Draft Expert Knightmare's 2021 Draft Almanac

[scoman]

Hey Knightmare I completely agree with you on clubs having a blindside for a player like Hammelmann. I'm not sure what he has to do to get drafted. People will throw up the regular excuses, for example, 'He failed already, it's only the NEAFL or VFL, he is just not athletic, tall or strong enough for the big league." But the reality is nobody else, save maybe Keitel is doing what he does. None of the AFL clubs developing KPF players are doing what he does in the same leagues. None of the other delisted KPF players are either.
I look at a club like Richmond and wonder how they are going to cope with injuries to either Lynch or Riewoldt. The cupboard is bare at that club. Their only option will be to play extra ruck/ forward types. That doesn't seem like a great plan when you are trying to make a last ditch run at the flag. Wouldn't they have been well served to rookie Hammelmann who at the very least can provide cover for an injury? He might even do a JPod and partner Lynch for a few years allowing them more time to draft and develop their next generation.

 

[theGav56]

D+ was generous for WCE

I think Chesser will be good, just not quite the right option at that pick did we had him at 21 I wouldn't be melting). The rest of your picks are fine.

 

[theGav56]

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

That's what discussion threads are for. Personally I find Knightmare provocative with his draft rankings and often disagree. I find his thinking a bit pedantic. But so what? One of the most active threads on bigfooty, and that's kind of the point.

 

[theGav56]

LMFAO

I did stop reading right there.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

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.

All fair points. However, I think two years MAY make a great deal of difference rather than WILL make a great deal of difference. How do you know how good Gibcus could be in two years? It's impossible to be sure what level he will reach. He may not develop that much and be a bit of a bust but he could also develop phenomenally and be the premier young defender in the league. If it is the latter, he will be very much ahead of where Alleer is right now. If it is just the former then he will ultimately only be a little ahead of where Alleer is now or even a little behind. He may also be a late bloomer and take off in two years. So although you are correct in saying that the two years doesn't mean that he will surpass him, it does give him a platform that means the chances of reaching a higher ceiling are much greater. And in an industry that is very much based on odds, surely the guy that has the better odds of succeeding is the better choice.

 

[db26]

Hey Knightmare I completely agree with you on clubs having a blindside for a player like Hammelmann. I'm not sure what he has to do to get drafted. People will throw up the regular excuses, for example, 'He failed already, it's only the NEAFL or VFL, he is just not athletic, tall or strong enough for the big league." But the reality is nobody else, save maybe Keitel is doing what he does. None of the AFL clubs developing KPF players are doing what he does in the same leagues. None of the other delisted KPF players are either.
I look at a club like Richmond and wonder how they are going to cope with injuries to either Lynch or Riewoldt. The cupboard is bare at that club. Their only option will be to play extra ruck/ forward types. That doesn't seem like a great plan when you are trying to make a last ditch run at the flag. Wouldn't they have been well served to rookie Hammelmann who at the very least can provide cover for an injury? He might even do a JPod and partner Lynch for a few years allowing them more time to draft and develop their next generation.

His doing in a mickey mouse league.

 

[Knightmare]

Hey Knightmare I completely agree with you on clubs having a blindside for a player like Hammelmann. I'm not sure what he has to do to get drafted. People will throw up the regular excuses, for example, 'He failed already, it's only the NEAFL or VFL, he is just not athletic, tall or strong enough for the big league." But the reality is nobody else, save maybe Keitel is doing what he does. None of the AFL clubs developing KPF players are doing what he does in the same leagues. None of the other delisted KPF players are either.
I look at a club like Richmond and wonder how they are going to cope with injuries to either Lynch or Riewoldt. The cupboard is bare at that club. Their only option will be to play extra ruck/ forward types. That doesn't seem like a great plan when you are trying to make a last ditch run at the flag. Wouldn't they have been well served to rookie Hammelmann who at the very least can provide cover for an injury? He might even do a JPod and partner Lynch for a few years allowing them more time to draft and develop their next generation.

