Draft Expert Knightmare's 2021 Draft Almanac

[Penetrator]

Hey Knightmare how do you rate overager Karl Worner from Oakleigh and his chance at been drafted ?

 

[Knightmare]

Of course its a combination of both, but reading KM's rankings I get the vibe that performance is a significant factor

Performance with all prospects has to play a significant part with all prospects.

A continued lack of performance should hurt the stocks of any prospect. It certainly hurts Gibcus. No doubt about it.

The other significant factor is going all-in on a very specific conception of what a KPD should play like which, rightly or otherwise, completely discounts traditionally-fundamental aspects of the role.

There is a traditional view of what the position should look like, but my view is the position has evolved past there and will only go further in that direction.

AFL games are won and lost through pressure up the field leading to turnovers - which you can go on to intercept and then you want to score off the turnover at a higher rate than the opposition with that being where most scores come from.

All the top intercept marks and key defenders making that a non negotiable by position.

Even extending the concept beyond this idea, there isn't a single position on the field I'd actively seek out someone who can do nothing but negate their opponents influence. You're either going to lose your matchup by a little or by a lot by doing so. The aim by position should be to win your matchup as many weeks as possible, and to have that greater influence by position.

I think most draft watchers have Gibcus as a top 10 talent at the moment - including clubs. And I think he stacks up well with KPDs taken early in previous drafts.

For me, the question is do I take a KPD that high. Personally I’m not sure I do this year. I’d rather a higher rated mid and back myself to develop one of the lesser talls later on. So I wouldn’t have a problem with Gibcus being lower on a draft philosophy basis, don’t think the talent is a question though.

What are your expectations of Gibcus' career if you're confident in him as a talent? Could he become say a top-10 key defender in the competition? Top-20?

I might be on my own in making this call, but Gibcus has me actively questioning his talent. There isn't a modicum of talent from him when he plays forward and that's not a position he can play to any extent, and in defence while I'll grant him he can read it in flight and fly for and take some strong marks, he just doesn't do it at a suitable frequency to be convincing. Then there is zero drive generation I've seen at any point.

I can't speak for others, but I'm expecting something along the lines of Oscar McDonald from Gibcus at this stage. That's not to say he can't be better. For mine he's the better leaper/strong mark and better ball reader relatively, so hopefully he can bump up the frequencies in tapping into those gifts, but unless those numbers rise and he takes on more of that intercept marking role, that could be roughly how his career goes.

How would you compare Josh Ward to Marc Murphy early days?

I can't say I saw Murphy as a junior as I started watching the juniors in 2009, but in terms of immediacy of impact at AFL level I don't expect Ward to deliver to that level. He could be year one ready though if he continues to build on his current form and can be a very good footballer at AFL level.

how do you qualify to be in a NGA academy?
Is it becuase of a players cultural background?

Cultural background - targeting those that are underrepresented.

 

[Knightmare]

Hey Knightmare how do you rate overager Karl Worner from Oakleigh and his chance at been drafted ?

He played well in the Metro v Country trial match he played in and has some fans. For me against the odds as there are other overagers I prefer and have felt have been more consistently influential this year, but he's not without a chance.

 

[chopflop]

There is so much knowledge whether it's through the draft or in the list management space they're yet to absorb or learn and when you go through the history of it all - all the drafts, all the trade periods, it becomes obvious with time where those deficiencies are. There is far too much group think within the industry and there are opportunities for those who think a bit differently to find talent clubs overlook or don't rate as accurately as they could. Those who do and think what everyone else does will be doomed to have the results everyone else gets.

Didn't selwood just quit at the pies. You should try and get a formal gig.

 

[Knightmare]

Didn't selwood just quit at the pies. You should try and get a formal gig.

With all the travel commitments, I can't say it's a role I'd be putting my hand up for. I watch a lot of footy, and that includes during the week catching up on games that don't have to be watched live, but going along in person to x3 and x3 games, and having to leave games at 3/4 time to get to the next, that isn't the kind of lifestyle that appeals to me. I hope to start a family over the coming years, so adding additional travel and losing that family time isn't something I'd be willing to compromise on.

I'd be open to any kind of external consulting/external advisory role with any club that reaches out, not just Collingwood, if they feel I can provide some different insights/findings/thought processes. My interest at this stage is maintaining my current positions of employment, as they're both passion projects, and use my YouTube channel as that primary method of providing that education and unique insight for clubs looking for those efficiencies in their recruiting processes or concepts that can disrupt the industry and improve team outcomes.

 

[Mutineer]

Performance with all prospects has to play a significant part with all prospects.

A continued lack of performance should hurt the stocks of any prospect. It certainly hurts Gibcus. No doubt about it.



There is a traditional view of what the position should look like, but my view is the position has evolved past there and will only go further in that direction.

AFL games are won and lost through pressure up the field leading to turnovers - which you can go on to intercept and then you want to score off the turnover at a higher rate than the opposition with that being where most scores come from.

All the top intercept marks and key defenders making that a non negotiable by position.

Even extending the concept beyond this idea, there isn't a single position on the field I'd actively seek out someone who can do nothing but negate their opponents influence. You're either going to lose your matchup by a little or by a lot by doing so. The aim by position should be to win your matchup as many weeks as possible, and to have that greater influence by position.



