Draft Watcher Knightmare's 2017 Draft Almanac

[rog1995]

Out of curiosity where did you have Patrick Cripps in your power rankings in his draft year? Or Nat Fyfe?
You gave Freo a D after getting two of the best mids in the draft bcause of there late selections? Makes absolutely no sense and I'm afraid you've lost some credibility.
Don't think we can judge draft outcomes just yet. These are purely based on one person's opinion.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

WC went one better. They took two tall forwards. Check mate.

However to be fair, you took 2 x high quality forwards ......by #13 there really wasn't a quality mid to take, so i understand the needs for mids .......but poor quality mids wouldn't help you, so high quality talls was a win IMHO

 

[HedgeFund]

You gave Freo a D after getting two of the best mids in the draft bcause of there late selections? Makes absolutely no sense and I'm afraid you've lost some credibility.

Don't think we can judge draft outcomes just yet. These are purely based on one person's opinion.

Rating a draft or judging draft outcomes 24 hours after clubs select untried players is the epitome of futility. I don’t know why you would bother doing it. Simply diminishes credibility of the author IMO.

I think the issue with what KM (and Pie 4 Life, Bishop, etc.) are seeking to do professionally is place PERCEPTION and PREDICTION up against ultimate REALITY.

Frankly, I feel too much of the AFL “journalistic” industry is opinion based and grounded in perceptions, not reality. Maybe that’s because they have to justify their existence a little. I’m not criticising the part timers who operate here, more the full time mainstream (uh-um) football journalists who write pointless articles designed as click bait because there’s nothing much going on from day-to-day

Fact is, with this 2017 National draft the REALITY was far different to the opinion of many, including KM. Seeking to rate a draft when your perception of the value of the players is so markedly different (and thus wrong, or at least at odds with the 100 full time recruiting staff what actually do this stuff for real) can to some extent come across as sour grapes - ie. clubs didn’t get it right because they didn’t pick them as I see them.

It’s a bit like a right wing journalist critiquing a left wing government’s legislation (which happens everyday), or vice versa. If you fundamentally disagree with the policy itself, then your critique is likely to be biased against the reality of what has occurred.

Truth is 75 players have AFL homes for at least two years, with another 50-odd to get smiles on their faces tomorrow night. We should all be happy for that fact, and criticising a club’s approach to the draft through a D+ Rating analysis doesn’t do anyone any favours, least of all the author themselves.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

It's all around value per pick and assessing the performance of each club based on those available at the picks. Understanding in the grading that if you enter the draft in the 40s, you're expecting someone rated closer to that point. Whereas those with high end picks, it's judging based on those alternatives available and whether they took the best player there or not.

Fremantle didn't pick duds with Cerra or Brayshaw. Nor did Carlton with Dow. Brayshaw was sub-optimal value given the other options available (based on my analysis) and those players picked later by Carlton and Fremantle didn't do anything for me, with all those other players chosen outside my top 60 power rankings.

Firstly, thank you for putting yourself out there.

I,, and I am sure many other AFL club supporters, follow the game passionately and love the BF banter and discussion about what each of our clubs are doing to get better in the off-season. So yes we will often not agree.

What your reply says is that there are subjective ratings that you and other draft watchers come up with of the players available, and then this is compared to what each club takes at its available picks.

Geelong having 4 Picks starting in the 20’s rated better because Constable, L Fogarty and others slid. Port rated better because Hayes slid to its first pick at 47, etc.

Carlton you say Dow is where he should be, but then the recruiting effort rated worse because Carlton ‘went early’ on O’Brien at 10 - ‘top of his range’ - and the other picks ‘did nothing for you’. Fremantle did what it was expected to do in getting 2 of the Top 5 rated players at its first 2 picks and then lost their way after that with 6 other selections.

