Draft Watcher Knightmare's 2017 Draft Almanac

[Richo83]

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.

Fremantle needed to add to Darcy for the same reason Richmond needed to add to Nankervis. If you think Richmond needed to add to their ruck stocks (and you have) then Fremantle needed to do the same.

Plus, I know Sandilands is still on the list, but he's not getting any better. He's nearly 35 and just did his hamstring twice, which isn't ideal.

 

[hammer63]

Hi KM
A few numbers for you from TAC 2017

Disposals
C Parish - 525
D Henderson - 514
G Nagle - 471
B Bernacki - 451

Kicks
B Caluzzi - 281
A Domic - 277
M Lloyd - 254
G Nagle - 249

Handballs
C Parish - 281
D Henderson - 269
B Bernacki - 226
G Nagle - 222

Marks
G Nagle - 110
Q Montanaro - 110
A Domic - 109
J Butts - 105





On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Knightmare]

People want to read that their club knocked it out of the park, whether or not it did, and despite this being unknowable until several years down the track.

Fans of clubs do want that feeling of renewed hope, and clubs will no doubt try to sell their fans on those new guys drafted, in the hope of selling tickets/memberships.

At the end of the day though, more than half of the players picked won't be long term players. So giving all clubs a rosy review and saying each club nailed it and maximised the value of each selection isn't realistic.

KM - I think your method of rating a draft is fine, so long as people understand your method. The only way it could be improved would be to consider who else they could have taken if they were drafting for a need.

If u want to validate your rankings, you could go back over your previous rankings and then note the players you ranked much higher and lower than clubs did. Then work out how often clubs were right and how often you were right. If you can show that you are right more often than clubs then it shows that using your rankings to assess a draft is justified.

Doing this in a systematic manner would also help to make your case as a recruiter. It would be easy to do as the data is there given you've been doing power rankings for a few years now. And each year you have players ranked much higher/lower than other phantom drafters, and much higher/lower than clubs.

I've built my cases over the years. Claiming Ben Brown was a first round talent in 2010 (undrafted) and still having him on my draft board in 2011 (again undrafted.

There are a lot of players taken early in the first round I did not approve of going so high: Josh Schache and Sam Weideman I though was taken too early. Same goes for: Paul Ahern, Corey Ellis, Nathan Freeman, Ben Lennon, Jon O'Rourke, WHE, Buntine, Sumner, Gorringe, L.Cook and Tape for some top of mind. I'm sure someone could go back and find where I rated these guys if they have the time and interest.

While rating a lot of players much higher than their eventual draft positions who have gone on to have much better careers than pro scouts expected. For a few top of mind: Jack Steele, Connor Blakely, Oscar McDonald, Matt Crouch, Tom Langdon, Brodie Grundy, Tim Membrey, Jack Darling, Scott Lycett and Luke Parker.

The last paragraph I've for fun done: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/knightsight-hinesight-and-hindsight.1182775/

So nobody can comment unless they have a similar paid gig?

That doesn't sound reasonable to me. And I dare say KM would agree that it doesn't make his work exempt from critique from his readership.

It would be pretty boring if I was just talking to myself without any engagement or discussion.

There is a reason once upon a time I joined this forum.

Honestly your draft wrap is absolutely ******ed . I now have zero respect for your input . To have Hawthorn ranked so high as they traded themselves out with O’Meara and had a few late selections that no one else wanted is laughable . Carlton bent over Adelaide and GWS in the trade period and repositioned themselves strongly in this draft. To even rank draft performance before any of these kids have played a game makes me laugh . Honestly going by your profile I just see you as a squibby winger that couldn’t win his own ball lol


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

The piece is not about who walked out of the draft with the best players but who maximised the value acquired with their choices.

I also completed a trade period review where I gave Carlton a positive review on the back of the acquisition of Matthew Kennedy who I view as a really good mid.

As a Carlton supporter Im not overly happy with our selections after Dow. It seems to me we have taken the rest too early. I also think SOS and co have liked and made their minds up on players so early and havent changed regardless of their development this year. Examples are Obrian after his 2016 form and he had already been at the club as part of a AFL Academy program and they spoke to Garlett in June and he didnt have an outstanding season in WA afterwards.
I think we moved gibbs on and positioned ourselves in the draft to take these players well before anyone else rather than picking best avaliable. I would have liked Fogarty or Higgins at 10. Knightmare do you think we still could have got Obrian at 30 and Dekonig at 70 if thats what we liked and then got a draft haul of Dow, Fogarty, Obrian and then the others we liked afterward?
I agree with being wary of taking pure outside players at 10 and taking punt with Garlett on main list instead of Rookie.

It's an interesting comment with regard to taking a liking to certain players and not changing their perspectives. That's something I've long felt with West Coast, and will be something I'll have to look into more with Carlton. It's certainly a potentially valid comment looking at this years draft prospects.

