Draft Expert Knightmare's 2021 Draft Almanac

[Marcel Proust]

will you be doing a winners and losers of the draft?

"
last phantom draft Knightmare had:

Gibcus at 11th, drafted 9th
Brown at 18th, drafted 17th
Sonsie at 23rd, drafted 28th
Banks at 43rd, drafted 29th
Clarke at 31st, drafted 30th

How does that equal a D+? "

 

[Knightmare]

"
last phantom draft Knightmare had:

Gibcus at 11th, drafted 9th
Brown at 18th, drafted 17th
Sonsie at 23rd, drafted 28th
Banks at 43rd, drafted 29th
Clarke at 31st, drafted 30th

How does that equal a D+? "

A phantom draft is a prediction of where players will go.

My power rankings is where I rate players.

I grade based on my own player rankings.

 

[Marcel Proust]

A phantom draft is a prediction of where players will go.

My power rankings is where I rate players.

I grade based on my own player rankings.

I know still funny

 

[Obeanie1]

What works in West Coast's favour is that future 2nd picked up in that trade. Then the Bazzo pick is the other where I don't mind that, with Williams later also suitable in that range. It's the first two selections by West Coast that got me very negative.

I would give the Eagles a C? And no that isnt a question.

The question mark equates to they have taken a couple of risks and reached on both Chesser and Hough that could fail totally or one of them could be the steal of the draft.

The last three picks Bazzo (def cloak and dagger stuff with this guy sliding) + Williams + Clark pretty solid picks for that stage of the draft.

If you were judging who took the greatest risk v reward with their first two picks the Eagles would be right at the top of the list.

I would have been rapt with Hobbs at 12 and Matt Roberts at 31. Both much more credentialed mids but with not as much unknown growth / potential as the two selected. And that future 2nd was a nice pickup.

 

[Knightmare]

I would give the Eagles a C? And no that isnt a question.

The question mark equates to they have taken a couple of risks and reached on both Chesser and Hough that could fail totally or one of them could be the steal of the draft.

The last three picks Bazzo (def cloak and dagger stuff with this guy sliding) + Williams + Clark pretty solid picks for that stage of the draft.

If you were judging who took the greatest risk v reward with their first two picks the Eagles would be right at the top of the list.

I would have been rapt with Hobbs at 12 and Matt Roberts at 31. Both much more credentialed mids but with not as much unknown growth / potential as the two selected. And that future 2nd was a nice pickup.

Ultimately with Chesser and Hough are in my wouldn't draft category.

No meaningful rate of improvement from Chesser this year and didn't improve his reputation which was high coming into the year. Was strong bodied coming into the year but isn't much of a contested ball winner. That doesn't bode well. I'm expecting a low rate of improvement and don't have confidence he's a best-22 player long term ultimately.

Hough the more I watched, the more disappointed I was. He's deficient winning his own ball but then doesn't have a meaningful point of difference either. So he isn't someone I would have considered drafted.

Using picks on one I regard as being worth a rookie pick and another I wouldn't personally draft with both the first and second round picks, my draft of West Coast just off that is going to be rated very heavily in the negative regardless of what other moves are made. And the trade and the latter three picks I thought were perfectly fine which is why I wasn't more harsh in my assessment and eventual grade.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

KM, North got a B? Come on now.

Not sure you can give much credit to North for drafting JHF. That's just a function of having the number 1 pick and him being a clear number 1 (f/s excluded)

 

[danster168]

"
last phantom draft Knightmare had:

Gibcus at 11th, drafted 9th
Brown at 18th, drafted 17th
Sonsie at 23rd, drafted 28th
Banks at 43rd, drafted 29th
Clarke at 31st, drafted 30th

How does that equal a D+? "

Do you know what a phantom draft is? It's got nothing to do with his player rankings. come on mate, you could've figured that one out

 

[Lord of the Wings]

Its pretty funny when someone gives you a mark two years before the test

 

[mrposhman]

" Within the industry, Gibcus and Brown are commonly rated highly, picks 9 and 17 is a lot to pay for a key defender and a rebounding defender who may not be the best at their respective positions at the picks they were taken. "

Seriously?? So who were the better tall defenders compared to Gibcus if he wasn't the best available tall at Pick 9???

