Draft Watcher Knightmare's 2015 Draft Almanac

[Knightmare]

Knightmare did you see the Vic Country practice matches against NSW and QLD yesterday, if so who were the better performers.

I don't even have any information on when/where any of the practice matches are, let alone who performed strongly.

If anyone has the details as to when the practice matches are on/where to find out let me know as I'd be interested in attending!

Aaron young is a good example , though would be hard to pry loose. About to get an extended run with ollie out , and Cornes to be rested through the year and then finish so a spot is definitely there for young and having seen his form this year he will quickly establish himself in a young side that has every chance to play finals for a few years. Very under-rated young prospect in the mainstream though so is a good example of a type teams should be chasing.

I like Young's game having watched all Port Adelaide's NAB Challenge and now H+A season games so far, and last season I was really starting to take note of him.

I am bummed out about that Wines injury for exactly the reason you outlined, it will give Young greater midfield opportunity and with that extended midfield run I can see him pushing ahead of some other guys in the pecking order once Port Adelaide realise that he is one of the clubs very best players.

In terms of Young's game. Great height for a mid, excellent skills, very good athlete, can go forward and hit the scoreboard and is a big time contested ball winner, even though he isn't strongly built. Young for me can become a very good inside mid for any team and is someone who to this point has been grossly underutilised by Port Adelaide I'd say - though I'd say the same of a lot of players on a lot of teams where my evaluation of their talent is different to what they're seeing. Collingwood this year it seems is the most drastic example of this with half of the reserves players, players I would prefer to see play seniors relative to those actually playing seniors.

 

[Falco]

I don't even have any information on when/where any of the practice matches are, let alone who performed strongly.

If anyone has the details as to when the practice matches are on/where to find out let me know as I'd be interested in attending!



I like Young's game having watched all Port Adelaide's NAB Challenge and now H+A season games so far, and last season I was really starting to take note of him.

I am bummed out about that Wines injury for exactly the reason you outlined, it will give Young greater midfield opportunity and with that extended midfield run I can see him pushing ahead of some other guys in the pecking order once Port Adelaide realise that he is one of the clubs very best players.

In terms of Young's game. Great height for a mid, excellent skills, very good athlete, can go forward and hit the scoreboard and is a big time contested ball winner, even though he isn't strongly built. Young for me can become a very good inside mid for any team and is someone who to this point has been grossly underutilised by Port Adelaide I'd say - though I'd say the same of a lot of players on a lot of teams where my evaluation of their talent is different to what they're seeing. Collingwood this year it seems is the most drastic example of this with half of the reserves players, players I would prefer to see play seniors relative to those actually playing seniors.

Sounds like a really good player for Port once Cornes retires. What do you think we would need to pony up to get him? Third rounder?

Tom Mitchell is another talented mid that everyone puts up as a possible target. I can't help but think that he might be getting frustrated with Heeney's arrival and the possible arrival of Mills and Dunkley.

At the end of the day, WC needs to trade out some players for picks and rebuild our midfield like you've mentioned, either through recruiting mids from other teams in the right age bracket, or by drafting this year and next. We need speed, skills and bigger bodies around the contest. But bringing that in is probably going to be at the cost of established players - that might take some convincing amongst the club's heirarchy.

I think Ah Chee and Clark would be great for our first/second rounders. If we get Matera (hopefully he grows a bit taller), we have Jake Waterman coming through next year who we can grab along with KPP/rucks to build that part of our list.

 

[Knightmare]

Sounds like a really good player for Port once Cornes retires. What do you think we would need to pony up to get him? Third rounder?

Tom Mitchell is another talented mid that everyone puts up as a possible target. I can't help but think that he might be getting frustrated with Heeney's arrival and the possible arrival of Mills and Dunkley.

At the end of the day, WC needs to trade out some players for picks and rebuild our midfield like you've mentioned, either through recruiting mids from other teams in the right age bracket, or by drafting this year and next. We need speed, skills and bigger bodies around the contest. But bringing that in is probably going to be at the cost of established players - that might take some convincing amongst the club's heirarchy.

