Analysis KPP Pick Quality

[SleepingGiant]

Hi Everyone,

In prior draft years the best KPP players (in particular forwards), seem to come from the top 12-15. Given we have selected many talls with later picks, where do we stand with probability of success with them?

I note this is a super draft, so in theory these picks we selected (all picks) would be picked much higher in other draft years. Could anyone compare this draft crop to prior years and analyse the KPP players picked and then make a judgement call on where our picks would have been picked in other draft years?

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

Yeah I did find it interesting that all of the projected keys fell. Some of that I think was due to clubs in the later part of the first round not really needing them.

No idea if any of them will become potential Coleman Medal winners but I think at least one will at least be serviceable provided we can get the right development into them.

 

[Baltastan]

The Key forwards fell because most teams picking from 15-25 weren't looking to draft KPP, Armstrong would've easily gone top 10 in previous drafts

 

[dinnaz]

Hi Everyone,

In prior draft years the best KPP players (in particular forwards), seem to come from the top 12-15. Given we have selected many talls with later picks, where do we stand with probability of success with them?

I note this is a super draft, so in theory these picks we selected (all picks) would be picked much higher in other draft years. Could anyone compare this draft crop to prior years and analyse the KPP players picked and then make a judgement call on where our picks would have been picked in other draft years?

I think you're looking at it a little wrong. You need to look at the draft as a hundred moving pieces and not a whole thing to be dissected.

The best players get picked earlier- that's a fait accompli, but why? After all a draft pick is just a number and means nothing after that night.
It's generally a mixture of how well performed you are and how "safe" of a pick you are. (*Midfielders tend to be safer because they are much closer to a finished product than talls.)

A super draft? Clickbait crap IMO
A National Draft of 71 is nothing special in terms of players picked up in recent history.
71 (2024)
64 (2023)
59 (2022)
65 (2021)
59 (2020)
65 (2019)
78 (2018)
78 (2017)
(*Also list sizes being smaller have thrown things out of whack a little from 2020 onwards)

As for quality there are no outstanding Daicos, Reid, Weitering types who are dominating games. But there are a heap of safe/solid picks. The best way to put it is that this year has 10 guys who would normally go at #5 every other year. Less value at the top of that range- but more value at the bottom end.

I think your whole draft is pretty equal with what you could normally get at each pick.
Smillie is probably about par, with Hotton with the ACL wildcard around the mark.

Armstrong you have a bit of value where he could have gone 5-10 picks earlier- but that can be said of every draftee outside the top 10. He's super efficient inside 50 but not a dominant hulking or leading key fwd.

Sims & Alger were reaches IMO. 40+

Overall, I think you probably got the players you wanted, but nothing crazy in extra value other than your trading heists.

The Key forwards fell because most teams picking from 15-25 weren't looking to draft KPP, Armstrong would've easily gone top 10 in previous drafts

Talls also go a lot earlier than they should because of scarcity. That's why so many tend to "bust" from early picks- they weren't that good to start with.
I'd have him in the 10-15 most years and I think he's a bit player rather than the main man.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I think you're looking at it a little wrong. You need to look at the draft as a hundred moving pieces and not a whole thing to be dissected.

The best players get picked earlier- that's a fait accompli, but why? After all a draft pick is just a number and means nothing after that night.
It's generally a mixture of how well performed you are and how "safe" of a pick you are. (*Midfielders tend to be safer because they are much closer to a finished product than talls.)

A super draft? Clickbait crap IMO
A National Draft of 71 is nothing special in terms of players picked up in recent history.
71 (2024)
64 (2023)
59 (2022)
65 (2021)
59 (2020)
65 (2019)
78 (2018)
78 (2017)
(*Also list sizes being smaller have thrown things out of whack a little from 2020 onwards)

As for quality there are no outstanding Daicos, Reid, Weitering types who are dominating games. But there are a heap of safe/solid picks. The best way to put it is that this year has 10 guys who would normally go at #5 every other year. Less value at the top of that range- but more value at the bottom end.

I think your whole draft is pretty equal with what you could normally get at each pick.
Smillie is probably about par, with Hotton with the ACL wildcard around the mark.

Armstrong you have a bit of value where he could have gone 5-10 picks earlier- but that can be said of every draftee outside the top 10. He's super efficient inside 50 but not a dominant hulking or leading key fwd.

Sims & Alger were reaches IMO. 40+

Overall, I think you probably got the players you wanted, but nothing crazy in extra value other than your trading heists.


Talls also go a lot earlier than they should because of scarcity. That's why so many tend to "bust" from early picks- they weren't that good to start with.
I'd have him in the 10-15 most years and I think he's a bit player rather than the main man.

We just simply do not know and need to wait years now to find out how good this draft is, and particularly how good the KPP's are. But from the KPP point of view this 2024 draft appears most similar to the 2017 draft right now. In that draft, the following KPP's/rucks were selected:

Pick 9 Naughton
12 D Fogarty
13 Brander
20 Coleman-Jones
21 O Allen
25 Balta
28 S Taylor
30 T De Koning
33 T McCartin
35 Clavarino
37 Petty
39 N Murphy
42 Ballard
43 Ballenden
44 H Dixon
47 S Hayes
52 Crossley
54 J Payne
63 B Miller
66 Zerk-Thatcher
69 Meek
70 A Schumacher
72 Xerri
75 S Jones
Rookie Mihocek
Rookie J Amartey

I have bolded the 18 players who did, or would likely have held down regular best 22 positions in 2024 if they were fit.
There may be a small handful of others taken who didn't make it but I can't tell quickly what type of payer they were. Only 8 were busts. 18 key position players/rucks were taken in the first 3 rounds of the draft, only 6 of those have busted. 7 others taken later are getting picked in 2024.