What are your expectations of Gibcus' career if you're confident in him as a talent? Could he become say a top-10 key defender in the competition? Top-20?

I might be on my own in making this call, but Gibcus has me actively questioning his talent. There isn't a modicum of talent from him when he plays forward and that's not a position he can play to any extent, and in defence while I'll grant him he can read it in flight and fly for and take some strong marks, he just doesn't do it at a suitable frequency to be convincing. Then there is zero drive generation I've seen at any point.

I can't speak for others, but I'm expecting something along the lines of Oscar McDonald from Gibcus at this stage. That's not to say he can't be better. For mine he's the better leaper/strong mark and better ball reader relatively, so hopefully he can bump up the frequencies in tapping into those gifts, but unless those numbers rise and he takes on more of that intercept marking role, that could be roughly how his career goes.



I can't say I saw Murphy as a junior as I started watching the juniors in 2009, but in terms of immediacy of impact at AFL level I don't expect Ward to deliver to that level. He could be year one ready though if he continues to build on his current form and can be a very good footballer at AFL level.



Cultural background - targeting those that are underrepresented.

WOW
I saw plenty of Oscar McDonald and I've seen quite a bit of Gibcus live, other than Oscar also playing some forward at times as well as defence for the Rebels Gibcus has way more athleticism and the tools to be an excellent tall intercepting defender at AFL level. His prodigious leap has also seen him play Ruck for his school team. My recollection he also looked pretty good on Darcy when switched on to him in the Challenge game? I think his ceiling might be closer to Jake Lever than Oscar McDonald. You also forget with no football last year there's still a bit to come development wise something Oscar didn't have to contend with.

 

[Knightmare]

WOW
I saw plenty of Oscar McDonald and I've seen quite a bit of Gibcus live, other than Oscar also playing some forward at times as well as defence for the Rebels Gibcus has way more athleticism and the tools to be an excellent tall intercepting defender at AFL level. His prodigious leap has also seen him play Ruck for his school team. My recollection he also looked pretty good on Darcy when switched on to him in the Challenge game? I think his ceiling might be closer to Jake Lever than Oscar McDonald. You also forget with no football last year there's still a bit to come development wise something Oscar didn't have to contend with.

I would describe Gibcus' performance in the challenge game as adequate, but nothing amazing.

He had a few spoils and did well negating Darcy's influence, took a couple of intercept marks. He applied a nice block for a teammate to give them more space which I noted. There were many others who had a greater influence.

I'd definitely take the career of Jake Lever ahead of what I'm projecting for Gibcus. I've been consistent in suggesting Gibcus' leap is among his greatest strengths, and with the way he reads it, it's something I want to see more of. It's one thing doing something from time to time, it's another thing entirely if you can do something every week at a high frequency.

High frequency influential moments is what I want from players at all positions, and the frequency with Gibcus isn't of a first round of draft standard.

I've got Gibcus at this stage as per my earlier comment as something closer to Oscar McDonald. If his play improves, I'm more than happy to revise my views on Gibcus, but I'm happy to describe him as someone for his projected draft range as someone I would rule out completely, regardless of urgency key defence needs have to be addressed.

 

[Knightmare]

AFL Draft wrap with a focus on Josh Clarke:

The driving force for the Eastern Ranges in their 27-point win against Dandenong, Josh Clarke was the most damaging player afield with both his kicking and running difference-making.

As a point of discussion, I'd be interested to hear some thoughts from others on Zac Taylor's upside - both how high he could go if his improvement and production continues and how good he could become at AFL level.

https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_...-ranges-josh-clarke-damaging-rebound-defender

 

[Knightmare]

The Moneyball style disruptive draft and list management focuses all AFL clubs need to implement now:

Those disruptive opportunities:
Opposition talent ID
State league talent ID
Overagers
Mature agers over 25
International recruits
Veteran leaders

Point of discussion. Anyone else seeing additional disruptive opportunities in the recruiting space?

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJyW9YKxH4k

 

[blueiris]

The Moneyball style disruptive draft and list management focuses all AFL clubs need to implement now:

Those disruptive opportunities:
Opposition talent ID
State league talent ID
Overagers
Mature agers over 25
International recruits
Veteran leaders

Point of discussion. Anyone else seeing additional disruptive opportunities in the recruiting space?

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJyW9YKxH4k

Don’t most clubs already do this ? It’s very much the way Brisbane have been building for the last 3 years

 

[briztoon]

Don’t most clubs already do this ? It’s very much the way Brisbane have been building for the last 3 years

Pretty much.

 

[Knightmare]

Don’t most clubs already do this ? It’s very much the way Brisbane have been building for the last 3 years

Competition wide I see heavy reliance on picking junior talent through the draft. I don't see one club with the balance right. Hawthorn and Geelong have probably over the past 10-15 years had it most right because Hawthorn have gone heavy on both opposition talent and some mature agers and Geelong have gone heavy on mature agers and taken some rival talent in more recent times.

