's like Josh Bruce showing up and not even able to kick a goal per game this year and have more games without a goal than games with any goals kicked. Move guys like that into defence. Let them take contested marks there and intercept marks there if like a Bruce. They may actually as with a Liam Jones or Josh Walker be able to become able and more consistent pieces.
 
Collingwood would need pick 6 in any dealings with Essendon. It's not a kind of deal I'd want to do personally, but if moving x2 first round picks for x1, seeing no meaningful difference in that range between where Collingwood are and those picks above, I'd want that first choice at 6 to ensure I get my guy, just to be able to justify it.
With that being said, do you think it is possible to move into the top 5 with 3x 1sts?

Normally such a move would be of horrendous value, but if it does ensure that we avoid a bid for McInnes, surely the combined value will make it worthwhile?

Probably hard to see Adelaide/North trading out 1/2. Regarding the rest:

3. Sydney - Campbell has flown under the radar a bit, but should definitely be in contention for a top 3/5 pick if he was available. Post-review, albeit highly unlikely, there could be a <5% chance that he is in consideration for North's 2nd pick as a bolter (if Mcdonald goes first), if that happens, could Sydney be interested?

4. Hawthorn - Probably the best shot. Hawthorn desperately needs players every where as a team that lacks depth and quality across all positions. To them, 3x 1st round selections could easily bring about more value than putting all hopes into 1 selection

5. GC - Unlikely but a reasonable chance. They have shown that they're unhappy with pick 5, wanting to either trade for an established player, or move further up the ladder. This tells me they probably don't rate the draft, and especially the available non-tall, midfield selections, as high as most other clubs. Although, it looks like they would rather quality over quantity with a list stacked with elite young talent. A future 1st could be highly attractive to them as they diversify their draft capital, and smoothen their age demographic a little. Pick 14/16 could then be used to trade for other future picks, or be used for one of Essendon's picks.

This could look like 14 + 16 + future 1st (likely top 8) for 5 + 27? Like you said scenarios matter right? If we expect McInnes to be bid on by Essendon/another club, and if this deal was on the table, surely we would take this will all things considered right? Despite how ugly it looks pick wise for us. At least in this scenario we lose pick 27 instead of pick 14 to McInnes, which makes the question - Pick 5 vs Pick 16 + 2021 1st? Which would you prefer?
 
Nothing like Sicily. He's a good and bad kick. Can really burn the ball as well.

From the limited clips I've seen he looks to have the proper mechanics and tools to really excell by foot if inserted into the right development program.

Hawthorn took a punt on a kid who did the basics well at pick 13 in last years draft. It seems to have been a winning move.

It isn't all accumulation and statistical excellence at the younger level. If a club sees something to work with they'll jump on it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Doedee however I rate a fair bit below those guys, less-so based on performance but more-so based on lack of durability. Still just 30 career games? He's someone I'd be trading if I could get any kind of value for him in a hurry, at that rate, as a 24 year-old in March.
Adelaide won't be trading their next Captain, no chance.
 
With that being said, do you think it is possible to move into the top 5 with 3x 1sts?

Normally such a move would be of horrendous value, but if it does ensure that we avoid a bid for McInnes, surely the combined value will make it worthwhile?

Probably hard to see Adelaide/North trading out 1/2. Regarding the rest:

3. Sydney - Campbell has flown under the radar a bit, but should definitely be in contention for a top 3/5 pick if he was available. Post-review, albeit highly unlikely, there could be a <5% chance that he is in consideration for North's 2nd pick as a bolter (if Mcdonald goes first), if that happens, could Sydney be interested?

4. Hawthorn - Probably the best shot. Hawthorn desperately needs players every where as a team that lacks depth and quality across all positions. To them, 3x 1st round selections could easily bring about more value than putting all hopes into 1 selection

5. GC - Unlikely but a reasonable chance. They have shown that they're unhappy with pick 5, wanting to either trade for an established player, or move further up the ladder. This tells me they probably don't rate the draft, and especially the available non-tall, midfield selections, as high as most other clubs. Although, it looks like they would rather quality over quantity with a list stacked with elite young talent. A future 1st could be highly attractive to them as they diversify their draft capital, and smoothen their age demographic a little. Pick 14/16 could then be used to trade for other future picks, or be used for one of Essendon's picks.

This could look like 14 + 16 + future 1st (likely top 8) for 5 + 27? Like you said scenarios matter right? If we expect McInnes to be bid on by Essendon/another club, and if this deal was on the table, surely we would take this will all things considered right? Despite how ugly it looks pick wise for us. At least in this scenario we lose pick 27 instead of pick 14 to McInnes, which makes the question - Pick 5 vs Pick 16 + 2021 1st? Which would you prefer?

I'm not expecting any clubs inside the top-5 to give up their pick.

Gold Coast maybe is the more plausible. And if 14+16+2021 1st round pick is offered, that maybe intrigues them, though they don't need much involvement in this year's draft with their overstocked list, so they'd probably then want to flip either 14 or 16 for another future first if they can. And it depends on their valuation and how much they like Phillips or whoever they plan to take with the pick.