2024 draft KPP/Rucks

9 Tauru
14 Faull
21 Trainor
23 Armstrong
27 M Whitlock
28 Sims
30 Shanahan
32 Barratt
33 J Whitlock
34 Nicholls
35 Mraz
37 Gerreyn
40 O'Farrell
42 Gallop
44 Polkinghorne
47 Cochran
49 Bell
50 West
52 Molier
53 Dodson
55 R Andrew
59 Welsh
63 Carr
66 Hoffman
68 Johnson
71 L Smith
Rookie Knobel
Rookie Riddle
Rookie Pike

This time 21 KPP/Rucks taken in the first 3 rounds of the ND( v 18 in 2017), & 29 taken overall(v 25 overall in the 2017 edition.) Roughly similar value picks were used on KPP & rucks in both of these drafts.

The 2017 draft was an incredibly strong draft for talls. Richmond has taken the 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 6th talls in the 2024 draft. In the 2017 draft that translates into D Fogarty, Brander, Coleman-Jones, Balta. No club would be gutted with that result, but the Tigers will be hoping for an even better outcome from Faull, Trainor, Armstrong, Sims.

 

[dinnaz]

We just simply do not know and need to wait years now to find out how good this draft is, and particularly how good the KPP's are.

While it's true that we don't know exactly how a players career will turn out we have a pretty good idea what range they will fall into. And when drafts are spoken about its in direct comparison to others at the exact point.

For playing style- Think about Jack Watts, he never was going to pack on size and be a stay at home KPF. He was more suited to being mobile as a 3rd tall using his skills. Similar with Jack Lukosious & Tim English. These guys never had or will have the strength to go head to head with their opposition.

But from the KPP point of view this 2024 draft appears most similar to the 2017 draft right now. In that draft, the following KPP's/rucks were selected:

Pick 9 Naughton
12 D Fogarty
13 Brander
20 Coleman-Jones
21 O Allen
25 Balta
28 S Taylor
30 T De Koning
33 T McCartin
35 Clavarino
37 Petty
39 N Murphy
42 Ballard
43 Ballenden
44 H Dixon
47 S Hayes
52 Crossley
54 J Payne
63 B Miller
66 Zerk-Thatcher
69 Meek
70 A Schumacher
72 Xerri
75 S Jones
Rookie Mihocek
Rookie J Amartey

I have bolded the 18 players who did, or would likely have held down regular best 22 positions in 2024 if they were fit.
There may be a small handful of others taken who didn't make it but I can't tell quickly what type of payer they were. Only 8 were busts. 18 key position players/rucks were taken in the first 3 rounds of the draft, only 6 of those have busted. 7 others taken later are getting picked in 2024.

My notes on the draft back then without hindsight.
Naughton, Allen went too low,
Fogarty, Brander way to high,
Coleman Jones was a reach.
Hayes slid.
Balta went higher.
DeKoning went higher.
Taylor about where he should have gone.

Crossley went really late as an academy pick, and was the most complete ruck in the pool, easily should have been around the top 20. Is still the best tall outside the AFL but also got banned for drugs so no one will go near him

In general after the top 40 "best players" there's an evening out of the quality. (Talls perhaps after the best 6-7). You go with what attributes you value more. De Koning, Balta & Petty are like this who IMO are fine and play every week but will never be in the top echelon of players.

And in some cases you have a guy play 100 games and he's no better than the next but has more opportunity. Every AFL team has to field 22 players a week.
The late 2017 draft has a bunch of these types like BZT, Miller, Payne who have had decent careers.

Some guys like Sam Taylor exceed all expectations, however there's no reason pre draft that you could say with any certainty that he was clearly any better than those around him and should be taken top 5 as an example.

This is a bit of draft variation happens and muddles things in hindsight - but that's also down to maximising development too.

I would say out of the box are Meek and Xerri. Meek as an overager, and Xerri (no idea how someone so clumsy has come good!)

2024 draft KPP/Rucks

9 Tauru
14 Faull
21 Trainor
23 Armstrong
27 M Whitlock
28 Sims
30 Shanahan
32 Barratt
33 J Whitlock
34 Nicholls
35 Mraz
37 Gerreyn
40 O'Farrell
42 Gallop
44 Polkinghorne
47 Cochran
49 Bell
50 West
52 Molier
53 Dodson
55 R Andrew
59 Welsh
63 Carr
66 Hoffman
68 Johnson
71 L Smith
Rookie Knobel
Rookie Riddle
Rookie Pike

This time 21 KPP/Rucks taken in the first 3 rounds of the ND( v 18 in 2017), & 29 taken overall(v 25 overall in the 2017 edition.) Roughly similar value picks were used on KPP & rucks in both of these drafts.

The 2017 draft was an incredibly strong draft for talls. Richmond has taken the 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 6th talls in the 2024 draft. In the 2017 draft that translates into D Fogarty, Brander, Coleman-Jones, Balta. No club would be gutted with that result, but the Tigers will be hoping for an even better outcome from Faull, Trainor, Armstrong, Sims.

