Draft Expert Knightmare's 2021 Draft Almanac

[Knightmare]

Hi mate, just dropping by - have dished out some stick in the past but I think your rankings were excellent this year. Clearly moved away from the dreaded groupthink further and in doing so, probably got closer to the mark (and, ironically, I reckon you shape the groupthink in 'supporter-land').

Good stuff, an entertaining follow all year.

Thanks for the kind words and dropping by Skippos.

At the end of the day I'm just one opinion and I'm here to report on and provide opinions on what I'm seeing, what I'm observing and what opportunities there are in all AFL recruiting spaces.

If the debate ever slowed down and no one was disagreeing with me, there wouldn't be anything to talk about and this thread wouldn't have the same life every year.

 

[RUNVS]

Have you blokes still got Simon Dalrymple on the drafting team? If so you’ll be fine! Not sure if he went back to teaching though but got he’s got a good eye for footy talent.

Yep we still have him. According to Beatson Dalrymple crawled into a ball when we swapped pick 12 for pick 16.

 

[dee64]

My first round 2021 AFL draft review including detailed pick and player thoughts as well as who I would have selected with each pick if I were the selector:



Point of discussion: Interested to hear if others agree with my thoughts broadly speaking that the best way to draft this year was to take the best midfielder available early and address other list needs with later picks so as to maximise the quality coming in.

https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_...draft-************-espn-reviewing-first-round

Jason Taylor at Melbourne held a different view. He said that Melbourne would be drafting for needs in areas that we needed back-up. Once he stated that, it was clear that we'd take Jacob Van Rooyen. The selection makes perfect sense given the age of T Mac and Ben Brown, and the uncertainty of Weidemann. JVR will have plenty of time to develop. Any inside mid would be waiting in a long queue.

 

[Deadly Darcy]

Got any notes on future HOFer Arthur Jones???

 

[Knightmare]

Jason Taylor at Melbourne held a different view. He said that Melbourne would be drafting for needs in areas that we needed back-up. Once he stated that, it was clear that we'd take Jacob Van Rooyen. The selection makes perfect sense given the age of T Mac and Ben Brown, and the uncertainty of Weidemann. JVR will have plenty of time to develop. Any inside mid would be waiting in a long queue.

The Van Rooyen pick isn't one I'm going to mark down as he wasn't far outside 20 in my power rankings. It wasn't like it was an unreasonable reach. He's a developable KPP, and in particular his play in defence has impressed me.

And fair call re. a midfielder being far down the depth charts given the strength and depth of Melbourne's midfield. I still like Johnson for Melbourne, not just on quality, but it's the contrast to his game. Melbourne don't have a midfielder who moves or uses the footy like him. A bit similar to GWS at 2 with Callaghan where he's the pick for them as a pick that works because he's so contrasting to what they already have.

Got any notes on future HOFer Arthur Jones???

HOF ambitions already?

In my 29 September weekly wrap Arthur Jones is my player focus.

If you google Arthur Jones Doerre it should be your first link.

On his day, if he can find enough of the footy. He does have gamebreaking capabilities.

 

[theGav56]

KM I'm a huge Swans supporter but couldn't hide my disappointment when we drafted Sheldrick which I thought was again a reach with a first rounder...

Then I read your tweets and instantly felt a little better with your comparison to Lachie Neale which is something we definitely need!

But then I did a bit of my own research and watch at least the first half of both WA vs SA games that people have raved about with him and my disappointment returned...

I didn't see Lachie Neale. He disposal by foot was ordinary at best where Neale is a very good decision maker in traffic with good foot skills. Yes Sheldrick is strong in the contest but look at the size of him weight wise compared to the other kids!

Please tell me you've seen plenty more vision that proves me wrong and he is going to be the 2nd coming of Neale because I really don't want ANOTHER first round Swans bust!

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

I think Mitch Crowden is a better like for like than Neale. Quite powerful in the midfield pre-draft. A little raging bull. It hasn't translated into him becoming a decent AFL player yet, and likely won't. Hope it does for Sheldrick.

