Draft Expert Knightmare's 2021 Draft Almanac

[Prochard123]

But to answer the question - for a top 3 pick in a draft to be successful - yes you do need to dominate in a meaningful/difficult to replace position on the ground.

Lukosius' floor is an average AFL player, who admittedly is high for a recent draftee.

But he needs to be exposed up forward right now otherwise you will waste his talent.

 

[Prochard123]

Does that stat only measure Lukosius' kicking over the second half of the season since shifting into defence? As his first half to the season was on a wing. He does kick long a high proportion of the time and the further away you are from your own goal, you'll see a direct correlation with kicking efficiency as the rate of difficulty dramatically decreases.

It's for the whole reason, but his clanger count has actually remained constant/slightly increased since shifting to defence, which makes it worse because had he played defence this entire time his Turnover Per Disposal rate would actually be higher than previously indicated.

But then again, this aligns with your idea that playing at HB + taking more risks with kicking = more turnovers.

It's just we have players that can both take calculated risks and be accurate in the process (Whitfield, Dale, Daniel, Short, Dawson) and in contrast Lukosius' kicking is just not as good.

 

[chopflop]

Where would you take lukosious in that draft now in retrospect?

Who would have known where this would lead? Pandora's

 

[mustang]

How high could Goater go in the top 10 KM

 

[briztoon]

How high could Goater go in the top 10 KM

First you have to ask Knightmare if he rates Goater. Because this will heavily influence @Knightmare’s answer.

Then you really should be asking Twomey if he’s hearing if recruiters rate Goater that high.

 

[Knightmare]

But to answer the question - for a top 3 pick in a draft to be successful - yes you do need to dominate in a meaningful/difficult to replace position on the ground.

Lukosius' floor is an average AFL player, who admittedly is high for a recent draftee.

But he needs to be exposed up forward right now otherwise you will waste his talent.

I'd like to see Lukosius at CHF. With the way he leads up at the footy and with his insatiable work rate, he has the tools to do it, he just needs the opportunity and the summer in the gym building up his strength and developing his contested marking, which he/the Suns don't appear to have put any meaningful time into developing yet.

That said, with the way the game is played today, he may at CHB if allowed the freedom to intercept mark at a high rate and again improve that contested marking would be just as appealing of a weapon as unlike with other key defenders, he doesn't need pass off short to someone who can generate drive, because he is the guy who the drive starts from and can generate that fast transition offence to create the scores off of turnovers.

It's for the whole reason, but his clanger count has actually remained constant/slightly increased since shifting to defence, which makes it worse because had he played defence this entire time his Turnover Per Disposal rate would actually be higher than previously indicated.

But then again, this aligns with your idea that playing at HB + taking more risks with kicking = more turnovers.

It's just we have players that can both take calculated risks and be accurate in the process (Whitfield, Dale, Daniel, Short, Dawson) and in contrast Lukosius' kicking is just not as good.

Interesting if that's risen since his move back. Very surprising. Perhaps as a lot of his ball comes off of slow ball movement and he's asked to ignite the offense while the opposition's defences are already set up could be playing a part, given he's not generally the one intercepting to allow him to generate that immediate drive from that moment.

I wouldn't call any of those guys better kicks than Lukosius, it's more in particular situations you want the ball in a safe ball user's hands, and other situations, you want the ball in the hands of someone who can shoot long bullet's through the air and kill teams. In defence to take advantage of Lukosius' kicking, that's why I want him more as the primary intercepter if he's to stay there. They're the times when having someone who kicks like Lukosius is going to cause problems for rival teams. If the other team has been able to set up defensively behind the ball, then I agree in those situations most of the time the safer ball users are the way to go. So there is a place for both, it's just putting them respectively in the best positions so that they get the types of involvements that suit them best.

