Analysis KPP Pick Quality

[dinnaz]

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.

Not really. This is what a standout player will be doing.
Plenty of years someone has to be picked first but aren't that that level above. Think Raynor for example.

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.

Yep! Walsh did it for 2 years in a row which is remarkable to be that good as a 17 yr old which shows his quality. He also dominated the Champs where Ashcroft was merely good.

However looking beyond the stats he doesn't work as hard defensively or have the same gut busting run that Walsh does. Also Ashcroft isn't as good in the contest.

W. Ashcroft is already a gun, was better at the same age and I think the better of the two when all said and done. How lucky are Brisbane.

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.

I suggest you watch more Gold Coast. He's already the best two way player in the AFL and has been for 2-3 seasons. Also was top 3 for contested possessions in 2024 behind Cripps and Green.
Well worth a $10 punt for the Brownlow because one year GC will start winning games.

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.

Lalor was really good last year and does play a bit like Dusty. I would suggest Raynor is a good comparison. He arguably had a better 17s year than his 18's and always lacked a tank.
Can definitely be the best of the lot which is why he went #1 but it's also a gamble because he didn't actually produce anything in 2024.
FOS is in a similar position but is very much like Cerra in that he's quality with the ball and reliable but not dominant.

*DeGoey is so overrated (likely from being from Collingwood). He looks dangerous at times and played real good footy for a game or 2 a season but ehhh, I doubt any coach worries about him.

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.

His size is the interesting part. Is slow as anything though and in the modern game those types of players are being phased out. Could end up like Cripps or like Will Brodie. Had a poor champs when up against the best and that's the big knock I have. For a comparison check up on Ned Long who is now at Collingwood. Big unit but struggles in some aspects.

Cripps was worse at the same point which is why he was picked up in the range he was (and should have been), but has obviously come good! You get a couple every 5 years or so who come from nowhere which should just be chalked up to luck.

I wouldn't place much stock in the #1 hype train. But he was definitely right up there after last year. You can look at it as slowing development because he was just about the same as he was last year while everyone else has improved by say 50%. (just a random number for arguments sake)

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,

I think it does measure favourably because of the depth. A lot of years you may have no great top end like 2020 & 2017 and likewise some have a good top end where someone terrific goes later than they should like 2018 & 2023. It kind of skews perception because not every year has the same strength. Will Phillips vs Judd at #3 as an extreme example. Judd would go #1 every other year and Phillips around #10.

If we think of #1 as being the best of the best and your pick for a Norm Smith/Brownlow/Coleman winner, then the next step down at #2-#3 will logically be a step down- projecting to be winning club best and fairest awards and AA selections.

• Guys who are maybe Andrew Brayshaw/ Taranto /Rozee level. Safe bankable picks.

Then the next tier where I rate most of this draft are the guys who can be just as good or have a slightly lower ceiling, have few flaws in their game but aren't quite consistent or as bankable .

• Think perhaps Parish, Cerra, Stringer, Macrae.

As for stats they just provide proof or an inference to why something exists.
Clearly a guy who can get the ball 40 times is better than someone who can only manage 10 in the same role.

How do you pick your best players?

KPP- Marks
Rucks- Hitouts
Fwds- Goals

 

[dinnaz]

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.

There was definitely good depth which is 95% of why it was hard to move back in. I wouldn't go so far as to say 40 usual top 20 picks but 30 for sure. Also a few other things to note are that:

• North wanted to be done with the draft now and will probably look to trade in players for the next few years instead.
• Tasmania looms closer and closer and you want your core all sorted by then. A big part of Hawthorns 3peat was the fact that literally no other clubs could get significantly better because GC & GWS sucked up the drafts for about 4 years.

 

[dinnaz]

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.

An idea that needs exploring for sure.
The champs usually show this higher tier play where you can see the dip from regular state level. The Vic Metro v Vic Country game this year is the best underage game i've seen because the level was so high around the ground.

 

[Grrr]

Not really. This is what a standout player will be doing.
Plenty of years someone has to be picked first but aren't that that level above. Think Raynor for example.

