Knight's draft ratings.

[Silvagnis]

Lucas I felt was good value last year, probably slightly underwhelming but he can still develop. I certainly still thought KPPs were a priority at the time and it showed as one of the weaknesses with Fevola gone, there just wasn't a real replacement on the entire list and Carlton over the offseason really put allot of time an effort into trying to formulate some ideas up forward. Setanta couldn't hold down the position last year, even after a fast start and the forwardline largely relied on small and medium forwards. Down back also could have done with a big bodied key position defender. The rating of C+ on reflection I still feel is about right, overall a passable but questionable draft given needs were not addressed which is where I was coming from with the rating.

Laughable that you believe Lucas was slightly underwhelming in an injury hit season, but might develop, so your rating was still correct.

LOL.

Lucas had 45 touches in his games against the Pies and Saints.

We would have overpaid to draft Talia or Griffiths with pick 12.

Would you admit you were wrong if Talia had played VFL all year and Lucas had played eight games with Adelaide?

You're just making excuses for being wrong.

I'd say it was a B or B+ after Lucas played eight games, a swingman in White was promoted from the 2009 rookie draft after six games and Davies played five games.

The Pies may have gotten more out of big men such as Kennedy, Clark or Ryder early, but Thomas and Pendlebury were proven to be the right picks for their list.

I guess Collingwood should have gone tall too.

I still wouldn't change our selections of Kennedy and Lucas in their respective drafts because the BF experts are loud...

Also the reason I saw this is because of the Geelong list position. The players Geelong took inside the top 50 I felt were in the main very good value. But I did think more needed to be done in terms of immediate players which did show. Duncan and Menzel while they have proven to date to be handy pickups, they didn't help you win a premiership which is the ultimate measure of success. Given this list is now on the decline (earlier than anyone expected) it could possibly in hindsight be considered a mistake now than immediate players were not added given that a premiership was critical in the retainment of Ablett.

You're still wrong.

Ablett left because of the dollars and the Suns' list.

Just like Ball who priced himself out of the reach of other clubs and refused to meet with them.

The Cats couldn't afford to draft Ball.

Geelong smashed the draft to get Menzel and Duncan with picks 17 and 28. North supporters can't stop pumping up Cunnington and Bastinac who showed they can play. Yet Menzel and Duncan broke into a top four side to show they can play. Duncan especially played eight games early on when they weren't struggling.

Wells is the best recruiter going around.

 

[Salaryman]

If you think Lucas was slightly underhwelming prior to his hamstring you need to get out more.

Talia, Black, Griffiths, Fitzpatrick and Craig were the only KPP's taken in the '09 draft. I'd be nervous about taking the last three for various reasons, and wouldn't take Talia in front of Lucas in a month of Sundays.

We picked up a former top 10 draft pick in Henderson as part of the trade for Fevola which people like to conveniently ignore.

C+ (whether it is by you or the media) is laughable.

 

[hawkstars]

Would be rapt to read your ratings for the 2010 drafts (on all teams). Thoroughly enjoy reading your thoughts. Despite what others say, I think you are unbiased in your views.

I agree totally. Bring it on I say.

 

[coryne]

If you think Lucas was slightly underhwelming prior to his hamstring you need to get out more.

Talia, Black, Griffiths, Fitzpatrick and Craig were the only KPP's taken in the '09 draft. I'd be nervous about taking the last three for various reasons, and wouldn't take Talia in front of Lucas in a month of Sundays.

We picked up a former top 10 draft pick in Henderson as part of the trade for Fevola which people like to conveniently ignore.

C+ (whether it is by you or the media) is laughable.

My thought exactly !!!!!!!!!! People go on and on about Carlton having "poor recruiting" because we haven't reached for any KPP over the last 5 drafts or so, but there was no-one of any real value available around our draft picks available for various reasons ........

