Draft Watcher Knightmare 2020 Draft Almanac

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Soups said:
We should match the bid even if it comes in the top 10 imo. The kids a massive talent and I reckon we’d be kicking ourselves later on down the track if we let him go.
Click to expand...
Yes, but its just crazy we walked into this situation by bringing in pick 14 lol... As if losing pick 16 wasn't bad enough that we even upgraded the pick we are going to lose lol
 
Prochard123 said:
So pretty much at this stage, he is all potential & no output.

But if he does develop nicely, he has one of the largest upsides in this draft rivalling even the big 5? (I'm hoping this is the case)

Because if his potential is inbetween the big 5 and the next group - so around 6, then considering the low probability of all of the events you mentioned occuring, surely we gotta push him much further down the list right? Since power ranking should consider both upside, and the probability of achieving that potential.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call Reef a no output player, but more-so someone who has only had small midfield opportunities for Oakleigh, not getting that midfield opportunity for enough of the season as you'd like due to how stacked that midfield was. He's for now more a moderate production player who hopefully as he grows into his body and becomes stronger can ramp his ball winning up a few gears. His ceiling is very high, but his floor is lower than a lot of others I regard in a similar range, and that's the relative risk factor you weight up, as he may take a couple of years to develop. His versatility and mix of attributes though means if he doesn't work out as a midfielder, you always have other ways you can always try him in other positions.

THE_GUN said:
Any player at 194/195 with the pace and agility McInnes has (you would need to think he has another 2-3cm growth) has to be a weapon either playing Mid-Fwd-HB.

Just wish he was available for Richmond
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even put Reef back. Mid/fwd is what I'd look at, with some split of the top.

I like him as a marking threat forward of centre. He may even allow Collingwood at times to play small up forward. Then impact through the midfield.

If he can follow the Bontempelli growth trajectory that would be the best case. I doubt even with greater midfield minutes he would have played Bont level football this year, so I'm not seeing him getting to that level. It's more-so if he can become something like or pretty close to that, and develop that level of ball winning capability and impact games in similar ways, then he's well and truly fulfilled his upside.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

smashbox gill said:
What are your thoughts on Corey Durdin? Does he have potential to be a elite small forward at the next level
Click to expand...

Averaging less than a goal per game in the SANFL at League level doesn't make me think elite. He's someone I'm boxing into the category of well performed and he had a good 2019 but hasn't stepped up at all this year and is still that gear below where I'd like for him to be.

From 3 games last year = 5 goals at League level at an average of 9 disposals per game and 3.3 tackles. This year reduction in goals at 0.8 per game and no significant change in tackles (reduced), or disposals (increased). Albeit his last couple of games were hamstring affected, which is a different concern entirely to be mindful of.
 
Prochard123 said:
Hi KM,

On your power ranking you have McInnes at 8th. I recall you mentioning that if Essendon bids at 6-8 we shouldn't match. My question is if that turned out to be the case, who on your power ranking list can we realistically get at 14/16 that's better than McInnes?

I still don't think Essendon genuinely rates McInnes. Instead, Dodoro is only claiming this to subtract more value from us via our 2021 1st. It's quite obvious that we shouldn't sell off a potential top 5/8 pick in a super draft for such little value, but then again Ned Guy has gone far lower the little expectation I had for him.
Click to expand...
If we bid on him, then it means we want him. Nothing to do with making Collingwood pay. If Collingwood pay up to stop us from bidding, then they'd have to offer something very compelling.

We didn't get Dunkley so Reef would be the perfect player to complement our midfield. And Dodoro really likes Essendon supporters so he'd have a chat with Reef.

It's not a situation where Collingwood would be calling Essendon's bluff or standing their ground. If Essendon bid and Collingwood don't match, then we win. A 194-195cm inside mid and we only spend one of our 3 picks? Great. Otherwise, I wouldn't mind pick 14 and your future first for 8, but any trade will likely be done on draft night.
 
Last edited:
piemad1 said:
Hi Knightmare
Do you know much about tyler brockman. Looks the perfect pick for the pies late in the draft.
Click to expand...

Brockman is on my extended draft board and one of the players I'll be talking about in my top 50 power rankings video when I make that video for YouTube. He has the speed. Can bring the pressure. Has some tricks. I view him very much as draftable late/rookie. Absolutely as something different he would be a list fit for Collingwood. He's an upgrade on Atu and has more tricks, particularly offensively and as an accumulator if you're looking for a point of comparison in a Collingwood context, without any compromise on speed or forward pressure.
 
Mojorisin said:
Thoughts on jaiden hunter?
Click to expand...

Good athlete and high leaper.