We saw again over the last few days A LOT of really good mature age talent get overlooked.

Hammelmann is one of many who is capable.

Bailey Rogers just got overlooked. I considered him for my top-30 rankings. He's one of those where it feels like if he's not at least on people's extended draft boards they're just not paying attention given he's impacting both as a midfielder and forward on a high level. Guys like that, Schlensog, Baker, Fejo Jr, Voss, those kinds of guys shouldn't be sliding through drafts.

Regarding injuries, and this is where my view may deviate from your own. But I don't value depth or see it as necessary.

It may seem surprising as I'm a mature age advocate, but I'd be picking those guys each time with a best-22 spot in mind to be filled.

With the PSP, MSD, if Richmond endure an injury to a key forward, it's easier than ever to find that replacement. It's one of those where they can very easily just bring in a mature age key forward if they want, be it a Keitel, Hammelmann etc.

All fair points. However, I think two years MAY make a great deal of difference rather than WILL make a great deal of difference. How do you know how good Gibcus could be in two years? It's impossible to be sure what level he will reach. He may not develop that much and be a bit of a bust but he could also develop phenomenally and be the premier young defender in the league. If it is the latter, he will be very much ahead of where Alleer is right now. If it is just the former then he will ultimately only be a little ahead of where Alleer is now or even a little behind. He may also be a late bloomer and take off in two years. So although you are correct in saying that the two years doesn't mean that he will surpass him, it does give him a platform that means the chances of reaching a higher ceiling are much greater. And in an industry that is very much based on odds, surely the guy that has the better odds of succeeding is the better choice.

The improvements players make can often be unpredictable. It's like looking back at Fischer McAsey, who saw him having this poor of a start to his career? I didn't see that coming. And it can equally work the other way just as easily where guys can become amazing as Harris Andrews did.

Since the start of the year, Gibcus has grown 1cm and gained 3kg. Nothing extraordinary and definitely does based on that fit the late bloomer category, but still some growth.

Both for floor and ceiling, I have Alleer ahead of Gibcus because we've got the standard of play from Alleer now, but then he is that later developer, newer to playing in defence, still learning the game and really despite being older going through a physical transformation stage where he's really putting on a lot of muscle and should be in particular in contested situations become even more of a force.

At this stage, we're all making our calls off of what we've seen and how we believe things will track based on how things have trended recently.

I fully expect Gibcus to become a best-22 player and he should I'm projecting at this stage become a good if not a very good key defender, particularly if he's encouraging to really go for his intercept marks because that's when he's at his best. I can't say I'm seeing anything transcendent with him where I can see him becoming one of the competition's very best key defenders.

 

[scoman]

His doing in a mickey mouse league.

How many goals did Ryan, CCJ and any of your developing talls kick in the same league last year? Add them all up and they probably still kicked less.

Edit: Here you go. VFL 2021

Hammelmann - 10 games 43 Goals (4.3)

Richmond:
S. Ryan - 9 Games 17 goals (1.88)
CCJ - 5 Games - 13 goals (2.6)
M Chol - 5 Games 8 goals (1.6)

Others of interest:
J. Jenkins - 8 games 25 goals
S. Wiedemann - 6 games 21 goals
E. Jeka - 8 games 19 goals
J. Schache - 7 games 19 goals
J. Riccardi - 6 games 18 goals
JUH - 7 games 13 goals
B.Brown - 5 Games 12 goals
M. Cox - 6 Games 9 goals

 

[Rusty Beam]

His doing in a mickey mouse league.

Which Mickey Mouse league would that be exactly?

 

[Knightmare]

His doing in a mickey mouse league.

Hammelmann was once great in the NEAFL, but he has converted that to the VFL this year. 43 goals from 10 games isn't scrub stuff.

VFL, as with the SANFL and WAFL are strong competitions. If you're dominating in those leagues, clubs should be watching.

Keitel similarly is brilliant. 70 goals from 19 WAFL games.

AFL listed guys who are pushing for senior games aren't hitting the scoreboard like that.