Then Hawthorn maybe a bit like Gold Coast, you can sort of see why maybe they do, and they're a team where they probably could benefit from having a number of good picks. And if they can get those and Downie, then they're adding young talent and at least gaining potentially good numbers. Though my suspicion is that they're set on whoever they can get at 4, with no talk yet to my knowledge about that pick in any discussions about changing hands.

Sydney can't afford to as a bid could come any time after their pick on Campbell. Adelaide and North Melbourne definitely won't be.

As a rule though, clubs are averse to moving down. So I'd be more inclined to go the other way and take advantage of this tendency of clubs wanting to move up.

If Collingwood are trying to get pick 5, I'm not convinced that's coming with 27 in that Gold Coast scenario. I think more-so they'd only give pick 5, then make other trades to improve their 2021 draft hand with other clubs.

Adelaide won't be trading their next Captain, no chance.

Of interest, what would your opinion of Doedee's value in your mind as a Crows fan be as a pick? Worth a top-10 pick? First round pick? Second round pick? Top-5?

I find myself looking at him as follows. Drafted 2015. Been on list for the 2016-2020 seasons. For an average of 6 games per season. Of if you just want to count the last three seasons, as he debuted in 2018, 10 games per season. Having done an ACL, hamstring this year. Having that injury history. Had a club offered me a first round pick in this year's draft, or equivalent value in terms of players, I would have jumped at it.
It's the same as the Joe Daniher theory, if Brisbane are going to pay enough for him where Essendon can get a return of pick 7, for a guy who played 15 games in three years, you take that and run.
I do though place, particularly with quality players as Doedee is when he plays, a very high weighting on durability.
Just as I haven't expressed all that much excitement for St Kilda about the Brad Crouch addition. 95 career games and he's 27 in January? And he was ready-to-go the moment he entered the AFL. You've got guys the same age who have passed the 150 game mark already.
 
KM - thoughts on Richmond first pick , who may slide ?

If a Finlay Macrae, Jack Carroll or Brayden Cook slide Richmond would be laughing.

If none of those guys slide, a Tom Powell or Sam Berry would represent strong value.

I feel like Richmond should be in the position at least with the first pick to take value, if there is clear value that presents.
 
I'm not expecting any clubs inside the top-5 to give up their pick.

Gold Coast maybe is the more plausible. And if 14+16+2021 1st round pick is offered, that maybe intrigues them, though they don't need much involvement in this year's draft with their overstocked list, so they'd probably then want to flip either 14 or 16 for another future first if they can. And it depends on their valuation and how much they like Phillips or whoever they plan to take with the pick.

Then Hawthorn maybe a bit like Gold Coast, you can sort of see why maybe they do, and they're a team where they probably could benefit from having a number of good picks. And if they can get those and Downie, then they're adding young talent and at least gaining potentially good numbers. Though my suspicion is that they're set on whoever they can get at 4, with no talk yet to my knowledge about that pick in any discussions about changing hands.

Sydney can't afford to as a bid could come any time after their pick on Campbell. Adelaide and North Melbourne definitely won't be.

As a rule though, clubs are averse to moving down. So I'd be more inclined to go the other way and take advantage of this tendency of clubs wanting to move up.

If Collingwood are trying to get pick 5, I'm not convinced that's coming with 27 in that Gold Coast scenario. I think more-so they'd only give pick 5, then make other trades to improve their 2021 draft hand with other clubs.



Of interest, what would your opinion of Doedee's value in your mind as a Crows fan be as a pick? Worth a top-10 pick? First round pick? Second round pick? Top-5?

I find myself looking at him as follows. Drafted 2015. Been on list for the 2016-2020 seasons. For an average of 6 games per season. Of if you just want to count the last three seasons, as he debuted in 2018, 10 games per season. Having done an ACL, hamstring this year. Having that injury history. Had a club offered me a first round pick in this year's draft, or equivalent value in terms of players, I would have jumped at it.
It's the same as the Joe Daniher theory, if Brisbane are going to pay enough for him where Essendon can get a return of pick 7, for a guy who played 15 games in three years, you take that and run.
I do though place, particularly with quality players as Doedee is when he plays, a very high weighting on durability.
Just as I haven't expressed all that much excitement for St Kilda about the Brad Crouch addition. 95 career games and he's 27 in January? And he was ready-to-go the moment he entered the AFL. You've got guys the same age who have passed the 150 game mark already.
No need to worry about any of that, there's zero chance he gets put up for trade, only way he goes anywhere will be if he decided to head home to Lara.

And on Brad Crouch he was horribly managed by the AFC's fitness team, diabolically really. Thankfully Brett Burton is just a bad memory now for how he stuffed up our fitness program.
 