Some salient points for you to consider:

- every club bar Essendon passed on Hayes before the Power’s Pick 47. Some had several opportunities.
- 11 clubs passed on Higgins (4 had a second pick and 1 had a third pick) before the Tiger’s Pick 17.
- I think Murphy has good traits but it appears only Collingwood rated him highly enough and they got him at Pick 39.
- Arguably Sydney ‘reached’ for Ling at Pick 14. There is some discussion that it was their fall-back position if O’Brien did not make it to Pick 14. Stoddart in the 50’s may ‘balance out’ the initial ‘reach’.
- Carlton’s Pick 78 for Garlett is a low risk potentially high reward outcome.

I think the nuances are that best available gives way to needs, even for clubs with lists ‘in progress’. One should view the package of all the picks together rather than tick or cross each pick against a prior ranking list.

For Carlton, 4 of the 5 picks are players with pace. All are good kicks. Dow is a top few midfielder which complements Cripps, Kennedy, Murphy, SPS and so on. One has elite endurance, O’Brien might run out games like Gaff. Schumacher similarly is an elite kick and can run. Garlett has pace and conceivably is pushing for Best 22 if he gets with the program. So Carlton got the midfield run and elite kicking with 4 of the 5 picks, but perhaps not the expected ones after its first pick.

De Konning is a really interest pick and I think this is the first year Carlton could have made a selection like this since Silvagni started as list manager. It seems a reach and maybe they thought Essendon or another club was interested in him before Carlton’s next pick ...

The Pick makes sense on a couple of levels:
- he has time to develop and could replace Casboult as forward ruck (Casboult has maybe to the end of his contract at the end of 2019 left).
- He has Lobbe and Phillips to learn from with the ruck craft and McKay, Kerr and others with the forward craft.

He is not a stop / start player so conceivable could transition from forward / ruck to ruck / forward when Kreuzer retires. The point is that this is a 3-5 years proposition. And a good kick too.

Fremantle went for ruck depth with late picks with Jones and Meek.

Just some food for thought in ranking clubs’ draft efforts.

 

[Knightmare]

My preference generally is for analysis.

With that said, I don't believe there is enough debate in the AFL. Anyone else watch ESPN First Take or Undisputed on FS1? I don't know about others, but they're my favourite sports programs to watch, with the focus on the debate, opinions and analysis.


For next year, do you guys think I should just stick to a straight up review as per last year where I did long profiles and how each player would fit? Should I simply do summary profiles as per my phantom draft to give a quick insight into each player? And just add the few that weren't in my phantom?

Maybe with a draft winners/losers piece I extend my power rankings and use a mathematical formula based on my power rankings to determine how positive or otherwise a draft was? And then just add whether the players fill the clubs list needs?

You guys are my readers. So I'd be interested in taking feedback for next year and what you'd most like to read.

 

[Knightmare]

Firstly, thank you for putting yourself out there.

I,, and I am sure many other AFL club supporters, follow the game passionately and love the BF banter and discussion about what each of our clubs are doing to get better in the off-season. So yes we will often not agree.

What your reply says is that there are subjective ratings that you and other draft watchers come up with of the players available, and then this is compared to what each club takes at its available picks.

Geelong having 4 Picks starting in the 20’s rated better because Constable, L Fogarty and others slid. Port rated better because Hayes slid to its first pick at 47, etc.

Carlton you say Dow is where he should be, but then the recruiting effort rated worse because Carlton ‘went early’ on O’Brien at 10 - ‘top of his range’ - and the other picks ‘did nothing for you’. Fremantle did what it was expected to do in getting 2 of the Top 5 rated players at its first 2 picks and then lost their way after that with 6 other selections.

Some salient points for you to consider:

- every club bar Essendon passed on Hayes before the Power’s Pick 47. Some had several opportunities.
- 11 clubs passed on Higgins (4 had a second pick and 1 had a third pick) before the Tiger’s Pick 19.
- I think Murphy has good traits but it appears only Collingwood rated him highly enough and they got him at Pick 39.
- Arguably Sydney ‘reached’ for Ling at Pick 14. There is some discussion that it was their fall-back position if O’Brien did not make it to Pick 14. Stoddart in the 50’s may ‘balance out’ the initial ‘reach’.
- Carlton’s Pick 78 for Garlett is a low risk potentially high reward outcome.