 

[Wce17]

Thoughts on the eagles picks KM?

 

[danster168]

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

 

[The Wrecker]

And fair call re. a midfielder being far down the depth charts given the strength and depth of Melbourne's midfield. I still like Johnson for Melbourne, not just on quality, but it's the contrast to his game. Melbourne don't have a midfielder who moves or uses the footy like him. A bit similar to GWS at 2 with Callaghan where he's the pick for them as a pick that works because he's so contrasting to what they already have.

I think Melbourne have a pretty clear philosophy on starting midfielders. They need to be first dibs midfielders, contested beasts. Oliver, Viney Petracca, Sparrow, etc. They've added Dunstan to this as well The exceptions are role players like Jordon and Harmes who mostly tag or play as a defensive mids.
Goodwin also doesn't really do 'outside' mids. The ball movers like Salem, Neal Bullen, Rivers, Brayshaw, etc all crack in pretty hard and have a well-rounded games.
So Johnson seems a bit in between for Melb's needs. Not elite inside so therefore wouldn't be a starting mid and maybe they have sufficient flankers at the moment?

 

[Knightmare]

Thoughts on the eagles picks KM?

My thoughts on all teams will be in my piece today.

I think Mitch Crowden is a better like for like than Neale. Quite powerful in the midfield pre-draft. A little raging bull. It hasn't translated into him becoming a decent AFL player yet, and likely won't. Hope it does for Sheldrick.

Sheldrick isn't as short, is bigger and stronger, more explosive and will win a higher % contested than Crowden.

I'm much more hopeful for Sheldrick. He projects to become a genuine midfielder for AFL purposes v Crowden who projects only to be good against state league competition.

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

I'm hoping ESPN get it loaded this morning. All teams have been graded.

I think Melbourne have a pretty clear philosophy on starting midfielders. They need to be first dibs midfielders, contested beasts. Oliver, Viney Petracca, Sparrow, etc. They've added Dunstan to this as well The exceptions are role players like Jordon and Harmes who mostly tag or play as a defensive mids.
Goodwin also doesn't really do 'outside' mids. The ball movers like Salem, Neal Bullen, Rivers, Brayshaw, etc all crack in pretty hard and have a well-rounded games.
So Johnson seems a bit in between for Melb's needs. Not elite inside so therefore wouldn't be a starting mid and maybe they have sufficient flankers at the moment?

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

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Given Melbourne were heavily into Cerra it's not like they don't see the value in players like Johnson.

 

[Trav 20]

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

Knightmare is a high production poster, but I wouldn't get too hung up in his immediate post draft gradings. All he'll do is cross reference his own power rankings and predictions against a club's selections. It will be some time before there's any meaningful rankings.

For example, in his 2019 postmortem he rated Melbourne equal last (along with 5 other clubs) and 12 clubs ahead of them.

He gave Melbourne an unflattering C.

"While Melbourne's trade looks on paper like value was acquired, their first two picks of ruckman Luke Jackson and small forward pressure specialist Kysaiah Pickett are arguably reaches. Jackson, a sub 200cm ruckman is athletic, plays with aggression and follows up well but was arguably not the best available player. Similarly, Pickett while the forward pressure he applies is of a best in draft standard and he has speed and is damaging with ball in hand, his low scoreboard impact and product makes him a difficult sell so early on." Thankfully, he liked the Rivers pick.

Amazingly, Melbourne have 3 premiership players from that draft, i.e. every 2019 National Draft pick, who are all staples in the best 22; including this year's overall Rising Star winner, a 40 goal small forward and another Rising Star nominee.

He was more encouraged by the team he supports, giving Collingwood an A.

''Jay Rantall represents strong value as a basketball convert with elite endurance who does his best work inside winning the contested ball, distributing by hand and moving through traffic. Oakleigh premiership captain Trent Bianco is a second selection who represents strong value as one of the best kicks in the draft and the most advanced outside player in the pool. Trey Ruscoe at 192cm with his versatility to play defence, midfield or forward, is a third solid selection with his skills, mobility, ball winning capabilities and the way he reads the ball in flight and takes marks.''