If i am DoDoro im talking to Reef McInnes and telling him he is in serious consideration for Essendon and making it known we have a big interest in this kid forcing Collingwoods hand to deal out the 2 x 1st rounders to move up. Even if i was not interested in the kid

Pies and Bombers do a deal to take #8 and no bid on reefe
 
If i am DoDoro im talking to Reef McInnes and telling him he is in serious consideration for Essendon and making it known we have a big interest in this kid forcing Collingwoods hand to deal out the 2 x 1st rounders to move up. Even if i was not interested in the kid

Pies and Bombers do a deal to take #8 and no bid on reefe

Reef is an Essendon supporter, so no doubt that would get him excited on an individual level.

From a Pies perspective, I just look at any trade up, unless it's all the way up to Gold Coast's pick 5 as a losing trade.

If it's picks 14+16, I don't look at pick 8 as being worth all that much more. As per my earlier post on the topic, I'd be looking to trade down and add future assets, rather than trading away say the Pies 2021 1st round pick, which may on its own be worth more than I'd say even pick 6 this year, with my assumption being that Collingwood fall just outside the top 8 side in 2021. Or otherwise there is just holding the current picks, matching, and taking someone else with the other.

There are a lot of different ways they can choose to play it. Moving up though I'd categorise as the worse option.
 
Reef is an Essendon supporter, so no doubt that would get him excited on an individual level.

From a Pies perspective, I just look at any trade up, unless it's all the way up to Gold Coast's pick 5 as a losing trade.

If it's picks 14+16, I don't look at pick 8 as being worth all that much more. As per my earlier post on the topic, I'd be looking to trade down and add future assets, rather than trading away say the Pies 2021 1st round pick, which may on its own be worth more than I'd say even pick 6 this year, with my assumption being that Collingwood fall just outside the top 8 side in 2021. Or otherwise there is just holding the current picks, matching, and taking someone else with the other.

There are a lot of different ways they can choose to play it. Moving up though I'd categorise as the worse option.
Unfortunately after academy the 2 picks will end up becoming #17 + #19 and unless you throw in 2021 1st rounder that is not getting collingwood anywhere near pick #5 KM. The goal should be getting another quality player + Reef.

But i think i would be concerned if i was a Pies supporter holding these picks with GWS having 3 picks and Bombers also having 3 picks combined with McInnes size , speed he looks to be a perfect prototype modern afl player.
 
Unfortunately after academy the 2 picks will end up becoming #17 + #19 and unless you throw in 2021 1st rounder that is not getting collingwood anywhere near pick #5 KM. The goal should be getting another quality player + Reef.

But i think i would be concerned if i was a Pies supporter holding these picks with GWS having 3 picks and Bombers also having 3 picks combined with McInnes size , speed he looks to be a perfect prototype modern afl player.

I'm not as fussed about getting in another player before Reef. Maybe Collingwood are, but I'd be just as happy taking another guy with that next pick (I see no distinguishable difference in quality of options), rather than burning a future pick to barely move up. Or more ideally moving back and adding further to the 2021 draft hand.

That existing future 1st pick will have substantial utility value next offseason and is a more valuable asset in my view than any pick outside the top-5 this year. So moving it, unless it's in a trade involving pick 5 isn't something I'd do. And will Gold Coast involve pick 5 in such a trade? I can't imagine they would given the separation between that top-5+Jamarra and the rest, or as clubs at least perceive to be the case.
 
I'm not as fussed about getting in another player before Reef. Maybe Collingwood are, but I'd be just as happy taking another guy with that next pick (I see no distinguishable difference in quality of options), rather than burning a future pick to barely move up. Or more ideally moving back and adding further to the 2021 draft hand.

That existing future 1st pick will have substantial utility value next offseason and is a more valuable asset in my view than any pick outside the top-5 this year. So moving it, unless it's in a trade involving pick 5 isn't something I'd do. And will Gold Coast involve pick 5 in such a trade? I can't imagine they would given the separation between that top-5+Jamarra and the rest, or as clubs at least perceive to be the case.
I agree with that. 14 matches the bid, 16 is best left on board.

Future 1st will have more value next year.

Brisbane would swap their 2022 first round pick + extra later picks in 2021 for Collingwood’s 2021 first round pick.
 
I agree with that. 14 matches the bid, 16 is best left on board.

Future 1st will have more value next year.

Brisbane would swap their 2022 first round pick + extra later picks in 2021 for Collingwood’s 2021 first round pick.

That kind of idea is always possible of move the 2021 1st for a 2022 1st and some other combination of picks that make the deal roughly equitable, with the other option being trading for a player/players or some combination of picks and player/s.

Ultimately it comes down to the opportunities that present.

If clubs are feeling the salary cap pressure, and it sounds like there will be a lot of that over the next few years. There should again next year be some serious opportunities during the trade period.
 
Knightmare you've shown some interest in GC academy small forwards over the years.

Ace - Paul Oea Hewago - now officially on our list after being promoted from International scholarship?

I liked his pace and balance from NEAFL and u18 champs games I've seen.

Who do you think is more likely to make it as an AFL contributor. Ace, Josh Gore or Max Pescud?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top