Yep! Walsh did it for 2 years in a row which is remarkable to be that good as a 17 yr old which shows his quality. He also dominated the Champs where Ashcroft was merely good.

However looking beyond the stats he doesn't work as hard defensively or have the same gut busting run that Walsh does. Also Ashcroft isn't as good in the contest.

W. Ashcroft is already a gun, was better at the same age and I think the better of the two when all said and done. How lucky are Brisbane.

I suggest you watch more Gold Coast. He's already the best two way player in the AFL and has been for 2-3 seasons. Also was top 3 for contested possessions in 2024 behind Cripps and Green.
Well worth a $10 punt for the Brownlow because one year GC will start winning games.

Lalor was really good last year and does play a bit like Dusty. I would suggest Raynor is a good comparison. He arguably had a better 17s year than his 18's and always lacked a tank.
Can definitely be the best of the lot which is why he went #1 but it's also a gamble because he didn't actually produce anything in 2024.
FOS is in a similar position but is very much like Cerra in that he's quality with the ball and reliable but not dominant.

*DeGoey is so overrated (likely from being from Collingwood). He looks dangerous at times and played real good footy for a game or 2 a season but ehhh, I doubt any coach worries about him.

His size is the interesting part. Is slow as anything though and in the modern game those types of players are being phased out. Could end up like Cripps or like Will Brodie. Had a poor champs when up against the best and that's the big knock I have. For a comparison check up on Ned Long who is now at Collingwood. Big unit but struggles in some aspects.

Cripps was worse at the same point which is why he was picked up in the range he was (and should have been), but has obviously come good! You get a couple every 5 years or so who come from nowhere which should just be chalked up to luck.

I wouldn't place much stock in the #1 hype train. But he was definitely right up there after last year. You can look at it as slowing development because he was just about the same as he was last year while everyone else has improved by say 50%. (just a random number for arguments sake)

I think it does measure favourably because of the depth. A lot of years you may have no great top end like 2020 & 2017 and likewise some have a good top end where someone terrific goes later than they should like 2018 & 2023. It kind of skews perception because not every year has the same strength. Will Phillips vs Judd at #3 as an extreme example. Judd would go #1 every other year and Phillips around #10.

If we think of #1 as being the best of the best and your pick for a Norm Smith/Brownlow/Coleman winner, then the next step down at #2-#3 will logically be a step down- projecting to be winning club best and fairest awards and AA selections.

• Guys who are maybe Andrew Brayshaw/ Taranto /Rozee level. Safe bankable picks.

Then the next tier where I rate most of this draft are the guys who can be just as good or have a slightly lower ceiling, have few flaws in their game but aren't quite consistent or as bankable .

• Think perhaps Parish, Cerra, Stringer, Macrae.

As for stats they just provide proof or an inference to why something exists.
Clearly a guy who can get the ball 40 times is better than someone who can only manage 10 in the same role.

How do you pick your best players?

KPP- Marks
Rucks- Hitouts
Fwds- Goals

no time to respond to every point, a couple of points.

You mention that Walsh did it for two years, but Lalor and FOS were really good in their bottom age year and then were hampered by injury in their second. Reason stands that if you can do it in your bottom year, you would most likely do it in your second. Of course injury affected both players, and certainly affected their tanks. Not many have a tank like Walsh, but even still their tanks may be fine if not for injury. I don't think anyone would think that Lalor with his build will start mid straight away, it took a similarly built Petracca a number of years as a half forward sometimes mid before he was full time in the middle.

DeGoey is over rated in as far as what he has produced, but with a more professional attitude you have to say he could have been anything. Anyone who has anything to deal with him Lalor, says he is quite the opposite.

Smillie is not slow at all. What stands out is his quick movement around the ball, has very good agility (especially compared to someone like Cripps) and his 2km time trial was up with all the good mids, 2.36m from memory.

How do I pick a best player. There are plenty of measures and stats are not no.1.
The greatest players of all time were the ones that hurt you most when they got the ball, be that a forward, mid or defender. The way Scarlet controlled the backline, Lockett dominated a forward line or either Ablett just dominate their positions. Of course they are the elite and it graduates down, but the theory is the same.