Here is a post I made a while ago

2005 draft.
#1. Marc Murphy
#4. Josh Kennedy (KPF)
#20. Paul Bower (Potential KPD, probably turn into more of a 3rd tall)
#36. Jake Edwards. Was a KPF


2006.
#1. Gibbs. Could have taken those SUPERSTARS Gumby, Hansen or Thorp
#17. Hampson (Project Ruckman)
#19. Grigg (Midfielder)
#35. Austin (KPD)


2007. Lost Kennedy for Judd (wish we got rid of Fev instead .........)
#1. Kreuzer. x2 best KPF from the draft were Grant and HENDERSON (who we have now anyway )
#36. Steve Browne
#46. Armfield.

2008.
#6. Yarran (alternative would have been Rich, who aint a KPP) Phil Davis would be the pick of the KPP available
#40. Mitch Robinson.


So in summary, in 2005 we did go tall, it's just Edwards didn't make it and Kennedy was traded. In 2006 Gibbs was clearly the #1 pick, Hampson was picked as a project ruckman and Austin has been plagued with injuries. We now have x2 of the best talls from the 2007 draft in Kreuzer and Henderson, and didn't have a 2nd rd pick to target a KPP due to the Judd deal, and in 2008 we again didn't have a 2nd rd pick due to the Warnock deal.

We simply either picked talls who didn't/havent come on as hoped (Hartlett, Edwards, Austin), were traded (Kennedy) or didn't have picks in the range where the good KPP were picked (1st rd picks who were mids and clearly better than KPP or no 2nd rd picks). I am sure we would have grabbed Hurley in 2008 if he slipped past Essendon, but that wasn't to be .......

This year talls slipped our way as other teams were focusing on mids, so we got Watson at #18, McCarthy was a BARGIN with #34 and Mitchell was a steal with #42.

So in previous drafts we either didn't have picks in the range that the KPP fell or there were CLEARLY better players available which we went for instead .............


Oh and if we picked up Talia last year then we probably would have drafted differently this year. I think we still would have gone for Watson as we need a big bodied KPP, but we probably would have looked at either a midfielder or forward with #34 instead of McCarthy, who I think is directly comparable to Talia who I see more as a 3rd tall than a KPP. So over the 2 drafts we would have probably either grabbed Lucas in 2009 and McCarthy in 2010 or Talia in 2009 and either Mitchell (KPF who we got at #42 anyway) or one of the mids (Newton/Horlin-Smith/Hallahan) in 2010.


God knows I am pretty damn happy with the combo we ended up with, which was due to Carlton already having a strong midfield coming into a draft dominated by a number of good midfielders and a couple of strong KPP's, in a year most clubs were stocking up on mids.

 

[Knightmare]

Laughable that you believe Lucas was slightly underwhelming in an injury hit season, but might develop, so your rating was still correct.

LOL.

Lucas had 45 touches in his games against the Pies and Saints.

We would have overpaid to draft Talia or Griffiths with pick 12.

Would you admit you were wrong if Talia had played VFL all year and Lucas had played eight games with Adelaide?

You're just making excuses for being wrong.

I'd say it was a B or B+ after Lucas played eight games, a swingman in White was promoted from the 2009 rookie draft after six games and Davies played five games.

The Pies may have gotten more out of big men such as Kennedy, Clark or Ryder early, but Thomas and Pendlebury were proven to be the right picks for their list.

I guess Collingwood should have gone tall too.

I still wouldn't change our selections of Kennedy and Lucas in their respective drafts because the BF experts are loud...

You're still wrong.

Ablett left because of the dollars and the Suns' list.

Just like Ball who priced himself out of the reach of other clubs and refused to meet with them.

The Cats couldn't afford to draft Ball.

Geelong smashed the draft to get Menzel and Duncan with picks 17 and 28. North supporters can't stop pumping up Cunnington and Bastinac who showed they can play. Yet Menzel and Duncan broke into a top four side to show they can play. Duncan especially played eight games early on when they weren't struggling.

Wells is the best recruiter going around.

Why I say slightly underwhelming is because I felt he was a top 5-8 selection on quality and I thought he would be one of the highest contributors from season one. It's more so on the basis that he hasn't play 22 games yet rather than purely just productivity when he has played so don't read into that. But I did mark down because the needs were not met, and I felt the midfield was very much fine with only really KPP the serios needs down both ends. Still do.