Supposed to be a key defender but has been forced to play ruck which puts him into the speculative basket. As a result, it's hard to know how good he would be in defence. Can he intercept? If so how well? Can he rebound?

There could be a club that likes him, but I'd find it a speculative decision given how he was used, and at least from my perspective without enough evidence that he'd be good enough in defence.
 
Knightmare said:
Good athlete and high leaper.

Supposed to be a key defender but has been forced to play ruck which puts him into the speculative basket. As a result, it's hard to know how good he would be in defence. Can he intercept? If so how well? Can he rebound?

There could be a club that likes him and think he can make that decision, but I'd find it a speculative decision given how he was used, and at least from my perspective without enough evidence that he'd be good enough in defence.
Click to expand...
His leap allowed him to average 34 hit outs at Colts level standing at only 194cm. He also preformed well against McDonald in the showcase game. I'm a massive fan of his late draft, could be an intercepting weaponed if he improves his tank
 
Mojorisin said:
His leap allowed him to average 34 hit outs at Colts level standing at only 194cm. He also preformed well against McDonald in the showcase game. I'm a massive fan of his late draft, could be an intercepting weaponed if he improves his tank
Click to expand...

The problem is at AFL level he's not going to be a ruckman at 194cm. If you want him relieving through there, sure. He has the leap, and as you say has been winning the hitouts (albeit against weak competition).

Having played through the ruck, I can't say I have the knowledge about how he goes as an intercepter and how well he reads it. If he has those components, he's draftable and could be developable. I'll leave that one to the WA scouts who have seen him in years past.

He's one where if he goes undrafted, I'd like to see him as a key defender for a full year and re-evaluated.
 
Knightmare said:
The problem is at AFL level he's not going to be a ruckman at 194cm. If you want him relieving through there, sure. He has the leap, and as you say has been winning the hitouts (albeit against weak competition).

Having played through the ruck, I can't say I have the knowledge about how he goes as an intercepter and how well he reads it. If he has those components, he's draftable and could be developable. I'll leave that one to the WA scouts who have seen him in years past.

He's one where if he goes undrafted, I'd like to see him as a key defender for a full year and re-evaluated.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be thinking about putting him in the ruck but his ability to jump above player 5-10cm taller then him transfers nicely to the skills needed as an intercept defender, he also reads the play very well. There are alot I like later in the draft this year and think teams like west coast (and the dogs once a jamarra bid wipes out our picks) if scouting accurately could find alot of talent others sleep on
 
Hi KM, Do you think there could be a guy who everyone has pencilled in for the first round that slips?
A la Dev Robertson last year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Coathanger said:
Hi KM, Do you think there could be a guy who everyone has pencilled in for the first round that slips?
A la Dev Robertson last year.
Click to expand...

There is a definite chance of that. Who that is? Not yet sure.

Could it be Macrae? Powell? McInnes maybe?

I find there are mids who slip more years than not.

Seedsfan said:
Collingwood better not read this. Would be an absolutely terrible result if we took 3 mids.
Click to expand...

You can only take what is available to you.

I'm not seeing any (worthwhile) KPPs making it through to 14/16.

Collingwood would need to take one late draft. A Callow or Baldwin as two examples.

Reef may also be able to provide an alternative tall target, so he gives options and has a lot of utility value.
 
Knightmare said:
There is a definite chance of that. Who that is? Not yet sure.

Could it be Macrae? Powell? McInnes maybe?

I find there are mids who slip more years than not.



You can only take what is available to you.

I'm not seeing any (worthwhile) KPPs making it through to 14/16.

Collingwood would need to take one late draft. A Callow or Baldwin as two examples.

Reef may also be able to provide an alternative tall target, so he gives options and has a lot of utility value.
Click to expand...
Constantly taking mids is why we are not going to achieve anything
 
Seedsfan said:
Constantly taking mids is why we are not going to achieve anything
Click to expand...

Collingwood in my view have very little in terms of young, worthwhile mids. The good mids are vets. Pendles, Adams, Sidebottom on the outside. They're the big 3, then it's pretty hard to identify that next guy. We may see a desperation move such as De Goey, Maynard or Crisp into the midfield, but that leaves other areas of the field exposed. And really overall there is little in the way of good youth given the minimal and insignificant draft involvement Collingwood has had in recent years.

I'd like to be more optimistic about Collingwood's future, but there are deficiencies everywhere. Key position (both ends), could do with a good key forward who can relieve through the ruck, numerous inside midfields are needed, a crumbing forward, another and good general defender.