How high could Goater go in the top 10 KM

He's not a certain top-10, but in the mix given his versatility to impact games across different positions. I can't see him going top-5, but after that he will enter the thoughts of selectors.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

I'd like to see Lukosius at CHF. With the way he leads up at the footy and with his insatiable work rate, he has the tools to do it, he just needs the opportunity and the summer in the gym building up his strength and developing his contested marking, which he/the Suns don't appear to have put any meaningful time into developing yet.

That said, with the way the game is played today, he may at CHB if allowed the freedom to intercept mark at a high rate and again improve that contested marking would be just as appealing of a weapon as unlike with other key defenders, he doesn't need pass off short to someone who can generate drive, because he is the guy who the drive starts from and can generate that fast transition offence to create the scores off of turnovers.



Interesting if that's risen since his move back. Very surprising. Perhaps as a lot of his ball comes off of slow ball movement and he's asked to ignite the offense while the opposition's defences are already set up could be playing a part, given he's not generally the one intercepting to allow him to generate that immediate drive from that moment.

I wouldn't call any of those guys better kicks than Lukosius, it's more in particular situations you want the ball in a safe ball user's hands, and other situations, you want the ball in the hands of someone who can shoot long bullet's through the air and kill teams. In defence to take advantage of Lukosius' kicking, that's why I want him more as the primary intercepter if he's to stay there. They're the times when having someone who kicks like Lukosius is going to cause problems for rival teams. If the other team has been able to set up defensively behind the ball, then I agree in those situations most of the time the safer ball users are the way to go. So there is a place for both, it's just putting them respectively in the best positions so that they get the types of involvements that suit them best.



He's not a certain top-10, but in the mix given his versatility to impact games across different positions. I can't see him going top-5, but after that he will enter the thoughts of selectors.

Mate, if i'm Hawthorn i'm taking Goater at our first. So if he's not a certain top 10, trade down!

 

[Knightmare]

Mate, if i'm Hawthorn i'm taking Goater at our first. So if he's not a certain top 10, trade down!

Hawthorn probably could trade down to secure Goater if they want him. He's not a certain top-10 pick.

 

[FrogDude]

Hey KM, was just wondering who you consider the most AFL-Ready prospects that aren't necessarily believed to be taken in the high end of the draft.

 

[Big_Newon]

Mate, if i'm Hawthorn i'm taking Goater at our first. So if he's not a certain top 10, trade down!

If I was Hawthorn, I would be trading that pick 4 to a club like the Lions for pick 14 and 18. This would give you 4 top 25 picks not including academy and father son bids. This would enable you to get 2 of those 10-15 range mids. A mid-forward and maybe a ruckman like Toby Conway.

 

[Davo-27]

It's for the whole reason, but his clanger count has actually remained constant/slightly increased since shifting to defence, which makes it worse because had he played defence this entire time his Turnover Per Disposal rate would actually be higher than previously indicated.

But then again, this aligns with your idea that playing at HB + taking more risks with kicking = more turnovers.

It's just we have players that can both take calculated risks and be accurate in the process (Whitfield, Dale, Daniel, Short, Dawson) and in contrast Lukosius' kicking is just not as good.

it is interesting, i have stayed silent mostly these last few years, but before the 2018 draft i called out Lukosius for having a bit of a weak mind which was a criticism i got blasted for(i cant remember who it was, i might check my 2018 draft thread), but these last few years he seems to not be strong enough in the contest and now with your information that his intercept game isnt great and his turn over is high as well as his seemingly inability to play KPP or any position that requires you to be brave/tough(which is why some are comparing him to Watts), it seems his game has become more the winger/hbf who tries to gain as much meterage as he can(which when in form he can cut up some opponents), he does have a good kick but that turn over rate means he puts himself under pressure as a wing/hbf maybe because of a lack of speed?(a criteria for those positions), which is the only conclusion i can come to, so it really does limit not only his range of position on ground but his effectiveness in those positions that he can play effectively, because i have seen him beaten too often in air and ground contests over the years for Gold Coast.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Hawthorn probably could trade down to secure Goater if they want him. He's not a certain top-10 pick.