I did feel many of the KPPs in the leadup to the draft were largely over rated. Black and Carlisle in particular and I think clubs got the calls right to take them where they did. Griffiths I thought was always 15+ and any higher was overpaying. Talia I felt was probably more in the higher bracket and one of the very few. KPPs take allot longer to develop and often don't show anything till season 3-4, so there is no reason why Talia or any of the other KPPs won't be as good. But I do agree on quality Lucas was better still.

For Collingwood I really liked Thomas and Pendlebury in 2005, and thought that we should take KPPs after that. I was very happy that year. It turned out that Collingwood in 2006 had that monster KPP draft taking Reid, N.Brown and C.Dawes all of whom have proven to be fantastic selections and all have premiership medallions to show for it which is what Carlton have done in 2010. Won't do anything for the immediate because KPPs take longer to develop, but in 5 years time it will pay dividends.

My criteria for drafting is:
Premierships are the ultimate measure of success.



Drafting to needs is important and adding players who should buy into the teams system is of upmost importance.


Top 4 sides should look to add the appropriate pieces to take them over the edge to become a premiership side.


Teams who should be rebuilding shouldn’t recruit players older than 25 years of age and should look to add some high upside type selections.


Teams who get fantastic value for their selections I also rate very highly.


I rate teams who add mature age players from lower level competitions within reason and to an appropriate extent, having followed the NBA drafts for a number of years also I fully recognise just how good some of the more mature players can be and exactly how good and under rated they can be.


Teams who recycle players on a regular basis for the sake of recycling players generally I don’t rate because more often than not they haven’t scouted the state leagues well enough because often there is better talent going around in the state leagues.



If I continue to write for bigfooty and you continue to follow my work you will continue to see these trends in my work. Particularly for the first criteria which in 2009 Collingwood met.
In 2010 the Western Bull Dogs during trade week have met it and in the national draft Hawthorn have met it, and considering both of their premiership windows have opened I think both clubs will be very, very good and serious contendors because of it in 2011.



Also just a side note with relation to Carlton drafting. Carlton drafting hasn't been terrible and anyone to say that over the last 5 years Carlton's drafting has been terrible I would not agree with. It has been passable and then in 2010 I think it has been fantastic.

Terrible drafting has been St Kilda in recent years. Their player development is fantastic and they way they get some of their recycled players up and playing reasonable footy is unbelieveable, but they just never draft the right guys, waste time recycling an unnecessary amount of players and with those selections that are not recycled players mostly over rated players and take they way too early.

Amongst the better clubs when it comes to drafting personally I really rate all of: Collingwood, Geelong and Fremantle to be amongst the best over recent years. All of whom equally impressive and for mine inseperable in terms of the number of quality players they churn out from year to year given draft position.

 

[Knightmare]

A note to those who have expressed interest. Working on it now.

Will do a write up with individual ratings for trade week, national draft and rookie draft. Expect it some time late tonight - early tomorrow some time.

Two things to expect. Expect detail. Expect my views to be allot different to many afl.com, the age, herald sun or even bigfooty personalities because I do on a couple of teams have a very strong difference in my rating.

Most notably Hawthorn and the Gold Coast.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

A note to those who have expressed interest. Working on it now.

Will do a write up with individual ratings for trade week, national draft and rookie draft. Expect it some time late tonight - early tomorrow some time.

Two things to expect. Expect detail. Expect my views to be allot different to many afl.com, the age, herald sun or even bigfooty personalities because I do on a couple of teams have a very strong difference in my rating.

Most notably Hawthorn and the Gold Coast.

Assume you think the Hawks did well K because I think we did poorly. Why we needed more 190cm +/- defenders and inside mids, is beyond me.

Really looking forward to your assessment.

 

[LemmingMaster]

Assume you think the Hawks did well K because I think we did poorly. Why we needed more 190cm +/- defenders and inside mids, is beyond me.

