Draft Watcher Knightmare's 2018 AFL Draft Almanac

[Bicks]

That is not what I am saying. One example, he was 55 metres out, two teammates were leading into space, he torpedoed it from outside 50 going for goal and it was spoiled across the line. Another example, Charlie Wilson was lining up for goal 40m out going for his fourth - he kicked it btw - and Lloyd ran beside him screaming for the handball. It just wasn't a good look from where I was, and from the torpedo play, two teammates in no uncertain terms questioned his decision making. He is an okay kick, but not elite like you need to be with his outside tendencies. He can make some strange decisions.

In fairness Matty did hit a torp goal from just forward of centre a couple of weeks ago against the Dandy Stingers, had to travel at least 70m.

5.00 Mark

 

[Sarcoidevo]

That is not what I am saying. One example, he was 55 metres out, two teammates were leading into space, he torpedoed it from outside 50 going for goal and it was spoiled across the line. Another example, Charlie Wilson was lining up for goal 40m out going for his fourth - he kicked it btw - and Lloyd ran beside him screaming for the handball. It just wasn't a good look from where I was, and from the torpedo play, two teammates in no uncertain terms questioned his decision making. He is an okay kick, but not elite like you need to be with his outside tendencies. He can make some strange decisions.

Sure and appreciate the insight ... cheers

 

[Knightmare]

Hey KM what's your view on Charlie Wilson and Matty Lloyd from GWV Rebels?

Both had pretty good games on the weekend and seem to be flying under the radar

Do you have any height/weight stats for these two as well?

Thanks

I see them in the late/rookie mix.

Wilson is 180cm/78kg
Lloyd is 185cm/77kg

Wilson is more a marking small who will hit the scoreboard in a big way.

Lloyd is a lot like his brother Jake. Very reliable kick and will find a lot of it but very outside and low impact.

The real grand final in 2016 was the PF against the dogs, Ward was taken out very early, most giants fans would argue had he not been that's the maiden flag.
The following year we lost Shiel very early in the same game, in what was more arguably the real GF.

You are evaluating list management without proper recognition of the the circumstance effecting outcomes relating to that list management.
You have also neglected to mention the dramatic, unforeseeable (to the list management team when making choices) and early end to list concessions that forced us to give away players of note.
I love your work here in general, but respectfully the posts made here reacting to this topic are deficient compared to your normal levels of research.

My comment re. GWS winning 2 by now was solely relating to my prediction from before the club joined the AFL.

Naturally with time I've learnt a lot more about the game and how hard it is to win, how random the results can see sometimes.

That said, the past two years and I'll call it a third year now, for mine GWS on paper have had the best list and best 22 in the competition.

As with any club through the list building process, as I've acknowledge in my earlier posts, some things the club did well, in other ways I've felt the club have not made the most of their chances and made some strategic mistakes. And you name a team and I'll call out in detail where I feel they've gone wrong. No club is 100% right or perfect in their approach and do different things better/worse than the next.

So building a list from scratch and making 2 prelims is a failure in list management?
Your standards are high

Given the concessions - prelisted players, all the picks awarded over two years, mature agers who could be traded, all the zone picks and then academy picks. Absolutely.

Obviously they are doing much better than Gold Coast. Not that GWS have picked better than them, but at least from a list building perspective they have been able to attract a lot more quality opposition talent.

With GWS, few recognise the age profile of their list. They're in 2018 the third oldest team in the competition. Both 2017/2018 they have average ages over 24. With an average age of 24 and with the concessions GWS have and the list they have built. You have to expect premierships. There is no getting out of it. Particularly when you have more former first round and high first round picks on your list than any other club - even before counting prelisted players.

List management doesn't win you premierships. It gets you in the position to win them, it's the coaches, gameplan and mental fortitude that win the day.

Your constant subtle undermining of SOS is pretty odd. i'm guessing you two don't get along?

Anyways it seems you're just being stubborn and not seeing plain common sense because the vast majority of the footy world would rate the gws list as the best in the comp or close to the best at minimum.

They were a couple of kicks from a couple of grand finals and will have another decent run at it this year.

The list build worked.

Perfect and obvious comparison is GC. That build did not work.

Good list management is an essential component to winning premierships. But it's simply one ingredient. Coaching, veteran leadership, fitness staff, the culture being built, playing development. The more of those boxes ticked, as emphatically possible, that puts you in a winning position.

Re. SOS. It is my understanding of the history of the draft that has me at odds with his list management strategy. Where do the great key forwards come? They're in the most part first round picks or father-sons.

I've also had a long standing methodology with key forward identification and based on my pre-draft evaluations, SOS continually adds KPPs who rate poorly.
My formula as I've long shared is as follows:
Production (if they're not producing as juniors, they're not going to at AFL level)
Talent (looking at points of different)
Rate of improvement (year to year improvement is an essential component to successful KPF evaluation)
*Give it a 0/0.5/1 for each KPF.

Further to this. Do you want a dud KPF? What about 15 KPPs with more than 10 of them duds and wasting list positions? Each list position needs to be focused on identifying players to improve your best 22.

I don't consider SOS' methodology regarding drafting of so many KPPs - particularly when you're drafting them with the knowledge they're probably not even going to be best 22 with others already on the list more talented. It defies logic.

SOS has made some sound trade decisions. Bringing in Mumford to GWS was perfect. Likewise Shaw. Full marks. Same goes with bringing in the likes of Ward, Davis and the other young, established players. Full marks.

As with all list managers. SOS does some things well, but other areas he can improve, just as we all can.

Re. GWS' list. They've had the best list in the comp for the past 3 years. This year more than the last two they've more flawed, but still far more talented than any other. I do feel though that the process could have come along quicker. They're key players are in their mid 20s now. They're in that peak performance career stage, so they should be annihilating opponents.

I’ve enjoyed reading your posts over the years but what’s coming through loud and clear now is that you have 2 blind spots. One is Collingwood and the other Carlton. You can’t seem to evaluate either rationally.