If we go through the ideas in sequence:
Opposition talent ID (no club in the competition trades for rival talent at as high of a frequency as they should if their objective is to maximise their best-22s and fill all their list needs. It's just some clubs do it better than others. My view is at least 1/3rd of a recruiting team should be on opposition talent. I'd be looking each offseason where possible to bring in half, maybe more than half of talent from rival teams. There is in my view at least that level of opportunity for increased activity - from trades, to free agents to delisted free agents. Lyons for Brisbane was a great get as I called at the time, Hodge was similarly so important to add, Daniher as a positional fit, Neale through the midfield. Adams, Birchall, Robinson, Ellis-Yolmen, McCarthy and Cockatoo to list them off as I think of them. That's by competition standards an excellent number of rival talents added and some good talent ID among a lot of those names. It's clear that for Brisbane among Brisbane's most important pieces have been added through trade periods, though as with other teams I'd suggest that frequency could be bumped up higher, even if it means more aggressively moving on other existing list pieces to create enough salary cap space to keep improving that best-22 via opposition talent. I look at 5-6 trades as an average, and I'm talking exchanges involving player additions/subtractions to be more like what I'd like to see in the average year and no club comes close to that. Maybe I'm just a Daryl Morey fan, but I'd shuffle those decks at double any levels we've seen in the history of the competition and have a similar relentless view towards improving my starting team and moving on those who aren't delivering and looking everywhere for that undervalued player who can improve my side).

State league talent ID (Geelong have gone great and I feel like target state league talent at an appropriate frequency and have really picked the eyes out of several drafts with their mature age talent ID on a level that no other club comes close to, to their credit. Brisbane have found a few. Zorko was an incredible get and McInerney another reasonable piece and provides value though few others top of mind have been taken by Brisbane and been successes, so the focus on mature agers could definitely rise, particularly with Zorko taken all the way back in 2011).

Overagers (Collingwood were the main club taking and having success with overagers for a few years there with Elliott, Langdon, Phillips and Ceglar. Noah Answerth and Keidean Coleman are two and a start, though it's not a form of recruiting Brisbane have any particular history in).

Mature agers over 25 (Only Richmond have looked even remotely adequate in this space in recent times with Marlion Pickett and Matthew Parker recently as those 25+ mature agers. I'm seeing across the state leagues capable mature being left on the table every year and looking like not only AFL ready, but capable AFL footballers, so until those numbers dry up, it remains an untapped recruiting group that clubs continue to neglect with their focus too heavily towards youth and keeping the list's age demographics within a particular range. Brisbane as with almost all clubs have no names taken from this space).

International recruits (No clubs are doing anything towards recruiting players from internationally and the AFL industry broadly in recent years have moved completely away from international recruitment. There are as cat b rookies guys coming across from other sports and we have the odd guy coming back from College Basketball having grown up in Australia which is something, and something clubs are actively doing, but the opportunity that they continue to miss, and this is all clubs collectively is looking at the athletes in other countries - assessing their athletic profiles and considering how those athletic profiles would translate to playing particular positions on the field as there are so many athletes from other countries with such interesting and unique athletic profiles that they could become high level difference makers at AFL level, even if they develop a small few strengths).

Veteran leaders (Not one club in the AFL gets this right. Even the Geelong's and Hawthorn's who have had the long lists of veteran leaders didn't keep them on as long as they should have. Whether it's Hawthorn moving Hodge/Mitchell/Lewis while they're all still keep to play or Geelong with Johnson/Chapman/Kelly/Podsiadly for some top of mind names. I'm not sure at this time there is one list in the AFL that has enough good veterans. Geelong have probably the strongest and deepest list at the moment where it's less imperative that they load up on more veterans. Teams such as West Coast and St Kilda who have a relative lack of good youth as with Geelong absolutely can move some pieces on and look to get some good youth, but I still even in their situations with their age demographics would be looking to offload guys who aren't and don't project to ever be best-22 material to make away for more good veterans if there are any available for nothing or next to nothing. As a concept, I'd take an aging veteran if they can still play to some extent, there is a reasonable case they could have a rebound season, or they can provide some veteran leadership any day as a component on my list ahead of a young or mid-career type who isn't clear AFL calibre. I'd much rather have less youth and focus on quality youth and have a high calibre of veterans there to support and maximise their development and put in place a best in competition level culture).

 

[briztoon]

Can’t trade in opposition talent if it doesn’t want to come to you.

Most players want to stay at the team that drafted them, especially if they’re drafted to their home state. Even when they have the opportunity to leave for more money.

I believe some of your assumptions above are quite naive. Especially if you believe clubs aren’t doing all you suggested already, and that there’s an opportunity for clubs to be more active bringing in opposition players. That comes at a cost, especially going all in like Hawthorn attempted to.

 

[Knightmare]

Can’t trade in opposition talent if it doesn’t want to come to you.

Most players want to stay at the team that drafted them, especially if they’re drafted to their home state. Even when they have the opportunity to leave for more money.

I believe some of your assumptions above are quite naive. Especially if you believe clubs aren’t doing all you suggested already, and that there’s an opportunity for clubs to be more active bringing in opposition players. That comes at a cost, especially going all in like Hawthorn attempted to.

I don't see what I'm suggesting being executed across the competition. Clubs have proficiencies here/there in some of the areas or some combination, but no club nearly has the formula right to maximise the opportunity cost they have available to them in a given offseason.

You're right in as far as footballers today as long as is practical in most cases remain loyal to their clubs, so that sadly remains a limiting factor in player movement.