Collingwood aren't contending in 2021 and didn't add anything to address any of those needs during the trade period, so they're not going to be able to address everything through this draft, with picks even if it's to address a need, just hoping you've found someone who can be good enough to fill that need to a clear best-22 standard.
 
Knightmare said:
Collingwood in my view have very little in terms of young, worthwhile mids. The good mids are vets. Pendles, Adams, Sidebottom on the outside. They're the big 3, then it's pretty hard to identify that next guy. We may see a desperation move such as De Goey, Maynard or Crisp into the midfield, but that leaves other areas of the field exposed. And really overall there is little in the way of good youth given the minimal and insignificant draft involvement Collingwood has had in recent years.

I'd like to be more optimistic about Collingwood's future, but there are deficiencies everywhere. Key position (both ends), could do with a good key forward who can relieve through the ruck, numerous inside midfields are needed, a crumbing forward, another and good general defender.

Collingwood aren't contending in 2021 and didn't add anything to address any of those needs during the trade period, so they're not going to be able to address everything through this draft, with picks even if it's to address a need, just hoping you've found someone who can be good enough to fill that need to a clear best-22 standard.
Click to expand...
Our forwards are all terrible

Our mids are strong we don’t need to go investing 4 first round picks in two years into this area of the field. Adams is 27 so he still has plenty of years ahead of him. JDG is moving into the middle, Josh Daicos has shown plenty and we have a decent prospect in Tyler Brown.

As I said before our forward line is terrible easily bottom 4 in the comp
 
Seedsfan said:
Our forwards are all terrible

Our mids are strong we don’t need to go investing 4 first round picks in two years into this area of the field. Adams is 27 so he still has plenty of years ahead of him. JDG is moving into the middle, Josh Daicos has shown plenty and we have a decent prospect in Tyler Brown.

As I said before our forward line is terrible easily bottom 4 in the comp
Click to expand...

I totally agree Collingwood's front half is bottom 4 in the comp. It would be getting close to dead last if De Goey moves into the midfield now that Stephenson has been traded.

Daicos is exclusively outside. He doesn't have the contested side to his game to play inside.

Tyler Brown still has a long way to develop. There are delisted free agents who are better midfielders. I'd take Matthew Kennedy from the delisted free agent pile ahead of Brown. Brown to his credit came from a long way back and has done well to even earn games, but he's still a depth standard guy. It's a worry that he needs to play senior footy, and this was before Treloar was traded. Even minutes adjusted, he's still a sub 15 disposal per game and sub 2 tackles per game. That's awful for a mid! He needs to improve significantly to be worth retaining over the long run.
 
Am I crazy for thinking that Winder could be drafted in the first round? He just seems like the type of high upside talent that a team like Richmond would love to take and develop.
 
Harlequin Dream said:
Am I crazy for thinking that Winder could be drafted in the first round? He just seems like the type of high upside talent that a team like Richmond would love to take and develop.
Click to expand...
The criteria for being taken in the first round is not simply to have that quality, but to be in the top tier of a larger group of players who have the high upside talent.
 
Harlequin Dream said:
Am I crazy for thinking that Winder could be drafted in the first round? He just seems like the type of high upside talent that a team like Richmond would love to take and develop.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard anything on him going first round. I like him on talent any time outside the first round.

I rate Winder highly though. Top-30 on my board.
 
Knightmare said:
I totally agree Collingwood's front half is bottom 4 in the comp. It would be getting close to dead last if De Goey moves into the midfield now that Stephenson has been traded.

Daicos is exclusively outside. He doesn't have the contested side to his game to play inside.

Tyler Brown still has a long way to develop. There are delisted free agents who are better midfielders. I'd take Matthew Kennedy from the delisted free agent pile ahead of Brown. Brown to his credit came from a long way back and has done well to even earn games, but he's still a depth standard guy. It's a worry that he needs to play senior footy, and this was before Treloar was traded. Even minutes adjusted, he's still a sub 15 disposal per game and sub 2 tackles per game. That's awful for a mid! He needs to improve significantly to be worth retaining over the long run.
Click to expand...
Hi Knightmare, I've enjoyed your analysis over the years and do rate your opinions.

I'm quite interested to hear your take on Collingwoods list management and how the recruiting team should approach the next 2 years. I'm not here to pot Collingwood, I'm genuinely interested to see how the next 2 years play out. So I'd like to put up a couple of hypotheticals to see what you think.

