Draft Expert Knightmare's 2021 Draft Almanac

[PMBangers]

I haven't seen the Swans v Giants Academy matches from the weekend, but have found a YouTube link, so may check it out later in the week if I have the time. Any standouts or players you'd suggest I watch for? Happy for others to contribute also if they've already seen the game.

It's definitely not worth the effort

 

[Knightmare]

AFL Draft wrap with a focus on GWS Giants Academy member Josh Fahey: https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_...josh-fahey-cannon-20-impresses-vfl-opposition

 

[Ppollen]

It's definitely not worth the effort

Doesn't sound promising. Seemed like they were semi competitive to me but I'm not sure what to expect from that level.

 

[Ppollen]

I wouldn't read too much into school footy results.



Giants have one in Fahey who played in the AFL Academy game and he'll be the player I'll feature as my focus player this week in my weekly wrap on ESPN which should be up soon.

I haven't seen the Swans v Giants Academy matches from the weekend, but have found a YouTube link, so may check it out later in the week if I have the time. Any standouts or players you'd suggest I watch for? Happy for others to contribute also if they've already seen the game.

I thought Stennig (GWS) was ok as well as Driscoll (GWS) in the under 19's and Rowston (GWS) in the under 17's but to be honest I'm not so great at spotting talent

 

[PMBangers]

Doesn't sound promising. Seemed like they were semi competitive to me but I'm not sure what to expect from that level.

At that level it's more about traits that look like they could translate to the Champs and such. You mentioned Stenning and Driscoll below who really are the only ones I noted as having that potential to play champs.

 

[Chris25]

Just my opinion, but geez having a video in your signature makes scrolling through a thread annoying. First time I haven't been on my phone for a while.

 

[Lore]

Just my opinion, but geez having a video in your signature makes scrolling through a thread annoying. First time I haven't been on my phone for a while.

I think the rules say a sig is supposed to be no more than 4 lines in height anyway, otherwise it's supposed to collapse. Probably a glitch, Chief?

 

[Knightmare]

Just my opinion, but geez having a video in your signature makes scrolling through a thread annoying. First time I haven't been on my phone for a while.

Is there a trick that you know of with video links so that it shows as just a link and not a video that pops up in your face?

What can be done to manipulate it so that a video does and doesn't show up from a Youtube link respectively? Be it as part of a signature or a post?

I find my videos just automatically become a video, when for the purposes of my signature I'd like for it to as seems your preference just be a link and left at that.

 

[Lore]

Is there a trick that you know of with video links so that it shows as just a link and not a video that pops up in your face?

What can be done to manipulate it so that a video does and doesn't show up from a Youtube link respectively? Be it as part of a signature or a post?

I find my videos just automatically become a video, when for the purposes of my signature I'd like for it to as seems your preference just be a link and left at that.

This seems to work:

[URL unfurl="false"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu_XF3998Ec[/URL]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu_XF3998Ec

You have to type the BB code manually though. I don't think any of the rich text format buttons do it.

 

[Knightmare]

This seems to work:

[URL unfurl="false"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu_XF3998Ec[/URL]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu_XF3998Ec

You have to type the BB code manually though. I don't think any of the rich text format buttons do it.

Thanks for that. Big help.

Have updated signature accordingly and have noted this for future reference.

Cheers.

 

[Chief]

Embeds have been turned off for sigs anyway - so I don't know why it is embedding a video.

I will look into it.

 

[Knightmare]

Embeds have been turned off for sigs anyway - so I don't know why it is embedding a video.

I will look into it.

It seems universally when a YouTube link is posted - be it in a post or in a signature that it comes out as a video and has some "media" in brackets come up with the url disappearing. Hopefully that helps if that's not what you're intending to have happen.

 

[Chief]

It seems universally when a YouTube link is posted - be it in a post or in a signature that it comes out as a video and has some "media" in brackets come up with the url disappearing. Hopefully that helps if that's not what you're intending to have happen.