 

[2006_Eagles]

" Within the industry, Gibcus and Brown are commonly rated highly, picks 9 and 17 is a lot to pay for a key defender and a rebounding defender who may not be the best at their respective positions at the picks they were taken. "

Seriously?? So who were the better tall defenders compared to Gibcus if he wasn't the best available tall at Pick 9???

Sheldrick

 

[Trav 20]

Surprise surprise.. A Collingwood supporter gives the pies A for their drafting while both North and Richmond get a B and D+.

Absolutely taking the piss now.

He's given Collingwood an A the last 3 years running. Conversely Melbourne were given a C in 2019 and 2020. Funnily enough, 4 of the 6 players Melbourne drafted in those two years are now premiership players and entrenched in the best 22. The 3 from 2019 alone have played over 100 games. Two of the three played every game this year (25) and one missed one through injury (24). And this was in the best team going around.

The six from Collingwood's 2019 and 2020 drafts are yet to reach a combined 50 games. Collingwood finished 17th this year.

As for ''power rankings'' ?

The 2019 draft produced two Rising Star winners: Caleb Serong (2019) and Luke Jackson (2020). They're arguably the two best players from that draft (let's see how Rowell recovers and some may have Green), Knightmare had both ranked outside of his top 10 in the ''power rankings''.

Oh and Jay Rantall from Collingwood's 2019 draft has been delisted after 5 games.

''Jay Rantall represents strong value as a basketball convert with elite endurance who does his best work inside winning the contested ball, distributing by hand and moving through traffic.''

 

[Chris25]

For those who are getting all worked up, just look at it another way - the grades aren't about the draft hauls, it's KM essentially grading his rankings. So he graded himself a D+ for Richmond's picks, as the professionals didn't agree with them.

 

[Dogga6]

He's given Collingwood an A the last 3 years running. Conversely Melbourne were given a C in 2019 and 2020. Funnily enough, 4 of the 6 players Melbourne drafted in those two years are now premiership players and entrenched in the best 22. The 3 from 2019 alone have played over 100 games. Two of the three played every game this year (25) and one missed one through injury (24). And this was in the best team going around.

The six from Collingwood's 2019 and 2020 drafts are yet to reach a combined 50 games. Collingwood finished 17th this year.

As for ''power rankings'' ?

The 2019 draft produced two Rising Star winners: Caleb Serong (2019) and Luke Jackson (2020). They're arguably the two best players from that draft (let's see how Rowell recovers and some may have Green), Knightmare had both ranked outside of his top 10 in the ''power rankings''.

Oh and Jay Rantall from Collingwood's 2019 draft has been delisted after 5 games.

''Jay Rantall represents strong value as a basketball convert with elite endurance who does his best work inside winning the contested ball, distributing by hand and moving through traffic.''

As I said, surely taking the piss.

Reading all this just confirms not to take any of his work seriously. I get we are all bias at times, but poor KM struggles to separate this from his work, and it shows out like a bulls testicles.

 

[danster168]

Absolutely true.

Grades are completely subjective. And there is no chance to getting all calls right. Grades will be expressed in a draft context based around how the person giving the grades evaluates the talent and whether the value proposition in their mind of those picked at a various spot is good/bad/indifferent.

In terms of long term outlook.

There are so many variables that come into play.

Good and great teams tend to develop talent better than bad teams on average. You can have a team where the larger group goes through a major upsurge and you get a lot of breakout players as a result of that.

If a Luke Jackson goes to any other team, I don't believe we'd be talking about him the same as he wouldn't have Max Gawn there as a mentor to support his development. Likewise Pickett, Melbourne have broadly speaking developed and improved their list significantly over the past two years and Pickett and Rivers also joined at the opportune time to benefit from that. What if all three joined Gold Coast? I can't imagine we'd be talking about the same footballers.