Offer up a situation where you're not overpaying for talent and always have room to bring in more good players and that's an appealing situation, particularly if it's a team built on the foundation of never needing to bottom out as most clubs eventually elect to do.

You have to give players to get players and have the salary cap space, but there are always opportunities to approach players who are outside best-22 or on the fringe on one team and tell them 'join us and we're building around you as part of our best-22' in x position if you've identified them and believe with conviction they have that capability. Depends on the motivation of the footballer, but there are opportunities that can allow the frequency pertaining to opposition talent to rise.

The salary cap component is what can really open up the possibilities. Clubs should be waiting until the end of the season to sign all players and staff for that matter. Contracts should never be signed during the season. Contracts shouldn't be awarded until it's clear they're either projected best-22 and there isn't someone else elsewhere who can be had who would be better. Deals should be shortened on average compared to what is given out and the money awarded should be suitably priced based on performance, rate of improvement and durability with no overpaying to ensure there is always room to add future talent. Do that and players will go and sign bigger deals elsewhere, and will be available as trade assets allowing for significant activity and mean opportunity to add others and create a situation conducive to dramatically greater list turnover.

There will be clubs no doubt that will be more appealing than others from an opposition talent perspective looking at particular destinations, and those clubs that find that to be a problem would no doubt have a relatively lower allocation of resources into opposition talent ID and should be heavier on state league talent instead proportional to a club that is in a position to and is an appealing situation to attract substantial rival talent, but none the less money, opportunity to play and opportunity to win speaks, so if you're ticking those boxes, it makes your case a lot easier to attract interstate talent.

And of course targeting rival talent is just one of the areas I've mentioned.

 

[GeTrain]

Have they said how Vic's lockdown is going to impact the nab league games this weekend?

 

[Knightmare]

Have they said how Vic's lockdown is going to impact the nab league games this weekend?

It's confirmed no NAB League games in VIC this weekend. They'll have a week off.

With 5km limits and restrictions on why people can travel, it would be unrealistic to hope otherwise until lockdown concludes one week from now all going well.

 

[LittleG]

I don't see what I'm suggesting being executed across the competition. Clubs have proficiencies here/there in some of the areas or some combination, but no club nearly has the formula right to maximise the opportunity cost they have available to them in a given offseason.

You're right in as far as footballers today as long as is practical in most cases remain loyal to their clubs, so that sadly remains a limiting factor in player movement.

Offer up a situation where you're not overpaying for talent and always have room to bring in more good players and that's an appealing situation, particularly if it's a team built on the foundation of never needing to bottom out as most clubs eventually elect to do.

You have to give players to get players and have the salary cap space, but there are always opportunities to approach players who are outside best-22 or on the fringe on one team and tell them 'join us and we're building around you as part of our best-22' in x position if you've identified them and believe with conviction they have that capability. Depends on the motivation of the footballer, but there are opportunities that can allow the frequency pertaining to opposition talent to rise.

The salary cap component is what can really open up the possibilities. Clubs should be waiting until the end of the season to sign all players and staff for that matter. Contracts should never be signed during the season. Contracts shouldn't be awarded until it's clear they're either projected best-22 and there isn't someone else elsewhere who can be had who would be better. Deals should be shortened on average compared to what is given out and the money awarded should be suitably priced based on performance, rate of improvement and durability with no overpaying to ensure there is always room to add future talent. Do that and players will go and sign bigger deals elsewhere, and will be available as trade assets allowing for significant activity and mean opportunity to add others and create a situation conducive to dramatically greater list turnover.

There will be clubs no doubt that will be more appealing than others from an opposition talent perspective looking at particular destinations, and those clubs that find that to be a problem would no doubt have a relatively lower allocation of resources into opposition talent ID and should be heavier on state league talent instead proportional to a club that is in a position to and is an appealing situation to attract substantial rival talent, but none the less money, opportunity to play and opportunity to win speaks, so if you're ticking those boxes, it makes your case a lot easier to attract interstate talent.

And of course targeting rival talent is just one of the areas I've mentioned.

I can’t speak for all clubs but some of your suggestions just aren’t appropriate for all clubs. Bulldogs have tried bringing in mature talent from other clubs for years. But mostly we have been rejected. Even fringe players like Casboult have rejected the Bulldogs multiple times. Sometimes it was due to poor cap management by other teams overpaying to bring in or keep players.
Recently there has been a cap squeeze across many many Victorian teams. This has allowed us to bring in Bruce, Keath and Treloar. For the first time in decades, the Bulldogs might actually pay 100% of their salary cap going forward.

My take is that you can invest in whatever part of the recruiting puzzle you like BUT the market dictates what is successful.

 

[Knightmare]

I can’t speak for all clubs but some of your suggestions just aren’t appropriate for all clubs. Bulldogs have tried bringing in mature talent from other clubs for years. But mostly we have been rejected. Even fringe players like Casboult have rejected the Bulldogs multiple times. Sometimes it was due to poor cap management by other teams overpaying to bring in or keep players.
Recently there has been a cap squeeze across many many Victorian teams. This has allowed us to bring in Bruce, Keath and Treloar. For the first time in decades, the Bulldogs might actually pay 100% of their salary cap going forward.

My take is that you can invest in whatever part of the recruiting puzzle you like BUT the market dictates what is successful.