I think the nuances are that best available gives way to needs, even for clubs with lists ‘in progress’. One should view the package of all the picks together rather than tick or cross each pick against a prior ranking list.

For Carlton, 4 of the 5 picks are players with pace. All are good kicks. Dow is a top few midfielder which complements Cripps, Kennedy, Murphy, SPS and so on. One has elite endurance, O’Brien might run out games like Gaff. Schumacher similarly is an elite kick and can run. Garlett has pace and conceivably is pushing for Best 22 if he gets with the program. So Carlton got the midfield run and elite kicking with 4 of the 5 picks, but perhaps not the expected ones after its first pick.

De Konning is a really interest pick and I think this is the first year Carlton could have made a selection like this since Silvagni started as list manager. It seems a reach and maybe they thought Essendon or another club was interested in him before Carlton’s next pick ...

The Pick makes sense on a couple of levels:
- he has time to develop and could replace Casboult as forward ruck (Casboult has maybe to the end of his contract at the end of 2019 left).
- He has Lobbe and Phillips to learn from with the ruck craft and McKay, Kerr and others with the forward craft.

He is not a stop / start player so conceivable could transition from forward / ruck to ruck / forward when Kreuzer retires. The point is that this is a 3-5 years proposition. And a good kick too.

Fremantle went for ruck depth with late picks with Jones and Meek.

Just some food for thought in ranking clubs’ draft efforts.

Hayes I viewed as good value, but he wasn't someone I rated inside my top 20 (27 in my personal power rankings) to feel he was the greatest of all draft day bargains.

With regard to Brayshaw. While many rated him top 5. I had him at 8 in my own power rankings, viewing him a reach at 2.

De Koning was in my view the greatest draft day reach. He is not one I viewed as appropriate to select in the national draft. I certainly wouldn't have had him inside my top 80 power rankings if I was to extend it out, and probably not top 100 either. His marking is that poor that I just can't justify his selection, and certainly not that high. I don't see a position he replaces anyone. Can't take a grab up front which makes him a liability, and not strong enough or dominant enough through the ruck.

As for Fremantle drafting depth ruckmen late. The national draft is about targeting players who can improve your best 22. Sean Darcy projects as Fremantle's clear number one ruckman going forward. If you want injury cover and depth, that's what the rookie draft is for.

 

[GoGrows]

My preference generally is for analysis.

With that said, I don't believe there is enough debate in the AFL. Anyone else watch ESPN First Take or Undisputed on FS1? I don't know about others, but they're my favourite sports programs to watch, with the focus on the debate, opinions and analysis.
.

damn. they suck, those shows are terrible. they try to come up with hot takes for the sake of it.

Skip Bayless, Stephen A Smith etc etc. They're all the same.

The best analysis and in depth discussion happens on podcasts, not ESPN shows.

 

[GoGrows]

Rating a draft or judging draft outcomes 24 hours after clubs select untried players is the epitome of futility. I don’t know why you would bother doing it. Simply diminishes credibility of the author IMO.
.

Rubbish.

Everyone is like "this is crap, because its just your opinion"

of course its one person's opinion. what is wrong with that?

what would you rather do? ignore the aftermath and only discuss the draft 4yrs down the track when we know who is good or not?

There are many examples of players sliding and at the time, pundits were amazed that the player slided, Grundy for example.

It's fine to rate a draft immediately, just as long as one recognises that it is still a subjective exercise.

 

[Chris25]

As for Fremantle drafting depth ruckmen late. The national draft is about targeting players who can improve your best 22. Sean Darcy projects as Fremantle's clear number one ruckman going forward. If you want injury cover and depth, that's what the rookie draft is for.

Not really. There's hardly a separation between the senior and rookie lists anymore. Gone are the days when you padded out your list with rookies. I imagine the concept of rookies will be gone in a few years time.

Late round picks are for depth, value and players you don't think will make it to the rookie draft. Hence, Scott Jones who was linked to Essendon predraft. Sandilands will retire in one year, leaving Sean Darcy and nobody else. Given we delisted two ruckmen this year, I'd have been disappointed if we didn't draft more. And if anything, the value in late round picks is with ruckmen because they don't go early. So someone like Lloyd Meek as the #2 player in his position is available late. It's a better drafting plan than taking someone like Cassidy Parish as the 70th ranked midfielder.