 

[JP2]

How much knowledge do you have of the off-field side of things, KM? When I see talented players slide or fail to be picked up, my suspicion is usually that they interviewed poorly, they have a lax attitude towards training, or some other personal issue. Does any of that factor into your ratings of players?

 

[briztoon]

From a opposition supporter what did you like about it.

As an amateur draft watcher, and someone with an interest in list building, the mix and quality of kids you drafted. This wasn't a draft for KPP's, but you got the best non FS/Academy KPP, and good mix of smalls, without duplicating what you drafted (which a couple of other teams did).

Next year add a KPF in a draft that looks full of KPP's, and maybe an inside bull, and your rebuild halfway there already.

 

[briztoon]

Knightmare

I attended the Lions draft night function. One observation made by one of the recruiters on the night was that the vast majority of teams don't pick the best available talent at each pick, especially teams that aren't down the bottom of the table. List needs heavily influence each individual clubs rankings, much more so than I even imagined.

If clubs drafted purely best available talent at every pick, most clubs would have very imbalanced lists.

I can tell you, the two kids we drafted in the first round were exactly the two kids we targeted at those two picks. Both were higher on the clubs own rankings than where they were eventually picked.

 

[Lord of the Wings]

Hey Knightmare I completely agree with you on clubs having a blindside for a player like Hammelmann. I'm not sure what he has to do to get drafted. People will throw up the regular excuses, for example, 'He failed already, it's only the NEAFL or VFL, he is just not athletic, tall or strong enough for the big league." But the reality is nobody else, save maybe Keitel is doing what he does. None of the AFL clubs developing KPF players are doing what he does in the same leagues. None of the other delisted KPF players are either.
I look at a club like Richmond and wonder how they are going to cope with injuries to either Lynch or Riewoldt. The cupboard is bare at that club. Their only option will be to play extra ruck/ forward types. That doesn't seem like a great plan when you are trying to make a last ditch run at the flag. Wouldn't they have been well served to rookie Hammelmann who at the very least can provide cover for an injury? He might even do a JPod and partner Lynch for a few years allowing them more time to draft and develop their next generation.

We won a Premiership with Grigg in the ruck and Townsend and Caddy as key forwards.

I think we’ll cope with injuries just fine

 

[dee64]

Knightmare

I attended the Lions draft night function. One observation made by one of the recruiters on the night was that the vast majority of teams don't pick the best available talent at each pick, especially teams that aren't down the bottom of the table. List needs heavily influence each individual clubs rankings, much more so than I even imagined.

If clubs drafted purely best available talent at every pick, most clubs would have very imbalanced lists.

I can tell you, the two kids we drafted in the first round were exactly the two kids we targeted at those two picks. Both were higher on the clubs own rankings than where they were eventually picked.

Bingo. If KM was a recruiting manager, and drafted based on his Power Rankings, he'd have 35 midfielders on his list, and the remainder would be mature agers that he saw as value picks.

So doing a post draft club rating based on his own Power Rankings, is pure click bait.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Knightmare

I attended the Lions draft night function. One observation made by one of the recruiters on the night was that the vast majority of teams don't pick the best available talent at each pick, especially teams that aren't down the bottom of the table. List needs heavily influence each individual clubs rankings, much more so than I even imagined.

If clubs drafted purely best available talent at every pick, most clubs would have very imbalanced lists.

I can tell you, the two kids we drafted in the first round were exactly the two kids we targeted at those two picks. Both were higher on the clubs own rankings than where they were eventually picked.

It's been a matter of conjecture on our board all year in regards to 'best available' vs 'list requirements'. Considering we selected 2 pure mids and an x-factor mid/fwd with our selections inside 25, i'm certain the end result was 'best available talent taking list requirements into account'.

Some clubs have the option of doing so. Others not so much I guess. Sticking with Hawthorn for example, in the 2019 and 2020 drafts we had so many list holes that best available talent was really the only option (Day and DGB). This year we NEEDED midfielders and we addressed it. Stoked.