Really looking forward to your assessment.

Not sure if you know much about your first draft pick at all?

Smith is a super fast outside midfielder with amazing run and carry, something the Hawks really need.

Hallahan from memory played a little bit of football as a defensive forward and also knows how to win his own ball, not a terrible selection. He will surely add to the unsociable football the Hawks like to play.

Litherland - One of the potentially classy defenders of the draft, the Hawks need more good defenders.

Poupolo - Mature aged small defender, which is another need for the Hawks, so another great selection.

Bruce - Can play as your mobile forward to completement the likes of Roughy and Franklin.

Then some decent rookie options.

The Hawks selected some quality selections based on where I rated my players.

 

[Knightmare]

Assume you think the Hawks did well K because I think we did poorly. Why we needed more 190cm +/- defenders and inside mids, is beyond me.

Really looking forward to your assessment.

I can certainly see based on type how you can come to this conclusion, and I'm sure other Hawks fans could also feel bad. Perhaps some were disappointed Harper and Lamb were passed on. But I think Hawthorn were brilliant.

Isaac Smith is THE final piece to the premiership puzzle. Luke Ball was to Collingwood after Darren Jolly was added, I feel the same way about Smith to Hawthorn now that Hale and Bruce have also been added and think that the is the final piece. All fantastic additions.

The other players are make it a more than anything balanced draft. There were not allot of small forwards taken, and certainly a key position defender or a ruckman could have been added. But given what was available at each selection I felt Hawthorn did the best of all teams by making every selection count.

On Hallahan, absolutely fantastic kid and absolute bargain. Epitome of toughness and probably won't play in season one, but you don't normally have such high hopes from a pick in the 30s normally anyway. Given his draft position he was a best available, and one I think who will long term prove to be a fantastic value kid.

Litherland is a bit like Tape is the respect that, do you need another 3rd tall defender? Probably not. But you have this really promising guy developing who has the potential to develop into an AFL quality talent. Given his draft position again I see fantastic value.

And Puopolo was a genius selection, preventing the Western Bull Dogs who had a fantastic trade week from getting their potential Jarrad Harbrow replacement they had in mind.

I think it was a brilliant draft for Hawthorn and I had them as the standout for the national draft.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Not sure if you know much about your first draft pick at all?

Smith is a super fast outside midfielder with amazing run and carry, something the Hawks really need.

Hallahan from memory played a little bit of football as a defensive forward and also knows how to win his own ball, not a terrible selection. He will surely add to the unsociable football the Hawks like to play.

Litherland - One of the potentially classy defenders of the draft, the Hawks need more good defenders.

Poupolo - Mature aged small defender, which is another need for the Hawks, so another great selection.

Bruce - Can play as your mobile forward to completement the likes of Roughy and Franklin.

Then some decent rookie options.

The Hawks selected some quality selections based on where I rated my players.

Don't doubt that some of the players may be good, but with our window open now and the gaps we had, I am not sure we traded/drafted wisely.

We basically replaced Brown with Hale, which is a win IMHO. If Bailey can keep off the operating table, he and Hale will be a formidable combination.

Smith is a good pick-up, no doubt, so have no problems with that. He looks very lean though for his age, I assume this is because he has not been in the system for long, so may need a year at BH and two pre-seasons. Hopefully not.

Pup is also handy, although we wasted a selection trading for Cheney, because I can't see both getting a game.

Hallahan appears to be an inside mid or nothing at AFL level. Just doesn't seem to have the pace or endurance to play outside or at the ends of the ground. I'd suggest that he is currently behing Hodge, Mitchell, Sewell, Burgoyne, Lewis, Ellis and Shiels as an inside mid. Is possibly one to watch in 2012/2013.

I doubt Litherland will be big enough to play as a big key defender on the big forwards or resting ruckmen, so will battle it out with our fleet of blokes that play as if they are 189cm - 191cm as a third tall/running tall defender, including Gibson, Birchall, Stratton, Gilham, Morton, Murphy and now Bruce.