My immediate reactions are that the Talls this year are a fair way off the 2017 crop.
In fact I would say that all of them are what I would consider being in the "next best" category I outlined above.

Saying there are a bunch all in the top end of that category of next best, much like the midfield.

Tauru has gone way too high and while probably the best mark this year, isn't someone you bank with any certainty.
Faull I think was a reach, with Trainor and Armstrong are probably the most solid picks and could have gone a little higher along with Dodson as the best ruck.
Shanahan I had higher than a few others along with Nicholls.

Without huge variation in quality now it's up to the clubs and development to see who has made the most of their picks this year.

 

[SleepingGiant]

While it's true that we don't know exactly how a players career will turn out we have a pretty good idea what range they will fall into. And when drafts are spoken about its in direct comparison to others at the exact point.

For playing style- Think about Jack Watts, he never was going to pack on size and be a stay at home KPF. He was more suited to being mobile as a 3rd tall using his skills. Similar with Jack Lukosious & Tim English. These guys never had or will have the strength to go head to head with their opposition.

My notes on the draft back then without hindsight.
Naughton, Allen went too low,
Fogarty, Brander way to high,
Coleman Jones was a reach.
Hayes slid.
Balta went higher.
DeKoning went higher.
Taylor about where he should have gone.

Crossley went really late as an academy pick, and was the most complete ruck in the pool, easily should have been around the top 20. Is still the best tall outside the AFL but also got banned for drugs so no one will go near him

In general after the top 40 "best players" there's an evening out of the quality. (Talls perhaps after the best 6-7). You go with what attributes you value more. De Koning, Balta & Petty are like this who IMO are fine and play every week but will never be in the top echelon of players.

And in some cases you have a guy play 100 games and he's no better than the next but has more opportunity. Every AFL team has to field 22 players a week.
The late 2017 draft has a bunch of these types like BZT, Miller, Payne who have had decent careers.

Some guys like Sam Taylor exceed all expectations, however there's no reason pre draft that you could say with any certainty that he was clearly any better than those around him and should be taken top 5 as an example.

This is a bit of draft variation happens and muddles things in hindsight - but that's also down to maximising development too.

I would say out of the box are Meek and Xerri. Meek as an overager, and Xerri (no idea how someone so clumsy has come good!)


My immediate reactions are that the Talls this year are a fair way off the 2017 crop.
In fact I would say that all of them are what I would consider being in the "next best" category I outlined above.

Saying there are a bunch all in the top end of that category of next best, much like the midfield.

Tauru has gone way too high and while probably the best mark this year, isn't someone you bank with any certainty.
Faull I think was a reach, with Trainor and Armstrong are probably the most solid picks and could have gone a little higher along with Dodson as the best ruck.
Shanahan I had higher than a few others along with Nicholls.

Without huge variation in quality now it's up to the clubs and development to see who has made the most of their picks this year.

I think you simply cannot yet tell. I think we are due for an influx of good KPP talent in the AFL. There are no emerging top players in the Franklin, Riewoldt, Roughead, Cameron, Lynch, etc category. There haven't been many with a lot of the Gold Coast top picks and the King brothers not living up to the hype. If we look back at their draft years, especially Lynch and Riewoldt, none of them were seen to be superstars. Most likely you will have a 2/5 strike rate and if w ehit that probability matrix I am happy. You only need 2-3 A grade KPP's to contend in my opinion with a good cast of B graders around them.

If you look at West Coast where were Hurn, Kennedy (trade value), Jeremy McGovern, Jack Darling, Tom Barrass, Will Schofield all drafted? Were they heavily rated like this crop?

I think what is clear is without a good spine, you will not contend as well and the only way to get a good spine cheaply is to draft them and cop the low probability of nailing the picks. Which we have done.

 

[dinnaz]

I think you simply cannot yet tell. I think we are due for an influx of good KPP talent in the AFL. There are no emerging top players in the Franklin, Riewoldt, Roughead, Cameron, Lynch, etc category. There haven't been many with a lot of the Gold Coast top picks and the King brothers not living up to the hype. If we look back at their draft years, especially Lynch and Riewoldt, none of them were seen to be superstars. Most likely you will have a 2/5 strike rate and if w ehit that probability matrix I am happy. You only need 2-3 A grade KPP's to contend in my opinion with a good cast of B graders around them.

If you look at West Coast where were Hurn, Kennedy (trade value), Jeremy McGovern, Jack Darling, Tom Barrass, Will Schofield all drafted? Were they heavily rated like this crop?

I think what is clear is without a good spine, you will not contend as well and the only way to get a good spine cheaply is to draft them and cop the low probability of nailing the picks. Which we have done.

No one projects to be that good. And we talk about something along the lines of kicking 80 goals as a Jr in 15 games as what those guys were doing.

Listening to the Carlton recruiters, at the time they actually had Kennedy at #1 but had to work around other teams, and knowing he would still be there.

Schofield was a tall flanker which is all we saw until bulk KPD injuries where he was the only one left with the size. Good player but definitely mid draft as somewhat of a tweeter and struggled to hold a spot.

The other guys were simply great marks. Plenty of other knocks on their games which are fairly obvious, but you don't draft a KPP for their elite kicking or tackling, that's just a bonus.

I agree, you would like to have 4/5 pieces of your spine sorted but with gun players. No where else to play someone who isn't quite up to it.