Silvagnis logic in building a list is generally a pretty conservative approach. It’s not rocket science. I could go over it but there’s just no point as your mind appears closed. Especially in regards to silvagni who you have been very critical of in the past.

You also make such definitive one dimensional comments about players that it rings alarm bells about your judgement. Some comments above appear way off the mark. One example is MacReadie, one of the more athletic talls in the competition, who always attacks and runs with the ball when taking possession. But no, this guy provides no rebound, full stop. Will he make the grade, l don’t know, but your description appears poor and l can’t understand how someone who applies so much careful logic to the evaluation of draftees suddenly comes up with such simplistic comments.

We all have our biases but it is those that take the time to challenge them who ultimately make the best decisions.

Finally, and l guess lm at fault now, analysis of Carlton’s recruitment is over taking this thread and theres already endless analysis in the Carlton forum. Your views on potential draftees is far more interesting.

On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Regarding the Carlton players identified - I simplified for readability. I don't have the time to put together a player by player thesis. Macreadie I agree with you will show a willingness to run. To be more specific on him not rebounding - it's more out of the lack of ball he finds due to the focus on playing an accountable variety of game. Consider he only had 11 disposals and 2 marks last week in the VFL, 2 disposals the week before. Two of his three other games no more than 10 disposals or three marks.
To be an effective key defender today, you need to be a 100+ mark, 250+ disposal player per 20 games for a rough feel. Macreadie if he plays 20 games would not come close to achieving either of those standards.

I'm more than happy to break down where Collingwood are weak from a list management perspective and what they continue to get wrong, or any other team for that matter.

GWS and Carlton are the two topical teams, so they're the teams I have the opportunity to break down at the moment. SOS having been that major recruiter at both clubs unfortunately is on the other end of my analysis. But that's the way it goes when he's been a part of two of what are currently among the more interesting list management situations.

 

[Knightmare]

There is no one guaranteed strategy of winning a premiership and to allude that your approach will guarantee a flag in 2015 ( ie in their third season of afl football) is both wrong and arrogantly assumes your approach is the best.

Richmond is improving due to confidence in their system and having a deep list full of guys wanting to bust into that side ie a list of 30 players rather than just a best 22. Don't forget it has taken the tiges at least a decade to reach this point.

The basis for the Hawk three peat started before 2008 and specifically that period when they picked up hodge, lewis, buddy, roughhead, mithcell , ellis. This was 2002. They picked up experienced players after their kids had played 100 game each, they had already won a flag, and they had players who wanted to play at the hawks for reasonable salaries. So your hawks example actually disproves your strategy.

Established senior players outside of Sydney would have only wanted to play at GWS if receiving overs so there goes your salary cap. To suggest that you could get enough senior guys to propel the remaining young kids into a premiership in 2015 is mind boggling. Have you considered which foundations kids wouldn't have been there if they had traded some of those picks for experienced talent.

The strategy you suggest sounds like the GCS approach who brought in multiple experienced players - how has that ended?

Finally to suggest that if GWS wins a flag they will become a destination club, like a Hawthorn for example, does not into account the fact, because its not Victoria, they will have to pay overs to get senior players. Additionally I foresee that after they win their first flag it will hasten the number of guys wanting to go home.

Do remember my expectation of 2 premierships as a worst case scenario was my thinking before GWS had played their first game.

Regarding Hawthorn in 2008. They weren't the best team in the competition that year, Geelong were. But Hawthorn did have the leadership in place already. Hodge and Mitchell both were established leaders. They also still had Crawford. They had young up and comers, but also a nice blend of experience and players in that age bracket where they had enough years under their belts to win.

Regarding salary cap squeeze. You build a winner and players will take a discount if you're winning premierships. To ensure there is room to keep the list together, it just means those good players outside the best 22 can be moved.

The issue with GCS list strategy was - they didn't get young established players to grow with their list. They went other than Harbrow with guys who were not young enough to all be around for when they become contenders which was a mistake. Also the veterans they secured I wouldn't regard as the strongest leaders, so they didn't even tick that box with none of those guys coming on board those who help to elevate the games of your youth which is what their value needs to be beyond on field performance to be successful list additions.

We'll have to agree to disagree re. the logic of players wanting to go home after a premiership. If you're winning and potentially winning who knows how many flags in a row. Most in my view would want to stay and be a part of that something historic as GWS were at the time viewed as likely achieving. Not that that has come to fruition.

I used to think the Crows were just amazing drafters. But no team can get it right all the time via the draft. Its clear that they arent just good at identifying talent but they are amazing at developing it.

Lose Bock. Develop Phil Davis.
Lose Davis. Develop Talia.
Develop Lever.
Lose Lever. Develop Doedee.

that's not just a run of good fortune at the draft. that is incredible player development.

Regarding KPP development. Agree entirely about Adelaide. The other club I have in that conversation, though just a smidgen behind Adelaide is West Coast.
Kennedy/Darling/McGovern/McKenzie/Glass/Schofield/Lynch. They've done an incredible job over the years also.

I thought it was interesting that KM said that GWS should have been contending from 2014.

ie, the third season of the Shiel, Cameron, Coniglio group. Whitfield's 2nd season.

Whilst players can be very good by their 3rd season, the reality is that it isn't common. Not everyone develops at the pace of Oliver.

Most guys are reaching their peak by their 7th or 8th season. Which, as it turns out, would be the 2018 season for their initial drafted core.

The guys they brought in are and were seen as being of a quality that they could.

From season one they all were really good. Development not as linear as expected and a lot of them based on their talent really are underachieving.

Historically there are some all-time greats who have achieved their success early on. James Hird as a 22/23 year old played his best football. Michael Voss did as a 19-21 year old. Chris Judd played his best football at 22/23. I agree typically around 24-28 are those absolute peak years, but when we're talking about the quality we're talking about, these are the most elite guys from an all-time loaded draft class in 2011 when you bundle in all the zone and prelisted players. It's a group that on paper looked like it could win earlier, particularly with some already established young players joining them and the thought that others would be able to be recruited in future seasons to join.