O'Brien coming into the season was highly touted, and De Koning is another who this time last year also was more highly regarded than he has been this season - playing in the U17 match during grand final week. O'Brien struggled to improve or plays as strongly due to injury and De Koning in some respects similar, though I wasn't as keen on what he was doing late last year.

O'Brien certainly would have been taken by pick 30. He was in the frame as a possible for Sydney at 14 (who were looking for pace) with Brisbane at 18 possibly taking him over Starcevich if there. So he most likely would still have gone top 20.

De Koning on the other hand may have gone in the 40s, maybe 50s, had Carlton not taken him at 30.

Jarrod Garlett in the WAFL was only ok. He still provided run, but his numbers were pretty meh with a season high of 22 disposals and four games of 10 or less disposals.

 

[HedgeFund]

He may be high-quality vanilla.

Connoisseur Classic Vanilla?

 

[Richo83]

Who's changed their tune?

Higgins was vanilla, now he's high quality vanilla. And now you're defending him against accusations he's poor quality. A critic to a convert in a few days!

Not sure what high quality vanilla even means anyway. If he's high quality then he's not... vanilla.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Connoisseur Classic Vanilla?

Yes please.

Higgins was vanilla, now he's high quality vanilla.

And this is a contradiction?

And now you're defending him against accusations he's poor quality. A critic to a convert in a few days!

He may be high-quality vanilla. We'll have to wait and see.

Not sure what high quality vanilla even means anyway. If he's high quality then he's not... vanilla.

Clearly you don't understand the norms governing the assertion of vanilla.

 

[HedgeFund]

Hi KM
A few numbers for you from TAC 2017

Disposals
C Parish - 525
D Henderson - 514
G Nagle - 471
B Bernacki - 451

Kicks
B Caluzzi - 281
A Domic - 277
M Lloyd - 254
G Nagle - 249

Handballs
C Parish - 281
D Henderson - 269
B Bernacki - 226
G Nagle - 222

Marks
G Nagle - 110
Q Montanaro - 110
A Domic - 109
J Butts - 105





On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Excellent. I see you have done some research and dig up some stats to support your argument.

You just haven’t managed to make one yet.......

 

[Knightmare]

I completely agree. Richmond used to view the national draft as a place where they'd find talent to plug into their side eventually and used the rookie draft to find ready made players to plug holes on the list. It meant Richmond drafted a bunch of journeymen with AFL experience in the rookie draft without actually taking the rookie draft on its merits. Since embracing the rookie draft and trying to pick the best available, they've found guys like Lambert who are good solid players. Simply put, you can merely treat it as an extension of the national draft if you want to.

Ultimately, there are some clubs looking to find players to plug into their 22, some are finding players to plug holes on their lists, some are looking to find the best talent no matter what they need.

Some treat the national and rookie draft separately, but my view is, especially in a weak draft as this (and drafts always get better and worse as teams figure out who was their gems and potatoes) you should pick best available, given we're up to the dregs. No point trying to cover for injury if the guy you picked isn't AFL standard. There are a lot of players currently on offer who will fill out a team's depth chart who nevertheless aren't good enough.

One criticism of kinghtmare's approach is it ignores club needs a bit and puts too much weight into later picks. Fremantle's later picks were all very late and often the difference between the 60th and 80th picks on many boards is small. The bigger importance will be their two early picks, and I think they did well.

I worry about Cerra, sometimes he looks like Pendlebury, other times I think he shows the intensity and aggression of someone closer to Toumpas. But he's a nicely balanced midfielder and will provide balance in a midfield where sometimes, it's either filled with pacy outside types like the Hill brothers or inside grunt like Neale and Mundy who in my eyes has lost a little of his polish. Cerra might help glue those two aspects of the midfield together.

My general offseason approach is: Trade and take free agents with a view towards filling list needs and gaining best 22 players. If you go into the draft with limited picks, so be it. If you need depth, target opposition veterans who can still play to a best 22 standard and aren't wanted to gain experience/leadership. There are these every season - Brent Harvey last year as one obvious example, same with Sam Mitchell, Jimmy Bartel should have gotten offers. Luke Hodge this year was an incredible get. Those are the types of guys I'd bring in.

From there. Draft the best available talent and look for projected best 22 players or players with the scope to develop into best 22 players. Avoiding project players who haven't got the numbers behind them.

That's a rough guideline I'd be approaching each offseason with, if I want to go about improving a list.

Hey Knightmare. Just for the fun of it, what would have given Carlton an A or A+ instead of a D+, in your view.
I'd like to have it on record.........just for fun:

#03 - Dow................ =
#10 - O'Brien............ =
#30 - De Koning........ =
#70 - Schumacher..... =
#78 - Garlett............. =

Thanks in advance.