I think Ah Chee and Clark would be great for our first/second rounders. If we get Matera (hopefully he grows a bit taller), we have Jake Waterman coming through next year who we can grab along with KPP/rucks to build that part of our list.

Third round picks are only good for players who don't get a game every week.

Young I feel is worth a first round pick and you'd be lucky with an early 2nd round pick, even if he requested a move to take him. With likely other clubs also surely wanting him, with Victorian clubs likely to be more his preference if he was to move. But he is more an example of the type of player who is worthwhile targeting as an underutilised player, who in a more prominent role could be a difference-maker.

Mitchell if he doesn't find his way into that Sydney best 22, I can't see any reason as to why he would want to stay. Then Sydney have young developing mids such as George Hewett, Harrison Marsh, Daniel Robinson. So perhaps one of them could be other considerations outside of Mitchell, if deemed likely best 22 players for West Coast by seasons end based on their performances this season.

The key for West Coast in my view in making that upward progress. Kids just aren't going to get it done. West Coast aren't such outstanding when it comes to drafting talent. And the club has also had trouble attracting opposition talent, but that's what needs to happen, with established players rather than kids more important to winning and building a winning team.

 

[philthy05]

Sounds like a really good player for Port once Cornes retires. What do you think we would need to pony up to get him? Third rounder?

Tom Mitchell is another talented mid that everyone puts up as a possible target. I can't help but think that he might be getting frustrated with Heeney's arrival and the possible arrival of Mills and Dunkley.

Lol no. On the port board we were worried young might leave this past off-season for more opportunities but signed on. I don't know when that deal expires. Has done a long apprenticeship but is about to get a lot of opportunity with wines out and Cornes resting and about to finish. Fully expect he is going nowhere , but if he did I think he would be sought after, his days of being under rated are evaporating.

I think sydney are going to be heavily targeted with their young inclusions coming in. The idea that Goodes leaving frees up their cap is overblown I think. No way you can be paying 2'key forwards 1.8 mil (1/5th of the cap) and not be tight. I would think Goodes space has already been somewhat allocated.

 

[Falco]

Third round picks are only good for players who don't get a game every week.

Young I feel is worth a first round pick and you'd be lucky with an early 2nd round pick, even if he requested a move to take him. With likely other clubs also surely wanting him, with Victorian clubs likely to be more his preference if he was to move. But he is more an example of the type of player who is worthwhile targeting as an underutilised player, who in a more prominent role could be a difference-maker.

Mitchell if he doesn't find his way into that Sydney best 22, I can't see any reason as to why he would want to stay. Then Sydney have young developing mids such as George Hewett, Harrison Marsh, Daniel Robinson. So perhaps one of them could be other considerations outside of Mitchell, if deemed likely best 22 players for West Coast by seasons end based on their performances this season.

The key for West Coast in my view in making that upward progress. Kids just aren't going to get it done. West Coast aren't such outstanding when it comes to drafting talent. And the club has also had trouble attracting opposition talent, but that's what needs to happen, with established players rather than kids more important to winning and building a winning team.

The problem you've picked up on has ruined the last 7 years. Our recruiting post the 05/06 years missed the mark. Once our midfield from that period was all gone, we've failed to really replace them in any way, shape or form. We also have the conundrum of being unattractive to the VIC players for trades due to the distance and relocation issues. We're almost damned into drafting from everywhere but only be able to trade for WA talent who wants to come home. Its not an ideal situation.

But we need to bite the bullet and make some tough decisions. Duggan, Waterman, Yeo and Sheed are the future. Here's hoping our recruiters start looking at the players who can't get a game as 20/21/22 year olds and try to lure them over. I'd be interested to know what others assess the value of some of the players on our list as.

 

[Falco]

Lol no. On the port board we were worried young might leave this past off-season for more opportunities but signed on. I don't know when that deal expires. Has done a long apprenticeship but is about to get a lot of opportunity with wines out and Cornes resting and about to finish. Fully expect he is going nowhere , but if he did I think he would be sought after, his days of being under rated are evaporating.