 

[Dr Tigris]

There was definitely good depth which is 95% of why it was hard to move back in. I wouldn't go so far as to say 40 usual top 20 picks but 30 for sure. Also a few other things to note are that:

• North wanted to be done with the draft now and will probably look to trade in players for the next few years instead.
• Tasmania looms closer and closer and you want your core all sorted by then. A big part of Hawthorns 3peat was the fact that literally no other clubs could get significantly better because GC & GWS sucked up the drafts for about 4 years.

Always hard to know about where someone would go in another draft. But there were definite top 20 players going around 30. Pity the top end was a bit light. But draft depth helped the Tigers get a great haul.

That the tigers focused so heavily on talls is really interesting. They definitely seem to think that AFL quality was there and that 2024 got us a midfield and tall forward line + Trainor. Very much a portfolio approach. Pick enough quality players and you'll get one or two good long term players to finish out the long term spine.

Next year likely to have 2 top 5 picks + Kellaway + whatever we can buy with the salary cap we won't spend. A note on the fact that we didn't provide salary cap relief in our trades. Seemed stupid if the future world had the same rules as now. But cap trading is awesome for the Tigers right now. Could end up buying 2 firsts next year (??). So this year to build the spine, + X factor. 2025 to build out the list and pick up any super bargains or absolute quality players.

But using a portfolio approach we risk having picks that just won't play. But we maximise the opportunity to complete the spine of the team, and then you just build around that. I'll be interesting to see how it works out. Long term approach. But taking gambles on players hoping enough work out that the squad is balanced, strong, and high quality is still taking gambles.

 

[dinnaz]

no time to respond to every point, a couple of points.

You mention that Walsh did it for two years, but Lalor and FOS were really good in their bottom age year and then were hampered by injury in their second. Reason stands that if you can do it in your bottom year, you would most likely do it in your second. Of course injury affected both players, and certainly affected their tanks. Not many have a tank like Walsh, but even still their tanks may be fine if not for injury. I don't think anyone would think that Lalor with his build will start mid straight away, it took a similarly built Petracca a number of years as a half forward sometimes mid before he was full time in the middle.

Walsh had almost the best 17s year you'll ever see and just as good as everyone's 18th.
Everyone else is merely good for that underage year.

DeGoey is over rated in as far as what he has produced, but with a more professional attitude you have to say he could have been anything. Anyone who has anything to deal with him Lalor, says he is quite the opposite.

I do tend to analyse in a vacuum. How much value do you put on rumors, go home factor and such.
I'd expect every player to maximise their effort and fulfil their potential but sometimes it just doesn't turn out.

Smillie is not slow at all. What stands out is his quick movement around the ball, has very good agility (especially compared to someone like Cripps) and his 2km time trial was up with all the good mids, 2.36m from memory.

2km is more endurance. But that's surprising as he seems to be out of the play once the ball leaves the immediate area.

How do I pick a best player. There are plenty of measures and stats are not no.1.
The greatest players of all time were the ones that hurt you most when they got the ball, be that a forward, mid or defender. The way Scarlet controlled the backline, Lockett dominated a forward line or either Ablett just dominate their positions. Of course they are the elite and it graduates down, but the theory is the same.

Absolutely dominant in one position of course. But what about intangibles, how do you rate leadership? Hardness?

 

[Grrr]

Absolutely dominant in one position of course. But what about intangibles, how do you rate leadership? Hardness?

Of course they are important, but when Matthews, Lockett, Ablett Snr and others flatten someone and get weeks, it is the opposite of leadership. Hasn't lessened their legacy, (tarnished perhaps). Great footballers influence games, Martin, Danger, Fyfe, Pendelbury etc, but don't do it by accrued possessions necessarily. I remember when Prestia was BOG by some way against Brisbane even though Neale got about 50 possessions. Prestia cut them up, Neale racked them up. Neale got the umps votes of course, Prestia the coaches.