I have an ongoing tradition of taking on the Collingwood recruiters. I may as well take on the challenge of the Carlton recruiters next

Always up for the fun of competing against the pros.

Straight from my power rankings

3 - LDU (2)
10 - D.Fogarty (6)
30 - Constable (14)
70 - Jordan Butts (20)
78 - Parish (29)

Always interesting to come back to in a couple of years to see how things are going.

You had him at 19 in August, 20 in July, 20 in June, 19 in May, in your power rankings. That is your personal ranking of the players, yeah?
http://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/...ft-power-rankings-august-aaron-naughton-rises

19 indeed at that stage in going back. He was playing some good school footy (kicking bags of goals) for a while there. As he returned from school footy and I saw him again in the TAC Cup, that's where Naish dropped quickly down my draft board.

 

[Knightmare]

Hi KM
A few numbers for you from TAC 2017

Disposals
C Parish - 525
D Henderson - 514
G Nagle - 471
B Bernacki - 451

Kicks
B Caluzzi - 281
A Domic - 277
M Lloyd - 254
G Nagle - 249

Handballs
C Parish - 281
D Henderson - 269
B Bernacki - 226
G Nagle - 222

Marks
G Nagle - 110
Q Montanaro - 110
A Domic - 109
J Butts - 105

On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

It speaks to how dominant Parish is.

The critical things to note are:
1: games missed through school footy
2: games missed due to injury
3: games missed due to U18 champs

Overall, to draw the best conclusions, averages per game eg. disposals per game, are best.

 

[Richo83]

My general offseason approach is: Trade and take free agents with a view towards filling list needs and gaining best 22 players. If you go into the draft with limited picks, so be it. If you need depth, target opposition veterans who can still play to a best 22 standard and aren't wanted to gain experience/leadership. There are these every season - Brent Harvey last year as one obvious example, same with Sam Mitchell, Jimmy Bartel should have gotten offers. Luke Hodge this year was an incredible get. Those are the types of guys I'd bring in.

From there. Draft the best available talent and look for projected best 22 players or players with the scope to develop into best 22 players. Avoiding project players who haven't got the numbers behind them.

That's a rough guideline I'd be approaching each offseason with, if I want to go about improving a list.

That's exactly our point though, you can do that in both the rookie and national drafts and it makes sense.

 

[Richo83]

And this is a contradiction?

Vanilla generally refers to a player without any standout attributes. How can you be high quality without any standout attributes?

 

[HARKER]

Straight from my power rankings

3 - LDU (2)
10 - D.Fogarty (6)
30 - Constable (14)
70 - Jordan Butts (20)
78 - Parish (29)

Always interesting to come back to in a couple of years to see how things are going.

Always interesting to look back but sometimes it's the sum of the parts that make the difference, rather than for the parts alone.

We have a Knightmare vs SOS battle on hand. Good luck.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Vanilla generally refers to a player without any standout attributes. How can you be high quality without any standout attributes?

Easily.

Clearly you don't know how vanilla works.

 

[hammer63]

It speaks to how dominant Parish is.

The critical things to note are:
1: games missed through school footy
2: games missed due to injury
3: games missed due to U18 champs

Overall, to draw the best conclusions, averages per game eg. disposals per game, are best.

C Parish - Disposals - 525 - 19 Games
D Henderson - 514 -18 Games
G Nagle - 471 - 18 Games
B Bernacki - 451 - 18 Games


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Warwick]

Of course people want to hear their club killed it on the night. Who cares how the players turn out - it’s far more important to be rated an A or A+ 30 minutes after the event...

All supporters read their club’s opinions on the players they selected, watch their videos, and accept as gospel their club’s rating of their selected players. These new players give them hope and they believe the hype and see the 2 minute clip of them playing as a true reflection on how they will develop. It always amuses me that the player your club selected is automatically much better than the next guy, for the sole reason your club selected him.

As soon as people hear their club rated all 5 of their selections in the top 10 players in the draft they immediate believe they’ve killed it. That’s why they get so upset when someone has a differing opinion. Of course club’s rate players differently. Of course they rate the players they’ve picked highly - otherwise they wouldn’t have picked them!

It amuses me to see salty supporters in here argue for a better rating from one man’s opinion. “Did you not see his highlights video?” “Our recruiters judged him as the 4th best player on the night and we got him at 46!” “I’ve never paid any attention to him before but now that my club selected him I’ve read elsewhere that he is an elite kick with elite speed! Why don’t you agree with that??” “I’ve already put him in my teams best 22 so why don’t you think he will be a first team player immediately??”

Keep up the good work KM. It will be pretty boring if you stop giving honest opinions just because you might upset someone.

 

[aussierulesrules]

He may be high-quality vanilla.