 

[ray8182]

Maybe it’s just hard for you to accept the reality of the crisis that your club is in?

When you’ve been around long enough you see crisis’s come and go. Carlton has performed poorly in general for the last 15 years, the previous 25 were very good. That’s life.

StKilda are struggling post rebuild and some see there situation as dire but the reality is things aren’t that bad.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[M Malice]

Hi Knightmare , love your list analysis stuff, if you have the time and inclination do you mind giving me your opinion on the Lions list build starting with the draft in the year the Go Home 5 left ie. 2013.

That particular draft is starting to look like a nailed one for us particularly considering how low the following players were selected- Darcy Gardiner, Daniel McStay, Lewis Taylor, Tom Cutler, Nick Robertson.

What do we still need? Are Conole and Ambrogio doing a good job? When do you see us consistently contending for a top 4 spot?

 

[Davo-27]

Davo told me I'm undraftable

im glad i can be a source of motivation lol

 

[Davo-27]

He had 33 uncontested and 2 contested.

Odd given he actually had 37 touches but that’s what CD reported.

2 possessions were to himself apparently

 

[Knightmare]

Hi Knightmare , love your list analysis stuff, if you have the time and inclination do you mind giving me your opinion on the Lions list build starting with the draft in the year the Go Home 5 left ie. 2013.

That particular draft is starting to look like a nailed one for us particularly considering how low the following players were selected- Darcy Gardiner, Daniel McStay, Lewis Taylor, Tom Cutler, Nick Robertson.

What do we still need? Are Conole and Ambrogio doing a good job? When do you see us consistently contending for a top 4 spot?

2013 - draft - A good draft. Serviceable pieces/role players added but no stars.

To generalise with Brisbane's picks from 2013. I've for the most part felt Brisbane have performed strongly through the drafts and been one of the better drafting clubs during those years. To pick apart what I haven't loved with their drafting has been the taking of key position prospects through the u18s outside the first round. If Brisbane cut that out and just picked those premier KPPs earlier, as they have that opportunity to do having been and still for now being a bottom side, as with Carlton and GWS in my previous examples, that best 22 could be looking further along and more complete with more holes filled.

The list management side relatively is where I considered Brisbane to be weaker out of those two areas.

Loss of talent with players going home has been the major issue - though one that can when Brisbane become a winning team be resolved and see Brisbane transform into a club players want to join rather than leave. (This isn't what I'm blaming Brisbane for)

But rather, age demographic of the list has been the major issue through this time. I don't have the ages in front of me, but Brisbane during that time let go of veteran talent too early and tried to get too young, without adding veteran leadership to help support and fast-track the development of the clubs youth. As a result, it's been hard for Brisbane to gain any meaningful traction during these years. The key failing, and it's an indicator I keep coming back to and believing has among the highest correlations with both winning and the development of youth - during this time (until last offseason with the addition of Hodge) has been veteran leadership. Get a few players like Hodge who can lead and pass on their experience, show the correct training habits, relay the coaches messages on the fly out on the field and the clubs youth would be much further along. Adding Hodge, Brisbane I now regard for the first time in a long time to be finally on the up with more than just Stefan Martin over the age of 28 now.

Whenever Hodge goes. I'd look to continue that momentum and bring in that next someone who can have that similar influence on the playing list to keep the youth developing.

As for positional list needs. I'd like to see another elite key forward added (likely to be through the draft with a top-10 pick). A ruckman (I'd look to the trade market for a Martin successor when he hangs up the boots). Otherwise the needs are for quality mediums and smalls over the rest of the field and looking to build as close to an optimised best 22 towards winning as possible.

When are Brisbane a top-4 side? If things go right, 2020 I can see Brisbane in the top-8 mix and from there continue ongoing competing for top-8 spots. Top-4 there is no clear timeline for Brisbane make it there. I don't see that talent being in place yet to see Brisbane being a top-4 side with their present list. A lot more talent needs adding first.

 

[Juice0103]

Where is Luko, walsh, king brothers, rankine and smith going?

 

[harrisendblue]

Do remember my expectation of 2 premierships as a worst case scenario was my thinking before GWS had played their first game.

Regarding Hawthorn in 2008. They weren't the best team in the competition that year, Geelong were. But Hawthorn did have the leadership in place already. Hodge and Mitchell both were established leaders. They also still had Crawford. They had young up and comers, but also a nice blend of experience and players in that age bracket where they had enough years under their belts to win.

Regarding salary cap squeeze. You build a winner and players will take a discount if you're winning premierships. To ensure there is room to keep the list together, it just means those good players outside the best 22 can be moved.

The issue with GCS list strategy was - they didn't get young established players to grow with their list. They went other than Harbrow with guys who were not young enough to all be around for when they become contenders which was a mistake. Also the veterans they secured I wouldn't regard as the strongest leaders, so they didn't even tick that box with none of those guys coming on board those who help to elevate the games of your youth which is what their value needs to be beyond on field performance to be successful list additions.

We'll have to agree to disagree re. the logic of players wanting to go home after a premiership. If you're winning and potentially winning who knows how many flags in a row. Most in my view would want to stay and be a part of that something historic as GWS were at the time viewed as likely achieving. Not that that has come to fruition.

Perhaps you should have applied for the GWS list manager position with that level of optimism they were going to win a minimum 2 flags.

My point re Hawthorn was they started their tilt for the flag when Hodge was drafted in 2001, yes they got one early in 2008 but then played off in 2012. That's a full 10 years after Hodge and with having an established list in place.

No club can be contending within three years of starting or undertaking a full rebuild. Especially the GWS because they could not have attracted the gun senior players without either giving up to many drafts picks or salary cap.