In this years draft, if a bid for McInness comes after the Pies 1st two picks, who do you see them taking with those picks? And given that 13 players have now departed the club, how do you see the make up numbers wise going into next year? Would it be the absolute minimum which I think is 37 + 1 or will they go to the maximum which is is 38 + 6? The reason I ask is that there's obviously cap pressure plus a need to bank space for a tilt at a FA next year. There's a bit of a problem that I can see if the club goes down the 38 + 6 path in that there will only be end of draft and rookie picks to top up to those numbers, remembering that the McInnes bid will wipe out all those later picks. I think I'm right that the DFA period has ended and there's been no incoming players.

Next year I think is going to present the same conundrum. It seems likely even this far out that Nick Daicos is shaping as a #1 pick. If that's the case then all of the Pies later picks will again be moved to the back of the draft (depending on where the Pies finish). There will be more delistings and a few retirements so the list will need replenishing.

Assuming these hypotheticals take place, how on earth are the Pies going to replenish their list and add depth and the prospect/development players with such poor picks. They could end up with 4 first round picks but the rest of their picks are late draft and rookie draft. It's quite possible that there'll be 20 players out over the 2 years. How do they all get replaced?
 
4tune8 said:
Hi Knightmare, I've enjoyed your analysis over the years and do rate your opinions.

I'm quite interested to hear your take on Collingwoods list management and how the recruiting team should approach the next 2 years. I'm not here to pot Collingwood, I'm genuinely interested to see how the next 2 years play out. So I'd like to put up a couple of hypotheticals to see what you think.

In this years draft, if a bid for McInness comes after the Pies 1st two picks, who do you see them taking with those picks? And given that 13 players have now departed the club, how do you see the make up numbers wise going into next year? Would it be the absolute minimum which I think is 37 + 1 or will they go to the maximum which is is 38 + 6? The reason I ask is that there's obviously cap pressure plus a need to bank space for a tilt at a FA next year. There's a bit of a problem that I can see if the club goes down the 38 + 6 path in that there will only be end of draft and rookie picks to top up to those numbers, remembering that the McInnes bid will wipe out all those later picks. I think I'm right that the DFA period has ended and there's been no incoming players.

Next year I think is going to present the same conundrum. It seems likely even this far out that Nick Daicos is shaping as a #1 pick. If that's the case then all of the Pies later picks will again be moved to the back of the draft (depending on where the Pies finish). There will be more delistings and a few retirements so the list will need replenishing.

Assuming these hypotheticals take place, how on earth are the Pies going to replenish their list and add depth and the prospect/development players with such poor picks. They could end up with 4 first round picks but the rest of their picks are late draft and rookie draft. It's quite possible that there'll be 20 players out over the 2 years. How do they all get replaced?
Click to expand...

I covered the topic on YouTube 'The fundamental list management mistakes Collingwood have made and need to learn from'. That will give my most complete view, and in the description below I summarise all those lessons that can be learnt if you don't want to look through it all. But basically, Collingwood have made a lot of mistakes and need to learn from the mistakes they've made.

Who the Pies look at with 14/16 if a bid on Reef comes later. They'll probably be hoping two of: Cox, Reid, Bruhn, Macrae, Chapman, Carroll and Cook slide through.

I imagine with all the players moving on that Collingwood will look to use all the list spots. Collingwood tend to prefer having fewer senior listed players and more rookies, and I'd expect that trend to continue.

I doubt Daicos is the top pick. Jason Horne looks like that clear standout at this stage. Daicos could be that number 2 guy, and seems like a top-5 pick if the draft was held today.

There will be trade and free agency opportunities over the coming seasons. If Collingwood are to improve, utilising those opportunities have to play a part.

I know clubs, fans and the media are obsessed with building through the draft, but building just through the draft isn't enough. To build, converting trades and free agency pickups is every bit as important, and more important in the short term to success.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

G
Phantom Draft Goodoil's Phantom Draft
2 3
Replies
68
Views
8K
Futbolista
Futbolista
DQ 4EVER
Phantom Draft Phantom Drafts Advent Calendar
Replies
2
Views
771
RedmanWasHere
RedmanWasHere
Davo-27
Phantom Draft Davo-27's 2025 Draft Thread
2 3
Replies
65
Views
5K
RedmanWasHere
RedmanWasHere
G
Club Focus Goodoil's Draft Grades
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Richo83
R
I Wouldnt But Greenwood
Struzyna & Doecke 2024 Phantom Draft Edition.
Replies
22
Views
2K
THE_GUN
THE_GUN
Michaels
Phantom Draft AFL 2024 1st Round Mock Draft - No trades or Bids, from the Tigercast crew.
Replies
2
Views
1K
RUNVS
RUNVS
PMBangers
Draft Expert PMBangers 2024 Draft Thread and psuedo general draft discussion apparently
17 18 19 20 21
Replies
523
Views
79K
Yoda_
Yoda_

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top