Jason Taylor and other recruiters/list managers would look at these ''gradings'' with a degree of mirth.

 

[Knightmare]

Knightmare is a high production poster, but I wouldn't get too hung up in his immediate post draft gradings. All he'll do is cross reference his own power rankings and predictions against a club's selections. It will be some time before there's any meaningful rankings.

For example, in his 2019 postmortem he rated Melbourne equal last (along with 5 other clubs) and 12 clubs ahead of them.

He gave Melbourne an unflattering C.

"While Melbourne's trade looks on paper like value was acquired, their first two picks of ruckman Luke Jackson and small forward pressure specialist Kysaiah Pickett are arguably reaches. Jackson, a sub 200cm ruckman is athletic, plays with aggression and follows up well but was arguably not the best available player. Similarly, Pickett while the forward pressure he applies is of a best in draft standard and he has speed and is damaging with ball in hand, his low scoreboard impact and product makes him a difficult sell so early on." Thankfully, he liked the Rivers pick.

Amazingly, Melbourne have 3 premiership players from that draft, i.e. every 2019 National Draft pick, who are all staples in the best 22; including this year's overall Rising Star winner, a 40 goal small forward and another Rising Star nominee.

He was more encouraged by the team he supports, giving Collingwood an A.

''Jay Rantall represents strong value as a basketball convert with elite endurance who does his best work inside winning the contested ball, distributing by hand and moving through traffic. Oakleigh premiership captain Trent Bianco is a second selection who represents strong value as one of the best kicks in the draft and the most advanced outside player in the pool. Trey Ruscoe at 192cm with his versatility to play defence, midfield or forward, is a third solid selection with his skills, mobility, ball winning capabilities and the way he reads the ball in flight and takes marks.''

Jason Taylor and other recruiters/list managers would look at these ''gradings'' with a degree of mirth.

Absolutely true.

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

In terms of long term outlook.

There are so many variables that come into play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Knightmare]

AFL Draft 2021 - Every club's draft haul rated and graded:

Adelaide
Picks: 6, 36, 44

Players drafted: Josh Rachele, Jake Soligo, Zac Taylor

Grade: ?

Rationale: Adelaide have added to their mosquito fleet of midfielders and gone from small to smaller, with all three of the club's picks t least 180cm tall. Rachele is one of the few in this draft with genuine capacity to impact games both as a forward and midfielder. Soligo is a buzzy midfielder with speed and someone who tackles aggressively, while Taylor is one of this draft's bargains as a skilful, speedy, high production midfielder. The Crows' trade of their 2022 third round pick to secure the pick that would draft Taylor was well worth it and recognition of the incredible value Taylor represents. While this draft doesn't perfectly help Adelaide's list balance, the quality of players drafted is very strong given where they were picked up.

Point of discussion. Who should I have given a higher/lower grade to a why?

AFL Draft 2021 - Every club's draft haul rated

ESPN's AFL draft expert Chris Doerre analyses each team's performance at the 2021 AFL Draft and grades how each team fared.

www.espn.com.au

 

[tugga]

AFL Draft 2021 - Every club's draft haul rated and graded:



Point of discussion. Who should I have given a higher/lower grade to a why?

AFL Draft 2021 - Every club's draft haul rated

ESPN's AFL draft expert Chris Doerre analyses each team's performance at the 2021 AFL Draft and grades how each team fared.

www.espn.com.au

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

 

[Shinboner1]

KM, North got a B? Come on now.

 

[2006_Eagles]

D+ was generous for WCE

 

[PyrrhicVic]

D+ for Richmond seems very harsh, Gibcus and Sonsie were undervalued at their respective picks.

Im still trying to figure out why Draper slipped into the 40s, is there a major flaw in his game?

