Draft Expert Knightmare's 2021 Draft Almanac

[Chrispiesssss]

God, can people stfu. It’s literally an OPINION. How are people pressed by that???

 

[Dockeroo]

Is there anything more pointless than grading a draft the day after it takes place?
This goes for all draft experts who do this not just KM, these club draft haul ratings are about a useful as **** on a bull

 

[gungho]

God, can people stfu. It’s literally an OPINION. How are people pressed by that???

God, can people stfu about people that have a problem with people giving an opinion. It’s literally an OPINION. How are people pressed by that?

 

[Marcel Proust]

God, can people stfu. It’s literally an OPINION. How are people pressed by that???

Of a professional

 

[Knightmare]

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.

You might like to check out my 3.5 hour video covering every hit and every miss from my whole time covering the draft. I can't imagine there is anyone else in the draft community who has spent as long long detailing over 10+ years all the big hits, big misses, and those learnings from those misses.

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.

Fremantle earned an A+ ultimately because they ultimately secured the players I would have taken at 8+10, with their second and third selections.

The picking at the time for the first round review was on the basis of, if I'm taking the pick live, I'm taking Erasmus, then Johnson. There is no way of knowing Johnson would slip into the second round. My thinking would be that Johnson would slip no further than Richmond's second pick as where I perceived the lowest possible spot for Johnson to be.

As per my above post, my 3.5 hour video covering all my hits and misses on YouTube is the go-to place for any who want to hear a good amount of me talking about my not just my greatest hits, but in equal part, my biggest draft mistakes, the lessons I've learnt and all the adjustments I've had to make as a result.

My attitude towards looking at the draft is towards constant improvement. This year I recognised following on from that video I underrate mature agers far too much and looking at the exceptional success rate of mature agers and how they over develop at as high of a rate or sometimes a higher rate even than junior prospects, I've even had to make that modification to how I go about putting my rankings together.

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

A solid suggestion. I wouldn't be averse to a concept along those lines.

Ultimately, the grading idea is one ESPN originally came up with years ago, and it's one of those where I imagine on their end they like it because it's in that clickbait kind of way going to yield favourable results from an analytics perspective for the piece because it created engagement - from the outraged, to the excited.

Is there anything more pointless than grading a draft the day after it takes place?
This goes for all draft experts who do this not just KM, these club draft haul ratings are about a useful as **** on a bull

As per my previous comment, that's why AFL websites go that format. They're after the clicks. They want the engagement so that their pieces make it into the newsfeed of more people who either may not see it or may not be aware they cover the draft.

Ultimately with my draft coverage at least, because I present each pick live on Twitter and engage live there, hopefully between that and my writing for ESPN it gives people a complete enough balance between opinion, giving insight into what a player can/can't do and giving that more positive for those who watched my tweets over the last two nights - that general why a club would have looked at a particular player and what are those characteristics to their game that appeal.

 

[danster168]

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.

That's why I love the draft. So many different opinions but its so important.The dees have botched more first rounders than most clubs can dream of but sometimes I just think a good player becomes a good player regardless. Like Oliver came in and was a gun for literally round 1. Gawn became an all-time great despite playing in an era of one of the worst losing cultures in melbourne's history. Salem was a gun from day 1 despite being at a bottom 4 club. Same as Viney. I think the development argument is accentuated more for the middle tier to fringe players.

And even though Jackson, Pickett, and Rivers came in at the perfect time as you said, we only finished 17th and 9th the last 2 seasons so they haven't been a part of a successful club until this year. People forget that we were pretty poor the last 2 years.

And with sparrow I think he's already top 15 on AFL list standard right now. For Melbourne he's probably around 20. but for most teams especially bottom 9 teams then he'd sit top 15. If we look at pies, I have Sparrow at number 13. Behind pendles, Sidebottom, degoey, howe, Maynard, Elliott, grundy, mihocek, Moore, crisp, adams, noble but ahead of Quaynor, Bianco,Josh Daicos, Poulter, Hoskin-Elliott, Sier etc.