 

[Noidnadroj]

I think you're looking at it a little wrong. You need to look at the draft as a hundred moving pieces and not a whole thing to be dissected.

The best players get picked earlier- that's a fait accompli, but why? After all a draft pick is just a number and means nothing after that night.
It's generally a mixture of how well performed you are and how "safe" of a pick you are. (*Midfielders tend to be safer because they are much closer to a finished product than talls.)

A super draft? Clickbait crap IMO
A National Draft of 71 is nothing special in terms of players picked up in recent history.
71 (2024)
64 (2023)
59 (2022)
65 (2021)
59 (2020)
65 (2019)
78 (2018)
78 (2017)
(*Also list sizes being smaller have thrown things out of whack a little from 2020 onwards)

As for quality there are no outstanding Daicos, Reid, Weitering types who are dominating games. But there are a heap of safe/solid picks. The best way to put it is that this year has 10 guys who would normally go at #5 every other year. Less value at the top of that range- but more value at the bottom end.

I think your whole draft is pretty equal with what you could normally get at each pick.
Smillie is probably about par, with Hotton with the ACL wildcard around the mark.

Armstrong you have a bit of value where he could have gone 5-10 picks earlier- but that can be said of every draftee outside the top 10. He's super efficient inside 50 but not a dominant hulking or leading key fwd.

Sims & Alger were reaches IMO. 40+

Overall, I think you probably got the players you wanted, but nothing crazy in extra value other than your trading heists.


Talls also go a lot earlier than they should because of scarcity. That's why so many tend to "bust" from early picks- they weren't that good to start with.
I'd have him in the 10-15 most years and I think he's a bit player rather than the main man.

I’m not sure you’ve nailed it. There was no clear #1 in 2024, but I don’t believe there’s anything to suggest the top-end picks would fall to #5 in most years…. nobody said that, stats don’t suggest that, combine testing doesn’t back it up, video footage debunks itand so on… I think you’ve confused ‘no clear #1’ with ‘all the top-6 are not worthy of being a top pick in normal years’.

Smillie went pick #7…. pre-draft, there’s nothing to suggest he’s not a better player than the likes of Dow, Tsatas, Rachelle, Watson, Duursma and more pre their drafts. And Draper, Jagga as examples are streets ahead of most top-5 picks from prior drafts when comparing their pre-draft claims on being a top-end pick.

And ‘super draft’ ..? This will be told in hindsight, and having a total of 71 picks isn’t really relevant as ‘super’ is not really about picks 60+.

But most of the experts in this space think it was ‘super’. It’s why they were desperately trying to get in, happily letting go of high quality and contracted players for picks (Macrae, Daniel, Bolton, Rioli, Houston…)

And desperately offering up future picks to try and get back involved in this draft.

When the KPF who kicked 60+ goals across all games goes at pick-23, a player who kicked 11-goals in 3 x VFL games goes in the 30’s, a 200cm KPF / ruck touted top-15 (J Whitlock) goes in the 30’s, and the AA ruckman who had a game with 28 touches goes in the 50’s, that’s just a few examples of it being a very very deep and high quality draft.

Time will tell, but every single thing points to this being an excellent ‘super’ draft - opinion and actions of list managers, combine testing, in-game performances, opinions of experts who spend their lives in this space (Ablett, Twomey, Sheehan etc…).

They might all turn out wrong. But I doubt it. There’ll still be at least half a dozen flops in the top-30… it’s a living certainty … I just hope the Tigers avoided most of them !


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[dinnaz]

I’m not sure you’ve nailed it. There was no clear #1 in 2024, but I don’t believe there’s anything to suggest the top-end picks would fall to #5 in most years…. nobody said that, stats don’t suggest that, combine testing doesn’t back it up, video footage debunks itand so on… I think you’ve confused ‘no clear #1’ with ‘all the top-6 are not worthy of being a top pick in normal years’.

Without talking about the work rate or athletic profiles the stats say:

• Walsh 30d + 0.7g +
• Rowell 32d+ 0.4g + 9 tackles
• Daicos 36 disposals and 2 goals a game.
• Ashcroft 35d + 0.4g
• Anderson 28d + 2g

• Petracca 25d + 2.5 g
• Tom Boyd was at over 3 goals a game
• Weitering was at 2.9 contested marks (7.5 a game)

Bonkers elite levels in some areas. 30+ disposals minimum. On top of this you had Rowell averaging 9 tackles which no one even gets close to, along with Daicos, Anderson & Petracca with bulk goals.

Langford 25.9 + 1.3 +4.7t
Jagga smith 33d +0.6g +3t
L. Ashcroft 31d + 1.3g + 1.7t
Lalor 23d +0.3g +3.0t
Smillie 25.5d + 1.3 + 3.5t
FOS 17.3d + 1.3g

Tauru 0.6g +5.8 marks (0.7 contested)
J Whitlock 2.1g, 4.8m (1.5 contested)

Looking at some benchmarks of whats come before it already rules out everyone in the 2024 pool except Smith & L. Ashcroft at pure disposals.

Tauru gets nowhere near any key fwds or key defenders. In fact the maths prove he is most likely to bust
Whitlock gets close but again falls short in each category

Smillie went pick #7…. pre-draft, there’s nothing to suggest he’s not a better player than the likes of Dow, Tsatas, Rachelle, Watson, Duursma and more pre their drafts. And Draper, Jagga as examples are streets ahead of most top-5 picks from prior drafts when comparing their pre-draft claims on being a top-end pick.