Players have a lot more reasons to move these days and you now have an extra two clubs making offers. The other aspect that impacts players in taking less is there location. Players at interstate clubs have greater pressure to return home. The league understood this and was the reason for Lions and Swans COLA allowances.

The only people at the start predicting multiple flags for the expansion clubs were hysterical click baiting media types (KB) and from the punters who listened to that hysterical view. Those in the industry, I remember Greg Swan, predicting that clubs will be slamming down the doors of all the kids chasing them to come home.

GWS have done well and will be contending for many years to come based on, primarily, on the foundations built during the first 3-4 years.

 

[Knightmare]

Where is Luko, walsh, king brothers, rankine and smith going?

A question that can be more easily answered after the trade period.

Carlton have pick 1 now. Do they move the pick? Retain it? If they retain it, they may lean towards Walsh, if they trade it, that team getting the pick probably is going for Lukosius.

The King brothers probably feature somewhere around pick 5. Rankine will go somewhere inside the top 10 - and pick trades may be a factor in where he lands. Smith also should feature somewhere top 10.

Perhaps you should have applied for the GWS list manager position with that level of optimism they were going to win a minimum 2 flags.

My point re Hawthorn was they started their tilt for the flag when Hodge was drafted in 2001, yes they got one early in 2008 but then played off in 2012. That's a full 10 years after Hodge and with having an established list in place.

No club can be contending within three years of starting or undertaking a full rebuild. Especially the GWS because they could not have attracted the gun senior players without either giving up to many drafts picks or salary cap.

Players have a lot more reasons to move these days and you now have an extra two clubs making offers. The other aspect that impacts players in taking less is there location. Players at interstate clubs have greater pressure to return home. The league understood this and was the reason for Lions and Swans COLA allowances.

The only people at the start predicting multiple flags for the expansion clubs were hysterical click baiting media types (KB) and from the punters who listened to that hysterical view. Those in the industry, I remember Greg Swan, predicting that clubs will be slamming down the doors of all the kids chasing them to come home.

GWS have done well and will be contending for many years to come based on, primarily, on the foundations built during the first 3-4 years.

GWS' concessions are not like any rebuild. If a club finishes last, they get pick 1. In an 18 man per side game, pick 1 doesn't move the needle all that far. The following concessions awarded to GWS is a different story and is an incredible amount more than just pick 1. And that's before assuming that after that first season, they're probably finishing right at the bottom having not played together.

Consider the following concessions:
"National Rookie access
GWS selected a dozen 17-year-olds born between January and April 1993. Most of these players relocated to Sydney and have been training full time with the club in 2011. These players can remain at the club in 2012 or can be traded for experienced AFL players in TRADE WEEK."

Tomas Bugg, Jeremy Cameron, Sam Darley, Tim Golds, Josh Growden, Jack Hombsch, Dylan Shiel, Adam Treloar, Gerald Ugle and Nathan Wilson

"2010 NAB Rookie Draft
GWS were given selections 1-8 in last year’s rookie draft. Rookies are selected as young, developing players who are under 23 and do not sit on the senior team at an AFL club. Most clubs have around six rookies who can be elevated to the senior team during the season if a player is injured or retires."

Steve Clifton, Jonathan Giles, Rhys Cooyou and Andrew Phillips.

ON THEIR WAY
"Players in the GWS’ Zone
GWS have zoned access to up to 16 NSW players from Southern NSW and the ACT. Some of these players have already arrived at the club and the zoned access continues from 2010 until 2013. The GIANTS also have zoned access to players from the Northern Territory from 2011 until 2013."

Kurt Aylett, Josh Bruce, Shaun Edwards, Curtly Hampton, Anthony Miles, Sam Schulz, Tim Segrave, Jacob Townsend and Mark Whiley

Traded: Jed Anderson

2011 NAB AFL Draft
GWS will have the first selection in each of the three rounds in this year’s draft, which will be held in western Sydney. In the first round of player selection, GWS have nine of the first fifteen picks including: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15.

Jonathon Patton, Stephen Coniglio, Dom Tyson, Will Hoskin-Elliott, Matt Buntine, Nick Haynes, Adam Tomlinson, Liam Sumner, Toby Greene, Taylor Adams, Devon Smith and Tom Downie.

2011 NAB Rookie Draft
GWS will alternate with the Sydney Swans for NSW rookies and will have the first selection in this draft.

Sam Frost - passed on other opportunities in PSD + rookie draft.

AFL Listed Player Access
An AFL ‘List’ is a club’s team. There are two parts to this concession.
1. GWS can select 10 players who have been nominated for the AFL Draft in previous years or players who have been listed with an AFL club in the past (including retired players who have been delisted). The GIANTS have the opportunity to list these 10 players at the end of the 2011 and 2012 season.
2. GWS can sign up to 16 current uncontracted AFL players. They can sign one player from each AFL club unless a club agrees to trade more than one player to the club. These uncontracted players can be signed at the end of the 2011 and 2012 seasons. Clubs with uncontracted players who choose to play for the club will be given compensations draft picks from the AFL.

1.
2011:
Retained: Tim Mohr, Adam Kennedy
Traded: Luke Brown, Marty Clarke, Jamie Elliott, Steven Morris, Terry Milera, Adam Saad, Jarrad Boumann,
Traded: Tom Lee, Dom Barry

2.
2011: Phil Davis, Callan Ward, Rhys Palmer, Tom Scully, James McDonald, Sam Reid.
*Luke Power, Dean Brogan and Chad Cornes via trade.
2012:
*Stephen Gilham and Bret Thornton via trade.

Existing AFL players through ‘GWS mini-draft’
GWS have been given access to four 17-year-olds born between January and April 1994. These players WILL NOT be at the club. They need to be traded to other clubs during TRADE WEEK. The GIANTS can use these players to trade for established AFL players at other clubs. GWS can trade these four 17-year-olds in either the 2011 or 2012 TRADE WEEK."

Jaeger O'Meara/Brad Crouch/Jack Martin/Jesse Hogan - for trading.