There will always be some players who want to stay/want to go elsewhere, but there are always many more players to explore opportunities with.

From trade targets, to free agents, to delisted free agents, longer lists of targets can be created.

There are a lot of underutilised and out of favour players out there. My suggestion isn't that everyone can be signed or will want to join your team, but more aggressive approaches and more approaches can be made with more salary cap room always able to be made if you're willing to move on a number of your own players every year.

The point people are missing is there are guys who are available that no one wants or is talking to. Who spoke to Matthew Kennedy last year? There were another 5 DFAs+ I liked over a lot of others remaining on AFL lists and through the draft, so there were numerous opportunities in that market alone.

Tom McDonald was on the trade table last offseason and no one wanted him. Melbourne wanted to move him, wanting to dump his salary after adding Ben Brown but there were no takers. Josh Jenkins was no longer a required player last year for Geelong with the addition of Jeremy Cameron, yet no one to my knowledge made enquiries into his availability either. Could Sydney Stack have been had last offseason given his off-field troubles? Don't know but I would have asked the question and would again this offseason if it turns out Richmond don't value him as highly as I do. Josh Caddy has being underutilised and been out of favour, if I needed a general forward I would have spoken to him and would again this offseason. Alex Sexton is another where he was somewhat out of favour and would have spoken to them and would again speak to this offseason about a more permanent best-22 spot. Aaron Hall I've liked for a long time and would have spoken to - I'm not aware of any interest from other AFL teams last year and having fallen out of favour with North Melbourne at that time he may have been open to a move, but with the rebound year he's had he'll be going nowhere. There are these kinds of guys I'm not hearing any discussion around and if you talk to enough of them, you can get some combination of players from rival lists if you're offering them job security, more prominent roles and better opportunities to be part of a winning team that won't prioritise playing youth ahead of you.

Stars get the opportunity if they want to move to pick their club, and with stars you're generally overpaying and offering them bad deals to join your club anyway, but when we're talking about guys who aren't stars and aren't as highly regarded, if you identify talent right, you can get guys no one else rates as highly as you do as those moneyball picks, with those types more realistic and attainable at a higher frequency.

 

[LittleG]

There will always be some players who want to stay/want to go elsewhere, but there are always many more players to explore opportunities with.

From trade targets, to free agents, to delisted free agents, longer lists of targets can be created.

There are a lot of underutilised and out of favour players out there. My suggestion isn't that everyone can be signed or will want to join your team, but more aggressive approaches and more approaches can be made with more salary cap room always able to be made if you're willing to move on a number of your own players every year.

The point people are missing is there are guys who are available that no one wants or is talking to. Who spoke to Matthew Kennedy last year? There were another 5 DFAs+ I liked over a lot of others remaining on AFL lists and through the draft, so there were numerous opportunities in that market alone.

Tom McDonald was on the trade table last offseason and no one wanted him. Melbourne wanted to move him, wanting to dump his salary after adding Ben Brown but there were no takers. Josh Jenkins was no longer a required player last year for Geelong with the addition of Jeremy Cameron, yet no one to my knowledge made enquiries into his availability either. Could Sydney Stack have been had last offseason given his off-field troubles? Don't know but I would have asked the question and would again this offseason if it turns out Richmond don't value him as highly as I do. Josh Caddy has being underutilised and been out of favour, if I needed a general forward I would have spoken to him and would again this offseason. Alex Sexton is another where he was somewhat out of favour and would have spoken to them and would again speak to this offseason about a more permanent best-22 spot. Aaron Hall I've liked for a long time and would have spoken to - I'm not aware of any interest from other AFL teams last year and having fallen out of favour with North Melbourne at that time he may have been open to a move, but with the rebound year he's had he'll be going nowhere. There are these kinds of guys I'm not hearing any discussion around and if you talk to enough of them, you can get some combination of players from rival lists if you're offering them job security, more prominent roles and better opportunities to be part of a winning team that won't prioritise playing youth ahead of you.

Stars get the opportunity if they want to move to pick their club, and with stars you're generally overpaying and offering them bad deals to join your club anyway, but when we're talking about guys who aren't stars and aren't as highly regarded, if you identify talent right, you can get guys no one else rates as highly as you do as those moneyball picks, with those types more realistic and attainable at a higher frequency.

I understand that BUT not all clubs have needs that match who is available. Sometimes you may identify needs, target the players available and still not get them. This can happen for multiple seasons at a time.
I compiled a list a while ago of fringe players who turned down a move to the Bulldogs and are still not regular first team players on their current teams list. It was a long long list…. Even late 2016, players still said no. Whether that’s not looking like a desirable destination or whatever their reasoning is.

My theory is that it appears that some clubs MUST focus on draft and develop. Then wait for an opportunity sometime in the future when the better player managers contact them (Bruce, Keath & Treloar). No point wasting resources on areas that aren’t really benefiting the team.

Additional:
T McDonald didn’t want to leave the Dees, he isn’t a good example to use as someone available.

 

[Knightmare]

I understand that BUT not all clubs have needs that match who is available. Sometimes you may identify needs, target the players available and still not get them. This can happen for multiple seasons at a time.
I compiled a list a while ago of fringe players who turned down a move to the Bulldogs and are still not regular first team players on their current teams list. It was a long long list…. Even late 2016, players still said no. Whether that’s not looking like a desirable destination or whatever their reasoning is.