This is embedding. It should happen in a post, but it should not happen in a sig.

 

[Turbocat]

Knightmare

Where does Gribble sit in this draft ... and considering geelong have three R2 picks. how deep do you see this draft being

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare

Where does Gribble sit in this draft ... and considering geelong have three R2 picks. how deep do you see this draft being

Gribble definitely isn't in the second round mix.

Possible rookie maybe. But I'd be surprised to see him go earlier.

I'm seeing this draft as below average - average at this stage for depth. There might be 25-30 good players all things said and done, if I'm to suggest 30 good players is around what you'd normally expect, with 20 poor and 40 great. What I'd categorise as good players may differ to the next, but when I think of good players, I'm talking about clear-cut best-22 players who can play to that standard for a number of years.

 

[Turbocat]

Gribble definitely isn't in the second round mix.

Possible rookie maybe. But I'd be surprised to see him go earlier.

I'm seeing this draft as below average - average at this stage for depth. There might be 25-30 good players all things said and done, if I'm to suggest 30 good players is around what you'd normally expect, with 20 poor and 40 great. What I'd categorise as good players may differ to the next, but when I think of good players, I'm talking about clear-cut best-22 players who can play to that standard for a number of years.

thx for the reply

Gribble was in the local rag today..so I just thought Id ask. Have not seen him play.

Thats a bit different to what was being said last year .. The expectation was it would be a bit better due to players slipping into this year. Do you feel the players a fair bit behind due to last year?

 

[Knightmare]

thx for the reply

Gribble was in the local rag today..so I just thought Id ask. Have not seen him play.

Thats a bit different to what was being said last year .. The expectation was it would be a bit better due to players slipping into this year. Do you feel the players a fair bit behind due to last year?

Has the hype come mostly from the media? Bigfooty? Have you found?

In any case, whoever is hyping up this draft, I can't agree with. Last year my view looking to this year is that it might be average or perhaps a touch below, and my view as we speak is below average - average, with my view slightly but not dramatically revising down. So you won't see me hyping up this year's draft. It has its strengths. Decent (but not exceptional) for midfielders/outside types/flankers. Has a good deal of ruck depth - though some of that will be absorbed mid-season. Not much else to get excited about. All the KPPs are speculative and I wouldn't feel comfortable taking any of them inside the top-10. Top end quality isn't anything special, be it top-5, first round, wherever you draw the marker. And depth as I've said, average-below average.

I'm sure others on here and elsewhere will have their own evaluations, but this is mine at this point in time.

Both last year and this year I'm finding the players are looking behind where for me they probably should. Particularly in Victoria, but even interstate there are some coming into the year I had higher hopes for, who probably aren't as advanced or as much improved as I had hoped they might be.

If I'm to compare this year's draft to last year's, the top-5 is definitely weaker this year. The top-5 was actually last year one of the few good things about it I liked. Otherwise while positional dynamics are different (this year is better for mids/outside/flankers/rucks v last year that had a lot better kpps). This year may be slightly deeper with last year below average for depth, but neither to me look exceptional.

 

[Turbocat]

Has the hype come mostly from the media? Bigfooty? Have you found?

In any case, whoever is hyping up this draft, I can't agree with. Last year my view looking to this year is that it might be average or perhaps a touch below, and my view as we speak is below average - average, with my view slightly but not dramatically revising down. So you won't see me hyping up this year's draft. It has its strengths. Decent (but not exceptional) for midfielders/outside types/flankers. Has a good deal of ruck depth - though some of that will be absorbed mid-season. Not much else to get excited about. All the KPPs are speculative and I wouldn't feel comfortable taking any of them inside the top-10. Top end quality isn't anything special, be it top-5, first round, wherever you draw the marker. And depth as I've said, average-below average.

I'm sure others on here and elsewhere will have their own evaluations, but this is mine at this point in time.

Both last year and this year I'm finding the players are looking behind where for me they probably should. Particularly in Victoria, but even interstate there are some coming into the year I had higher hopes for, who probably aren't as advanced or as much improved as I had hoped they might be.