 

[Rich01]

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

I like reading his views. He spends more time on viewing these guys than I do, and his posts along with others in this forum help me follow the draft and make my own mind up on who I want my club to pick (before they go a completely different way).

I enjoy his reads and appreciate the time and passion he puts into his work, but have found that by looking through his previous years assessments, the difference between an enthusiastic watcher and a professional recruiter is stark. He might never admit he was wrong, but he is respectful and thoughtful in answering the questions posed to him.

All grain of salt stuff though. Someone having a passion and sharing that is a positive thing. Just put it into context for what it is.

 

[MacStradbroke]

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

Agree, but if I was being paid to provide my opinion post draft…I’m giving it!

 

[Barnzy]

Knightmare

I attended the Lions draft night function. One observation made by one of the recruiters on the night was that the vast majority of teams don't pick the best available talent at each pick, especially teams that aren't down the bottom of the table. List needs heavily influence each individual clubs rankings, much more so than I even imagined.

If clubs drafted purely best available talent at every pick, most clubs would have very imbalanced lists.

I can tell you, the two kids we drafted in the first round were exactly the two kids we targeted at those two picks. Both were higher on the clubs own rankings than where they were eventually picked.

Very good point.

 

[Knightmare]

How much knowledge do you have of the off-field side of things, KM? When I see talented players slide or fail to be picked up, my suspicion is usually that they interviewed poorly, they have a lax attitude towards training, or some other personal issue. Does any of that factor into your ratings of players?

Some, but it's not something I choose to report on to any degree, so it's not something I put a great deal of focus into.

Reporting on the players and how they play, I don't see it as my place to report on any of that. If guys have off-field problems, if they're lazy, if they interview poorly or whatever the case is, I don't think it's fair on the kids to report on that or for the purposes of player rankings to go too hard on them for that. In talking to scouts in clubland, their feedback has always been that they do all that, and if ever you're passing notes onto them or giving opinions to them on various players, it should be just on what they do on the field as they'll have all the personality profiling and everything covered.

I stick to reporting on and providing opinions on their games and reporting on that. If others want to cover that, they may. But going into the off-field stuff, I don't view that as media reporting that is conducive to the growth of the game.

Other than what LJ does on YouTube having a quick 10 minute chat to some of the prospects, I genuinely hope for the kids reporting on them broadly speaking remains based purely on what is seen or not seen from them on-field.

Knightmare

I attended the Lions draft night function. One observation made by one of the recruiters on the night was that the vast majority of teams don't pick the best available talent at each pick, especially teams that aren't down the bottom of the table. List needs heavily influence each individual clubs rankings, much more so than I even imagined.

If clubs drafted purely best available talent at every pick, most clubs would have very imbalanced lists.

I can tell you, the two kids we drafted in the first round were exactly the two kids we targeted at those two picks. Both were higher on the clubs own rankings than where they were eventually picked.

That's fine if they're doing that, but my opinion is that's a mistake.

Where do the vast majority of the competitions very best midfielders come? Incredibly early in the draft? What about any other position on the field? Not at nearly the same concentration. What about midfielders early draft v the success of others? Midfielders again at a substantially heavier concentration are the successes in those ranges more than any other position.

And you can look at the best midfielders in the comp. Bont/Petracca/C.Oliver, or last generation Danger/Dusty. They're all top-10 picks. Fyfe was top-20.

If a midfielder early draft is available and they're the best available, I'm taking them. And ultimately they're the most important players on the football field because being stationed in the centre of the field and having the most involvements of anyone on the field, you want that greater concentration of quality than the opposing side.

Other positions with good talent ID, all those spots can be addressed mid-late/rookie draft, or even through trade and free agency periods.

And with the quality this year being concentrated in the form of midfielders, it's the year to draft the good ones.