 

[Noidnadroj]

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

So you’ve picked the very best players statistically from a decade of drafts and compared them against a SINGLE draft.

We can debate all we like based on our own assessment. But when every single person in this list management space said it’s a very strong and deep draft then I’m inclined to believe it’s a very strong and deep draft.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[dinnaz]

So you’ve picked the very best players statistically from a decade of drafts and compared them against a SINGLE draft.

We can debate all we like based on our own assessment. But when every single person in this list management space said it’s a very strong and deep draft then I’m inclined to believe it’s a very strong and deep draft.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Right idea. If we amalgamated the last 10 drafts (at the same point pre draft) no one from 2024 would be top 30.
But then you may have 15 guys 30-60.

The talls however have less strength in totality. Richmond have the right idea that with a bunch of darts thrown some will stick, but there are no slam dunk wins.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Right idea. If we amalgamated the last 10 drafts (at the same point pre draft) no one from 2024 would be top 30.
But then you may have 15 guys 30-60.

The talls however have less strength in totality. Richmond have the right idea that with a bunch of darts thrown some will stick, but there are no slam dunk wins.

In the end the only thing that matters is how well the players actually play in the AFL. I would bet good money several 2024 draftees would end up in the top 30 players from the last 10 drafts combined once all their careers are complete.

Whether any 2024 draftees would make the top 30 of the last 10 drafts amalgamated is a pointless test, both irrefutable & unsupportable with facts at the same time.

You are stating your opinion on the matter as if it is proven fact. You do not have any reliable way of knowing how club recruiters rate players in one draft versus players in another draft.

Richmond were not throwing darts when they made their selections in the 2024 draft. Neither did they pick any players - tall or otherwise - who were not generally seen as very good prospects. Richmond took a punt on the health of 2 players, Hotton & Trainor, presumably bcause they fell a lot lower in the draft than their form when fit justified. They just took the other 6 picks according to where the club rated them, same as every club would do. You are posting as if you believe where a club makes a pick that deviates from your preferred draft order they automatically have a lower rated prospect. Which is ludicrous, and even more ludicrous because you are making posts rating players according to how many disposals or goals they get.

Richmond have said they are looking to recruit players who will stand up in AFL finals(presumably as opposed to players who can dominate junior levels or weaker AFL teams in meaningless matches.) Richmond are just off building one dynasty team which probably wouldn't have contained any of your "slam dunk wins" on the respective draft nights. Or if so it would have been 1-2 players max.

In short, stfu, you have no real idea what you are talking about.

 

[THE_GUN]

Right idea. If we amalgamated the last 10 drafts (at the same point pre draft) no one from 2024 would be top 30.
But then you may have 15 guys 30-60.

The talls however have less strength in totality. Richmond have the right idea that with a bunch of darts thrown some will stick, but there are no slam dunk wins.

Eagles threw a pick #3 dart and hit Baker

 

[dinnaz]

In the end the only thing that matters is how well the players actually play in the AFL. I would bet good money several 2024 draftees would end up in the top 30 players from the last 10 drafts combined once all their careers are complete.

It's highly likely a couple do. But consider you have to turn out better than the absolute cream there's a long way to go.

Whether any 2024 draftees would make the top 30 of the last 10 drafts amalgamated is a pointless test, both irrefutable & unsupportable with facts at the same time.

I've given you definitive benchmarks on what level players were at during a similar snapshot in time. Many such examples correlating with future AFL performances.

You are stating your opinion on the matter as if it is proven fact. You do not have any reliable way of knowing how club recruiters rate players in one draft versus players in another draft.

My opinion is 100% what I do believe as fact! I'm sure you ask 100 recruiters and you'll get 100 different answers. Along with many flip of the coin decisions.

Richmond were not throwing darts when they made their selections in the 2024 draft. Neither did they pick any players - tall or otherwise - who were not generally seen as very good prospects. Richmond took a punt on the health of 2 players, Hotton & Trainor, presumably bcause they fell a lot lower in the draft than their form when fit justified. They just took the other 6 picks according to where the club rated them, same as every club would do. You are posting as if you believe where a club makes a pick that deviates from your preferred draft order they automatically have a lower rated prospect. Which is ludicrous, and even more ludicrous because you are making posts rating players according to how many disposals or goals they get.