If I'm to compare this year's draft to last year's, the top-5 is definitely weaker this year. The top-5 was actually last year one of the few good things about it I liked. Otherwise while positional dynamics are different (this year is better for mids/outside/flankers/rucks v last year that had a lot better kpps). This year may be slightly deeper with last year below average for depth, but neither to me look exceptional.

I ask for your opinion... and opinions are just that. Some are informed , some aren't.. and mostly I find yours illuminating. Not always right because no one is.

So again thx for your efforts.


I think it was a feel around trade time, the vibe was this years draft would be better, so maybe trade radio , maybe other media that the players not picked last year would fall thru to this years draft. I suspect it was under appreciated what last year would do to development.


Geelong will probably look to draft and trade a bit..it seems to eb the way.. especially if the draft is as you say, if they can find an in system player for one of our three R2 picks. If the draft is ordianry then we may be just adding more kids to develop. Not much advanatge in that as we have few already. We still have not seen Cooper Stehens for example.


Question: Do you ever do a down the track assessment of trades on ESPN? A little discussion on the geelong board about what we paid for Cameron.and how it will affect us long term... sort of being compared to what we paid for Danger , and how we covered the loss of those picks. That year we trade out R1 and R2 yet drafted Menegola at P66 who know has only 8 players ahead of him from that draft in games played.

It seems some deal make and other break.

 

[Knightmare]

I ask for your opinion... and opinions are just that. Some are informed , some aren't.. and mostly I find yours illuminating. Not always right because no one is.

So again thx for your efforts.


I think it was a feel around trade time, the vibe was this years draft would be better, so maybe trade radio , maybe other media that the players not picked last year would fall thru to this years draft. I suspect it was under appreciated what last year would do to development.


Geelong will probably look to draft and trade a bit..it seems to eb the way.. especially if the draft is as you say, if they can find an in system player for one of our three R2 picks. If the draft is ordianry then we may be just adding more kids to develop. Not much advanatge in that as we have few already. We still have not seen Cooper Stehens for example.


Question: Do you ever do a down the track assessment of trades on ESPN? A little discussion on the geelong board about what we paid for Cameron.and how it will affect us long term... sort of being compared to what we paid for Danger , and how we covered the loss of those picks. That year we trade out R1 and R2 yet drafted Menegola at P66 who know has only 8 players ahead of him from that draft in games played.

It seems some deal make and other break.

A down the track assessment of trades is an interesting idea and one I'm not averse to.

I may have at some point done a down the track assessment of trades before with ESPN. It's something that actually tempts me to produce for YouTube as I'm hoping to also bring some trade focused content onto there as well as ESPN.

On Geelong's drafting, what has stood out in recent times has been Geelong's mature age talent ID, much more than draft age talent ID, so I hope Geelong keep focusing there, particularly given the win now dynamics of the list, and how mature agers take neither early draft picks, nor much in the way of salary cap space. *Adding Sam Menegola, Tim Kelly, Tom Stewart, Tom Atkins. Fantastic! That's what Geelong have done well in recent years from a drafting perspective and has been a big reason as to why Geelong have not needed to bottom out.

And if you're looking at that Cameron trade at what GWS drafted. Stone (not convincing) and Angwin (not convincing either) aren't players to feel upset about missing out on when Cameron is added to a possible premiership contender. Cook for Adelaide can be good though. Guys like Finlay Macrae and Sam Berry as I predicted at the time of the draft would be better than Stone and Angwin, but Geelong's methodology for mine in going for Cameron and giving up the picks that were given up I view as absolutely sound, as with the additions of Higgins and Smith, giving Geelong on paper the best list I've seen since Ablett was still on Geelong during that first tenure.

*I'd also add on the Cameron trade, it's not so much that I'd compare it to the move for Danger, but instead I see the equation as Kelly + out and Cameron + in, and I'd be pairing those trades together, with the Kelly trade what directly facilitated Geelong's opportunity to add Cameron from the perspectives both of having the salary cap space and having the picks available to make the trade. If I'm to assess that trade early days, and others may disagree, but I see Geelong as coming out of those trades in the positive.