And if ever you get a list imbalance where you are like the Western Bulldogs and you have a stack of incredible midfielders and more good ones than you can use through there. You can always trade them away for something else, as clubs will pay a lot more for a good midfielder than they would for just about anything other than perhaps a great key forward, and there aren't a lot of those, so that's more out of scarcity.

Bingo. If KM was a recruiting manager, and drafted based on his Power Rankings, he'd have 35 midfielders on his list, and the remainder would be mature agers that he saw as value picks.

So doing a post draft club rating based on his own Power Rankings, is pure click bait.

I would be this year. It's a midfielders draft.

I always have more of a leaning towards taking midfielders earlier than will be found on other draft board. That's because they're the best players and generally the best juniors if they're not KPPs are developed as midfielders.

And again as with my previous post. Where do the best midfielders in drafts go? They go very early. And they're the ones you will look back at in hindsight and say 'they should have gone earlier than they did' when you look at the names.

So if I'm picking, more than not, I'd be taking midfielders early. History tells us it's the best way to draft more years than not.

And again to fill those list needs. If I need a ruck. You're getting a ruckman cheap every trade period or you can rookie them to get the best value. Then all the other positions, other than midfielders, I would be very comfortable doing some combination of trading for, taking as a free agent, or taking as a mature ager late/rookie to fill any list hole.

And when you're approaching building a list, it's about maximising that best-22 quality, so if you have holes back, forward or wherever, you go into those periods and go get those guys who will improve those other positions and keep the quality of that best-22 trending forward.

 

[remfan101]

I'm surprised you don't rate Paul Curtis Knightmare, he seems the classic 'late developing + rapid improvement = high upside' type you usually have a lot of time for.

 

[Knightmare]

I'm surprised you don't rate Paul Curtis Knightmare, he seems the classic 'late developing + rapid improvement = high upside' type you usually have a lot of time for.

Curtis can hit the scoreboard and is a strong mark on the lead, they're the big positives. So he is someone for my extended draft board I considered.

Why is he not there? He's allergic to winning his own ball, so that's going to limit him, both preventing him being viable to push into the midfield in the future, but also will make him easier at AFL level to defend.

Had the season continued, maybe I'd have Curtis higher, but I can only rate him on how he has played up until the Victorian campaign concluded unfortunately.

Hopefully for North Melbourne he can become something like a Daniel Menzel (minus the injuries). That's the rough developmental vision I'd be pursuing now that he's on the list and see how close to that he can get.

 

[Pomsta]

We saw again over the last few days A LOT of really good mature age talent get overlooked.

Hammelmann is one of many who is capable.

Bailey Rogers just got overlooked. I considered him for my top-30 rankings. He's one of those where it feels like if he's not at least on people's extended draft boards they're just not paying attention given he's impacting both as a midfielder and forward on a high level. Guys like that, Schlensog, Baker, Fejo Jr, Voss, those kinds of guys shouldn't be sliding through drafts.

Regarding injuries, and this is where my view may deviate from your own. But I don't value depth or see it as necessary.

It may seem surprising as I'm a mature age advocate, but I'd be picking those guys each time with a best-22 spot in mind to be filled.

With the PSP, MSD, if Richmond endure an injury to a key forward, it's easier than ever to find that replacement. It's one of those where they can very easily just bring in a mature age key forward if they want, be it a Keitel, Hammelmann etc.



The improvements players make can often be unpredictable. It's like looking back at Fischer McAsey, who saw him having this poor of a start to his career? I didn't see that coming. And it can equally work the other way just as easily where guys can become amazing as Harris Andrews did.

Since the start of the year, Gibcus has grown 1cm and gained 3kg. Nothing extraordinary and definitely does based on that fit the late bloomer category, but still some growth.

Both for floor and ceiling, I have Alleer ahead of Gibcus because we've got the standard of play from Alleer now, but then he is that later developer, newer to playing in defence, still learning the game and really despite being older going through a physical transformation stage where he's really putting on a lot of muscle and should be in particular in contested situations become even more of a force.

At this stage, we're all making our calls off of what we've seen and how we believe things will track based on how things have trended recently.