If Champs go ahead, he'll rise into top 10, and push our pick (someone like Day wasn't invited on the night, been elite etc and we took at pick 13). But if we can trade down for him WWWWWWWWW

 

[Dewyyyyy]

If I was Hawthorn, I would be trading that pick 4 to a club like the Lions for pick 14 and 18. This would give you 4 top 25 picks not including academy and father son bids. This would enable you to get 2 of those 10-15 range mids. A mid-forward and maybe a ruckman like Toby Conway.

If we did that, Goater around that first pick if expected. Get Mac Andrew if he's not gone by then or Erasmus and another mid, Conway with one of our 2nd rounders and a small/mid fwd.

 

[foodles05]

Hey Knightmare in relation to the Horne discussion I was wondering your thoughts on this?

How do you determine (when you watch a player playing against men who are faster stronger ect) how that player's outside game would translate to a game against kids his own age. Bearing in mind some things I assume you agree with?

1. If the kid is playing against other kids he is going to be able to get to the outside heaps more breaking tackles ect.

2. His speed and power overall will be massively more damaging (this is obvious by the relatively small number who are even able to compete at the senior level in SA and WA each year let alone excel)

3. Do you think going back and looking at how dominant said kid has been as even as an U/16 against the 18s can give you a better understanding.

Obviously when assessing a kid you need to make the comparison of one kid playing again men and others not. Do you take into account those ideas a mentioned above?

I only ask because it must be hard to do and I am wondering at your methodology? Also because having watched Horne a lot his speed, ball use, acceleration and power are truly elite and built for inside/outside in almost a perfect mix. It seems you don't see it that way based on how he plays against men.

Anyway if I am wrong about any assumptions I made but I am just interested in how you have come to this position as an expert in this. Only cause I want to learn and at this stage just can't see the concerns (small as they maybe) that you have about his outside game for example.

 

[Swiggy]

Hey mate have you got much into on Isaac Birt?

 

[Prochard123]

it is interesting, i have stayed silent mostly these last few years, but before the 2018 draft i called out Lukosius for having a bit of a weak mind which was a criticism i got blasted for(i cant remember who it was, i might check my 2018 draft thread), but these last few years he seems to not be strong enough in the contest and now with your information that his intercept game isnt great and his turn over is high as well as his seemingly inability to play KPP or any position that requires you to be brave/tough(which is why some are comparing him to Watts), it seems his game has become more the winger/hbf who tries to gain as much meterage as he can(which when in form he can cut up some opponents), he does have a good kick but that turn over rate means he puts himself under pressure as a wing/hbf maybe because of a lack of speed?(a criteria for those positions), which is the only conclusion i can come to, so it really does limit not only his range of position on ground but his effectiveness in those positions that he can play effectively, because i have seen him beaten too often in air and ground contests over the years for Gold Coast.

It's honestly just a matter of most people on Bigfooty lacking that critical mind and taking stats at face value (e.g. high stats = influential, whether we're talking about disposal count or metres gained as standalone stats to indicate high performance, although this has improved over the years).

It is also why I think it's not a waste of time to reason with Knightmare, who can actually digest concepts logically, and see what's beyond the surface of stats.

Similar to you, I got absolutely blasted for labelling Alex Witherden as a highly flawed player with the ceiling of a C+/B- players, who I wouldn't even give a 2nd round pick for, in the year he came 2nd in Rising Star. This was also when people thought Witherden was going to become the next Kade Simpson based on his disposal count/metres gained or something, absolutely ridiculous. In the end, he turned out exactly how I thought he would, a mediocre player who is huge liability on field, my view on him has remained constant, he does not deserve an AFL spot.