From here the most Geelong can do from a trading perspective is go into moneyball mode and look for undervalued pieces on rival lists who can be best-22 for Geelong, and if that's mixed with some well identified mature agers, Geelong can continue to succeed in coming years. Geelong are lacking in the way of good youth but that if always going to be a consequence of having had such an incredibly sustained period of incredible success.

 

[Turbocat]

A down the track assessment of trades is an interesting idea and one I'm not averse to.

I may have at some point done a down the track assessment of trades before with ESPN. It's something that actually tempts me to produce for YouTube as I'm hoping to also bring some trade focused content onto there as well as ESPN.

On Geelong's drafting, what has stood out in recent times has been Geelong's mature age talent ID, much more than draft age talent ID, so I hope Geelong keep focusing there, particularly given the win now dynamics of the list, and how mature agers take neither early draft picks, nor much in the way of salary cap space. *Adding Sam Menegola, Tim Kelly, Tom Stewart, Tom Atkins. Fantastic! That's what Geelong have done well in recent years from a drafting perspective and has been a big reason as to why Geelong have not needed to bottom out.

And if you're looking at that Cameron trade at what GWS drafted. Bruhn (can be a good mid), Stone (not convincing) and Angwin (not convincing either) aren't players to feel upset about missing out on when Cameron is added to a possible premiership contender. Guys like Finlay Macrae and Sam Berry as I predicted at the time of the draft would be better than Stone and Angwin, but Geelong's methodology for mine in going for Cameron and giving up the picks that were given up I view as absolutely sound, as with the additions of Higgins and Smith, giving Geelong on paper the best list I've seen since Ablett was still on Geelong during that first tenure.

*I'd also add on the Cameron trade, it's not so much that I'd compare it to the move for Danger, but instead I see the equation as Kelly + out and Cameron + in, and I'd be pairing those trades together, with the Kelly trade what directly facilitated Geelong's opportunity to add Cameron from the perspectives both of having the salary cap space and having the picks available to make the trade. If I'm to assess that trade early days, and others may disagree, but I see Geelong as coming out of those trades in the positive.

From here the most Geelong can do from a trading perspective is go into moneyball mode and look for undervalued pieces on rival lists who can be best-22 for Geelong, and if that's mixed with some well identified mature agers, Geelong can continue to succeed in coming years. Geelong are lacking in the way of good youth but that if always going to be a consequence of having had such an incredibly sustained period of incredible success.

I believe it was p25 that we traded... from GWS to the Pies to the Crows. that gave them Cook... probably a similar assessment. If we can find a player that gets us 50-100 games from the picks we have this year then I think the Cameron outcome is definitively positive


Look forward to see how you assess some other trades. Cheers

 

[The Dr]

KM- I’m not sure if this is the right thread for it but considering the absolute mess the Pies are in, and rumours are their cap is still fairly tight, what moves would you make if you were Collingwood’s list manager?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[GWS Goose]

KM- I’m not sure if this is the right thread for it but considering the absolute mess the Pies are in, and rumours are their cap is still fairly tight, what moves would you make if you were Collingwood’s list manager?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm hoping they throw away the year and play the kids and run last. But that may be a more about us than them

 

[Knightmare]

KM- I’m not sure if this is the right thread for it but considering the absolute mess the Pies are in, and rumours are their cap is still fairly tight, what moves would you make if you were Collingwood’s list manager?

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm happy to answer draft/trade/list management etc questions here and just treat this thread as a general Q+A opportunity. Be it Collingwood or other clubs.

The major change required for Collingwood in my view is one around methodology. Even before there are discussions around who is a part of or not a part of the team (both list management team and playing personnel), that's the first component of the puzzle I'd be solving.

Until methodology is fixed and the learnings are understood, the problem isn't fixed and the results won't come.