 

[M Malice]

 

[Knightmare]

That's why I love the draft. So many different opinions but its so important.The dees have botched more first rounders than most clubs can dream of but sometimes I just think a good player becomes a good player regardless. Like Oliver came in and was a gun for literally round 1. Gawn became an all-time great despite playing in an era of one of the worst losing cultures in melbourne's history. Salem was a gun from day 1 despite being at a bottom 4 club. Same as Viney. I think the development argument is accentuated more for the middle tier to fringe players.

And even though Jackson, Pickett, and Rivers came in at the perfect time as you said, we only finished 17th and 9th the last 2 seasons so they haven't been a part of a successful club until this year. People forget that we were pretty poor the last 2 years.

And with sparrow I think he's already top 15 on AFL list standard right now. For Melbourne he's probably around 20. but for most teams especially bottom 9 teams then he'd sit top 15. If we look at pies, I have Sparrow at number 13. Behind pendles, Sidebottom, degoey, howe, Maynard, Elliott, grundy, mihocek, Moore, crisp, adams, noble but ahead of Quaynor, Bianco,Josh Daicos, Poulter, Hoskin-Elliott, Sier etc.

Before Melbourne's drop to 17th, Melbourne had finished top-4 and looked like a genuine premiership contender, so the drop off from a perception of having one of the best lists to go forward with in the competition to the second from bottom team should be every bit as surprising as Melbourne's premiership this year.

I can't say I guessed either, but certainly in terms of the improvement, the components were always there and it's one of those where I'm kicking myself for not putting everything together that Melbourne should rise to or near the top. Gawn was there as the best ruck, Petracca as a best 1-2 midfielder and Oliver that 3rd, even coming into the season. Gawn/Viney/Jones as leaders. The best group of assistants in the comp and the best fitness coach. Even if you look at Melbourne analytically from what they were doing in 2020, Melbourne were really a good team then but just weren't bringing the forward pressure or hitting those i50 targets to create those scoring opportunities, to convert all that to wins.

Seeing Melbourne finally get that forward pressure right, seeing the impact it had on intercepting, seeing those i50 targets finally hit, and broadly speaking seeing the buy-in and focus in on the game plan, Melbourne right now are the competition's premier and best constructed team, in a similar way to how Richmond before Melbourne's emergence in 2021 were.

On Collingwood, they don't even have 15 players I'd categorise as being worth spots inside a best-22 at this stage, and really they haven't for a number of years now, having that roughly 13/14 or so really high end contributors but being very weak after that.

On Collingwood's list, I'd agree with you Sparrow would be a top-15 player in terms of where he would fit today, as he is a best-22 calibre piece and Collingwood not even having 15 of them. Though I do wonder on a worse team whether Sparrow whether he would on a bad team be better/the same/worse compared to how he is with Melbourne. In any case, the trick with building a list is having more guys who would be top-3 on a list, top-5 on a list, top-10 on a list, top-15 on a list, top-18 on a list than the next team. Across each talent tier you can construct, you want that superiority to your best-22 and create separation of advantage as much as possible to maximise your advantage.

With that order, I definitely favour Sparrow to Noble. Noble is someone I'd be very willing to trade. He's not an intercepter, is poor 1v1 and allergic to winning his own ball, so he's not someone I'd want as part of my best-22. I've held that position with Noble for a number of years now and would look to trade him if I can get someone I rate or a reasonable pick in return.

Those I'd rate ahead of Sparrow? Grundy, Moore, De Goey, Crisp, Adams, Maynard, Howe, Pendlebury, Sidebottom, N.Daicos, Mihocek, Elliott, Roughead and Quaynor those currently worthwhile best-22 pieces. Then the hope from there would be a few of the younger ones. Maybe Lipinski/Kreuger/Macrae/Poulter/Henry/Draper/Dean/McCreery/Johnson emerge as those players I'd be looking at and thinking have the potential to become something.