2017 was a weak draft and Dow should never have gone at 3. And that's the problem with the media for hyping everyone and the public enjoying being spoon fed bs.
Tsatas is at a similar level to Smillie and maybe a bit better but in wildly different roles.
Similar to how Wines is a good inside mid but Isaac Smith was a better player on the wing.
Rachelle I think is a gun but Nicks/Adelaide are in a weird place right now.

And ‘super draft’ ..? This will be told in hindsight, and having a total of 71 picks isn’t really relevant as ‘super’ is not really about picks 60+.

But most of the experts in this space think it was ‘super’. It’s why they were desperately trying to get in, happily letting go of high quality and contracted players for picks (Macrae, Daniel, Bolton, Rioli, Houston…)

If you look at each case they were already moving.

High quality?
Macrae is 30 and cooked, Richmond moved a bunch of average players at their peak for gold nuggets.
Port held out as long as possible to retain Houston, and traded in Lukosious rather than picks.
Smith off an ACL and has an asterisk next to him

And desperately offering up future picks to try and get back involved in this draft.

Super implies high quality or quantity. There is no abnormal quantity and while it's probably the best depth in the top 35 as any modern draft - there's no standout top end.

And did anyone even buy back in bar North? Hardly desperate behaviour.
(North don't count because they are the worst run sporting club in the southern hemisphere and we all just accept they will be up for fleecing)

When the KPF who kicked 60+ goals across all games goes at pick-23, a player who kicked 11-goals in 3 x VFL games goes in the 30’s, a 200cm KPF / ruck touted top-15 (J Whitlock) goes in the 30’s, and the AA ruckman who had a game with 28 touches goes in the 50’s, that’s just a few examples of it being a very very deep and high quality draft.

I put zero stock in "touted". Over the course of 18 months there will be 60 "top 10" guys out there. Kudos to the punters for not negging players but analysis with perspective is perfectly fine.

You'll find that each State underage squad can draw from 5 guys who kick that many goals over a season. At a guess 25 in the country each year.

Another part myth that is spread is that state league play= $$$. It's a nice box to tick, but has no real correlation to an AFL career for many various reasons.

U18 carnival AA selection is a nice accolade to have, but it also means that literally 1/3 of players gets picked in it. (73 played all 4x games) It's also a poor indicator of those who get drafted let alone succeed.

Dodson is the best but also this year is really light on for rucks not to mention there has been an aversion to developing your own lately at AFL level.

Time will tell, but every single thing points to this being an excellent ‘super’ draft - opinion and actions of list managers, combine testing, in-game performances, opinions of experts who spend their lives in this space (Ablett, Twomey, Sheehan etc…).

I respect these guys as proper journos and analysts. But they also only give the sunny side of things.
Twomey has the connections whih is why he gets it so close. Sheehan knows more than he's telling etc etc.
They say excellent because there was plenty on offer and i'm sure there will be some really good players. Just no bankable superstars.

They might all turn out wrong. But I doubt it. There’ll still be at least half a dozen flops in the top-30… it’s a living certainty … I just hope the Tigers avoided most of them !

Plenty both ways! Everyone has pretty big question marks and the safest are Ashcroft & FOS.
Boom or bust pile:
Tauru
Smillie
Hannaford

 

[THE_GUN]

Without talking about the work rate or athletic profiles the stats say:

• Walsh 30d + 0.7g +
• Rowell 32d+ 0.4g + 9 tackles
• Daicos 36 disposals and 2 goals a game.
• Ashcroft 35d + 0.4g
• Anderson 28d + 2g

• Petracca 25d + 2.5 g
• Tom Boyd was at over 3 goals a game
• Weitering was at 2.9 contested marks (7.5 a game)

Bonkers elite levels in some areas. 30+ disposals minimum. On top of this you had Rowell averaging 9 tackles which no one even gets close to, along with Daicos, Anderson & Petracca with bulk goals.

Langford 25.9 + 1.3 +4.7t
Jagga smith 33d +0.6g +3t
L. Ashcroft 31d + 1.3g + 1.7t
Lalor 23d +0.3g +3.0t
Smillie 25.5d + 1.3 + 3.5t
FOS 17.3d + 1.3g

Tauru 0.6g +5.8 marks (0.7 contested)
J Whitlock 2.1g, 4.8m (1.5 contested)

Looking at some benchmarks of whats come before it already rules out everyone in the 2024 pool except Smith & L. Ashcroft at pure disposals.

Tauru gets nowhere near any key fwds or key defenders. In fact the maths prove he is most likely to bust
Whitlock gets close but again falls short in each category

2017 was a weak draft and Dow should never have gone at 3. And that's the problem with the media for hyping everyone and the public enjoying being spoon fed bs.
Tsatas is at a similar level to Smillie and maybe a bit better but in wildly different roles.
Similar to how Wines is a good inside mid but Isaac Smith was a better player on the wing.
Rachelle I think is a gun but Nicks/Adelaide are in a weird place right now.





If you look at each case they were already moving.

High quality?
Macrae is 30 and cooked, Richmond moved a bunch of average players at their peak for gold nuggets.
Port held out as long as possible to retain Houston, and traded in Lukosious rather than picks.
Smith off an ACL and has an asterisk next to him

Super implies high quality or quantity. There is no abnormal quantity and while it's probably the best depth in the top 35 as any modern draft - there's no standout top end.