Most of the rest are very speculative and we were unable to bring a proper-sized key defender in, particularly with the sub rule likely to result in rucks resting up forward; or some small crumbing forwards to cover the departures of Peterson and Hooper.

Jury still out for mine.

 

[Hawkinspired]

Don't doubt that some of the players may be good, but with our window open now and the gaps we had, I am not sure we traded/drafted wisely.

We basically replaced Brown with Hale, which is a win IMHO. If Bailey can keep off the operating table, he and Hale will be a formidable combination.

Smith is a good pick-up, no doubt, so have no problems with that. He looks very lean though for his age, I assume this is because he has not been in the system for long, so may need a year at BH and two pre-seasons. Hopefully not.

Pup is also handy, although we wasted a selection trading for Cheney, because I can't see both getting a game.

Hallahan appears to be an inside mid or nothing at AFL level. Just doesn't seem to have the pace or endurance to play outside or at the ends of the ground. I'd suggest that he is currently behing Hodge, Mitchell, Sewell, Burgoyne, Lewis, Ellis and Shiels as an inside mid. Is possibly one to watch in 2012/2013.

I doubt Litherland will be big enough to play as a big key defender on the big forwards or resting ruckmen, so will battle it out with our fleet of blokes that play as if they are 189cm - 191cm as a third tall/running tall defender, including Gibson, Birchall, Stratton, Gilham, Morton, Murphy and now Bruce.

Most of the rest are very speculative and we were unable to bring a proper-sized key defender in, particularly with the sub rule likely to result in rucks resting up forward; or some small crumbing forwards to cover the departures of Peterson and Hooper.

Jury still out for mine.

For what its worth Hawthorn wanted Litherland for there second round pick. Hallahan was still available and seemingly to good to pass up. We still got Litherland and Puopolo who were planned picks. Massive win in my eyes.

Also i wouldn't take too much notice of player heights. If your a good defender and have a strong body whats a couple of centremetres?? Just ask Ben Stratton.

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

Decent write up and reasonably fair analysis for mine. Look forward to your 2010 review. Personally I think Carlton should get a slightly higher rating but def agree with your overall point of that fact that we did not address needs at the time. Needs that take 3-4 years to have an impact.

A lot of the debate depends on whether you slightly lean towards best available or needs (within 1-5 picks). A lot of Carlton fans will not like your grading based on the best available rule. A lot more Carlton fans will not agree period now that we addressed the talls issue this draft now making the 2009 draft look great from a balance perspective.

But I agree with your sentiment at the time...2010 is only hindsight guessing making 2009 look better now. It also finally killed of the issue of WHs only being best available drafter...he went 100% needs and is now moving with the times.

People dont understand that identifying and drafting talent has improved ten fold over the last decade so needs drafting to complete your list is becoming much more common. In 1995-2005, i'd go best available, now i'd favour needs slightly.

BTW
I rate Carlton's 2010 drafting as an A+ based on needs that didnt disrepect best available analysis!

PS
Think your draft ratings are pretty fair and look forward to your 2010 review.

 

[Knightmare]

In 1995-2005, i'd go best available, now i'd favour needs slightly.

BTW
I rate Carlton's 2010 drafting as an A+ based on needs that didnt disrepect best available analysis!

PS
Think your draft ratings are pretty fair and look forward to your 2010 review.

For me when there are significant holes in lists and they need to be addressed you really need to look before the draft at how and where in the draft or trade week you can address those needs. That's the general system I like to operate under.

So for example if you need a KPF, you'd look at which draft positions in the national draft appear to have the best value KPF of your liking available, and you also explore who are the KPF options available in trade week. Then settle on which option you feel most comfortable with and think is relatively the best value.

Carlton in 09 didn't address that need at all and noticeably did have the gaping whole up forward for the 2010 season. But it was good to see it along with the key position posts down back have been thought about with some long term sollutions and I think this year Carlton have done particularly well adding good value players with most selections while still satisfying needs.