 

[Dr Tigris]

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

D against where he would select the individuals. He doesn't go into the draft strategy and as his basis is that he is correct. Other draft watchers had out players much more highly rated. Richmond picked players with very high ceilings - and fast good kicks. If we develop them well and play a run and gun style more focused on kicking than we have then we've smashed it.

But no one can really grade a draft hand by adding in all these variables. So KM looked at his ratings and graded each team.

 

[Barnzy]

D against where he would select the individuals. He doesn't go into the draft strategy and as his basis is that he is correct. Other draft watchers had out players much more highly rated. Richmond picked players with very high ceilings - and fast good kicks. If we develop them well and play a run and gun style more focused on kicking than we have then we've smashed it.

But no one can really grade a draft hand by adding in all these variables. So KM looked at his ratings and graded each team.

In his last phantom draft Knightmare had:

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

So the D doesn't make sense actually based off where he thought they would be selected. I understand it a bit as I have argued against some on our board on why I wasn't a huge fan of this draft. I don't get drafting Brown AND Banks. We should've grabbed another mid. Value wise though it's not a bad draft.

I'd rank it a C+ to a B based off not hitting all needs. But all it would take is swapping Banks out for Taylor or another mid I'd give it an A.

 

[Lord of the Wings]

Tigers D+

Guaranteed we've picked 5 champions now - thanks

 

[Enviable Tradition]

In his last phantom draft Knightmare had:

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

So the D doesn't make sense actually based off where he thought they would be selected. I understand it a bit as I have argued against some on our board on why I wasn't a huge fan of this draft. I don't get drafting Brown AND Banks. We should've grabbed another mid. Value wise though it's not a bad draft.

I'd rank it a C+ to a B based off not hitting all needs. But all it would take is swapping Banks out for Taylor or another mid I'd give it an A.

You're confusing his phantom with his power ratings.

Just because he thought clubs would take them high doesn't mean he thought that was a good idea.

 

[Dogga6]

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

Absolutely taking the piss now.

 

[Knightmare]

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

Ultimately it depends on where you rate those picked.

Many felt Richmond got value, but based on my own power rankings, it's just a case of my power rankings as it turned out contrasted quite a lot to Richmond's, with others I favoured at each choice, even if addressing the same list needs.

KM, North got a B? Come on now.

JHF fantastic. Goater taken a touch higher than I rated him, though negligible so no grade deduction based on that. Curtis/Bergman/Archer all outside my top-75 power rankings, so that brought down North Melbourne's grade.

D+ was generous for WCE

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

D+ for Richmond seems very harsh, Gibcus and Sonsie were undervalued at their respective picks.

Im still trying to figure out why Draper slipped into the 40s, is there a major flaw in his game?

Both Gibcus and Sonsie were taken earlier than I rated them.

Draper with the shoulder injury I suspect played some part in his drop. A shock to see him drop THAT far though.

In his last phantom draft Knightmare had:

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

So the D doesn't make sense actually based off where he thought they would be selected. I understand it a bit as I have argued against some on our board on why I wasn't a huge fan of this draft. I don't get drafting Brown AND Banks. We should've grabbed another mid. Value wise though it's not a bad draft.

I'd rank it a C+ to a B based off not hitting all needs. But all it would take is swapping Banks out for Taylor or another mid I'd give it an A.

My phantom draft reflects where I believe players will late. My power rankings on the other hand are where I rate players in the pool.

If you check on YouTube my top-75 power rankings tier list video, you'll I rated Richmond's picks on average quite low compared to where they actually featured.

And being a personal opinion, it's a wait and see. It's only opinion at this stage until they have years behind them at AFL level.

 

[Knightmare]

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

Absolutely taking the piss now.

Is Daicos not better than pick 4?

Is Draper not better than pick 45?

I had them at 2 and 17 respectively. My grades are based off of my power rankings (see ESPN for my top-20 and YouTube for my top-75)

North Melbourne other than JHF didn't excite me, with Goater the only pick I don't hate.

I can't say any of those Richmond took on the other hand I would have even had shortlisted at that selection. Even if addressing the same list needs, I had very different solutions to each of Richmond's problems.