 

[GoGrows]

So someone like Lloyd Meek as the #2 player in his position is available late. It's a better drafting plan than taking someone like Cassidy Parish as the 70th ranked midfielder.

Not if Parish is more likely to contribute to your team than Meek is.

 

[HedgeFund]

The national draft is about targeting players who can improve your best 22.

If you want injury cover and depth, that's what the rookie draft is for.

This is where I, and at least 4 people I know who work in AFL recruiting will fundamentally disagree with you.

There’s no black and white approach to how/what clubs should do with their trades/ ND/ RD selections. Each is entitled to approach each draft as they see fit. That’s why they get paid the big bucks.

If you think you’re in the “premiership window” perhaps you trade aggressively to get established players in to fit your needs (eg. Richmond 2016). You may then view the ND as a process to select longer term talent, and perhaps the Rookie draft to get a project player. However surely there’s no hard and fast rule is there?

To approach drafting with a rigid view that ND picks are supposed to improve your best 22 and rookies are depth/injury cover ignores the REALITY of 30 years of draft history.

Great players can emerge from trades into fresh environments (eg. Josh Kennedy, Sam Jacobs, Eddie Betts, Shaun Burgoyne) and rookie selections (D. Cox, Priddis, M. Boyd, Sewell, Kirk, Jack, Barlow, Milne, etc.).

Conversely, ordinary players can come from high ND picks (would be rude to name them).

Clubs can pick up gems late in the draft and in the rookie draft who can walk straight into your best 22. History is littered with examples of this.

Alternatively, they can select players who need more time to develop with high ND picks, and back their coaching staff to get the player near his peak in 5 - 7 years instead of 2-3.

 

[Chris25]

Not if Parish is more likely to contribute to your team than Meek is.

Well for starters, Parish can't kick. So I wouldn't want him near Peel, let alone Fremantle. But that was my fault for using a bad example.

But in a years time, Meek could be the primary backup at his position and even challenging Darcy. Parish would probably be 4th or 5th in line as a depth midfielder. Potentially, neither end up contributing. But at least one is valuable to a team overall and that's a win for someone picked in the 60s or 70s.

 

[GoGrows]

Well for starters, Parish can't kick. So I wouldn't want him near Peel, let alone Fremantle. But that was my fault for using a bad example.

But in a years time, Meek could be the primary backup at his position and even challenging Darcy. Parish would probably be 4th or 5th in line as a depth midfielder. Potentially, neither end up contributing. But at least one is valuable to a team overall and that's a win for someone picked in the 60s or 70s.

Forget about the names. And i dont disagree at all with you that it was wise for Freo to draft a ruck. I was opposing your view that a team is better off picking the #2 rated ruck over the #70 ranked midfielder.

 

[HedgeFund]

what would you rather do? ignore the aftermath and only discuss the draft 4yrs down the track when we know who is good or not?.

You’ve argued my point beautifully - “when we know who is good or not”.

I’m not suggesting we ignore the reality, but rating it is bullshit. Accept it, and then by all means analyse what the players should bring to the list.

Then, in 1 or 2 years’ time you can then point out what the players HAVE brought to the list.

Anyhow, you have your opinion, as does KM and myself as well.

 

[Cleric]

There were some bargin pick ups in my eyes.
Richmond could have the gun in CCJ.
Crows with Fogerty at 12.
Essendon with Houlahan.
WC with Petrucelle.
Port with Garner and Barry.

Was pretty surpised that no one took Parish. He fits that big inside mid that every club is hard over and can get the ball. Would expect him to go in the rookie draft.

 

[Cleric]

Well for starters, Parish can't kick. So I wouldn't want him near Peel, let alone Fremantle. But that was my fault for using a bad example.

But in a years time, Meek could be the primary backup at his position and even challenging Darcy. Parish would probably be 4th or 5th in line as a depth midfielder. Potentially, neither end up contributing. But at least one is valuable to a team overall and that's a win for someone picked in the 60s or 70s.