Having drafted KPPs in 2010 won't help the club short term at all, but you'll find long term it will pay if these players can develop as expected. Just look at the Collingwood draft in 2006. All three of Reid, N.Brown and Dawes took till until this year to really establish themselves as quality AFL footballers. Expect the same from the Carlton tall trio.

There will be short term bleeding, but long term the team will be much stronger for it and when GCS + GWS start to come good you should be amongst the more competitive sides.




This is a link to my 2010 ratings for those interested:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=782463

 

[Kings Army]

Maybe Collingwood could've done with some much needed leg speed in the middle? O'Bree, Ball, Swan... seriously, that's not going to win you a premiership. Collingwood have crucified themselves by overrating their list. Malthouse must be under the illusion that Collingwood's "window" is open.

Ball and Thomas both have poor disposal and neither have endurance. Ball is fantastic at getting the pill but Collingwood have enough players to get the ball. The lack of speed in the middle is going to create headaches for Collingwood in the immediate future and the long of quality KP forwards is going to hinder their longer term aspirations particularly with the last uncompromised draft having just past us.

I'm not just saying this out of spite but Collingwood's future is screwed.

Oh dear - I think someone owes a team an apology!!

 

[Knightmare]

this thread is loaded with signatures you could bookmark for future reference

The 1st 8 pages of this has quantities of "why Collingwood lost the draft" and "why Luke Ball was not the final piece".

For Collingwood supporters looking for new signatures this place is a gold mine.

The OP is an idiot.

There were quantities of these types of posts from rival supporters. I was a relative unknown at the time so this was understandable.

My knowledge of all team lists and needs has significantly progressed and has been a big focus of mine over the past year and also this year I looked at a significantly wider range of prospects rather than put allot of time into a couple who particularly intrigued me which with a bit of luck should lead to me getting some more calls on players right.

 

[Salaryman]

Decent write up and reasonably fair analysis for mine. Look forward to your 2010 review. Personally I think Carlton should get a slightly higher rating but def agree with your overall point of that fact that we did not address needs at the time. Needs that take 3-4 years to have an impact.

A lot of the debate depends on whether you slightly lean towards best available or needs (within 1-5 picks). A lot of Carlton fans will not like your grading based on the best available rule. A lot more Carlton fans will not agree period now that we addressed the talls issue this draft now making the 2009 draft look great from a balance perspective.

But I agree with your sentiment at the time...2010 is only hindsight guessing making 2009 look better now. It also finally killed of the issue of WHs only being best available drafter...he went 100% needs and is now moving with the times.

People dont understand that identifying and drafting talent has improved ten fold over the last decade so needs drafting to complete your list is becoming much more common. In 1995-2005, i'd go best available, now i'd favour needs slightly.

BTW
I rate Carlton's 2010 drafting as an A+ based on needs that didnt disrepect best available analysis!

PS
Think your draft ratings are pretty fair and look forward to your 2010 review.

How do you know where Watson and McCarthy were rated?? You're essentially guessing . Henderson was also an 'in' for '09 as part of the Fevola trade, which people seem to conveniently omit.

 

[GordonBlue]

How do you know where Watson and McCarthy were rated?? You're essentially guessing

True... WH said that if position was the only thing separating the players on the "best available" list... then they went for the KPP... so had Atley reached our pick 18... we would've gone for Atley...

 

[Slattery_20]

But I did think more needed to be done in terms of immediate players which did show. Duncan and Menzel while they have proven to date to be handy pickups, they didn't help you win a premiership which is the ultimate measure of success.

...really?
I think you're taking that measure a bit too far.
They had 4 or 5 key (gun) players drop off. They got good inputs from 2 or 3 kids, and great contribution from a rookie.

Hypothetically, if Collingwood's senior player equivalents (Didak, Maxwell, Shaw, Presti, Jolly) tailed off and you finished 4th; would not winning the flag have been the fault of Thomas, Buckley, Ball???

No-one they could've picked up was going to do much better than Duncan, Menzel (at their picks) let alone Podsiadly. IMHO Geelong did pretty well.

If anything, they had a better idea of where their list was at than most (as you'd expect); and drafted guys who'll fit in nicely in 1 or 2 years to replace Wojo/Corey/Ling etc.