Another example was last year/year before when Tim Taranto was viewed as being worth 2x top 10 picks in a potential trade to St Kilda, which just blew my mind because I've always seen Taranto as the type of player that develop early and peak early. I also mentioned that Taranto is one of the worst kicks in the AFL out of all positions, and that he was most likely going to turn out to be a similar player to Matt Crouch - high disposal count, negative impact (not even 0 impact).

A final example is during the year Stephenson won the rising star. I was actually hugely UNIMPRESSED by his year. We dominated as a team and eventually made it to the grand finals. Stephenson was decent, but half his goals came from freebies playing out of the goal score, and his goal count most certainly did not reflect his actual performance. Our midfield dominated that year and even the like of Josh Thomas kicked around 40 goals... I suggested that if we get 2x top 10 picks for Stephenson we should just take that and run, whereas posters on our board were saying 2x top 5 picks or GTFO, 3 years later he gets traded for pick 26...

Anyways, the takeaway from all of this is that, there is no single stat in the AFL that can demonstrate a player's actual performance. Every stat needs to be viewed in the context of the overall situation, and the role the player plays within the team (disposals for midfielders, metres gained for defenders, and even goal count for forwards can be unreliable, taking Stephenson's RS year as an example).

Going back onto topic, Lukosius' high risk (turnovers) - high reward (creative kicking) style is fine, and isn't always bad, it's just conditional. For instance, that'd actually be my preferred style for players like Dusty, Petracca, Bont who are delivering the ball inside 50, where you need to take risks, since an okay kick/bad kick would most likely both result in a rebound for the opposition. But coming out of defensive 50, such kicks are so much less rewarding, and you definitely want the safer and more reliable options distributing the ball from defence. A turnover from defense is as harmful as a precise delivery into inside 50 is beneficial.

 

[M Malice]

If I was Hawthorn, I would be trading that pick 4 to a club like the Lions for pick 14 and 18. This would give you 4 top 25 picks not including academy and father son bids. This would enable you to get 2 of those 10-15 range mids. A mid-forward and maybe a ruckman like Toby Conway.

Yes please.

 

[weltschmerz]

Lots of talk about Lukosius, what do you make of Rankine? He’s clearly an extraordinary talent but he’s not showing it much.

 

[Ephemeral Hope]

I'd love to hear about Arlo Draper. Seems a versatile type that could easily slot into a team day 1. Not sure how high up he's looking or how low.

 

[Knightmare]

Hey KM, was just wondering who you consider the most AFL-Ready prospects that aren't necessarily believed to be taken in the high end of the draft.

Typically it's those who go earliest will be those readiest.

Daicos and Horne firstly are round one, year one pieces.

Matthew Roberts who should go first round, but isn't a certain top-10 pick is ready-to-go and can play early. Josh Ward can play year one and has an advanced game, though he probably goes top-5. Ben Hobbs is ready-to-go.

Later in the draft, it's always going to be the mature agers who can step in and contribute immediately. Blake Schlensog should re-join an AFL list and can contribute immediately. Angus Baker if picked is another I view as lock and load, in his case in defence.

Jack Avery as an overager in defence is plug and play - dominating in WAFL Colts and stepping up seamlessly to League play.

They're a few names to get the conversation started.

If I was Hawthorn, I would be trading that pick 4 to a club like the Lions for pick 14 and 18. This would give you 4 top 25 picks not including academy and father son bids. This would enable you to get 2 of those 10-15 range mids. A mid-forward and maybe a ruckman like Toby Conway.

Conway shouldn't require a first round pick to add. He's more a mid-draft pick I would have thought.

Hey Knightmare in relation to the Horne discussion I was wondering your thoughts on this?

How do you determine (when you watch a player playing against men who are faster stronger ect) how that player's outside game would translate to a game against kids his own age. Bearing in mind some things I assume you agree with?

1. If the kid is playing against other kids he is going to be able to get to the outside heaps more breaking tackles ect.