 

[WCE_Talk]

Too early to ask when you’ll start talking more about the 2022 draft Knightmare?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[briztoon]

Wow a D+ for Richmond.
I get the rationale though.
Thought we did a bit better than a D+ all the same.

Honestly thought Richmond had the best draft haul.

 

[Farm Boy]

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

He would be close to. On an open market I cannot think of a more valuable player.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Knightmare]

Too early to ask when you’ll start talking more about the 2022 draft Knightmare?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Have a piece coming with a top-10 for next year.

Could be up as early as Monday.

 

[The Wrecker]

They might want brown on a wing

My thoughts on all teams will be in my

Fair call re. Melbourne's approach with mids (and it's one I mostly agree with as I'm firmly of the view with midfielders that contested ball winning is what correlates to the greatest degree with translating to AFL play and more broadly success by position). Johnson to look at his game, as he gets stronger, he should develop the contested side to his game further as with a Pendlebury/Mundy. I don't see why Johnson wouldn't get games ahead of Sparrow with a few years of development behind him if he had have been drafted by the Dees. That's not to say Sparrow is by any stretch of the imagination inept, he played some good footy in the later part of the year where he is a worthwhile component to the best-22, but I'm not as I'd say of Johnson see him being as likely to in the future be a top-10 on list calibre piece.

Ah fair enough but I think your post highlights why Melb. did the right thing. You can pick another first rounder who in a couple of years may or may not be better than what they have now (21-year-old Sparrow) or you go the best available tall van Rooyen with a view to replacing four 30 years olds (Brown , TMac, May and M. Brown).

 

[WCE_Talk]

Have a piece coming with a top-10 for next year.

Could be up as early as Monday.

Awesome mate

Is the news about Condon choosing basketball 100% true and confirmed?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Knightmare]

Ah fair enough but I think your post highlights why Melb. did the right thing. You can pick another first rounder who in a couple of years may or may not be better than what they have now (21-year-old Sparrow) or you go the best available tall van Rooyen with a view to replacing four 30 years olds (Brown , TMac, May and M. Brown).

Ultimately, there is nothing really wrong with Van Rooyen where he was picked. I rated him a few spots lower, but not a lot lower, and he's an obvious need filler for the long term list build.

I wouldn't draft him as a key forward, but as a key defender I like his game. I personally would have gone cheaper with Schlensog/Dean available later, particularly with Schlensog always sure to be there.

As a key forward, Van Rooyen could be another Weideman equivalent level player once developed, so I'd be looking for other opportunities next offseason if needing a key forward for depth reasons, or if wanting that option this offseason, a Tyler Keitel or Matthew Hammelmann as a rookie I would have been comfortable drafting and for immediate performance you'd be getting a lot better with their upsides in my view pretty similar.

Awesome mate

Is the news about Condon choosing basketball 100% true and confirmed?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Condon chose an AIS Basketball Scholarship and made the decision earlier in the month that he'll chase his basketball dreams instead.

Condon won't be the first or last to chose basketball over footy. We'll get more of that over coming seasons.

 

[db26]

Honestly thought Richmond had the best draft haul.

From a opposition supporter what did you like about it.

 

[Orange crush]

From a opposition supporter what did you like about it.

It was over in the second round so we don’t have to hear about all the late pick steals like from the pies

 

[JP2]

I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist over these draft projections. Basically all of the information we have about the players which have just been drafted comes from analysts like KM, and I for one appreciate it when they're candid about the potential downsides of draftees instead of living inside the happy rainbow kingdom of "wow, such potential " that most fans like to dwell in at this time of the year. Of course it's not an exact science, and of course there are going to be inaccuracies when you're projecting the career trajectories of 18 year old boys some 5+ years into the future. But I find that in most cases, irrespective of how successful the players end up becoming, the assessments of their potential strengths and weaknesses are typically pretty accurate (a draft watcher in 2001 would have been perfectly warranted in criticising Chris Judd for his iffy disposal by foot, for example, regardless of how many premierships and Brownlow medals Judd ended up winning), and that's why I always take the time to read what draft-watchers like KM have to say about these kids.