I think sydney are going to be heavily targeted with their young inclusions coming in. The idea that Goodes leaving frees up their cap is overblown I think. No way you can be paying 2'key forwards 1.8 mil (1/5th of the cap) and not be tight. I would think Goodes space has already been somewhat allocated.

Sydney's going to have to move some talent on as you said. But the problem for WC is luring them West. Marsh is easier because he's a WA boy, but his numbers in the NEAFL havent been awesome so this season is crucial for him. What Port has done in the last 4-5 seasons has been commendable, many a WC supporter wish we had done a similar thing and drafted and developed as well as you guys have.

 

[philthy05]

That's the thing, if you can't draft well it's a lot harder to recruit players to a club outside vic, unless you have a good side and the chance to win is a good lure. So it's catch 22. In order to trade in well you first have to draft well.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Knightmare - traditionally you very much subscribe to a "pick key forwards early (first round) or not at all" system. I'm curious to know whether that viewpoint is beginning to soften.

The likes of Ben Brown, Matt Taberner, Josh Walker, Mason Wood and Corey Gault are starting to show some attributes that have them in the discussion as capable - or better - key forwards, and all were taken quite late (some in the rookie draft). Meanwhile looking at the early key forward stocks in some of the recent drafts that can be realistically rated right now (2007-2010), there's been a relatively low strike rate - Jarrad Grant (pick 5, 2007), Jack Watts (pick 1, 2008), Ty Vickery (pick 8, 2008), Lewis Johnston (pick 12, 2008), Ayce Cordy (pick 14, 2008), Mitch Brown (pick 15, 2008), Ryan Schoenmakers (pick 16, 2008), John Butcher (pick 8, 2009), Sam Day (pick 3, 2010) and Lucas Cook (pick 12, 2010) are all looking like they won't reach their potential. Many of them don't look like justifying the number at which they were taken (some already haven't). In the years from 2011 to 2014 that strike rate does look to have improved but it's probably worth mentioning that the types taken here were largely dominant, unquestionably competent types (Patton, Boyd, Hogan, Daniher, McCartin) - plus, it's a bit too early to call regardless.

Recent trends seem to indicate that you're unlikely to find that genuine superstar key forward outside the first one and a half rounds or so, but there does seem to be some value in the later guys that are a little bit speculative. It's hardly an overwhelming body of evidence but the names that are starting to emerge would surely convince some recruiters to have a closer look at these lesser-rated key forward types.

 

[TradeDraft]

I see in your Recent Mock Draft Knightmare you have pies going for Mids and a Small in 1st 2 Rounds.

I thought drafting a KPF would be 1 of our Highest Needs we have

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare - traditionally you very much subscribe to a "pick key forwards early (first round) or not at all" system. I'm curious to know whether that viewpoint is beginning to soften.

The likes of Ben Brown, Matt Taberner, Josh Walker, Mason Wood and Corey Gault are starting to show some attributes that have them in the discussion as capable - or better - key forwards, and all were taken quite late (some in the rookie draft). Meanwhile looking at the early key forward stocks in some of the recent drafts that can be realistically rated right now (2007-2010), there's been a relatively low strike rate - Jarrad Grant (pick 5, 2007), Jack Watts (pick 1, 2008), Ty Vickery (pick 8, 2008), Lewis Johnston (pick 12, 2008), Ayce Cordy (pick 14, 2008), Mitch Brown (pick 15, 2008), Ryan Schoenmakers (pick 16, 2008), John Butcher (pick 8, 2009), Sam Day (pick 3, 2010) and Lucas Cook (pick 12, 2010) are all looking like they won't reach their potential. Many of them don't look like justifying the number at which they were taken (some already haven't). In the years from 2011 to 2014 that strike rate does look to have improved but it's probably worth mentioning that the types taken here were largely dominant, unquestionably competent types (Patton, Boyd, Hogan, Daniher, McCartin) - plus, it's a bit too early to call regardless.

Recent trends seem to indicate that you're unlikely to find that genuine superstar key forward outside the first one and a half rounds or so, but there does seem to be some value in the later guys that are a little bit speculative. It's hardly an overwhelming body of evidence but the names that are starting to emerge would surely convince some recruiters to have a closer look at these lesser-rated key forward types.