2. His speed and power overall will be massively more damaging (this is obvious by the relatively small number who are even able to compete at the senior level in SA and WA each year let alone excel)

3. Do you think going back and looking at how dominant said kid has been as even as an U/16 against the 18s can give you a better understanding.

Obviously when assessing a kid you need to make the comparison of one kid playing again men and others not. Do you take into account those ideas a mentioned above?

I only ask because it must be hard to do and I am wondering at your methodology? Also because having watched Horne a lot his speed, ball use, acceleration and power are truly elite and built for inside/outside in almost a perfect mix. It seems you don't see it that way based on how he plays against men.

Anyway if I am wrong about any assumptions I made but I am just interested in how you have come to this position as an expert in this. Only cause I want to learn and at this stage just can't see the concerns (small as they maybe) that you have about his outside game for example.

I can't say I have in my possession access to any historical footage to be able to go over what Horne was doing at the lower levels, other than going off memory and my own notes as to what Horne was doing last year in those games I watched. Point three is a point where if I was in clubland and I had access to historical footage going back, I'd actually be assessing rather than dominance and how he took advantage of weaker competition, but instead a lot more so on rate of improvement. For me that's a far more important variable as to project ahead it's looking at not only what they're doing now, but the rate with which they're improving and understanding those variables in play that have either caused a surge, or led to minimal improvement or whatever is in-between as that necessary context to project ahead with accuracy.

Where I part slightly in my analysis with Horne is I don't consider his skills elite. They're sound-good, but there are many who by foot in particular are more damage, and he can have the odd skill error. As for what he does outside of contests, I do find he struggles to find the ball outside of stoppages at a high frequency. So given that, I wouldn't feel at all comfortable placing him on a wing for an extended stretch. Even across half-forward while I can rely on him to pressure like crazy and be a positive in that respect, again, he's not finding or winning as much ball as he does through the midfield nor nearly impact the game at the same frequency. Maybe that can be developed, but at this stage he's a pure mid, despite how he has been used much of the time in the SANFL.

When watching Horne's games at League level, I'm noting every instance he appears on my screen. When I see him, where he is, what he's doing. He works his tail off defensively like no high end junior I've seen and that's something I see with him every game and will talk up every time I get the chance because that is what sets him apart more than anything as so much of what he does defensively leads to intercept marks and turnovers. But when it comes to locations where he finds and wins the ball, it's at stoppages I'm noting him winning those loose balls and having an impact, rather than around the ground for the vast majority of the time. He's not like a Daicos as a point of comparison who draws the ball continually around the ground because he isn't that option out the back, or presenting up endlessly at the footy, or that frequent linkup option in a chain moving forward as can be said of a Daicos which is why in that particular area there is separation between the two.

And being great on the outside isn't a prerequisite to being a great footballer. I can look at Hugh Greenwood and talk about him as a top-20 midfielder in the competition and there isn't a shred of outside work he does, with everything about him contested or pressure. Horne isn't nearly on that extreme and will find more of the footy on the outside and across half-forward, but he does present as someone who will win a high % contested and lowish volume outside as could be said of a Trent Cotchin, at a ratio and volume probably similar to that is my prediction once he is fully developed, due to where he finds and wins most of his footy, and that's not necessarily a bad thing as those high % contested ballers translate most consistently to AFL play.

Hey mate have you got much into on Isaac Birt?

Skinny and very outside, but can do some damage. He's quick and can use it by foot. He's one recruiters will be aware of and watching.

Lots of talk about Lukosius, what do you make of Rankine? He’s clearly an extraordinary talent but he’s not showing it much.

Rankine has been even more disappointing. Not hitting the scoreboard enough, not finding the footy enough. He hasn't improved since he was a junior.

It's incredible we can't talk about him with the likes of Walsh, Butters, Smith, Lukosius, the King's, Rozee, Thomas etc yet. I don't think anyone who saw him as a junior would be able to believe he is comfortable behind all those guys, getting dropped and not hitting the scoreboard or finding enough of the footy.