 

[Knightmare]

...really?
I think you're taking that measure a bit too far.
They had 4 or 5 key (gun) players drop off. They got good inputs from 2 or 3 kids, and great contribution from a rookie.

Hypothetically, if Collingwood's senior player equivalents (Didak, Maxwell, Shaw, Presti, Jolly) tailed off and you finished 4th; would not winning the flag have been the fault of Thomas, Buckley, Ball???

No-one they could've picked up was going to do much better than Duncan, Menzel (at their picks) let alone Podsiadly. IMHO Geelong did pretty well.

If anything, they had a better idea of where their list was at than most (as you'd expect); and drafted guys who'll fit in nicely in 1 or 2 years to replace Wojo/Corey/Ling etc.

I'm not really critical of their early picks to any extent. Geelong certainly did very well as we all recognise. Duncan and Menzel actually playing in a top side in their first seasons is a fantastic effort. With their final selection had they taken Michael Barlow it would have been very interesting to see how they would have turned out, but this is hindsight and every other club misevaluated him and allowed him to drop into the rookie draft.

The feeling with the Geelong draft is that they were trying to build up the next generation (which is not a bad thing by any means) but I still felt St Kilda would be more motivated and even with their poor offseason moves through both trading and drafting I thought they would beat them come finals time (which technically they did in the end by making the grand final whereas Geelong did not). Last year as it turns out was the end of the Geelong premiership window, I personally expected Ablett to stay and thought that their premiership window would last till the end of 2011, but with him gone now that hope is extinguished I feel.

At the time of writing the other thing I wasn't super keen on was Geelong overlooked an absolute gem in Luke Tapscott who went the following selection at pick 18 to Melbourne. Had him well inside my top 10 personal rankings and really felt that Tapscott could be an immediate type player with the size and physicality he plays with who could have a big game influence and possibly play some finals footy on as forward flank as an impact player. Menzel I honestly had just outside my top 30, and didn't feel he was a spectacular value pick, turns out I'm wrong on that count, but whether he has a better career than Tapscott, it will be interesting. Unfortunately for Tapscott he hasn't yet debuted due to injury, made a strong return at the end of the season at VFL level where he looked fantastic, so we'll have to see what he can do at AFL level in 2011.


Collingwood I had discounted in 2010 to an extent and felt St Kilda and Geelong would still be the teams to beat with the Western Bull Dogs also still slightly ahead, I expected a clear top 4 finish but with the premiership to come in 2011. I did calculate that Ball and Jolly would be the final pieces, but I had no idea the other pieces would come together in 2010 with (Dawes and Wellingham) not in my calculations at all at the beginning of 2010. Really expected because it is such a young list that it would take that extra year.

 

[Slattery_20]

I'm not as short-sighted, nor informed enough, to harp on about you getting your appraisal of pick A vs pick B right/wrong, I was just intrigued by that particualr bit of logic, that's all.
It's very different to the way I'd think about things.

 

[Knightmare]

I'm not as short-sighted, nor informed enough, to harp on about you getting your appraisal of pick A vs pick B right/wrong, I was just intrigued by that particualr bit of logic, that's all.
It's very different to the way I'd think about things.

My system is usually if premiership contendor: get better now and try and get past those other top teams. (ala. Collingwood 2009 for 2010 + Hawthorn 2010 for 2011 who both added nice pieces that compliment their current playing list to make a real push at a flag)

If a rebuilding team: Add quality youth and build a strong young core group to develop together. (ala. Melbourne + Richmond 2009 draft) with the intention of creating something like what Geelong did through the 1999 + 2001 draft.

Or if lacking in quality KPPs: add them while down the bottom of the ladder because they do take longer (so something like Collingwood 2006 or Carlton 2010 are both fantastic models for teams who probably couldn't become premiership sides without the addition of appropriate KPPs). Have to apply the 4 year rule with KPPs.