This is a topic I really hoped someone would bring up.

My viewpoint has not softened with the first round or not at all regarding key forwards, but my theory regarding key forwards has changed somewhat and has to a degree introduced a different set of criteria into play.

Where my perspective with key forwards has changed somewhat over the years is really in terms junior production which may be the most important criteria. Sam Day as an example. As a junior, he actually had really poor numbers. But it was just assumed looking at his physical profile and attributes that he could elevate his game. And it's from this learning that it doesn't happen that way, that I put my stock more into key forwards "with first round quality performance." In hindsight it shouldn't really be all that surprising that he is still the low production player he was as a junior.

My categories that I look at with key forwards and think of it as a rating out of 3, or one point in each category.
Production (are they taking lots of marks, kicking lots of goals?), talent (specifically do they have points of difference? - be it contested marking ability? ground level ability? etc) and upside (are they improving year on year and at a rapid rate?). 1 point if they completely tick that box, 0.5 if they partially tick that box, and 0 if they don't at all.

Joe Daniher is one example of a recent draftee where in this formula he came out on top. On production he was having some big games - sometimes 10+ shots on goal, other games with 10+ marks, so clearly he could perform, so in that category he would score 1/1. For talent - you're looking at a 200cm guy who can take a grab at the highest point and also has the ground level skills of a small, again 1/1 for talent because when he has it going, you can't defend that. Then upside - he missed time in previous years and showed improvement over the course of the season and that his progress was on an upward curve, again 1/1 for a total of 3/3.

Based on this points rating system:
3/3 equals your franchise level key forward - Matthew Pavlich, Nick Riewoldt, Jon Brown, Lance Franklin etc.
2.5/3 equals your Tom Hawkins, Jack Riewoldt, Drew Petrie, Jay Schulz level talents where they're really high level key forwards.
2/3 equals your Kurt Tippett, James Podsiadly, Josh Jenkins where they're pretty good and you'd like to have them on your team.

Then if guys rate below the 2/3 standard, they're not much worth considering. With key position players all about quality over quantity, as it's no good having 5/6 key forwards, with none of them able making a difference to winning.

So you could phrase it more as less of an obsession over draft position and how everyone else evaluates talent, but more a strict assessment on the quality of the key forward and determining whether they are of a suitable level of talent to be worth taking, so that you are taking your first round quality key forwards or the cream of the crop.

This way I feel it still adequately respects the understanding that the good key forwards come early - primarily in the first round or through father son, with the odd prelisted/zone selection or however they come. Otherwise there are a small few who came second round - K.Tippett, Carlile, maybe someone else. Then Justin Westhoff a little older and James Podsiadly as a much older guy or Josh Jenkins not coming from AFL coming into things later/rookie.

But as it should be with all draft evaluations, it shouldn't be so much copying what others think, but rather backing in your evaluation, but also know what you're looking for. And the formula I have created for key forwards is the way I sort out the genuine AFL quality talent from the state league or local level footballers to determine whether they are good enough.

 

[Knightmare]

I see in your Recent Mock Draft Knightmare you have pies going for Mids and a Small in 1st 2 Rounds.

I thought drafting a KPF would be 1 of our Highest Needs we have

Ignore who is going where. I'm just putting forward some names at this point.

Also worth noting. Not always are needs perfectly filled through the draft. Clubs also utilise trade week (or trade two weeks), as well as free agency to fill needs.

Personally I'm an advocate of going into trade week/free agency to fill the needs, then take purely and simply the best guy there in the draft.

So I'm not really so interested in matching players to clubs that need such a specific type. As 18 year olds generally aren't the best way to fill immediate needs, with 18/19 year olds almost always still developing players who require time before they become AFL game relevant.

 

[TradeDraft]

Ignore who is going where. I'm just putting forward some names at this point.

Also worth noting. Not always are needs perfectly filled through the draft. Clubs also utilise trade week (or trade two weeks), as well as free agency to fill needs.