With Collingwood in freefall since the additions of Rantall/Bianco/Ruscoe, and ultimately they're all later picks compared to those first three Demons taken, you're not going to get the same career outcomes, with my grades based on the value based on where those picks are, and if trades were happening, how positive was that trade relatively.

You can have a Lukosius and Rankine join the Suns and be the two best players in that draft. But if the player development/coaching is lousy and/or you don't have the core of veteran leaders or high end established players, you're going to have a problem developing talent.

Melbourne have those things now. They have the coach, the assistant coaches are great, they had the best strength and conditioning guy in the business. They have the veteran leaders - Gawn/Viney/Jones etc. They have the stars - Petracca/Oliver/Gawn etc.

So there is a lot that determines what the actual outcomes will be, and even if a draft grade is a negative one, it's obviously not the end of the world and just reflective of my opinion of the value proposition

No idea why that other poster was going so hard. Everyone gets things wrong all the time. Even with about 6 full time staff and 15 part timers clubs get early selections horrifically wrong all of the time. I agree somewhat with the assessment of Melbournes development of players much better. I think Bowey is testament of that. But what are you saying in relation to Gold Coast? Because it's like saying if lance Franklin or Sam Walsh or Dusty played for Gold Coast they wouldn't be as good. like you can say that for almost anyone. That draft by Melbourne is probably the best in the clubs history and Jackson would no doubt be number 1 in the draft ahead of Rowell now and is probably the most valuable commodity in the AFL if you factor in age, key position and exposed form and scope for improvement. Sam Walsh being the only other player I can see coming close.

And with the talk about Johnson taking Sparrows spot. I think it's a big call. Sparrow has impacted games in a premiership team. He kicked a goal in all 3 finals and kicked a clutch goal in the grand final. Sparrow will only improve too. He is highly rated internally and he would fetch a first rounder if traded. Even in the 'plays like' feature in the draft coverage one of the draftees graphics came up with 'plays like Tom Sparrow'. So Sparrow has already made it in a sense that he can play finals football and GF's and impact the game.

 

[Shinboner1]

Imagine bagging people out because they have a different opinion than you or value players stats differently.

 

[Trav 20]

No idea why that other poster was going so hard. Everyone gets things wrong all the time.

Yep, as a Melbourne supporter we well know.

If Knightmare would occasionally say, "Yep, I got it wrong", then you wouldn't hear another peep out of me.

But that's not in the kit bag.

 

[GeTrain]

No idea why that other poster was going so hard. Everyone gets things wrong all the time. Even with about 6 full time staff and 15 part timers clubs get early selections horrifically wrong all of the time. I agree somewhat with the assessment of Melbournes development of players much better. I think Bowey is testament of that. But what are you saying in relation to Gold Coast? Because it's like saying if lance Franklin or Sam Walsh or Dusty played for Gold Coast they wouldn't be as good. like you can say that for almost anyone. That draft by Melbourne is probably the best in the clubs history and Jackson would no doubt be number 1 in the draft ahead of Rowell now and is probably the most valuable commodity in the AFL if you factor in age, key position and exposed form and scope for improvement. Sam Walsh being the only other player I can see coming close.

And with the talk about Johnson taking Sparrows spot. I think it's a big call. Sparrow has impacted games in a premiership team. He kicked a goal in all 3 finals and kicked a clutch goal in the grand final. Sparrow will only improve too. He is highly rated internally and he would fetch a first rounder if traded. Even in the 'plays like' feature in the draft coverage one of the draftees graphics came up with 'plays like Tom Sparrow'. So Sparrow has already made it in a sense that he can play finals football and GF's and impact the game.

Mate what are you smoking if you think Jackson is the most valuable commodity in the AFL.

 

[pugsville]

He's given Collingwood an A the last 3 years running. Conversely Melbourne were given a C in 2019 and 2020. Funnily enough, 4 of the 6 players Melbourne drafted in those two years are now premiership players and entrenched in the best 22. The 3 from 2019 alone have played over 100 games. Two of the three played every game this year (25) and one missed one through injury (24). And this was in the best team going around.

The six from Collingwood's 2019 and 2020 drafts are yet to reach a combined 50 games. Collingwood finished 17th this year.