Well true vanilla (as opposed to the cheapo stuff you get at supermarkets and probably most processed foods) is the 2nd most expensive spice after saffron, so it can't be all bad!

 

[Warwick]

Take for instance Brandon Starcevich. Wasn’t expected to go anywhere near the top 30-40 and we took him at 18.

Apparantely he was rated at #10 by our recruiters (Rayner @ 1 and Bailey @ 8). I’ve seen his 3 minute highlight video now. Wow! Looks an absolute gun!! Fast, strong, capable by foot. A real bull. Tested well. Popular with his teammates. Our recruiters have said how happy they are to get him. He’s stoked to be heading over. Family link at the Lions. I can already picture a spot for him in our best 22 over the next 18-24 months.

Wait, why are oppositions supporters not seeing what a great selection this was!!? Go and watch his video again! Read the articles on our website! You’ll be sorry you missed him.

Change your mind KM and give us an A+ immediately!

 

[Richo83]

Easily.

Clearly you don't know how vanilla works.

Name me a high quality vanilla AFL player.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Name me a high quality vanilla AFL player.

Trent Cotchin.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You’ll be sorry you missed him.

We'll poach him in two years.

 

[Oscarman]

Of course people want to hear their club killed it on the night. Who cares how the players turn out - it’s far more important to be rated an A or A+ 30 minutes after the event...

All supporters read their club’s opinions on the players they selected, watch their videos, and accept as gospel their club’s rating of their selected players. These new players give them hope and they believe the hype and see the 2 minute clip of them playing as a true reflection on how they will develop. It always amuses me that the player your club selected is automatically much better than the next guy, for the sole reason your club selected him.

As soon as people hear their club rated all 5 of their selections in the top 10 players in the draft they immediate believe they’ve killed it. That’s why they get so upset when someone has a differing opinion. Of course club’s rate players differently. Of course they rate the players they’ve picked highly - otherwise they wouldn’t have picked them!

It amuses me to see salty supporters in here argue for a better rating from one man’s opinion. “Did you not see his highlights video?” “Our recruiters judged him as the 4th best player on the night and we got him at 46!” “I’ve never paid any attention to him before but now that my club selected him I’ve read elsewhere that he is an elite kick with elite speed! Why don’t you agree with that??” “I’ve already put him in my teams best 22 so why don’t you think he will be a first team player immediately??”

Keep up the good work KM. It will be pretty boring if you stop giving honest opinions just because you might upset someone.

Great post. Everyone wants some kind of validation these days. Not sure why they can't show faith in their recruiters.

 

[Knightmare]

C Parish - Disposals - 525 - 19 Games
D Henderson - 514 -18 Games
G Nagle - 471 - 18 Games
B Bernacki - 451 - 18 Games


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

There are a few with similar disposal numbers per game to Parish.

What Parish has over those guys is the sheer % that comes in the contest and how many clearances he has. 133 clearances and 261 contested possessions has the others fairly comprehensively beat.

Take for instance Brandon Starcevich. Wasn’t expected to go anywhere near the top 30-40 and we took him at 18.

Apparantely he was rated at #10 by our recruiters (Rayner @ 1 and Bailey @ 8). I’ve seen his 3 minute highlight video now. Wow! Looks an absolute gun!! Fast, strong, capable by foot. A real bull. Tested well. Popular with his teammates. Our recruiters have said how happy they are to get him. He’s stoked to be heading over. Family link at the Lions. I can already picture a spot for him in our best 22 over the next 18-24 months.

Wait, why are oppositions supporters not seeing what a great selection this was!!? Go and watch his video again! Read the articles on our website! You’ll be sorry you missed him.

Change your mind KM and give us an A+ immediately!

Starcevich has all the tools (acceleration from the contest, lowers his eyes and is skilled, strong body). He just needs to find more of the footy, more often, and improve his endurance.

His average of 14.3 disposals per game in the WAFL colts (a weaker competition than the TAC Cup) is why I rated him where I did.

 

[HedgeFund]

C Parish - Disposals - 525 - 19 Games
D Henderson - 514 -18 Games
G Nagle - 471 - 18 Games
B Bernacki - 451 - 18 Games


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Pardon our ignorance, but what’s your point?

 

[benfica]

so you really think liam ryan was an astute pick seems a reach too me remember he could have been snatched up last yr as a rookie

 

[big_bazza]

Hey KM great work as usual mate, what are your thoughts on the swans 3 picks? i was a bit shitty about is getting Ling initially especially whilst Higgins was still available and the fact that most people had him going around piks 20-30 but after watching his highlights he looks like a very likely type. Who would you compare him to out of current players?

Im quite happy with McCartin and im bloody rapt with Stoddart, from his highlights he reminds me a bit of Jayden Hunt, what are your thoughts on Stoddart as a player and where did you have him being picked up ?

cheers mate