I fully expect Gibcus to become a best-22 player and he should I'm projecting at this stage become a good if not a very good key defender, particularly if he's encouraging to really go for his intercept marks because that's when he's at his best. I can't say I'm seeing anything transcendent with him where I can see him becoming one of the competition's very best key defenders.

Richmond have said that they will look at Gibcus early as a swing man and start him forward to learn the craft. How do you see Gibcus as a forward?

 

[briztoon]

That's fine if they're doing that, but my opinion is that's a mistake.

Where do the vast majority of the competitions very best midfielders come? Incredibly early in the draft? What about any other position on the field? Not at nearly the same concentration. What about midfielders early draft v the success of others? Midfielders again at a substantially heavier concentration are the successes in those ranges more than any other position.

And you can look at the best midfielders in the comp. Bont/Petracca/C.Oliver, or last generation Danger/Dusty. They're all top-10 picks. Fyfe was top-20.

If a midfielder early draft is available and they're the best available, I'm taking them. And ultimately they're the most important players on the football field because being stationed in the centre of the field and having the most involvements of anyone on the field, you want that greater concentration of quality than the opposing side.

Other positions with good talent ID, all those spots can be addressed mid-late/rookie draft, or even through trade and free agency periods.

And with the quality this year being concentrated in the form of midfielders, it's the year to draft the good ones.

And if ever you get a list imbalance where you are like the Western Bulldogs and you have a stack of incredible midfielders and more good ones than you can use through there. You can always trade them away for something else, as clubs will pay a lot more for a good midfielder than they would for just about anything other than perhaps a great key forward, and there aren't a lot of those, so that's more out of scarcity.

Our recruiters said, if you go best available at every pick, you end up with a midfield top heavy team, with little quality in most of the other positions, like GWS.

Problem is Knightmare, you end up with the exact type of list and problems that teams who continually struggle to climb the ladder end up with.

I’ve got no issue with your rankings, they’re your personal opinion, but for non Victorian teams, list building requires a lot more than taking best available talent every time.

 

[Knightmare]

Richmond have said that they will look at Gibcus early as a swing man and start him forward to learn the craft. How do you see Gibcus as a forward?

Gibcus is a liability as a key forward at this point in his development. I find it staggering Richmond would even flag that as a possibility. He has had a few games there and struggled to impact in each of those games to any degree this year.

If he's to be a success, it's as a key defender and one who focuses on going for intercept marks. He reads it better behind the ball. As a forward he isn't great at ground level and hasn't shown any of the key forward talent/instincts to be a success there.

Our recruiters said, if you go best available at every pick, you end up with a midfield top heavy team, with little quality in most of the other positions, like GWS.

Problem is Knightmare, you end up with the exact type of list and problems that teams who continually struggle to climb the ladder end up with.

I’ve got no issue with your rankings, there your personal opinion, but for non Victorian teams, list building requires a lot more than taking best available talent every time.

GWS in their list build I found rather than going too heavy on midfielders instead went too heavy on key position players early on and paid the price for that. They took more than they needed, and a lot of them weren't ever worth first round picks and GWS weren't ever going to be able to make them into best-22 players. In their more recent list build, they have become midfielder heavy and have a lot of the same types in terms of those slower midfielders, but when you get Hopper and Green through their academy that's going to happen.

Now that GWS realise they have a lot of good midfielders but lack in other positions, as per my earlier suggestion, they need to explore trades and look at how they can through the trade and free agency period balance that list out and ultimately improve their best-22.

Where I'm coming from broadly speaking is not about my own personal power rankings, I'm drawing things back to methodology of list needs being met during trade/free agency/DFA periods, and as required with mature agers later on. Going early on need fillers should never be necessary as a concept because these other methods of recruitment should be able to yield you someone, with mature agers alone just about in any given year being able to give you any positional or stylistic type you could need, even if you're a club where you don't necessarily attract trade targets/free agents. It just means going more heavily towards mature agers because there are so many who are AFL standard today.