I completed an analysis of Collingwood's list management late last year, first guessing the outcome of last offseason and I cover here in depth the mistakes Collingwood have made and what lessons they should have gained from those poor trades in recent years: (skip to 12:22 for specifics on what Collingwood should be do differently).

The major structural change aside from the points I bring up in the video is where the recruiting team focus their attention. This is a change I feel any team could make and it's an untapped opportunity. Specifically, I'd build a list management team with 1/3 of resources into opposition talent ID, 1/3 of resources into junior talent ID, and 1/3 of resources into mature age talent ID.

I'd be inclined where practical to retain and use the first round picks (a large team of recruiters aren't needed to pick the very best names in the country and with Collingwood's father-son and NGA picks over recent years it would have been a waste having such extensive resources dedicated to junior talent ID anyway - not that I suggest after this year it's likely Collingwood will secure as many through these avenues) and from there I'd be pretty active in looking for opportunities for undervalued talent on rival lists (I'm not seeing one club that are great at this yet and I think a big reason for this is no club has put adequate resources into this). I wouldn't be too concerned if ever my draft hand is thin, as there are always mature age opportunities for clubs who scout the state leagues well (look at what Geelong have done over the years with Menegola/Kelly/Stewart/Atkins in as many years and without using early picks to secure any of them).

I feel like mature age recruitment and trading for moneyball style undervalued types who can be best-22 players is the way to maximise outcomes if the resources are in those areas, and rather than going after any big fish, I'd be letting rival teams go after my star players who want too much money or too many years as a way to clear salary cap space to be in position to go after more moneyball style undervalued types. I'd be strict on how much salary cap space a player takes up relative to their actual appreciable value to my team and I'd also be strict in how much I'd be willing to give up for a player from a rival list and under no circumstances pay overs, with my trade focus instead on creating win-wins with clubs who have talent that I fundamentally rate more highly than they rate them.

The most likely players to allow for trading for opposition talent would be those I'd be unwilling to sign to contracts that can be agreed upon. If there are players asking for too much money and/or too many years, I'd be more than willing to move them on in the offseason and use that as an opportunity to secure more appealing picks and scour rival lists for opportunities to upgrade my best-22, with Collingwood currently having something like a best-13 (assuming a fully healthy list) but needing a lot more after that. A lot of those players who I likely wouldn't be agreeing to contract terms on are those who lack durability. The likes of Jamie Elliott, Jordan De Goey and Darcy Moore are among those I'd considering trading out if the return is suitable to name some of the 'bigger name' players. If it's a case of selling at a low, a trade isn't so appealing, and that may be the case with a De Goey or Elliott, but with a Moore, this might be a time where it's selling at a high where his hamstrings aren't causing him problems and he has come off that incredible 2020 season that will still be top of mind for many. My suspicion with a Moore in particular is that he will ask too much at the end of 2022, so that might be an opportunity, as unpopular as the call would undoubtedly be given he may be at the height of his career. If JDG asks too much and can attract a sizable return, then I'd be very comfortable making that move also.

I'd also be moving on any players I view as depth and don't consider part of that better 13 or so established players. The focus at this point for Collingwood is on building around those capable footballers and giving those first and second year players opportunities and seeing with an extended stretch of games whether any of them can become a part of that core 22. 13 good players with 9 passengers, or more when some of those best players are missing won't win a premiership, so gaining those moneyball types from rival lists and capable mature agers is a solution to that and a way to build what I'd view at least to be the highest % way if the talent ID is right.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Darcy kicked 5 goals on the weekend for his school (see link below), although doesn't appear the opposition was too strong.

APS Firsts Football Results 2024 – APS Sport

apssport.org.au

Kicked another 5 this week. I'm curious how much stock people put into school footy form? He's obviously talented, and seems fairly athletic which definitely would help his chances given he is supposedly 200+cm

 

[The Dr]

I'm happy to answer draft/trade/list management etc questions here and just treat this thread as a general Q+A opportunity. Be it Collingwood or other clubs.