As for ''power rankings'' ?

The 2019 draft produced two Rising Star winners: Caleb Serong (2019) and Luke Jackson (2020). They're arguably the two best players from that draft (let's see how Rowell recovers and some may have Green), Knightmare had both ranked outside of his top 10 in the ''power rankings''.

Oh and Jay Rantall from Collingwood's 2019 draft has been delisted after 5 games.

''Jay Rantall represents strong value as a basketball convert with elite endurance who does his best work inside winning the contested ball, distributing by hand and moving through traffic.''

Yeah johnny hindsight, but plenty of others rated them similarly, Melbourne 2019 selections 3,13,30 versus Collingwood 40,45,55 radically different draft hands. Drafting grading take this into account.Which you are not. Value for those selection is a relative rather than absolute thing. MNor are players devloping at teh same pace. Judging players solelyon their first 20 games is not a particulr great measure (rising stars)


here's the roar raising question marks about Melbourne 2019 selections


"Melbourne’s decision to take Jackson at pick three has polarised fans and recruiters, but an AFL website survey of 12 club recruiters on who they’d have taken at that pick shows at least four other clubs would also have taken Jackson."
...

"‘Kosi’ Pickett looks an exciting talent, even if some clubs rated him much further down the order."

While being more up beat on collingwood selections,

"Despite entering the draft late, the Pies managed to nab two quality midfielders.

Rantall broke the 2km time trial record at the combine, and is an endurance beast. With Steele Sidebottom and Scott Pendlebury getting on, he’ll be eyeing a spot on the wing over the next few years.

Bianco was the steal of the draft – most pundits rated him in the top 20-25 on talent."

2019 AFL Draft: Club-by-club breakdown and review

The 2019 AFL draft has been completed over three busy days, and AFL lists are now just about complete ahead of the 2020 season,…

www.theroar.com.au

Over at draft central (now rookie) again quite positive of collingwood selections.

"ENTERING with an uninspiring hand and exiting with two steals of the National Draft, Collingwood supporters and staff alike should count themselves as one of the big winners out of the 2019 AFL"

2019 AFL Draft club review: Collingwood Magpies

ENTERING with an uninspiring hand and exiting with two steals of the National Draft, Collingwood supporters and staff alike should count themselves as one of the big winners out of the 2019 AFL Draft. Much of the talk around the Magpies coming in was that they would take a tall with their first...

central.rookieme.com

2019 AFL Draft club review: Melbourne Demons

ONE of the most talked about clubs heading into the 2019 AFL National Draft, the Demons looked set to shake up the first round with two top 10 picks at the conclusion of what could only be described as a horror season for the 2018 preliminary finalists. Needing some firepower up forward, in...

central.rookieme.com

fox footy had both mebourne and collinwgood both rated "B"

Pies, Swans land late steals as Freo, GWS nail top picks: AFL Draft Report Card

Pies, Swans land late steals as Freo, GWS nail top picks: AFL Draft Report Card

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Happy Mastenator]

There's a simple solution if you don't rate KM's opinion.

Scroll up then

 

[Trav 20]

Yeah johnny hindsight, but plenty of others rated them similarly, Melbourne 2019 selections 3,13,30 versus Collingwood 40,45,55 radically different draft hands. Drafting grading take this into account.Which you are not. Value for those selection is a relative rather than absolute thing. MNor are players devloping at teh same pace. Judging players solelyon their first 20 games is not a particulr great measure (rising stars)


here's the roar raising question marks about Melbourne 2019 selections


"Melbourne’s decision to take Jackson at pick three has polarised fans and recruiters, but an AFL website survey of 12 club recruiters on who they’d have taken at that pick shows at least four other clubs would also have taken Jackson."
...

"‘Kosi’ Pickett looks an exciting talent, even if some clubs rated him much further down the order."

While being more up beat on collingwood selections,

"Despite entering the draft late, the Pies managed to nab two quality midfielders.

Rantall broke the 2km time trial record at the combine, and is an endurance beast. With Steele Sidebottom and Scott Pendlebury getting on, he’ll be eyeing a spot on the wing over the next few years.