--
With these concessions - assumptions that GWS would be a good side in 2014 is reasonable, understanding the names and chances they've had with 2015 onwards when they'd be thinking about competing for premierships. They could have retained a number of those mature agers, maybe they could have traded some of those mini-draft types for players. Maybe some of those who want to go home can be traded in moves for players and not just picks.

GWS did a lot of things right, but they also did a lot sub-optimally with some of these alterations perhaps meaning GWS claim the 2016 and 2017 premierships given the evenness both years and how little really separates the clubs.

 

[Knightmare]

AFL Draft Wrap with a focus on u18 All-Australian key defender Kyle Reid: http://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/24248541/afl-draft-wrap-kyle-reid-all-round-key-defender

 

[Mofra]

Hey KM,

Every year there seems to be a kid who either just does 'ok' at the champs (Bont) or misses them altogether (Oliver) who bolts late in the piece based on their ceiling/rate of improvement.

Who is the most likely candidate this year? Stocker?

 

[Knightmare]

Hey KM,

Every year there seems to be a kid who either just does 'ok' at the champs (Bont) or misses them altogether (Oliver) who bolts late in the piece based on their ceiling/rate of improvement.

Who is the most likely candidate this year? Stocker?

Stocker is the one who missed the champs and he could go first round. So he'd be the pick for that category.

Only ok during the u18 Champs. Possibly Riley Collier-Dawkins. He showed glimpses and had his moments and it's the same story in the TAC Cup, but he's one who looks like a later bloomer who has the attributes to come good, but he could be anything and something like another Bont if things go right in his development.

 

[harrisendblue]

GWS' concessions are not like any rebuild. If a club finishes last, they get pick 1. In an 18 man per side game, pick 1 doesn't move the needle all that far. The following concessions awarded to GWS is a different story and is an incredible amount more than just pick 1. And that's before assuming that after that first season, they're probably finishing right at the bottom having not played together.

Consider the following concessions:
"National Rookie access
GWS selected a dozen 17-year-olds born between January and April 1993. Most of these players relocated to Sydney and have been training full time with the club in 2011. These players can remain at the club in 2012 or can be traded for experienced AFL players in TRADE WEEK."

Tomas Bugg, Jeremy Cameron, Sam Darley, Tim Golds, Josh Growden, Jack Hombsch, Dylan Shiel, Adam Treloar, Gerald Ugle and Nathan Wilson

"2010 NAB Rookie Draft
GWS were given selections 1-8 in last year’s rookie draft. Rookies are selected as young, developing players who are under 23 and do not sit on the senior team at an AFL club. Most clubs have around six rookies who can be elevated to the senior team during the season if a player is injured or retires."

Steve Clifton, Jonathan Giles, Rhys Cooyou and Andrew Phillips.

ON THEIR WAY
"Players in the GWS’ Zone
GWS have zoned access to up to 16 NSW players from Southern NSW and the ACT. Some of these players have already arrived at the club and the zoned access continues from 2010 until 2013. The GIANTS also have zoned access to players from the Northern Territory from 2011 until 2013."

Kurt Aylett, Josh Bruce, Shaun Edwards, Curtly Hampton, Anthony Miles, Sam Schulz, Tim Segrave, Jacob Townsend and Mark Whiley

Traded: Jed Anderson

2011 NAB AFL Draft
GWS will have the first selection in each of the three rounds in this year’s draft, which will be held in western Sydney. In the first round of player selection, GWS have nine of the first fifteen picks including: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15.

Jonathon Patton, Stephen Coniglio, Dom Tyson, Will Hoskin-Elliott, Matt Buntine, Nick Haynes, Adam Tomlinson, Liam Sumner, Toby Greene, Taylor Adams, Devon Smith and Tom Downie.

2011 NAB Rookie Draft
GWS will alternate with the Sydney Swans for NSW rookies and will have the first selection in this draft.

Sam Frost - passed on other opportunities in PSD + rookie draft.

AFL Listed Player Access
An AFL ‘List’ is a club’s team. There are two parts to this concession.
1. GWS can select 10 players who have been nominated for the AFL Draft in previous years or players who have been listed with an AFL club in the past (including retired players who have been delisted). The GIANTS have the opportunity to list these 10 players at the end of the 2011 and 2012 season.
2. GWS can sign up to 16 current uncontracted AFL players. They can sign one player from each AFL club unless a club agrees to trade more than one player to the club. These uncontracted players can be signed at the end of the 2011 and 2012 seasons. Clubs with uncontracted players who choose to play for the club will be given compensations draft picks from the AFL.

1.
2011:
Retained: Tim Mohr, Adam Kennedy
Traded: Luke Brown, Marty Clarke, Jamie Elliott, Steven Morris, Terry Milera, Adam Saad, Jarrad Boumann,
Traded: Tom Lee, Dom Barry

2.
2011: Phil Davis, Callan Ward, Rhys Palmer, Tom Scully, James McDonald, Sam Reid.
*Luke Power, Dean Brogan and Chad Cornes via trade.
2012:
*Stephen Gilham and Bret Thornton via trade.

Existing AFL players through ‘GWS mini-draft’
GWS have been given access to four 17-year-olds born between January and April 1994. These players WILL NOT be at the club. They need to be traded to other clubs during TRADE WEEK. The GIANTS can use these players to trade for established AFL players at other clubs. GWS can trade these four 17-year-olds in either the 2011 or 2012 TRADE WEEK."

Jaeger O'Meara/Brad Crouch/Jack Martin/Jesse Hogan - for trading.

--
With these concessions - assumptions that GWS would be a good side in 2014 is reasonable, understanding the names and chances they've had with 2015 onwards when they'd be thinking about competing for premierships. They could have retained a number of those mature agers, maybe they could have traded some of those mini-draft types for players. Maybe some of those who want to go home can be traded in moves for players and not just picks.