My theory is that it appears that some clubs MUST focus on draft and develop. Then wait for an opportunity sometime in the future when the better player managers contact them (Bruce, Keath & Treloar). No point wasting resources on areas that aren’t really benefiting the team.

Additional:
T McDonald didn’t want to leave the Dees, he isn’t a good example to use as someone available.

It would be interesting if you would provide the list of the boys the Dogs went after and couldn't get during that period.

I don't have any information about McDonald wanting to stay and didn't follow the stories surrounding him beyond being aware Melbourne were actively shopping him and certainly tried to get rid of him. There being no suitors, there was no one to change his mind about leaving with there being no option to leave.

I'd definitely have resources in opposition talent ID regardless of situation, but there are absolutely particular clubs or situations where there would be relatively lower allocations of resources into opposition talent ID than would be smart for a club that is likely to have an easier time attracting talent. And over time that balance evolves as a team evolves. With the Dogs a contending side now, you're a destination so while a few years ago a lower allocation may have made more sense, I'd be ramping that up now, particularly with how limited the Dogs were always going to be last year with Jamarra in the draft, and again this year with Darcy.

I'd be curious with clubs as to how serious they get in their approaches to particular players. Whether they really go heavy in marketing themselves to opposition listed players and really go into depth outlining where they would feature on their list and have a great role/increased job security etc. Because I'd be really going heavy on wooing players to show them really clearly how they'd benefit from making the move. Common sense should dictate that players would be looking for enhanced roles and job securities to maximise their career outcomes and durations, so if guys aren't coming across, and they're fringe guys for one team and you're offering them a role as a clear-cut best-22 player, there is something going wrong in that process, and a greater investment into those approaches and presentations to those rival players would be needed.

With free agency, delisted free agency, we're now moving into an era where player movement will rise. We might get a mid-season trade period in the future hopefully. So there should only be increasing rival list ID opportunities even though the history of player movement has been slow moving to say the least comparative to other sports.

And just seeing the lack of player movement in the AFL v other sports really should scream untapped opportunity. Someone needs to step up and change that dynamic because it's an opportunity being missed right now and there needs to be a process implemented by clubs that breaks down any and all barriers to rapid player movement, to really change that culture of being a one club player when it's so often of the 18 clubs not the best situation for that player or where they'll be able to provide the most value to a team towards winning.

 

[briztoon]

It would be interesting if you would provide the list of the boys the Dogs went after and couldn't get during that period.

I don't have any information about McDonald wanting to stay and didn't follow the stories surrounding him beyond being aware Melbourne were actively shopping him and certainly tried to get rid of him. There being no suitors, there was no one to change his mind about leaving with there being no option to leave.

I'd definitely have resources in opposition talent ID regardless of situation, but there are absolutely particular clubs or situations where there would be relatively lower allocations of resources into opposition talent ID than would be smart for a club that is likely to have an easier time attracting talent. And over time that balance evolves as a team evolves. With the Dogs a contending side now, you're a destination so while a few years ago a lower allocation may have made more sense, I'd be ramping that up now, particularly with how limited the Dogs were always going to be last year with Jamarra in the draft, and again this year with Darcy.

I'd be curious with clubs as to how serious they get in their approaches to particular players. Whether they really go heavy in marketing themselves to opposition listed players and really go into depth outlining where they would feature on their list and have a great role/increased job security etc. Because I'd be really going heavy on wooing players to show them really clearly how they'd benefit from making the move. Common sense should dictate that players would be looking for enhanced roles and job securities to maximise their career outcomes and durations, so if guys aren't coming across, and they're fringe guys for one team and you're offering them a role as a clear-cut best-22 player, there is something going wrong in that process, and a greater investment into those approaches and presentations to those rival players would be needed.

With free agency, delisted free agency, we're now moving into an era where player movement will rise. We might get a mid-season trade period in the future hopefully. So there should only be increasing rival list ID opportunities even though the history of player movement has been slow moving to say the least comparative to other sports.

And just seeing the lack of player movement in the AFL v other sports really should scream untapped opportunity. Someone needs to step up and change that dynamic because it's an opportunity being missed right now and there needs to be a process implemented by clubs that breaks down any and all barriers to rapid player movement, to really change that culture of being a one club player when it's so often of the 18 clubs not the best situation for that player or where they'll be able to provide the most value to a team towards winning.

Again you’re being naive asking for names X club has gone after.

The general football public won’t hear about half of the players teams genuinely go after.

There were definitely teams interested in McDonald, but not at his current contract. Nor was McDonald interested in moving for more playing opportunities on a reduced contract.

 

[LittleG]

It would be interesting if you would provide the list of the boys the Dogs went after and couldn't get during that period.

I don't have any information about McDonald wanting to stay and didn't follow the stories surrounding him beyond being aware Melbourne were actively shopping him and certainly tried to get rid of him. There being no suitors, there was no one to change his mind about leaving with there being no option to leave.