The major change required for Collingwood in my view is one around methodology. Even before there are discussions around who is a part of or not a part of the team (both list management team and playing personnel), that's the first component of the puzzle I'd be solving.

Until methodology is fixed and the learnings are understood, the problem isn't fixed and the results won't come.

I completed an analysis of Collingwood's list management late last year, first guessing the outcome of last offseason and I cover here in depth the mistakes Collingwood have made and what lessons they should have gained from those poor trades in recent years: (skip to 12:22 for specifics on what Collingwood should be do differently).

The major structural change aside from the points I bring up in the video is where the recruiting team focus their attention. This is a change I feel any team could make and it's an untapped opportunity. Specifically, I'd build a list management team with 1/3 of resources into opposition talent ID, 1/3 of resources into junior talent ID, and 1/3 of resources into mature age talent ID.

I'd be inclined where practical to retain and use the first round picks (a large team of recruiters aren't needed to pick the very best names in the country and with Collingwood's father-son and NGA picks over recent years it would have been a waste having such extensive resources dedicated to junior talent ID anyway - not that I suggest after this year it's likely Collingwood will secure as many through these avenues) and from there I'd be pretty active in looking for opportunities for undervalued talent on rival lists (I'm not seeing one club that are great at this yet and I think a big reason for this is no club has put adequate resources into this). I wouldn't be too concerned if ever my draft hand is thin, as there are always mature age opportunities for clubs who scout the state leagues well (look at what Geelong have done over the years with Menegola/Kelly/Stewart/Atkins in as many years and without using early picks to secure any of them).

I feel like mature age recruitment and trading for moneyball style undervalued types who can be best-22 players is the way to maximise outcomes if the resources are in those areas, and rather than going after any big fish, I'd be letting rival teams go after my star players who want too much money or too many years as a way to clear salary cap space to be in position to go after more moneyball style undervalued types. I'd be strict on how much salary cap space a player takes up relative to their actual appreciable value to my team and I'd also be strict in how much I'd be willing to give up for a player from a rival list and under no circumstances pay overs, with my trade focus instead on creating win-wins with clubs who have talent that I fundamentally rate more highly than they rate them.

The most likely players to allow for trading for opposition talent would be those I'd be unwilling to sign to contracts that can be agreed upon. If there are players asking for too much money and/or too many years, I'd be more than willing to move them on in the offseason and use that as an opportunity to secure more appealing picks and scour rival lists for opportunities to upgrade my best-22, with Collingwood currently having something like a best-13 (assuming a fully healthy list) but needing a lot more after that. A lot of those players who I likely wouldn't be agreeing to contract terms on are those who lack durability. The likes of Jamie Elliott, Jordan De Goey and Darcy Moore are among those I'd considering trading out if the return is suitable to name some of the 'bigger name' players. If it's a case of selling at a low, a trade isn't so appealing, and that may be the case with a De Goey or Elliott, but with a Moore, this might be a time where it's selling at a high where his hamstrings aren't causing him problems and he has come off that incredible 2020 season that will still be top of mind for many. My suspicion with a Moore in particular is that he will ask too much at the end of 2022, so that might be an opportunity, as unpopular as the call would undoubtedly be given he may be at the height of his career. If JDG asks too much and can attract a sizable return, then I'd be very comfortable making that move also.

I'd also be moving on any players I view as depth and don't consider part of that better 13 or so established players. The focus at this point for Collingwood is on building around those capable footballers and giving those first and second year players opportunities and seeing with an extended stretch of games whether any of them can become a part of that core 22. 13 good players with 9 passengers, or more when some of those best players are missing won't win a premiership, so gaining those moneyball types from rival lists and capable mature agers is a solution to that and a way to build what I'd view at least to be the highest % way if the talent ID is right.

Great insight mate. Appreciate that long-term holistic view of the pies’ list management etc.

Looking at this off-season in particular, what moves would you look to make, as in players traded out and possible targets coming in?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app