I think Parish can work on his kicking. Matt Crouch had knocks on him over his kicking but this year it was sublime at times.

 

[richoatthedisco]

Nope.

Numbers not enough averaging only 19 disposals in the TAC Cup and not winning enough of the contested ball. Skills lack consistency. Overall there are plainly others I much prefer based on performance.

I ask because he was in and around your top 20 all season, so to fall out of your top 50 post-season is a massive shift. Do you often re-rate players so dramatically once the season is over?

On his numbers, you yourself stated 'impact per possession' as a strength, which is backed by his elite metres gained and significant goal kicking ability.

Collingwood had players they rated at 3 and somewhere around 6 with picks 6 and 38... I suspect they are not alone in the feeling that Collingwood secured value, with the majority of phantom drafters predicting Murphy would feature inside the first round

Regardless of whether phantom drafters had Murphy in the first round, fact is not one real drafter took him inside the second.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Hayes I viewed as good value, but he wasn't someone I rated inside my top 20 (27 in my personal power rankings) to feel he was the greatest of all draft day bargains.

With regard to Brayshaw. While many rated him top 5. I had him at 8 in my own power rankings, viewing him a reach at 2.

De Koning was in my view the greatest draft day reach. He is not one I viewed as appropriate to select in the national draft. I certainly wouldn't have had him inside my top 80 power rankings if I was to extend it out, and probably not top 100 either. His marking is that poor that I just can't justify his selection, and certainly not that high. I don't see a position he replaces anyone. Can't take a grab up front which makes him a liability, and not strong enough or dominant enough through the ruck.

As for Fremantle drafting depth ruckmen late. The national draft is about targeting players who can improve your best 22. Sean Darcy projects as Fremantle's clear number one ruckman going forward. If you want injury cover and depth, that's what the rookie draft is for.

Thanks KM.

I understand you need to do a rating and I appreciate that it is a subjective exercise.

You have seen more of De Konning than I have. Is he a competitor? How did he go against CCJ, Hayes and others? He had thumb injuries and a lacerated kidney, does that affect how we might view him?

With later Picks I do not agree that it is about improving the Best 22 straight away. It may well be a 2-4 years prediction, or a speculative pick that comes off or it doesn’t. It is about building depth on the list and that is certainly something Carlton hasn’t had for a few years.

Just a quick recap:
- Carlton’s 5 picks from 2015 are all best 22. Perhaps Harry McKay needs to develop a little more and Cuningham and Jack SOS might have competition for their spots.
- Carlton’s 6 picks from 2016 has SPS, Fisher and Williamson already in the best 22 and perhaps Fisher has competition for his spot. Macreadie is developing nicely and is on the fringes of the Best 22 due to KPD depth and his relatively slight frame for a tall, and Polson and Kerr are developing nicely. Kerr was a signicant slider on your rankings last year ...

Focusing on movements of 18+ (an entire round) against your November Power rankings you had:

Balta at 6 went 25
Constable at 14 went 36
Petty at 16 went 37
Crossley at 17 went 52
Ballard at 18 went at 43
Ballenden at 19 went at 43
Butts at 20 undrafted

And in your extended rankings you had:

Worpel at 23 went 45
Paton at 24 went 46
Hayes at 27 went 47
Cassidy Parish at 29 undrafted
H Brayshaw at 44 went 68
D Moore at 48 went 67
And a few others undrafted including Thomson, Schloithe and Banfield.

Less notable sliders include Higgins and Allen.

Notable reaches against your power rankings include: o
GWS with Bonar (39/11)
Richards (38/16)
Starcevich (47/18)
Powell (not top 50/19)
Walker (not top 50/23)
De Konning (not top 50/30)

And less notable reaches are Stephenson, Coffield, A Brayshaw, Brander and O’Brien.

So, FWIW, I suggest you move away from benchmarking against your rating of the prospective draftees, and perhaps go for an ‘overall impression’ in terms of each clubs needs / list strategy, and if the draftees are likely to play in the Best 22 in the next year, or have some way to go.