Rankine was my #2 behind Lukosius, just ahead of Smith and Walsh, and he wasn't a top-3 pick by accident. He was during the u18 Champs and during that year just unreal, whether it was through the midfield or up forward. He just took over games like no one else in that draft could. As per my podcast/video from last night, I really hope Rankine doesn't turn out to be a wasted talent, but with Gold Coast's history of struggling to develop their young players to anywhere near expectation, he could be another in that long line to not fulfill his potential. Like Lukosius, he may need to be on a better team that can develop him, as we're missing out on what should be showtime with Rankine.

I'd love to hear about Arlo Draper. Seems a versatile type that could easily slot into a team day 1. Not sure how high up he's looking or how low.

Skinny, but a good ball winner. Handy because he's that dual position mid/fwd. Strong mark. Skills sound and classy. He reminds me a little of Aaron Young, which might not be the most flattering comparison as he's no longer in the AFL, but like Young, he wins his own footy above his weight and has similar capabilities, albeit I'm hopeful he's a better version. He should be a first round pick and could be considered around the 10 mark is my prediction at this stage.

 

[foodles05]

Typically it's those who go earliest will be those readiest.

Daicos and Horne firstly are round one, year one pieces.

Matthew Roberts who should go first round, but isn't a certain top-10 pick is ready-to-go and can play early. Josh Ward can play year one and has an advanced game, though he probably goes top-5. Ben Hobbs is ready-to-go.

Later in the draft, it's always going to be the mature agers who can step in and contribute immediately. Blake Schlensog should re-join an AFL list and can contribute immediately. Angus Baker if picked is another I view as lock and load, in his case in defence.

Jack Avery as an overager in defence is plug and play - dominating in WAFL Colts and stepping up seamlessly to League play.

They're a few names to get the conversation started.



Conway shouldn't require a first round pick to add. He's more a mid-draft pick I would have thought.



I can't say I have in my possession access to any historical footage to be able to go over what Horne was doing at the lower levels, other than going off memory and my own notes as to what Horne was doing last year in those games I watched. Point three is a point where if I was in clubland and I had access to historical footage going back, I'd actually be assessing rather than dominance and how he took advantage of weaker competition, but instead a lot more so on rate of improvement. For me that's a far more important variable as to project ahead it's looking at not only what they're doing now, but the rate with which they're improving and understanding those variables in play that have either caused a surge, or led to minimal improvement or whatever is in-between as that necessary context to project ahead with accuracy.

Where I part slightly in my analysis with Horne is I don't consider his skills elite. They're sound-good, but there are many who by foot in particular are more damage, and he can have the odd skill error. As for what he does outside of contests, I do find he struggles to find the ball outside of stoppages at a high frequency. So given that, I wouldn't feel at all comfortable placing him on a wing for an extended stretch. Even across half-forward while I can rely on him to pressure like crazy and be a positive in that respect, again, he's not finding or winning as much ball as he does through the midfield nor nearly impact the game at the same frequency. Maybe that can be developed, but at this stage he's a pure mid, despite how he has been used much of the time in the SANFL.

When watching Horne's games at League level, I'm noting every instance he appears on my screen. When I see him, where he is, what he's doing. He works his tail off defensively like no high end junior I've seen and that's something I see with him every game and will talk up every time I get the chance because that is what sets him apart more than anything as so much of what he does defensively leads to intercept marks and turnovers. But when it comes to locations where he finds and wins the ball, it's at stoppages I'm noting him winning those loose balls and having an impact, rather than around the ground for the vast majority of the time. He's not like a Daicos as a point of comparison who draws the ball continually around the ground because he isn't that option out the back, or presenting up endlessly at the footy, or that frequent linkup option in a chain moving forward as can be said of a Daicos which is why in that particular area there is separation between the two.