We were discussing the statistical side of the game which proves this point of the general observation- but if you can't find the footy as a jr then you wont be able to in league footy.

Why then is Hotton rated higher? It's certainly not his strength, or set shots which are shaky as ****.

Richmond have said they are looking to recruit players who will stand up in AFL finals(presumably as opposed to players who can dominate junior levels or weaker AFL teams in meaningless matches.) Richmond are just off building one dynasty team which probably wouldn't have contained any of your "slam dunk wins" on the respective draft nights. Or if so it would have been 1-2 players max.

From that era: Dusty, Reiwoldt, Vlastuin, Edwards, Houli, Cotchin, Bolton, Lynch.
Also you had a team that was compiled of second tier guys, 30-40 range not a bunch of hail mary selections.

I am amazed that you got any use out of guys like Castagna who only really had good endurance.

In short, stfu, you have no real idea what you are talking about.

Tell me then how do you rate different players? What moments during a game cause you to rate someone in the elite bracket?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Tell me then how do you rate different players? What moments during a game cause you to rate someone in the elite bracket?

You rate players elite or otherwise according to what they achieve in the AFL. Especially in the biggest games. Rating the quality of a club's draft selections before they have played most of their careers is a fool's errand. Rating them before Christmas in the year they were drafted is preposterous.

Listing what disposals and goals a player got in junior footy is not likely to unveil a future Harris Andrews or many other players considered elite in their roles. The best players make their team function best, especially when stakes are highest against the best opposition.

Earlier you were saying Richmond didn't take any slam dunk picks. I agree with that, because you can't. You don't really know who is Dustin Martin and who is Patrick Dangerfield until someone holds a gun to their head and says it is time to show us what you are made of on the biggest stage. You don't know who is going to cope best with AFL footy until it is proven at high stakes.

All your points here fall basically into the same category, I just picked this one out. You are calling the uncertain "definitive", rating draft picks with zero real evidence, you are also rating draft picks as if clubs are not trying to build a functioning team but rather trying to get as many players who have kicked goals and gain high possessions in junior footy.

My favourite bit is you are now claiming 8 of Richmond's flag players were slam dunk selections. Dusty & Cotchin would have been the only two where the club would have been really confident they were likely to be elite.

Houli couldn't get a regular game at Essendon in his first 4 seasons. Bolton barely played his first 2 seasons. If we were at the same point in the year they were drafted there is no way you would be calling those slam dunk selections. Vlastuin struggled as a forward & mid before finding a home in the backline.

Why are you here on our board? Almost to a person the board is happy with our draft haul and our moves in the trade period. If you are here to say we shouldn't be happy, then **** off, because it is clear you have no real expertise or method. You are just playing SuperCoach with players' under-age records. Our recruiters are playig 4d chess compared to your amateur hour methods.

 

[poppa pump]

It's highly likely a couple do. But consider you have to turn out better than the absolute cream there's a long way to go.

I've given you definitive benchmarks on what level players were at during a similar snapshot in time. Many such examples correlating with future AFL performances.

My opinion is 100% what I do believe as fact! I'm sure you ask 100 recruiters and you'll get 100 different answers. Along with many flip of the coin decisions.

We were discussing the statistical side of the game which proves this point of the general observation- but if you can't find the footy as a jr then you wont be able to in league footy.

Why then is Hotton rated higher? It's certainly not his strength, or set shots which are shaky as ****.

From that era: Dusty, Reiwoldt, Vlastuin, Edwards, Houli, Cotchin, Bolton, Lynch.
Also you had a team that was compiled of second tier guys, 30-40 range not a bunch of hail mary selections.

I am amazed that you got any use out of guys like Castagna who only really had good endurance.


Tell me then how do you rate different players? What moments during a game cause you to rate someone in the elite bracket?

Wrong castanya had 3 afl quality traits,speed,good mark,endurance.