 

[swansfan51]

In the space of 24 hours this went from a "weak draft" to one where almost every team killed it and is happy with all the future superstars they got in the 30s, 40s and 50s. Was the draft a lot stronger than we heard, or are people just completely delusional?

My money is on B, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[raffrox]

You’ve argued my point beautifully - “when we know who is good or not”.

I’m not suggesting we ignore the reality, but rating it is bullshit. Accept it, and then by all means analyse what the players should bring to the list.

Then, in 1 or 2 years’ time you can then point out what the players HAVE brought to the list.

Anyhow, you have your opinion, as does KM and myself as well.

These are some of my thoughts as well. Admit that measuring the draft is an inexact science and try not to put a precise measurement on it two days later

It can not be done well. Not without Marty McFly and Doc Brown. Otherwise no team would have draft busts. Have an opinion, sure. But admit that you are going to have to add a 'fudge factor' because you do not have all the information.

My preference generally is for analysis.

With that said, I don't believe there is enough debate in the AFL. Anyone else watch ESPN First Take or Undisputed on FS1? I don't know about others, but they're my favourite sports programs to watch, with the focus on the debate, opinions and analysis.


For next year, do you guys think I should just stick to a straight up review as per last year where I did long profiles and how each player would fit? Should I simply do summary profiles as per my phantom draft to give a quick insight into each player? And just add the few that weren't in my phantom?

Maybe with a draft winners/losers piece I extend my power rankings and use a mathematical formula based on my power rankings to determine how positive or otherwise a draft was? And then just add whether the players fill the clubs list needs?

You guys are my readers. So I'd be interested in taking feedback for next year and what you'd most like to read.

The issue I have is creating a mathematical formula that rates teams is when the initial measurement used to gather this data is slightly flawed. It's like me finding the wooden ruler I had in year 4 and using this to do the measurements to build a house. No matter how complex the house is, it will be seriously flawed.

Unless you are going for the cliche 'being controversial so people pay attention to you' routine precisely measuring something so inexact is something that will certainly have the chance to leave you exposed and doesn't do justice to the work you do.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Thanks KM.

I understand you need to do a rating and I appreciate that it is a subjective exercise.

You have seen more of De Konning than I have. Is he a competitor? How did he go against CCJ, Hayes and others? He had thumb injuries and a lacerated kidney, does that affect how we might view him?

With later Picks I do not agree that it is about improving the Best 22 straight away. It may well be a 2-4 years prediction, or a speculative pick that comes off or it doesn’t. It is about building depth on the list and that is certainly something Carlton hasn’t had for a few years.

Just a quick recap:
- Carlton’s 5 picks from 2015 are all best 22. Perhaps Harry McKay needs to develop a little more and Cuningham and Jack SOS might have competition for their spots.
- Carlton’s 6 picks from 2016 has SPS, Fisher and Williamson already in the best 22 and perhaps Fisher has competition for his spot. Macreadie is developing nicely and is on the fringes of the Best 22 due to KPD depth and his relatively slight frame for a tall, and Polson and Kerr are developing nicely. Kerr was a signicant slider on your rankings last year ...

Focusing on movements of 18+ (an entire round) against your November Power rankings you had:

Balta at 6 went 25
Constable at 14 went 36
Petty at 16 went 37
Crossley at 17 went 52
Ballard at 18 went at 43
Ballenden at 19 went at 43
Butts at 20 undrafted

And in your extended rankings you had:

Worpel at 23 went 45
Paton at 24 went 46
Hayes at 27 went 47
Cassidy Parish at 29 undrafted
H Brayshaw at 44 went 68
D Moore at 48 went 67
And a few others undrafted including Thomson, Schloithe and Banfield.

Less notable sliders include Higgins and Allen.

Notable reaches against your power rankings include: o
GWS with Bonar (39/11)
Richards (38/16)
Starcevich (47/18)
Powell (not top 50/19)
Walker (not top 50/23)
De Konning (not top 50/30)

And less notable reaches are Stephenson, Coffield, A Brayshaw, Brander and O’Brien.