Personally I'm an advocate of going into trade week/free agency to fill the needs, then take purely and simply the best guy there in the draft.

So I'm not really so interested in matching players to clubs that need such a specific type. As 18 year olds generally aren't the best way to fill immediate needs, with 18/19 year olds almost always still developing players who require time before they become AFL game relevant.

Yeah - The Draft is not always the way to fill needs as you can’t 100% bank on a Prospect being there unless you have a top 3 pick Really.

Trade Week is the best way to fill needs is Trade but also depends on who is on the Trade Table as well

 

[Two Planks]

Trade Week is the best way to fill needs is Trade but also depends on who is on the Trade Table as well

After last year everyone is on the table.

 

[Yoda_]

Needs more ruckman Knighta

 

[TradeDraft]

After last year everyone is on the table.

Well - That is IF you can get the Player to Publicly announce where they want to go

 

[Knightmare]

Needs more ruckman Knighta

Over the next few updates a lot of the ruckmen will be edged out as I'm discovering other, better talents.

For ruckmen I think it might be time to start looking abroad for some genuine 7 footers.

The game seems so much so, to be going in the direction or big guys playing like smalls as I'm sure people are starting to notice with 200cm key position players and 190cm midfielders now. So it's a different game.

But in saying that there will still always been room for a good genuine ruckman if they bring the right game.

 

[Yoda_]

Over the next few updates a lot of the ruckmen will be edged out as I'm discovering other, better talents.

For ruckmen I think it might be time to start looking abroad for some genuine 7 footers.

The game seems so much so, to be going in the direction or big guys playing like smalls as I'm sure people are starting to notice with 200cm key position players and 190cm midfielders now. So it's a different game.

But in saying that there will still always been room for a good genuine ruckman if they bring the right game.

It's not inconceivable to have those rare types playing in the ruck. The 195 - 199 guys who can run and jump.

Pretty much a taller midfielder gain? What Kruezer should have been before injury curtailed his strengths

 

[Knightmare]

It's not inconceivable to have those rare types playing in the ruck. The 195 - 199 guys who can run and jump.

Pretty much a taller midfielder gain? What Kruezer should have been before injury curtailed his strengths

You'll always have your Stefan Martin type exceptions, where they bring a unique take to the position and find other ways to be effective, even sub 2m and still be effective. No denying that, and you can't overlook a talent when they're so good at what they do, even if they don't fit the traditional model.

But the 7 foot ruckman - with a large proportion of those to come internationally is my expectation of the evolution of the position in years to come.

 

[Lana]

You'll always have your Stefan Martin type exceptions, where they bring a unique take to the position and find other ways to be effective, even sub 2m and still be effective. No denying that, and you can't overlook a talent when they're so good at what they do, even if they don't fit the traditional model.

But the 7 foot ruckman - with a large proportion of those to come internationally is my expectation of the evolution of the position in years to come.

Besides Sandilands, and Smith to a lesser extent. I can't think of any other larger (205cm+) ruckmen who are more then serviceable. They seem to be too poor around the ground for a small benefit in the clearences. What makes you think that the taller ruckmen is the future?

 

[Knightmare]

Besides Sandilands, and Smith to a lesser extent. I can't think of any other larger (205cm+) ruckmen who are more then serviceable. They seem to be too poor around the ground for a small benefit in the clearences. What makes you think that the taller ruckmen is the future?

Understanding and watching lots of college basketball particularly. There is just such an incredible amount of 7 footers. And those that don't get careers in the NBA or in Europe. There are enough of them. The AFL would be a logical destination for those still hoping to play a sport professionally.

If you're 213cm+, have a substantially longer wingspan than current AFL ruckman and you're athletically superior to current day ruckmen as many of those big American's are, it's going to be hard for your current day ruckman to get a hitout let alone a hitout to advantage. In 10 years time, I envisage a competition where half the game is filled with international ruckmen. It probably takes longer, but I see no reason why that can't happen some time in the near future.