GWS did a lot of things right, but they also did a lot sub-optimally with some of these alterations perhaps meaning GWS claim the 2016 and 2017 premierships given the evenness both years and how little really separates the clubs.

You actually said contending in 2014 and winning the flag in 2015. Happy for you to downgrade because that agrees with what im saying.

Their concessions needed to be strong however in a super competitive environment like the AFL teams need longer than 2-3 years together especially when completely starting out to contend or win a premiership. The only environment it could work would be a computer game or if you selected a representative side.

Every list manager with the benefit of hindsight would do things differently. You say that if the GWS make alterations they win the 16/17 flags possibly in isolation however if the GWS make alterations then the other 17 clubs also make alterations. You cant have one change not impacting on another - its the space time continuum.

 

[Warhorse]

I agree with knightmare. Blues will get stuck in a melbourne style of constant rebuild unless they get some mature onfield leadership at the club.

I would also take lukosious if i was them. Their backline has most the components to be solid. Missing a little leadership down back. Forward has a lot of holes with most of the tall forwards drafted looking poor. Even if someone like mckay does make it lukosious is flexible enough to play in a forward line with mckay and curnow. They are well on the way to building a forwardline similar to adelaide from last year.

Players such as SP need mature players around them to develop

 

[HedgeFund]

The only environment it could work would be a computer game or if you selected a representative side.

This ^^^^^^^^

You are the winner.

 

[harrisendblue]

I agree with knightmare. Blues will get stuck in a melbourne style of constant rebuild unless they get some mature onfield leadership at the club.

I would also take lukosious if i was them. Their backline has most the components to be solid. Missing a little leadership down back. Forward has a lot of holes with most of the tall forwards drafted looking poor. Even if someone like mckay does make it lukosious is flexible enough to play in a forward line with mckay and curnow. They are well on the way to building a forwardline similar to adelaide from last year.

Players such as SP need mature players around them to develop

Different rebuild to Melbourne's so you cant really compare.

The stated aim of the club is to target guys 22-27 age bracket so that allows for guys like Wallis/Dahlhaus/LLoyd.

The focus should be on quality mids because if you fix that then both defence and forward will improve. With a better injury you then get to settled back 6 and suddenly they all start playing better.

No 1 should be the best player and on that im not yet decided. We can do with any type at 1 and would only trade 1 if it involves an overs deal that includes one of 2 to 5.

 

[saintscott]

I see them in the late/rookie mix.

Wilson is 180cm/78kg
Lloyd is 185cm/77kg

Wilson is more a marking small who will hit the scoreboard in a big way.

Lloyd is a lot like his brother Jake. Very reliable kick and will find a lot of it but very outside and low impact.



My comment re. GWS winning 2 by now was solely relating to my prediction from before the club joined the AFL.

Naturally with time I've learnt a lot more about the game and how hard it is to win, how random the results can see sometimes.

That said, the past two years and I'll call it a third year now, for mine GWS on paper have had the best list and best 22 in the competition.

As with any club through the list building process, as I've acknowledge in my earlier posts, some things the club did well, in other ways I've felt the club have not made the most of their chances and made some strategic mistakes. And you name a team and I'll call out in detail where I feel they've gone wrong. No club is 100% right or perfect in their approach and do different things better/worse than the next.



Given the concessions - prelisted players, all the picks awarded over two years, mature agers who could be traded, all the zone picks and then academy picks. Absolutely.

Obviously they are doing much better than Gold Coast. Not that GWS have picked better than them, but at least from a list building perspective they have been able to attract a lot more quality opposition talent.

With GWS, few recognise the age profile of their list. They're in 2018 the third oldest team in the competition. Both 2017/2018 they have average ages over 24. With an average age of 24 and with the concessions GWS have and the list they have built. You have to expect premierships. There is no getting out of it. Particularly when you have more former first round and high first round picks on your list than any other club - even before counting prelisted players.



Good list management is an essential component to winning premierships. But it's simply one ingredient. Coaching, veteran leadership, fitness staff, the culture being built, playing development. The more of those boxes ticked, as emphatically possible, that puts you in a winning position.

Re. SOS. It is my understanding of the history of the draft that has me at odds with his list management strategy. Where do the great key forwards come? They're in the most part first round picks or father-sons.

I've also had a long standing methodology with key forward identification and based on my pre-draft evaluations, SOS continually adds KPPs who rate poorly.
My formula as I've long shared is as follows:
Production (if they're not producing as juniors, they're not going to at AFL level)
Talent (looking at points of different)
Rate of improvement (year to year improvement is an essential component to successful KPF evaluation)
*Give it a 0/0.5/1 for each KPF.

Further to this. Do you want a dud KPF? What about 15 KPPs with more than 10 of them duds and wasting list positions? Each list position needs to be focused on identifying players to improve your best 22.

I don't consider SOS' methodology regarding drafting of so many KPPs - particularly when you're drafting them with the knowledge they're probably not even going to be best 22 with others already on the list more talented. It defies logic.

SOS has made some sound trade decisions. Bringing in Mumford to GWS was perfect. Likewise Shaw. Full marks. Same goes with bringing in the likes of Ward, Davis and the other young, established players. Full marks.

As with all list managers. SOS does some things well, but other areas he can improve, just as we all can.

Re. GWS' list. They've had the best list in the comp for the past 3 years. This year more than the last two they've more flawed, but still far more talented than any other. I do feel though that the process could have come along quicker. They're key players are in their mid 20s now. They're in that peak performance career stage, so they should be annihilating opponents.



Regarding the Carlton players identified - I simplified for readability. I don't have the time to put together a player by player thesis. Macreadie I agree with you will show a willingness to run. To be more specific on him not rebounding - it's more out of the lack of ball he finds due to the focus on playing an accountable variety of game. Consider he only had 11 disposals and 2 marks last week in the VFL, 2 disposals the week before. Two of his three other games no more than 10 disposals or three marks.
To be an effective key defender today, you need to be a 100+ mark, 250+ disposal player per 20 games for a rough feel. Macreadie if he plays 20 games would not come close to achieving either of those standards.