And did anyone even buy back in bar North? Hardly desperate behaviour.
(North don't count because they are the worst run sporting club in the southern hemisphere and we all just accept they will be up for fleecing)

I put zero stock in "touted". Over the course of 18 months there will be 60 "top 10" guys out there. Kudos to the punters for not negging players but analysis with perspective is perfectly fine.

You'll find that each State underage squad can draw from 5 guys who kick that many goals over a season. At a guess 25 in the country each year.

Another part myth that is spread is that state league play= $$$. It's a nice box to tick, but has no real correlation to an AFL career for many various reasons.

U18 carnival AA selection is a nice accolade to have, but it also means that literally 1/3 of players gets picked in it. (73 played all 4x games) It's also a poor indicator of those who get drafted let alone succeed.

Dodson is the best but also this year is really light on for rucks not to mention there has been an aversion to developing your own lately at AFL level.


I respect these guys as proper journos and analysts. But they also only give the sunny side of things.
Twomey has the connections whih is why he gets it so close. Sheehan knows more than he's telling etc etc.
They say excellent because there was plenty on offer and i'm sure there will be some really good players. Just no bankable superstars.

Plenty both ways! Everyone has pretty big question marks and the safest are Ashcroft & FOS.
Boom or bust pile:
Tauru
Smillie
Hannaford

This is a brilliant post

Only 17 words short of the record on big footy

 

[Lsta062]

I think you're looking at it a little wrong. You need to look at the draft as a hundred moving pieces and not a whole thing to be dissected.

The best players get picked earlier- that's a fait accompli, but why? After all a draft pick is just a number and means nothing after that night.
It's generally a mixture of how well performed you are and how "safe" of a pick you are. (*Midfielders tend to be safer because they are much closer to a finished product than talls.)

A super draft? Clickbait crap IMO
A National Draft of 71 is nothing special in terms of players picked up in recent history.
71 (2024)
64 (2023)
59 (2022)
65 (2021)
59 (2020)
65 (2019)
78 (2018)
78 (2017)
(*Also list sizes being smaller have thrown things out of whack a little from 2020 onwards)

As for quality there are no outstanding Daicos, Reid, Weitering types who are dominating games. But there are a heap of safe/solid picks. The best way to put it is that this year has 10 guys who would normally go at #5 every other year. Less value at the top of that range- but more value at the bottom end.

I think your whole draft is pretty equal with what you could normally get at each pick.
Smillie is probably about par, with Hotton with the ACL wildcard around the mark.

Armstrong you have a bit of value where he could have gone 5-10 picks earlier- but that can be said of every draftee outside the top 10. He's super efficient inside 50 but not a dominant hulking or leading key fwd.

Sims & Alger were reaches IMO. 40+

Overall, I think you probably got the players you wanted, but nothing crazy in extra value other than your trading heists.


Talls also go a lot earlier than they should because of scarcity. That's why so many tend to "bust" from early picks- they weren't that good to start with.
I'd have him in the 10-15 most years and I think he's a bit player rather than the main man.

How was Alger a reach if we got him at pick 58?

 

[Grrr]

Without talking about the work rate or athletic profiles the stats say:

• Walsh 30d + 0.7g +
• Rowell 32d+ 0.4g + 9 tackles
• Daicos 36 disposals and 2 goals a game.
• Ashcroft 35d + 0.4g
• Anderson 28d + 2g

• Petracca 25d + 2.5 g
• Tom Boyd was at over 3 goals a game
• Weitering was at 2.9 contested marks (7.5 a game)

Bonkers elite levels in some areas. 30+ disposals minimum. On top of this you had Rowell averaging 9 tackles which no one even gets close to, along with Daicos, Anderson & Petracca with bulk goals.

Langford 25.9 + 1.3 +4.7t
Jagga smith 33d +0.6g +3t
L. Ashcroft 31d + 1.3g + 1.7t
Lalor 23d +0.3g +3.0t
Smillie 25.5d + 1.3 + 3.5t
FOS 17.3d + 1.3g

That's picking the eyes out of multiple drafts, so hardly a fair comparison. You are picking the elite players way back to Petracca, most no.1 or 2 draft picks or would have been but for father and son.

You'd have to say that L.Ashcroft is pretty well equal to Walsh stats and performance wise. Some suggesting Levi will be better than his brother.

Rowell again was no.1 and you would have to say has not really lived up to it other than a great start. Plenty of time however.

Daicos is a standout player and other than Reid and perhaps JHF, there haven't been many as good as them for a while. You can't fairly compare Lalor to them because he played well below top fitness due to injuries, but his ceiling could be very high, hence the Martin, De Goey comparisons. Same with FOS, injuries held him back, but the potential is there hence his no.2 draft number.

You may quote Smillie's stats but at his size and with his running, agility and kicking prowess, he could be anything. Cripps who is is likened too, compares poorly compared to him. Smillie was also touted as no.1 earlier in the season.