I'd definitely have resources in opposition talent ID regardless of situation, but there are absolutely particular clubs or situations where there would be relatively lower allocations of resources into opposition talent ID than would be smart for a club that is likely to have an easier time attracting talent. And over time that balance evolves as a team evolves. With the Dogs a contending side now, you're a destination so while a few years ago a lower allocation may have made more sense, I'd be ramping that up now, particularly with how limited the Dogs were always going to be last year with Jamarra in the draft, and again this year with Darcy.

I'd be curious with clubs as to how serious they get in their approaches to particular players. Whether they really go heavy in marketing themselves to opposition listed players and really go into depth outlining where they would feature on their list and have a great role/increased job security etc. Because I'd be really going heavy on wooing players to show them really clearly how they'd benefit from making the move. Common sense should dictate that players would be looking for enhanced roles and job securities to maximise their career outcomes and durations, so if guys aren't coming across, and they're fringe guys for one team and you're offering them a role as a clear-cut best-22 player, there is something going wrong in that process, and a greater investment into those approaches and presentations to those rival players would be needed.

With free agency, delisted free agency, we're now moving into an era where player movement will rise. We might get a mid-season trade period in the future hopefully. So there should only be increasing rival list ID opportunities even though the history of player movement has been slow moving to say the least comparative to other sports.

And just seeing the lack of player movement in the AFL v other sports really should scream untapped opportunity. Someone needs to step up and change that dynamic because it's an opportunity being missed right now and there needs to be a process implemented by clubs that breaks down any and all barriers to rapid player movement, to really change that culture of being a one club player when it's so often of the 18 clubs not the best situation for that player or where they'll be able to provide the most value to a team towards winning.

I don’t think the dogs should be targeting lower reaches of other playing lists this year. Instead, we will lose Lipinski & Young. Our depth in the VFL is undefeated and only 1 listed player (Bedendo - still a stick but promising) hasn’t played AFL in the last 2 years. Our list needs are Ruck & KPD. I can’t see us finding someone with our limited picks, who hasn’t already said no within the last two years. Blake Schenslog I am certain will be offered a contract by us OR taken with a late late draft pick.


Demons in particular have little squad depth and could easily bring in 5 players to contend for best 22 spots, without targeting stars. They are the club who should be out there in that mode more than any other. They are probably just solid depth off a GF. I am really hoping they do, as I like playing the Dees, it’s always a close game and most of my friends are Dees fans.

We need draft picks for Darcy, McPherson & Raak (and Joshua Croft next year too). Next year, we will be more targeting players who will fill a list needs and will be found on rivals lists, experienced small defender will be one of those needs and best found from a rival than the draft.

 

[Knightmare]

I don’t think the dogs should be targeting lower reaches of other playing lists this year. Instead, we will lose Lipinski & Young. Our depth in the VFL is undefeated and only 1 listed player (Bedendo - still a stick but promising) hasn’t played AFL in the last 2 years. Our list needs are Ruck & KPD. I can’t see us finding someone with our limited picks, who hasn’t already said no within the last two years. Blake Schenslog I am certain will be offered a contract by us OR taken with a late late draft pick.


Demons in particular have little squad depth and could easily bring in 5 players to contend for best 22 spots, without targeting stars. They are the club who should be out there in that mode more than any other. They are probably just solid depth off a GF. I am really hoping they do, as I like playing the Dees, it’s always a close game and most of my friends are Dees fans.

We need draft picks for Darcy, McPherson & Raak (and Joshua Croft next year too). Next year, we will be more targeting players who will fill a list needs and will be found on rivals lists, experienced small defender will be one of those needs and best found from a rival than the draft.

McPherson and Raak may be available as rookies, and if bid on late, it's discretionary whether you'd match.

Surely Mitch Wallis, Rhylee West and Josh Schache will want out as outside best-22 players? Or at least if I were in their situations I'd be looking externally for greater opportunity. So aside from Lipinski and Young there will be others looking for opportunities externally. Jason Johannisen is another where if there isn't room in defence, he could be moved and of more value to another team as its his run and drive he can generate that is valuable.

Move all those guys on and picks can be added. *And among those there are some good trade targets for rival teams who can give them expanded roles or greater senior opportunity. But there should also at the same time be opportunities on other club lists to find some players who can fill some positional needs. GWS don't need Flynn and Briggs when they already have Mumford (who I would imagine the way he has been the difference between wins and losses this year goes around again) and Preuss added and no doubt hoping for a position. GWS don't need all those ruckmen and one should be gettable and should find joining the Dogs appealing as not only a winning club, but a club that can award them greater opportunities. Lloyd Meek from Fremantle may be open to new opportunities given the emergence of Darcy as one of the competition's premier ruckmen. Peter Ladhams comes in/out of favour and may not be someone Port Adelaide see as a solution and could be another who could appeal. Toby Nankervis may be gettable given Richmond will have Soldo coming back from injury who seemed to be their preferred ruck before injury and Chol also competing for a spot. Those kinds of names could be had salary cap permitting. It doesn't assure you can get any of them, but you ask the question and put your name in the mix.

Schlensog would be my key defence pick. Though I'd be talking to Jake Riccardi also about a switch into defence. Levi Casboult could be spoken to as it's not certain Carlton bring him back, and he could be a monster of a key defender. Cale Hooker I'd talk to as Essendon probably don't bring him back, and he's better as a key defender, so you may get a season or two out of him and could be suitable if he passes physicals. Another out of the box name is Shaun McKernan who also I feel has the scope to swing back and be a better key defender than he is forward. I don't see why two of those couldn't be brought in.