I'm more than happy to break down where Collingwood are weak from a list management perspective and what they continue to get wrong, or any other team for that matter.

GWS and Carlton are the two topical teams, so they're the teams I have the opportunity to break down at the moment. SOS having been that major recruiter at both clubs unfortunately is on the other end of my analysis. But that's the way it goes when he's been a part of two of what are currently among the more interesting list management situations.

km i would love to take you up on the list management comment for st kilda. Very interested to see an outside perspective.

 

[Knightmare]

I agree with knightmare. Blues will get stuck in a melbourne style of constant rebuild unless they get some mature onfield leadership at the club.

I would also take lukosious if i was them. Their backline has most the components to be solid. Missing a little leadership down back. Forward has a lot of holes with most of the tall forwards drafted looking poor. Even if someone like mckay does make it lukosious is flexible enough to play in a forward line with mckay and curnow. They are well on the way to building a forwardline similar to adelaide from last year.

Players such as SP need mature players around them to develop

It's been interesting over the past 15 years watching how long those good sides stay up and how long it takes for those bad stay down. With free agency it's only going to exaggerate this further with players to go to good teams and leave bad ones - think along the lines of what we're now seeing with Gold Coast.

It really drives how with Carlton, Richmond, Melbourne, Brisbane and Gold Coast all unable to build through the draft and continually going through those rebuilding cycles why you can't just build through the draft. Richmond and to a lesser extent Melbourne to their credit have in more recent times spend more time securing opposition talents and getting worthwhile experience in the door and needed that to get out of the rebuilding cycle. It also took the additions of Mumford and Shaw for GWS to become relevant.

km i would love to take you up on the list management comment for st kilda. Very interested to see an outside perspective.

Drafting (other than 2011/2013) has been consistently poor in terms of talent identification.

The players picked don't tend to tick the boxes that lend themselves to being high % outcome choices. To be more specific - the (medium/small) players picked aren't high volume contested ball winners and those ball winners picked have been fairly vanilla and lacked a really notable point of difference to suggest they have the scope to develop into stars.

St Kilda's KPP identification has also been poor. Taking too many too late which means you're not bringing in quality. Only McCartin was taken inside the top 10, and he was taken too early not only not being seen as the best talent in the draft but also having diabetes making him a bad risk - not that any of us knew just how bad - and the concussions we obviously can't account for. It's been taking bad kpps either late, or taking bad kpps too early. The identification just hasn't been there.

In terms of opposition talent ID. I'd like to see more established players of high quality added. But where St Kilda deserve credit and are one of if not the best in the business is in their identification of unwanted/low value opposition players who can play a role with Membrey and Robertson headlining those names with Bruce another.

I also give St Kilda credit for keeping their veterans around. Despite bringing in weak talent through the draft in the most part, having those veterans and playing into their mid 30s has helped a limited list get more out of their players than may be the case in other situations.

With Riewoldt, Montagna, Dempster etc all retired now. St Kilda last offseason would have done well to have added someone else to support Geary and fill that leadership void, and we're seeing it with a big dip in performance this season after a few years of being overachievers (in part due to a healthy list).

It's going to be a theme for me in any list I evaluate, but from a list perspective, you really need veteran leadership in place in all situations if you want to have success. Whether it's winning or whether it's young players development. It's rarely spoken about or even understood in AFL circles as being a factor in a list build which still baffles me, but as a long time NBA fan, teams load up on veterans on minimum deals and you see the benefit v those teams who go young and don't provide their up and comers with that support. You don't see teams go anywhere without it.

 

[LittleG]

It's been interesting over the past 15 years watching how long those good sides stay up and how long it takes for those bad stay down. With free agency it's only going to exaggerate this further with players to go to good teams and leave bad ones - think along the lines of what we're now seeing with Gold Coast.

It really drives how with Carlton, Richmond, Melbourne, Brisbane and Gold Coast all unable to build through the draft and continually going through those rebuilding cycles why you can't just build through the draft. Richmond and to a lesser extent Melbourne to their credit have in more recent times spend more time securing opposition talents and getting worthwhile experience in the door and needed that to get out of the rebuilding cycle. It also took the additions of Mumford and Shaw for GWS to become relevant.



Drafting (other than 2011/2013) has been consistently poor in terms of talent identification.

The players picked don't tend to tick the boxes that lend themselves to being high % outcome choices. To be more specific - the (medium/small) players picked aren't high volume contested ball winners and those ball winners picked have been fairly vanilla and lacked a really notable point of difference to suggest they have the scope to develop into stars.

St Kilda's KPP identification has also been poor. Taking too many too late which means you're not bringing in quality. Only McCartin was taken inside the top 10, and he was taken too early not only not being seen as the best talent in the draft but also having diabetes making him a bad risk - not that any of us knew just how bad - and the concussions we obviously can't account for. It's been taking bad kpps either late, or taking bad kpps too early. The identification just hasn't been there.

In terms of opposition talent ID. I'd like to see more established players of high quality added. But where St Kilda deserve credit and are one of if not the best in the business is in their identification of unwanted/low value opposition players who can play a role with Membrey and Robertson headlining those names with Bruce another.

I also give St Kilda credit for keeping their veterans around. Despite bringing in weak talent through the draft in the most part, having those veterans and playing into their mid 30s has helped a limited list get more out of their players than may be the case in other situations.

With Riewoldt, Montagna, Dempster etc all retired now. St Kilda last offseason would have done well to have added someone else to support Geary and fill that leadership void, and we're seeing it with a big dip in performance this season after a few years of being overachievers (in part due to a healthy list).

It's going to be a theme for me in any list I evaluate, but from a list perspective, you really need veteran leadership in place in all situations if you want to have success. Whether it's winning or whether it's young players development. It's rarely spoken about or even understood in AFL circles as being a factor in a list build which still baffles me, but as a long time NBA fan, teams load up on veterans on minimum deals and you see the benefit v those teams who go young and don't provide their up and comers with that support. You don't see teams go anywhere without it.