And being great on the outside isn't a prerequisite to being a great footballer. I can look at Hugh Greenwood and talk about him as a top-20 midfielder in the competition and there isn't a shred of outside work he does, with everything about him contested or pressure. Horne isn't nearly on that extreme and will find more of the footy on the outside and across half-forward, but he does present as someone who will win a high % contested and lowish volume outside as could be said of a Trent Cotchin, at a ratio and volume probably similar to that is my prediction once he is fully developed, due to where he finds and wins most of his footy, and that's not necessarily a bad thing as those high % contested ballers translate most consistently to AFL play.



Skinny and very outside, but can do some damage. He's quick and can use it by foot. He's one recruiters will be aware of and watching.



Rankine has been even more disappointing. Not hitting the scoreboard enough, not finding the footy enough. He hasn't improved since he was a junior.

It's incredible we can't talk about him with the likes of Walsh, Butters, Smith, Lukosius, the King's, Rozee, Thomas etc yet. I don't think anyone who saw him as a junior would be able to believe he is comfortable behind all those guys, getting dropped and not hitting the scoreboard or finding enough of the footy.

Rankine was my #2 behind Lukosius, just ahead of Smith and Walsh, and he wasn't a top-3 pick by accident. He was during the u18 Champs and during that year just unreal, whether it was through the midfield or up forward. He just took over games like no one else in that draft could. As per my podcast/video from last night, I really hope Rankine doesn't turn out to be a wasted talent, but with Gold Coast's history of struggling to develop their young players to anywhere near expectation, he could be another in that long line to not fulfill his potential. Like Lukosius, he may need to be on a better team that can develop him, as we're missing out on what should be showtime with Rankine.



Skinny, but a good ball winner. Handy because he's that dual position mid/fwd. Strong mark. Skills sound and classy. He reminds me a little of Aaron Young, which might not be the most flattering comparison as he's no longer in the AFL, but like Young, he wins his own footy above his weight and has similar capabilities, albeit I'm hopeful he's a better version. He should be a first round pick and could be considered around the 10 mark is my prediction at this stage.

Thanks Knightmare I really appreciate you wrap. Can I extrapolate from the things you have said that you wouldnt expect Horne to average 30-35+ if he was playing in the u/18s?

 

[briztoon]

If I was Hawthorn, I would be trading that pick 4 to a club like the Lions for pick 14 and 18. This would give you 4 top 25 picks not including academy and father son bids. This would enable you to get 2 of those 10-15 range mids. A mid-forward and maybe a ruckman like Toby Conway.

If I’m the Lions, I’d want a second pick back as well. Preferably in the top 30.

 

[LittleG]

It's honestly just a matter of most people on Bigfooty lacking that critical mind and taking stats at face value (e.g. high stats = influential, whether we're talking about disposal count or metres gained as standalone stats to indicate high performance, although this has improved over the years).

It is also why I think it's not a waste of time to reason with Knightmare, who can actually digest concepts logically, and see what's beyond the surface of stats.

Similar to you, I got absolutely blasted for labelling Alex Witherden as a highly flawed player with the ceiling of a C+/B- players, who I wouldn't even give a 2nd round pick for, in the year he came 2nd in Rising Star. This was also when people thought Witherden was going to become the next Kade Simpson based on his disposal count/metres gained or something, absolutely ridiculous. In the end, he turned out exactly how I thought he would, a mediocre player who is huge liability on field, my view on him has remained constant, he does not deserve an AFL spot.

Another example was last year/year before when Tim Taranto was viewed as being worth 2x top 10 picks in a potential trade to St Kilda, which just blew my mind because I've always seen Taranto as the type of player that develop early and peak early. I also mentioned that Taranto is one of the worst kicks in the AFL out of all positions, and that he was most likely going to turn out to be a similar player to Matt Crouch - high disposal count, negative impact (not even 0 impact).