The top draftee's of this year compare very favourably with any 2-6 picks of previous year, perhaps higher, but using stats as you main contention measure is not really a fair measure,

 

[Dr Tigris]

Without talking about the work rate or athletic profiles the stats say:

• Walsh 30d + 0.7g +
• Rowell 32d+ 0.4g + 9 tackles
• Daicos 36 disposals and 2 goals a game.
• Ashcroft 35d + 0.4g
• Anderson 28d + 2g

• Petracca 25d + 2.5 g
• Tom Boyd was at over 3 goals a game
• Weitering was at 2.9 contested marks (7.5 a game)

Bonkers elite levels in some areas. 30+ disposals minimum. On top of this you had Rowell averaging 9 tackles which no one even gets close to, along with Daicos, Anderson & Petracca with bulk goals.

Langford 25.9 + 1.3 +4.7t
Jagga smith 33d +0.6g +3t
L. Ashcroft 31d + 1.3g + 1.7t
Lalor 23d +0.3g +3.0t
Smillie 25.5d + 1.3 + 3.5t
FOS 17.3d + 1.3g

Tauru 0.6g +5.8 marks (0.7 contested)
J Whitlock 2.1g, 4.8m (1.5 contested)

Looking at some benchmarks of whats come before it already rules out everyone in the 2024 pool except Smith & L. Ashcroft at pure disposals.

Tauru gets nowhere near any key fwds or key defenders. In fact the maths prove he is most likely to bust
Whitlock gets close but again falls short in each category

2017 was a weak draft and Dow should never have gone at 3. And that's the problem with the media for hyping everyone and the public enjoying being spoon fed bs.
Tsatas is at a similar level to Smillie and maybe a bit better but in wildly different roles.
Similar to how Wines is a good inside mid but Isaac Smith was a better player on the wing.
Rachelle I think is a gun but Nicks/Adelaide are in a weird place right now.





If you look at each case they were already moving.

High quality?
Macrae is 30 and cooked, Richmond moved a bunch of average players at their peak for gold nuggets.
Port held out as long as possible to retain Houston, and traded in Lukosious rather than picks.
Smith off an ACL and has an asterisk next to him

Super implies high quality or quantity. There is no abnormal quantity and while it's probably the best depth in the top 35 as any modern draft - there's no standout top end.

And did anyone even buy back in bar North? Hardly desperate behaviour.
(North don't count because they are the worst run sporting club in the southern hemisphere and we all just accept they will be up for fleecing)

I put zero stock in "touted". Over the course of 18 months there will be 60 "top 10" guys out there. Kudos to the punters for not negging players but analysis with perspective is perfectly fine.

You'll find that each State underage squad can draw from 5 guys who kick that many goals over a season. At a guess 25 in the country each year.

Another part myth that is spread is that state league play= $$$. It's a nice box to tick, but has no real correlation to an AFL career for many various reasons.

U18 carnival AA selection is a nice accolade to have, but it also means that literally 1/3 of players gets picked in it. (73 played all 4x games) It's also a poor indicator of those who get drafted let alone succeed.

Dodson is the best but also this year is really light on for rucks not to mention there has been an aversion to developing your own lately at AFL level.


I respect these guys as proper journos and analysts. But they also only give the sunny side of things.
Twomey has the connections whih is why he gets it so close. Sheehan knows more than he's telling etc etc.
They say excellent because there was plenty on offer and i'm sure there will be some really good players. Just no bankable superstars.

Plenty both ways! Everyone has pretty big question marks and the safest are Ashcroft & FOS.
Boom or bust pile:
Tauru
Smillie
Hannaford

Just a comment re the trading into this draft. Clubs tried, but clubs wouldn't trade out. The usual movement of picks just didn't happen. The commentary was that clubs just didn't see the value in trading out of this year into next year - except for North

This was a very strange year. Top 7ish were all top 4 players, but no super outstanding star. However from pick 20 on there were still top 20 quality players. Great draft, in prospect, might end up with a huge number of quality players.

On the talls I have seen a few of the BF draft gurus, the ones I trust, say that there were about 6 first round quality KPFs, but no really top end ones. So we got a whole bunch of high quality players, for not much cost. They may not work. But I reckon we now have enough quality KPFs to have a solid spine.

 

[Drunken Wookie]

Having such a deep draft also means there's more high quality juniors in competition with one another, rather than 4 players dominating a bunch of lesser players. You could argue Reid or Daicos's drafts being much shallower means the general quality of their opposition is lower and there's fewer players in their own side taking the spotlight from them.
Not saying they're not stars but it's an argument for players this year not quite hitting the same stats.

 

[Simche]

All this focus on 'projection' and comparison with other years will very shortly all be moot. In my experience of watching footy there are always players with all the tools but that lack the mindset required at the top level, lose focus or otherwise don't make it for a range of different reasons and draft position is occasionally only indicative of this.

Drafting is a numbers game and then it's all about a magic formula of development, coaching, a player taking opportunity, demonstrating the mindset and degree of professionalism required. Plenty of blokes drafted late make it to the upper reaches of the competition.

The talls we've taken have demonstrated talent commensurate with any other year in my view. There are a range of reasons why some could turn out to be stars of the competition and have real weapons to hurt sides once their bodies develop.

That being said there are a range of reasons why they might not, including some completely outside their and the clubs control, for example the positional evolution of the game moving towards smaller or more mobile forward lines. I am a big believer that the true ruck position for example is on the verge of extinction. Most dynasty sides and most winners of flags since about 2000 have had ruckmen I would only grade as B and in plenty of cases they've been picked up from the rookie draft or other clubs. I think there is probably more emphasis now on copying the Geelong model with Blicavs which has brought a trend of more mobile but smaller ruckmen and larger midfielders. I think the club may have taken prospects like Sims for example with a view of adapting.