In the case of Melbourne's draft haul from 2019, for example, plainly it turned out well for Melbourne, but I don't think that discredits the assessments made about the draft at the time. Jackson was considered by many (including by many Melbourne supporters) to be something of a reach at pick 3, especially given the expectation that he'd have to play second fiddle to Gawn for the first half a decade of his career, and the fact that he is relatively undersized for a ruckman, and had little exposed form as a ruckman forward. Athletic big men are rare and valuable gems, but the failure rate for ruckmen taken in the first round is probably higher than for any other position. Regardless of how it turned out, it was completely fair to say at the time that the Jackson selection was a large, and perhaps unnecessary risk.

As for Pickett, again it turned out well, but posing questions over his productivity at the time of his drafting were entirely warranted (even at this stage of his career, if you had to pick a weakness it would probably be his ability to consistently find the ball), as were pointing out the risks of taking a small forward with a top-10 pick. Coming back two years later and gloating about how silly it was to give Melbourne a C-rating for that draft is to overlook that what KM had to say at the time had (and still has) a lot of merit, so long as you don't interpret it as an exact prognostication of how that player's career will pan out. As for this draft, I think it's completely fair to say that there are risks in Melbourne picking a KPF for need rather than what might more objectively be the safer, "best available" player (particularly since the late first-round tends to be something of a nowhere-land for KPFs - difficult to think of too many success stories taken in the 11-20 range), and that's going to remain true even if Jacob Van Rooyen becomes a 300-game player for us. I think those of you complaining about KMs assessments of your team's drafting should adopt a similar attitude.

 

[WCE_Talk]

Ultimately, there is nothing really wrong with Van Rooyen where he was picked. I rated him a few spots lower, but not a lot lower, and he's an obvious need filler for the long term list build.

I wouldn't draft him as a key forward, but as a key defender I like his game. I personally would have gone cheaper with Schlensog/Dean available later, particularly with Schlensog always sure to be there.

As a key forward, Van Rooyen could be another Weideman equivalent level player once developed, so I'd be looking for other opportunities next offseason if needing a key forward for depth reasons, or if wanting that option this offseason, a Tyler Keitel or Matthew Hammelmann as a rookie I would have been comfortable drafting and for immediate performance you'd be getting a lot better with their upsides in my view pretty similar.



Condon chose an AIS Basketball Scholarship and made the decision earlier in the month that he'll chase his basketball dreams instead.

Condon won't be the first or last to chose basketball over footy. We'll get more of that over coming seasons.

Broadbent now currently the number 1 pure ruck in 2022 draft pool?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Ancient Tiger]

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.

I guess this is the crux of the problem. It is your opinion that Alleer will be the better defender. The recruiters disagreed with you and it wasn't just the Richmond recruiters. Considering Alleer's disposal is arguably worse than Gibcus's and they are both great aerialists, I'm not sure how or why you think that he'll end up the better defender long term. You also have to factor in that all else being equal, Josh is 20 months younger than Leek and that's a big difference at that age. In the end though it's just an opinion.

 

[tugga]

Honestly thought Richmond had the best draft haul.

I thought freo won it.
Hawks did well.
But we really won’t know for a few years.

 

[Knightmare]

I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist over these draft projections. Basically all of the information we have about the players which have just been drafted comes from analysts like KM, and I for one appreciate it when they're candid about the potential downsides of draftees instead of living inside the happy rainbow kingdom of "wow, such potential " that most fans like to dwell in at this time of the year. Of course it's not an exact science, and of course there are going to be inaccuracies when you're projecting the career trajectories of 18 year old boys some 5+ years into the future. But I find that in most cases, irrespective of how successful the players end up becoming, the assessments of their potential strengths and weaknesses are typically pretty accurate (a draft watcher in 2001 would have been perfectly warranted in criticising Chris Judd for his iffy disposal by foot, for example, regardless of how many premierships and Brownlow medals Judd ended up winning), and that's why I always take the time to read what draft-watchers like KM have to say about these kids.