So, FWIW, I suggest you move away from benchmarking against your rating of the prospective draftees, and perhaps go for an ‘overall impression’ in terms of each clubs needs / list strategy, and if the draftees are likely to play in the Best 22 in the next year, or have some way to go.

Being 'best 22' in carltons side is different to being best 22 at other clubs so careful how you judge that

 

[Jeffcrowe]

There were some bargin pick ups in my eyes.
Richmond could have the gun in CCJ.
Crows with Fogerty at 12.
Essendon with Houlahan.
WC with Petrucelle.
Port with Garner and Barry.

Was pretty surpised that no one took Parish. He fits that big inside mid that every club is hard over and can get the ball. Would expect him to go in the rookie draft.

Agree with those bargains and Higgins to tigers / Hayes to Port

Can't see Cassidy tidying up his kicking like Matt C has bit just an opinion

 

[rog1995]

Thanks KM.

I understand you need to do a rating and I appreciate that it is a subjective exercise.

You have seen more of De Konning than I have. Is he a competitor? How did he go against CCJ, Hayes and others? He had thumb injuries and a lacerated kidney, does that affect how we might view him?

With later Picks I do not agree that it is about improving the Best 22 straight away. It may well be a 2-4 years prediction, or a speculative pick that comes off or it doesn’t. It is about building depth on the list and that is certainly something Carlton hasn’t had for a few years.

Just a quick recap:
- Carlton’s 5 picks from 2015 are all best 22. Perhaps Harry McKay needs to develop a little more and Cuningham and Jack SOS might have competition for their spots.
- Carlton’s 6 picks from 2016 has SPS, Fisher and Williamson already in the best 22 and perhaps Fisher has competition for his spot. Macreadie is developing nicely and is on the fringes of the Best 22 due to KPD depth and his relatively slight frame for a tall, and Polson and Kerr are developing nicely. Kerr was a signicant slider on your rankings last year ...

Focusing on movements of 18+ (an entire round) against your November Power rankings you had:

Balta at 6 went 25
Constable at 14 went 36
Petty at 16 went 37
Crossley at 17 went 52
Ballard at 18 went at 43
Ballenden at 19 went at 43
Butts at 20 undrafted

And in your extended rankings you had:

Worpel at 23 went 45
Paton at 24 went 46
Hayes at 27 went 47
Cassidy Parish at 29 undrafted
H Brayshaw at 44 went 68
D Moore at 48 went 67
And a few others undrafted including Thomson, Schloithe and Banfield.

Less notable sliders include Higgins and Allen.

Notable reaches against your power rankings include: o
GWS with Bonar (39/11)
Richards (38/16)
Starcevich (47/18)
Powell (not top 50/19)
Walker (not top 50/23)
De Konning (not top 50/30)

And less notable reaches are Stephenson, Coffield, A Brayshaw, Brander and O’Brien.

So, FWIW, I suggest you move away from benchmarking against your rating of the prospective draftees, and perhaps go for an ‘overall impression’ in terms of each clubs needs / list strategy, and if the draftees are likely to play in the Best 22 in the next year, or have some way to go.

Exactly either the power rankings that are used are severely inaccurate or most AFL recruiters have no idea. I know who id rather trust. I'm sorry but this shows that your obviously not looking at the right areas in you analysis. You also stated that Garlett was not a great selection because we took him in the ND at pick 78? How do you come to that conclusion when SOS clearly stated they have been in dialogue with him since June. A player that was a former pick 15, has been waking up at 5am to train is only 21 and desperatly wants another chance at AFL. Remember he quit AFL to spend time with his terminally I'll brother.

 

[DaveLister]

I think your methodology for grading is poorly thought out and unclear. Saying Fremantle did the worst in the draft from any kind of real world standard is just a bit weird.

This is clearly an in exact science and Sean Darcy says hi to your draft rankings.

Using your exact rankings to determine some kind of mathematical rank is not going to be an accurate representation.

Using a numerical interpretation of a non numerical system is really a square peg round hole situation

 

[Oscarman]

KM thoughts on Charlie Spargo?