In any event, sit back and just enjoy their development for the next few years and try not to worry too much about where they were taken etc.

 

[THE_GUN]

How was Alger a reach if we got him at pick 58?

Especially when you consider it will be pick #60+ in a shallow draft

 

[Bojangles17]

Yeah I did find it interesting that all of the projected keys fell. Some of that I think was due to clubs in the later part of the first round not really needing them.

No idea if any of them will become potential Coleman Medal winners but I think at least one will at least be serviceable provided we can get the right development into them.

Recent history suggests that kpp taken in R1 turn out to be bloody good players , a list produced recently that went back 5y had only 1 dud Allison from saints

 

[Grrr]

Especially when you consider it will be pick #60+ in a shallow draft

And let's not mention that Cal Thomey had had him at 23 in his phantom draft, and many others had him in the 40's.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

All this focus on 'projection' and comparison with other years will very shortly all be moot. In my experience of watching footy there are always players with all the tools but that lack the mindset required at the top level, lose focus or otherwise don't make it for a range of different reasons and draft position is occasionally only indicative of this.

Drafting is a numbers game and then it's all about a magic formula of development, coaching, a player taking opportunity, demonstrating the mindset and degree of professionalism required. Plenty of blokes drafted late make it to the upper reaches of the competition.

The talls we've taken have demonstrated talent commensurate with any other year in my view. There are a range of reasons why some could turn out to be stars of the competition and have real weapons to hurt sides once their bodies develop.

That being said there are a range of reasons why they might not, including some completely outside their and the clubs control, for example the positional evolution of the game moving towards smaller or more mobile forward lines. I am a big believer that the true ruck position for example is on the verge of extinction. Most dynasty sides and most winners of flags since about 2000 have had ruckmen I would only grade as B and in plenty of cases they've been picked up from the rookie draft or other clubs. I think there is probably more emphasis now on copying the Geelong model with Blicavs which has brought a trend of more mobile but smaller ruckmen and larger midfielders. I think the club may have taken prospects like Sims for example with a view of adapting.

In any event, sit back and just enjoy their development for the next few years and try not to worry too much about where they were taken etc.

I agree with the first part of your post. But the bit about rucks & Blicavs doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.

Blicavs is not a specialist ruck. He is a makeshift or second ruck at best. In 2024 he attended just 25% of ruck contests in the games he played. This was the 38th most in the AFL. Of the 37 who attended a higher % of ruck contests in the games they played, you basically can't see anything bar lumbering rucks. Some like Grundy may be a bit more mobile than the others. With the new Geelong sponsored ruck rules, there would more likely be a trend towards stronger bodies who don't jump so high. Until of course Cats have a young ruck who has a good leap.

You would say Richmond has recruited Sims with a view to him being a second ruck who spends most of his time parked forward. Ryan is our first shot at a first ruck post Toby, if he doesn't make it we will rapidly looking to trade for 1 or 2 first rucks.

 

[Grrr]

I agree with the first part of your post. But the bit about rucks & Blicavs doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.

Blicavs is not a specialist ruck. He is a makeshift or second ruck at best. In 2024 he attended just 25% of ruck contests in the games he played. This was the 38th most in the AFL. Of the 37 who attended a higher % of ruck contests in the games they played, you basically can't see anything bar lumbering rucks. Some like Grundy may be a bit more mobile than the others. With the new Geelong sponsored ruck rules, there would more likely be a trend towards stronger bodies who don't jump so high. Until of course Cats have a young ruck who has a good leap.

You would say Richmond has recruited Sims with a view to him being a second ruck who spends most of his time parked forward. Ryan is our first shot at a first ruck post Toby, if he doesn't make it we will rapidly looking to trade for 1 or 2 first rucks.

You might be underselliing Simms somewhat. He is 199-200cm right now. Could easily grow to 202cm which would make him a good size. He has a big spring and whilst light now, he has a good frame to build up to a good size. The bonus is, unlike most rucks they become a burden when put forward, he was drafted because of this I think. There are a few like Marshall, Jackson and others who can play forward and still be dangerous, but not many.

 

[THE_GUN]

And let's not mention that Cal Thomey had had him at 23 in his phantom draft, and many others had him in the 40's.

There were some murmurings around some sites that Richmond were very interested in him and were considering him with our last pick which we selected Thomas Sims with so we always had interest and was just a bonus he was available and we could get the pick trade.

But for a Future 4th he is a bargain and as mentioned if he was 2 weeks younger and played junior's next year im sure he would have been snapped up very early.

Now we have him a year early and can invest time into his development
Needs to get around the ball more and increase his production and use his pace further up the ground and not just be a med foward

 

[dinnaz]

This is a brilliant post

Only 17 words short of the record on big footy

I am n̶o̶t̶ a crackpot

 

[dinnaz]

How was Alger a reach if we got him at pick 58?

I meant in terms of range not for Richmond specifically as that was your last list spot I think?
Likely would have been there as a rookie/undrafted and is a real project player.

 

[Drunken Wookie]

I meant in terms of range not for Richmond specifically as that was your last list spot I think?
Likely would have been there as a rookie/undrafted and is a real project player.

He was projected 30-50 on rookie me and some pundits had him going first round or just outside of.
Reach was not the word you were looking for.