In the case of Melbourne's draft haul from 2019, for example, plainly it turned out well for Melbourne, but I don't think that discredits the assessments made about the draft at the time. Jackson was considered by many (including by many Melbourne supporters) to be something of a reach at pick 3, especially given the expectation that he'd have to play second fiddle to Gawn for the first half a decade of his career. Athletic big men are rare and valuable gems, but the failure rate for ruckmen taken in the first round is probably higher than for any other position. Regardless of how it turned out, it was completely fair to say at the time that the Jackson selection was a large, and perhaps unnecessary risk.

As for Pickett, again it turned out well, but posing questions over his productivity at the time of his drafting were entirely warranted (even at this stage of his career, if you had to pick a weakness it would probably be his ability to consistently find the ball), as were pointing out the risks of taking a small forward with a top-10 pick. Coming back two years later and gloating about how silly it was to give Melbourne a C-rating for that draft is to overlook that what KM had to say at the time had (and still has) a lot of merit, so long as you don't interpret it as an exact prognostication of how that player's career will pan out. As for this draft, I think it's completely fair to say that there are risks in Melbourne picking a KPF for need rather than what might more objectively be the safer, "best available" player (particularly since the late first-round tends to be something of a nowhere-land for KPFs - difficult to think of too many success stories taken in the 11-20 range), and that's going to remain true even if Jacob Van Rooyen becomes a 300-game player for us. I think those of you complaining about KMs assessments of your team's drafting should adopt a similar attitude.

As a process with Jackson, and I've mentioned it before, but if a player who looked and played like Jackson came along next year, I wouldn't be using such an early pick for him. It's not playing the percentages or recognising the history of the draft, not recognising where most of the best rucks come from.

Your approach to looking at draft analysis is exactly the perspective I would recommend for any of my readers, or the readers of any publication covering the draft, and I couldn't explain that with as much precision if I wanted to.

We all know their games inside out, but ultimately you can have guys get drafted into the system and get hurt and never get back to the player you were, go to a bad team with a bad culture that stays bad for a long time and as a result you don't develop, or you can go to a good team or a team that becomes good and has everything from the coaches, to the veteran leaders, to the culture to be a perfect environment. There is opportunity as a variable, some need games earlier, some need to be introduced later etc.

And on our ends, whether it's me or others. It's about after we have a few years on and understand how the prospects are going from the various drafts, it's about looking back and learning from those hits and misses and trying to learn lessons and learn how to incorporate those new learnings. I'm relentlessly approaching drafts past with this focus and always looking for new edges I haven't spent much time exploring or feel others haven't explored much. That's how we can all improve at the end of the day.

And with a Pickett, I look back now and feel like I didn't rate him as highly as I should have - getting clouded too much by the lack of numbers and not placing a high enough weighing relatively enough on the impact per involvement. And that's not just when he gets the ball, but all the visible pressure acts and any moment where it feels he exerts his influence. He's a little ball of influence, and it's a lesson for me in looking for those guys who can impact games in those ways. It's actually in part inspired me to look at Jason Horne-Francis a little differently this year, and for similar reasons rate Dittmar (undrafted) more highly than I otherwise may have with the way he can buzz around the contest and bring a real energy where you can feel the way he is influencing games.

Broadbent now currently the number 1 pure ruck in 2022 draft pool?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

For me, yes. And being so good and so advanced, yet having the late year birthday. It would be a reasonable assumption to think he'll be one of the players I'll be touching upon.