 

[LittleG]

McPherson and Raak may be available as rookies, and if bid on late, it's discretionary whether you'd match.

Surely Mitch Wallis, Rhylee West and Josh Schache will want out as outside best-22 players? Or at least if I were in their situations I'd be looking externally for greater opportunity. So aside from Lipinski and Young there will be others looking for opportunities externally. Jason Johannisen is another where if there isn't room in defence, he could be moved and of more value to another team as its his run and drive he can generate that is valuable.

Move all those guys on and picks can be added. *And among those there are some good trade targets for rival teams who can give them expanded roles or greater senior opportunity. But there should also at the same time be opportunities on other club lists to find some players who can fill some positional needs. GWS don't need Flynn and Briggs when they already have Mumford (who I would imagine the way he has been the difference between wins and losses this year goes around again) and Preuss added and no doubt hoping for a position. GWS don't need all those ruckmen and one should be gettable and should find joining the Dogs appealing as not only a winning club, but a club that can award them greater opportunities. Lloyd Meek from Fremantle may be open to new opportunities given the emergence of Darcy as one of the competition's premier ruckmen. Peter Ladhams comes in/out of favour and may not be someone Port Adelaide see as a solution and could be another who could appeal. Toby Nankervis may be gettable given Richmond will have Soldo coming back from injury who seemed to be their preferred ruck before injury and Chol also competing for a spot. Those kinds of names could be had salary cap permitting. It doesn't assure you can get any of them, but you ask the question and put your name in the mix.

Schlensog would be my key defence pick. Though I'd be talking to Jake Riccardi also about a switch into defence. Levi Casboult could be spoken to as it's not certain Carlton bring him back, and he could be a monster of a key defender. Cale Hooker I'd talk to as Essendon probably don't bring him back, and he's better as a key defender, so you may get a season or two out of him and could be suitable if he passes physicals. Another out of the box name is Shaun McKernan who also I feel has the scope to swing back and be a better key defender than he is forward. I don't see why two of those couldn't be brought in.

These players have previously said no: Flynn, Preuss, Nankervis, Hooker, Casboult (multiple times)

Ladhams isn’t on our radar, not a cultural fit. Meek - maybe but isn’t a Beverage style Ruck. Briggs - maybe, not sure he is better than Sweet.
Chol - interested but not sure IF we are interested. I would say yes but I don’t know enough about him off field to know IF we will be interested.

Tarrant would be a great get but he also on the said no list.

Personally, I would rather draft Darcy, Schenslog and Raak; wait the two years to see who is ready and then play them. Currently our KPD lose less than two 1v1 battles each game. Our system rarely exposes them to 1v1s BUT a better intercept marker in a KPD body would be great. We might get Schache to do this…. But he isn’t a contested mark.

 

[Knightmare]

These players have previously said no: Flynn, Preuss, Nankervis, Hooker, Casboult (multiple times)

Ladhams isn’t on our radar, not a cultural fit. Meek - maybe but isn’t a Beverage style Ruck. Briggs - maybe, not sure he is better than Sweet.
Chol - interested but not sure IF we are interested. I would say yes but I don’t know enough about him off field to know IF we will be interested.

Tarrant would be a great get but he also on the said no list.

Personally, I would rather draft Darcy, Schenslog and Raak; wait the two years to see who is ready and then play them. Currently our KPD lose less than two 1v1 battles each game. Our system rarely exposes them to 1v1s BUT a better intercept marker in a KPD body would be great. We might get Schache to do this…. But he isn’t a contested mark.

As a concept though, does saying no one year mean they'll say no if conditions change?

Hooker as an example if he has said no in the past has a very different decision to make if Essendon decide they no longer desire to have him as part of their list in 2022. Same story with Casboult at Carlton who they still need to make a decision on. Tarrant would also I'd agree as per your view would be a great get, and again they have to decide if they want him for another year. If any or all of those guys aren't wanted by their current clubs, I could see their minds changing about opportunities elsewhere. In particularly if it's a contender suggesting they're interested.

With these decisions for clubs with these veterans, that's a component of why veterans are so appealing to me. You can get them for free sometimes because clubs no longer want them, and that's an enormous opportunity if you can convince them to play on, as with when Hawthorn decided they didn't want Hodge/Mitchell/Lewis anymore, Roughead last year the same story, then Geelong with all the guys I've also mentioned, and Bartel may even have been another they forced out before he wanted to go, beyond those to join other clubs. Those kinds of opportunities for your Chapman's, Johnson's, Kelly's, Hunt's. That can happen. The most egregious example was no one wanting Brent Harvey when he was still durable, still one of the best kicks in the game, still covering the ground and not one player in the competition was ahead of him in both disposals and goals during the H+A season. That's why I love veterans from rival lists. Getting those names, and then bringing the leadership components, the culture components, helping the youth develop, all that helps so much towards both short term and long term success. There isn't a single club executing on that idea or they'd have ended up with the whole collection of those names + Brendon Goddard and among all the other veterans who were either forced into retirement and never AFL listed again or forced out and for nothing due to no meaningful competition added by other team lists. It may be and I speculate is the greatest untapped opportunity of them all.