Bianco was the steal of the draft – most pundits rated him in the top 20-25 on talent."

2019 AFL Draft: Club-by-club breakdown and review

The 2019 AFL draft has been completed over three busy days, and AFL lists are now just about complete ahead of the 2020 season,…

www.theroar.com.au

Over at draft central (now rookie) again quite positive of collingwood selections.

"ENTERING with an uninspiring hand and exiting with two steals of the National Draft, Collingwood supporters and staff alike should count themselves as one of the big winners out of the 2019 AFL"

2019 AFL Draft club review: Collingwood Magpies

ENTERING with an uninspiring hand and exiting with two steals of the National Draft, Collingwood supporters and staff alike should count themselves as one of the big winners out of the 2019 AFL Draft. Much of the talk around the Magpies coming in was that they would take a tall with their first...

central.rookieme.com

2019 AFL Draft club review: Melbourne Demons

ONE of the most talked about clubs heading into the 2019 AFL National Draft, the Demons looked set to shake up the first round with two top 10 picks at the conclusion of what could only be described as a horror season for the 2018 preliminary finalists. Needing some firepower up forward, in...

central.rookieme.com

fox footy had both mebourne and collinwgood both rated "B"

Pies, Swans land late steals as Freo, GWS nail top picks: AFL Draft Report Card

Pies, Swans land late steals as Freo, GWS nail top picks: AFL Draft Report Card

www.foxsports.com.au

I realise he ''goes with the flow''. That said, most do.

 

[Knightmare]

" Within the industry, Gibcus and Brown are commonly rated highly, picks 9 and 17 is a lot to pay for a key defender and a rebounding defender who may not be the best at their respective positions at the picks they were taken. "

Seriously?? So who were the better tall defenders compared to Gibcus if he wasn't the best available tall at Pick 9???

Leek Alleer was my top rated key defender this year.

A happy accident and quirky coincidence, but Alleer I rated as the 9th best in the draft and Gibcus the 15th best, yet Gibcus features at 9 and Alleer at 15.

He's given Collingwood an A the last 3 years running. Conversely Melbourne were given a C in 2019 and 2020. Funnily enough, 4 of the 6 players Melbourne drafted in those two years are now premiership players and entrenched in the best 22. The 3 from 2019 alone have played over 100 games. Two of the three played every game this year (25) and one missed one through injury (24). And this was in the best team going around.

The six from Collingwood's 2019 and 2020 drafts are yet to reach a combined 50 games. Collingwood finished 17th this year.

As for ''power rankings'' ?

The 2019 draft produced two Rising Star winners: Caleb Serong (2019) and Luke Jackson (2020). They're arguably the two best players from that draft (let's see how Rowell recovers and some may have Green), Knightmare had both ranked outside of his top 10 in the ''power rankings''.

Oh and Jay Rantall from Collingwood's 2019 draft has been delisted after 5 games.

''Jay Rantall represents strong value as a basketball convert with elite endurance who does his best work inside winning the contested ball, distributing by hand and moving through traffic.''

If Collingwood's picks correlate with where my power rankings are before the draft, as per my formula every year, they will get a favourable rating. If not, the rating will be unfavourable.

Rantall was a strange delisting. No VFL season last year to develop. Barely got an opportunity this year. I would have liked for him to have been given longer, particularly with Collingwood lacking in the way of strong bodied first possession winners. There were others who should have been delisted sooner than Rantall as someone I would have awarded one more year.

No idea why that other poster was going so hard. Everyone gets things wrong all the time. Even with about 6 full time staff and 15 part timers clubs get early selections horrifically wrong all of the time. I agree somewhat with the assessment of Melbournes development of players much better. I think Bowey is testament of that. But what are you saying in relation to Gold Coast? Because it's like saying if lance Franklin or Sam Walsh or Dusty played for Gold Coast they wouldn't be as good. like you can say that for almost anyone. That draft by Melbourne is probably the best in the clubs history and Jackson would no doubt be number 1 in the draft ahead of Rowell now and is probably the most valuable commodity in the AFL if you factor in age, key position and exposed form and scope for improvement. Sam Walsh being the only other player I can see coming close.