From watching as much NBA as I do an knowing how their drafting + trading systems work so I have a different perspective because I also like to incorporate some of that logic in my AFL thought process. But I'm sure it is very different to how many in the AFL industry look at it.

 

[Slattery_20]

And if Hawks don't do much, again; or pan badly like Brisbane last year, then you're coming back to a subjective view of 'contender' vs 'should be rebuilding'.
I can't see why it should be quite so black & white as that. With ~8-10 picks for most sides, most year; they should be able to get a bit of both, and not neglect either.

A good pick, who plays 8+ in their first year then 15+ after that; is a good pick- full stop. IMHO. (Tapscott or Duncan.)
A 22yo who's good and ready to go is good for anyone. {In your rankings, "why didn't team X go for Barlow" being repeated basically points to that}
A 24yo retread who's no good, is no good for a top or a bottom team. {Pattinson}.

IMHO.
I don't think ready-to-play-ness and expereince would often come into calculations until late in the N.D; or PSD/Rookies.

 

[Knightmare]

And if Hawks don't do much, again; or pan badly like Brisbane last year, then you're coming back to a subjective view of 'contender' vs 'should be rebuilding'.
I can't see why it should be quite so black & white as that. With ~8-10 picks for most sides, most year; they should be able to get a bit of both, and not neglect either.

A good pick, who plays 8+ in their first year then 15+ after that; is a good pick- full stop. IMHO. (Tapscott or Duncan.)
A 22yo who's good and ready to go is good for anyone. {In your rankings, "why didn't team X go for Barlow" being repeated basically points to that}
A 24yo retread who's no good, is no good for a top or a bottom team. {Pattinson}.

IMHO.
I don't think ready-to-play-ness and expereince would often come into calculations until late in the N.D; or PSD/Rookies.

Short sighted thinking isn't in all cases aweful if it does give you the opportunity to win a premiership. For St Kilda for example it would be the only way I'd look. They don't have the quality youth to be a good side in 4-5 years once Riewoldt, Hayes and their other senior players retire, so while they are still around they should do everything they can to get a premiership now before that opportunity is completely gone. Clearly the Melbourne's, North Melbourne's and Gold Coast's will be much strong by this stage even if St Kilda put allot into building a new, strong core group.

Brisbane's mistake was that the backending of contracts which was a big mistake which has forced them to lose quality players. In season 1 team chemistry was clearly the problem and the players needed more time to adjust to playing with eachother and within the team structures, they had a truely intriguing team which could have been very good. At the time I expected they'd finish 6th/7th because I did have concerns about their midfield depth and I did consider Daniel Bradshaw a significant loss, but the idea of a Fevola and Brown forward was thoroughly intriguing and the potential for success was certainly there because the list became much improved. Interesting they did quite well in this draft and I felt they also at the same time managed to grab some decent quality youth, which many overlook. Ryan Harwood in particular I think will be a sensational player.

A 22 year old who is ready to go depending on just how good he is can be good to anyone. But assuming they won't be a top 5 player to come out of a draft, I'd really recommend the top 4 and contending teams to put them as highest priority, while rebuilding sides should really look long term and go with 18 year olds generally.

Not all 22 year olds develop. Isaac Smith I think has serious development left because he hasn't been in a professional program and because he was such a late bloomer (grew late and developed athletically very recently curiously which is why I think long term he can also be successful). But guys like Alwyn Davey, just haven't come on since his first season. The most significant development really comes for most players for their first 4-5 seasons (as an 18 year old) where they can improve more than the seasons after in most cases. Which is why I encourage all rebuilding clubs to focus on these 18 year olds. Melbourne's Jeremy Howe I think will play from season 1, but I don't think he has nearly the development left of a Patrick McCarthy who went the pick after. And for a team which wants to peak in 3-4 years, you want these other players to develop into those periods when you expect to be a genuine contendor which Melbourne for example should be able to do for another 2-3 years after that which would suit a McCarthy.

I very much consider the importance of timing the type of player you take with when your premiership window will open. Of course you have to take the players who you think will fit your structures and eventually develop, but I do consider other criteria in addition to this of great importance.