A final example is during the year Stephenson won the rising star. I was actually hugely UNIMPRESSED by his year. We dominated as a team and eventually made it to the grand finals. Stephenson was decent, but half his goals came from freebies playing out of the goal score, and his goal count most certainly did not reflect his actual performance. Our midfield dominated that year and even the like of Josh Thomas kicked around 40 goals... I suggested that if we get 2x top 10 picks for Stephenson we should just take that and run, whereas posters on our board were saying 2x top 5 picks or GTFO, 3 years later he gets traded for pick 26...

Anyways, the takeaway from all of this is that, there is no single stat in the AFL that can demonstrate a player's actual performance. Every stat needs to be viewed in the context of the overall situation, and the role the player plays within the team (disposals for midfielders, metres gained for defenders, and even goal count for forwards can be unreliable, taking Stephenson's RS year as an example).

Going back onto topic, Lukosius' high risk (turnovers) - high reward (creative kicking) style is fine, and isn't always bad, it's just conditional. For instance, that'd actually be my preferred style for players like Dusty, Petracca, Bont who are delivering the ball inside 50, where you need to take risks, since an okay kick/bad kick would most likely both result in a rebound for the opposition. But coming out of defensive 50, such kicks are so much less rewarding, and you definitely want the safer and more reliable options distributing the ball from defence. A turnover from defense is as harmful as a precise delivery into inside 50 is beneficial.

I agree with you about stat and impact very being different things.
Sometimes I watch AFL behind the goal footage. This shows how there are some very lazy ‘elite’ midfielders. I use the term ‘elite’ as I watch them jog or walk back to help out their defence OR sometimes move forward to cover another players man, so that they don’t have to chase their man. These players are one way only and I find their value minimal in terms of goal assists/score involvements, as they cause to be let in more than they create.
It’s hard to quantify how you assess their non-involvement in defence. There is no stat that says ‘failed to chase’ OR ‘caused goal by lack of effort’.
Some players do make up for their laziness by kicking goals in bursts (Stringer) OR are so creative with their movement/disposals that their lack defence doesn’t matter (Dusty). But I find many of these ‘elite’ players at the top of the rankings to be just stat padders.
Sorry about the long post, it’s just nice to read post from people who get that stats don’t always mean a lot.

 

[foodles05]

I agree with you about stat and impact very being different things.
Sometimes I watch AFL behind the goal footage. This shows how there are some very lazy ‘elite’ midfielders. I use the term ‘elite’ as I watch them jog or walk back to help out their defence OR sometimes move forward to cover another players man, so that they don’t have to chase their man. These players are one way only and I find their value minimal in terms of goal assists/score involvements, as they cause to be let in more than they create.
It’s hard to quantify how you assess their non-involvement in defence. There is no stat that says ‘failed to chase’ OR ‘caused goal by lack of effort’.
Some players do make up for their laziness by kicking goals in bursts (Stringer) OR are so creative with their movement/disposals that their lack defence doesn’t matter (Dusty). But I find many of these ‘elite’ players at the top of the rankings to be just stat padders.
Sorry about the long post, it’s just nice to read post from people who get that stats don’t always mean a lot.

If I could be so arrogant as to attempt to simplify this from a recruiting/player impact assessment point of view. Stats: It ain't how many it's how!! How you get them and what you do with them that actually matters.

 

[LittleG]

If I could be so arrogant as to attempt to simplify this from a recruiting/player impact assessment point of view. Stats: It ain't how many it's how!! How you get them and what you do with them that actually matters.

I also think what players do when they don’t have the ball is important too.

My other sporting love is NFL. I played FS/SS/WLB and we valued the ability to cover. IF we could cover all the potential targets, the ball would be held until QB sacked or thrown away…. A huge win for the defence. BUT those that contributed to that coverage weren’t valued in most stats until recently.
I see AFL in a similar way. Some people cover zones and men really well and cause turnovers or kicks wide to a contests (to get it out of bounds). There are no stats, so you have to watch film to identify who was doing a great job.