Outside of Dean Cox and last year Stefan Martin, there really haven't been and aren't that many ruckmen who beyond just getting a hitout are that useful around the ground, other than the odd mark forward of centre - it's an exaggeration, but the point remains, they're hardly extra midfielders. So get these guys dominating the hitouts and pushing forward and taking marks. And that's plenty. Then you'll have your 200cm forwards who can relieve as that other ruckman.

Every position is progressively over time getting taller. You're seeing it with midfielders, defenders, key position players. Ruckmen we've also seen it, but just not yet to the extreme I'm suggesting. But it will happen, I am confident. It's only a question of when.

 

[Lana]

Understanding and watching lots of college basketball particularly. There is just such an incredible amount of 7 footers. And those that don't get careers in the NBA or in Europe. There are enough of them. The AFL would be a logical destination for those still hoping to play a sport professionally.

If you're 213cm+, have a substantially longer wingspan than current AFL ruckman and you're athletically superior to current day ruckmen as many of those big American's are, it's going to be hard for your current day ruckman to get a hitout let alone a hitout to advantage. In 10 years time, I envisage a competition where half the game is filled with international ruckmen. It probably takes longer, but I see no reason why that can't happen some time in the near future.

Outside of Dean Cox and last year Stefan Martin, there really haven't been and aren't that many ruckmen who beyond just getting a hitout are that useful around the ground, other than the odd mark forward of centre - it's an exaggeration, but the point remains, they're hardly extra midfielders. So get these guys dominating the hitouts and pushing forward and taking marks. And that's plenty. Then you'll have your 200cm forwards who can relieve as that other ruckman.

Every position is progressively over time getting taller. You're seeing it with midfielders, defenders, key position players. Ruckmen we've also seen it, but just not yet to the extreme I'm suggesting. But it will happen, I am confident. It's only a question of when.

I'm not an expert about collage basketball, but I've been following the US combines, the guys they have brought over to the local draft combine have mostly been very athletic 198cm tall (I guess that's why none were drafted).

Cox seems to be the exception so far, while I don't know about the progress he's made this pre-season but he looked way too skinny, like he'll take a couple of years in the gym before he's big enough for his height, it's a big ask to draft a guy in his mid 20s and wait that amount of time for him to get his body right before you can even test him at the appropriate level, all the time you're risking that he doesn't leave due to homesickness. Maybe with a little more exposure and a few success stories they'd get better prospects testing out.

If Holmes or Wallace make the grade we'll see an uplift in teams looking to the states but at the moment only a third of the clubs even send someone to the US combine, ten years seems quite optimistic. Their games in the NABC were promising for a first hitout but no different from any locally sourced tall who was selected for there height and not there skills. They are currently 3-4th inline at there clubs and I can't see them getting a game anytime soon.

I do think that you're giving ruckmen too little credit, while they aren't racking up 20 disposals a week, there interactions around the ground can give one side a large advantage over the other. When one teams ruckmen gets involved and the other doesn't you can see the difference when you watch the game. As a Geelong supporter whose team hasn't been able to cobble a decent ruck division together since 2012(baring the a five week period in 2013 when Simpson looked like he'd fulfill his potential and the first five weeks in 2014 when both Simpson and McIntosh played together without being injured), I've seen it happen a little too much and putting your taller KPFs in the ruck is no substitute. The KPFs might be getting close to ruckmen height but the body shape of a KPF at 200cm and a Ruckmen at 200cm is completely different.

 

[Yoda_]

You're underselling Paddy Ryder a bit here Knightmare

Talking about internationals. Essendon has one (You g Connor McKenna) I've disappointed we haven't tried to go after a U.S. Tall ourselves. Would cost us very little, would be outside the usual list and would give us another opportunity to fill both a need and an opportunity to find some top end talent.

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

34. Adelaide – Mitch Antonio (WA – MID/FWD)
Height: 186.4cm, Weight: 62kg, DOB: 18/03/1997
Recruited from: West Perth
Range: 25-rookie
Profile: Light bodied but damaging player.

He is 75kg's

 

[Knightmare]

I'm not an expert about collage basketball, but I've been following the US combines, the guys they have brought over to the local draft combine have mostly been very athletic 198cm tall (I guess that's why none were drafted).