I guess this is the crux of the problem. It is your opinion that Alleer will be the better defender. The recruiters disagreed with you and it wasn't just the Richmond recruiters. Considering Alleer's disposal is arguably worse than Gibcus's and they are both great aerialists, I'm not sure how or why you think that he'll end up the better defender long term. You also have to factor in that all else being equal, Josh is 20 months younger than Leek and that's a big difference at that age.

The fundamental I look at with key defenders is by position, there is nothing remotely close to being as important as being able to intercept. All elite key defenders are exceptional intercepters.

I look at Alleer as having greater upside both as an intercepter and as a shutdown player. Alleer can also play smaller as a shutdown player, but then flying for balls is even more courageous and dangerous as a contested mark on another level. Neither do anything as rebounders, though I would agree with any who say they would prefer the ball in the hands of Gibcus, feeling he's the safer of the two.

Alleer is the better footballer today in my view. He is getting it done at League level v Gibcus who has been playing NAB League.

But if they were hypothetically starting from the same base level of play, even noting Alleer is two years older, he's still the guy I'd be rolling with. Why? He's developing more rapidly from a much lower base than Gibcus. He's not one who was a highly touted junior, and I look at that highly favourably along with the more rapid rate of improvement. I look at Alleer's athletic profile and he's the more talented athlete but will also become the more impressive physical specimen and really become very strong with the way he is putting on size and weight. And it's late and rapid growth and rate of footballing improvement that are the best indicators for upside, which has to come in even more heavily when analysing key position players as it's about who they will be generally in their 4th year in the system.

The incorrect assumption I feel you're making is that the two years matters a great deal. Mature agers often get drafted into the AFL and can be good AFL footballers often pretty well right away. But there are also a lot, whether they start out good or not, where a lot of them improve at more rapid rates even, and for many years longer than those who come out of the junior ranks. Why does it happen? Sometimes it's later bloomers and that means later development and more upside later. Sometimes it's down to resilience and if they're making it into the AFL later, they've generally showing a good deal of resilience and are types where they're going to put in the work on a higher level to achieve those above average outcomes. And often times, it's a bit of both.

 

[richoatthedisco]

If I can make a suggestion for next year, I would change how you do the strengths and weaknesses. It'd be a lot more concise if you just wrote it in a couple of sentences or little paragraphs. The way it is now is quite wordy and confusing. Just taking Leek Alleer as an example, you have listed as strengths...

Reading of the ball in flight
Intercept marking
Contested marking
Aerial marking
Wins one-on-one contests routinely and often turns one-on-one contests into intercept marks
Attack on the ball aerially

This is all essentially the same thing. He's good overhead.

While I'm on the topic of Alleer, I'd question the weaknesses you have listed. One dimensional? There are essentially 3 'dimensions' for tall defenders - lockdown, intercept and rebound. He's shown he can do two of them. And you have 'capacity to lock down tall, medium and small forwards' - anyone who can play on all 3 forward types can't be one dimensional.

Then there's Angus Sheldrick, who has 15 positives - the majority of which can essentially be summarised by the word 'strong'. Meanwhile he has just 2 weaknesses, which happen to be two of the most important things teams look for in midfielders. Foot skills and decision making. I'm not critiquing your placement of him in the list, just 15 strengths versus 2 weaknesses gives a skewed view of him as a prospect. Less weaknesses than the #1 player.

Three possibilities:
1. Gets paid by the word.
2. Loves the sound of his own voice so much he throws in extra additional words into sentences that otherwise in a manner of speaking would stand up far better in a structural, syntaxical sense in terms of clarity and conveying meaning, not to mention assisting comprehension of the reader visually and of course mentally interpreting the images via the retina and naturally the occipital nerve and of course the brain, without the added verbiagal barrage of nouns, adjectives and verbs in a veritable word salad of unnecessary extraneous verbosity verging on pomposity if not self-aggrandisement, or at least a misplaced belief that it sounds and/or reads clever.
3. Both of the above.

 

[richoatthedisco]

You might like to check out my 3.5 hour video

LMFAO

 

[Smythe]

Well done this year Knightmare, keep up the good work