I am a massive believer in the develop by senior players mantra. It's used by NFL teams, who draft a guy to play a specialist role, eg. LT and if they don't have a hard working back up tackle on the roster, the good teams get one. This pushes the rookie into a high level of performance, if he wants to start. There is a lot more money starting, than not.... so it really can push younger players to succeed earlier.

G Ablett & The other mature recruits have been a failure at the Suns, while I would argue, Ward, McDonald, Davis and Scully were a success at the Giants. One team went for the best on-field player and some other want-away players. While the other targeted players with scope to be leaders, who were still young or senior players who can set the standard.


The Dees turned the corner when D Cross turned up and although he is slow & old, he was in the top two for endurance testing at the club. The young ones started to watch, learn and push themselves harder. They didn't want to lose to the slow old guy.

I worry that my Dogs are about to make a huge mistake letter Dahlhaus, Roughead & Wallis go.... they aren't marquee players but they are most of the senior players on the list. Apart from Suckling & Morris (if he plays on), there won't be much experience left.

Carlton desperately need hard working senior players and should be putting a big offer to Wallis. He isn't going to dominate himself but he might just push the younger ones hard enough to get the Blues going again.

 

[HARKER]

Regarding the Carlton players identified - I simplified for readability. I don't have the time to put together a player by player thesis. Macreadie I agree with you will show a willingness to run. To be more specific on him not rebounding - it's more out of the lack of ball he finds due to the focus on playing an accountable variety of game. Consider he only had 11 disposals and 2 marks last week in the VFL, 2 disposals the week before. Two of his three other games no more than 10 disposals or three marks.
To be an effective key defender today, you need to be a 100+ mark, 250+ disposal player per 20 games for a rough feel. Macreadie if he plays 20 games would not come close to achieving either of those standards.
I'm more than happy to break down where Collingwood are weak from a list management perspective and what they continue to get wrong, or any other team for that matter.

GWS and Carlton are the two topical teams, so they're the teams I have the opportunity to break down at the moment. SOS having been that major recruiter at both clubs unfortunately is on the other end of my analysis. But that's the way it goes when he's been a part of two of what are currently among the more interesting list management situations.

Macreadie couldn't have had two disposals the week before for the simple fact he didn't play.
His first game back from injury was last week and he was on limited minutes and played quite a good, attacking game.

From my understanding Silvagni currently likes Walsh & Max King.
Trick is going to be to trade the #1 (if Carlton finish last) to advantage.
Adelaide is apparently open about wanting Lukosius, but GC will likely have the better currency. Could be fun.

 

[Knightmare]

I am a massive believer in the develop by senior players mantra. It's used by NFL teams, who draft a guy to play a specialist role, eg. LT and if they don't have a hard working back up tackle on the roster, the good teams get one. This pushes the rookie into a high level of performance, if he wants to start. There is a lot more money starting, than not.... so it really can push younger players to succeed earlier.

G Ablett & The other mature recruits have been a failure at the Suns, while I would argue, Ward, McDonald, Davis and Scully were a success at the Giants. One team went for the best on-field player and some other want-away players. While the other targeted players with scope to be leaders, who were still young or senior players who can set the standard.


The Dees turned the corner when D Cross turned up and although he is slow & old, he was in the top two for endurance testing at the club. The young ones started to watch, learn and push themselves harder. They didn't want to lose to the slow old guy.

I worry that my Dogs are about to make a huge mistake letter Dahlhaus, Roughead & Wallis go.... they aren't marquee players but they are most of the senior players on the list. Apart from Suckling & Morris (if he plays on), there won't be much experience left.

Carlton desperately need hard working senior players and should be putting a big offer to Wallis. He isn't going to dominate himself but he might just push the younger ones hard enough to get the Blues going again.

Agree with each of your points.

Re. the GWS/GC approaches respectively. While GWS went with those younger potential leaders what I considered essential in addition to that is they got in a number of veterans to support them through that first season. Perhaps they could have secured a few more in season two, but they still had that.
GC on the other hand just targeted the wrong age group, going for predominantly those 25-30 year old types who wouldn't be around for when the list becomes relevant which is where they went wrong in comparison.

Macreadie couldn't have had two disposals the week before for the simple fact he didn't play.
His first game back from injury was last week and he was on limited minutes and played quite a good, attacking game.

From my understanding Silvagni currently likes Walsh & Max King.
Trick is going to be to trade the #1 (if Carlton finish last) to advantage.
Adelaide is apparently open about wanting Lukosius, but GC will likely have the better currency. Could be fun.

Don't know what stats I was looking at with Macreadie re. his past two games. Two month gap between games and that second most recent game was 4 disposals rather than 2.

Silvagni tends to favour Victorian talent, so that wouldn't surprise me if it was the case.

 

[footylover18]

It's been interesting over the past 15 years watching how long those good sides stay up and how long it takes for those bad stay down. With free agency it's only going to exaggerate this further with players to go to good teams and leave bad ones - think along the lines of what we're now seeing with Gold Coast.

It really drives how with Carlton, Richmond, Melbourne, Brisbane and Gold Coast all unable to build through the draft and continually going through those rebuilding cycles why you can't just build through the draft. Richmond and to a lesser extent Melbourne to their credit have in more recent times spend more time securing opposition talents and getting worthwhile experience in the door and needed that to get out of the rebuilding cycle. It also took the additions of Mumford and Shaw for GWS to become relevant.



Drafting (other than 2011/2013) has been consistently poor in terms of talent identification.

I dont feel you are giving player development enough credit.

certainly player identification is important, but player development is equally if not more important imo.

I think if a team is going to build through the draft then they have to double down on investing in scouting and coaching development. and i think thats where teams like Carlton etc have fallen over previously.