Cox seems to be the exception so far, while I don't know about the progress he's made this pre-season but he looked way too skinny, like he'll take a couple of years in the gym before he's big enough for his height, it's a big ask to draft a guy in his mid 20s and wait that amount of time for him to get his body right before you can even test him at the appropriate level, all the time you're risking that he doesn't leave due to homesickness. Maybe with a little more exposure and a few success stories they'd get better prospects testing out.

If Holmes or Wallace make the grade we'll see an uplift in teams looking to the states but at the moment only a third of the clubs even send someone to the US combine, ten years seems quite optimistic. Their games in the NABC were promising for a first hitout but no different from any locally sourced tall who was selected for there height and not there skills. They are currently 3-4th inline at there clubs and I can't see them getting a game anytime soon.

I do think that you're giving ruckmen too little credit, while they aren't racking up 20 disposals a week, there interactions around the ground can give one side a large advantage over the other. When one teams ruckmen gets involved and the other doesn't you can see the difference when you watch the game. As a Geelong supporter whose team hasn't been able to cobble a decent ruck division together since 2012(baring the a five week period in 2013 when Simpson looked like he'd fulfill his potential and the first five weeks in 2014 when both Simpson and McIntosh played together without being injured), I've seen it happen a little too much and putting your taller KPFs in the ruck is no substitute. The KPFs might be getting close to ruckmen height but the body shape of a KPF at 200cm and a Ruckmen at 200cm is completely different.

The AFL just need a better pool of guys at the combines and until they attract those numerous 7 footers there will only be the one or maybe two picked each year.

Generally as with anything, once something works, everyone tries to replicate it. And it will take Mason Cox to bring something new to the game to realise "hey, wouldn't it be neat to have a 213cm ruckman!" and then everyone plays copycat. Doesn't mean it will be Mason specifically, though it very well may be as he is putting in the work. But given the nature of those international rookies, it's a free hit, so why not get on board is the way I see it. Particularly with the nature of the position being less about accumulating/skill and generally more height and brute strength, with a few here and there capable forward of centre and fewer capable around the ground.

And when that Mason Cox or similar makes it, here's hoping for the AFL that more guys decide to give it a crack and turn up at the combines.

With regard to your extreme tall key forwards playing ruck. If it's 10-15% game time, I'm not much worried who steps in. Jake Carlile, Joe Daniher, Jon Patton, Thomas Boyd, Kurt Tippett, Josh Jenkins, Drew Petrie, Charlie Dixon, Mitch Clark, Mark Blicavs, Sam Grimley and Peter Wright. There is a lot of these guys and there will only be more in the future. For that small portion of game time, these types are more than sufficient as mainly forwards who can also ruck. They all bring different assets to the table but can all do the job for a different set of seasons in each case, whether it's pushing forward or back and taking a grab or finding it around the ground or whatever it is.

But obviously you'd want someone who can be a lead ruck be it your Aaron Sandilands type monster or a Stefan Martin who finds the footy in general play. You can do it either way as long as they're dominant at what they do.

 

[Knightmare]

You're underselling Paddy Ryder a bit here Knightmare

Talking about internationals. Essendon has one (You g Connor McKenna) I've disappointed we haven't tried to go after a U.S. Tall ourselves. Would cost us very little, would be outside the usual list and would give us another opportunity to fill both a need and an opportunity to find some top end talent.

I never mentioned Ryder so I'm not sure how I'm underselling him?

He is fine as a ruckman. Not best few in the competition with Jacobs, Naitanui, S.Martin, Goldstein and Sandilands all clearly better. But Ryder would be among those next few.

34. Adelaide – Mitch Antonio (WA – MID/FWD)
Height: 186.4cm, Weight: 62kg, DOB: 18/03/1997
Recruited from: West Perth
Range: 25-rookie
Profile: Light bodied but damaging player.

He is 75kg's

The measurements are all out of date and as per the op 2014 measurements so that's something I'm aware about.

I'll likely update the measurements when the u18 champs and those figures come out, unless I get a more accurate and up to date list.