And with the talk about Johnson taking Sparrows spot. I think it's a big call. Sparrow has impacted games in a premiership team. He kicked a goal in all 3 finals and kicked a clutch goal in the grand final. Sparrow will only improve too. He is highly rated internally and he would fetch a first rounder if traded. Even in the 'plays like' feature in the draft coverage one of the draftees graphics came up with 'plays like Tom Sparrow'. So Sparrow has already made it in a sense that he can play finals football and GF's and impact the game.

With Gold Coast, it's not that they can't sometimes develop talent. Tom Lynch was a success. Steven May developed well. Dion Prestia and Touk Miller became good midfielders with the Suns.

The problem for the Suns is, acutely being aware not only of how I projected the players, but also how others evaluated these players. They haven't succeeded in developing their own talent broadly speaking. David Swallow, Jaeger O'Meara and Jack Martin are three we should be talking about as top-10 midfielders in the competition. To talk about any of them in that context today and you'll be looked at like you're not being serious. Lukosius for the Suns hasn't developed meaningfully and he should be tracking at a similar pace to a Nick Riewoldt. Izak Rankine is another who where he should be around that early career Wingard level as that kind of talent, and he's not even playing all that well. Sam Day should have been great, but he's not someone I'd want as part of my best-22 and never even got to that modest level. We saw it with Gold Coast's prelisted players, having talent there, but not getting Maverick Weller, Luke Russell or anyone to even a long term best-22 standard. They should be top-10 on list at worst standard guys based on junior projections. Would Buddy or Dusty have become great had they been drafted by the Suns? Maybe, but if so, likely not historically great.

My comment on Sparrow is that as per my previous comment, he's not a spud. He's AFL calibre. But if you asked me Johnson or Sparrow to go forward with. I'm taking Johnson. Sparrow might be able to get to a top-15 on list standard is my guestimate at his peak. If he does better, that's credit to Melbourne's development. All things being equal, same team, same environment, I'd expect by season three that Johnson would be favoured for a more prominent midfield role than would Sparrow, as someone I feel could be more like a top-10 on list standard player, with his upside nearing that top-5 on list mark if things go really right.

 

[cairo tiger]

poweer rankings=football ( I dont think so). need to get the pill.

 

[gungho]

Knightmare, firstly thank you for providing a terrific service and valuable insight into these players and your thoughts. That said, there does appear to be things you say that make me think you are making things up on the fly and winging it a bit.
Example: there was an article after the draft about who you would have picked if you were the list manager of each club. If you were Fremantle you would not have picked a key forward at pick 8, and would have tried to address the key forward needs later in the draft.
Today you have awarded freo An A+ for drafting.
I can only interpret this as giving an A+ to a team that completely ignored what you would have done in the draft.
The other thing is, I think you will be more respected in here if you occasionally just admit you were wrong rather than go through explanation A,B,C,D etc why you might not actually be wrong.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Knightmare, firstly thank you for providing a terrific service and valuable insight into these players and your thoughts. That said, there does appear to be things you say that make me think you are making things up on the fly and winging it a bit.
Example: there was an article after the draft about who you would have picked if you were the list manager of each club. If you were Fremantle you would not have picked a key forward at pick 8, and would have tried to address the key forward needs later in the draft.
Today you have awarded freo An A+ for drafting.
I can only interpret this as giving an A+ to a team that completely ignored what you would have done in the draft.
The other thing is, I think you will be more respected in here if you occasionally just admit you were wrong rather than go through explanation A,B,C,D etc why you might not actually be wrong.

Might be a case that they got Johnson at 21 who slid a long way, hence getting two top quality mids that KM rated, as well as Amiss. That was a great result.

 

[T4P]

Knightmare, given the subjectivity of the ranking process, perhaps you could consider switching your grading framework from an A+ to F system, which suggests more objectivity than it is.

Maybe something of a pricing framework ($ to $$$$) or 'value relative to power rankings' with an 'overvalued, fair value, undervalued'

I feel the 'grade' ranking distracts from the analysis