List Mgmt. The 2024 Drafters Union

[thistimeforsure]

Everyone’s got trade fever over on the other thread

3 1st rounders and an early 2nd is a good pool of picks

Who should/ve we get/got


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[theGav56]

Trainor, Travaglia, Berry, Gross.

 

[thistimeforsure]

Trainor, Travaglia, Berry, Gross.

Righto I’ll have a look


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[clivenator26]

I think it’s clear we will be left with one pick at best. Just get the best kid possible with a first rd pick, hopefully that fills a need.

 

[pK75]

Trainor, Travaglia, Berry, Gross.

Lindsay worth a look as well

 

[Ysaye]

Everyone’s got trade fever over on the other thread

3 1st rounders and an early 2nd is a good pool of picks

Who should/ve we get/got


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think consideration needs to be given first to the general strategy for the draft which needs to consider both internal needs (short, medium and long) and external components (what is the draft strong and weak in).

With respect to the former, IMO the following is true:

• In the short term we could use some more small forwards (both of the defensive type and offensive type), wingers (ideally can run all day and have decent to very good speed), half back flanks (speed and skill).
• Medium term we need to start to develop a backup for Alex Pearce as the only 200cm defender that can run 20m under 3 seconds who can match up directly on big key forwards.
• Long term I think we need an eye on size and speed around the ball; don't think Young, Serong, Brayshaw and Johnson/ODriscoll/Erasmus/Jackson is too much of an issue now but can see other teams putting at least one talented giant on ball who is difficult to contain, and many have an ultra-quick rover as well. I think we also need to consider that if there is a way to get an advantage in the centre square over every other team then we should try and do it.

And with the later:

• The draft top end is kind of flat and probably at a lesser level than other years. You could argue that Jagga Smith and Harvey Langford (and Levi Ashcroft and Leo Lombard) are at the top on the basis that all the other players (O'Sullivan, Smillie, Draper, Reid, etc.) whilst having very good ceilings also have low floors that scream "might not make it" too many times compared to other Top 10s. The inconsistency of some places question marks on their potential application at the top level. There will be more differences of opinion on the Top 10 than any other year (and the interviews and extra curricula things like Leadership posts will probably mean more than ever); the corollary is that it wouldn't surprise that some players that were a monty to go drop out of the Top 10.
• through the middle to late parts of this draft there are a LOT of good tall (forward) prospects, better than normal. Many hit that athletic sweet spot, and the others have kicked a lot of goals. The Whitlocks to me look like players that whilst again of a low floor have a high ceiling - I reckon Jack will make a lot of drafters look stupid at the end of the day. Gerreyn from WA also I reckon has a bigger than normal probability of making drafters look stupid. Then there is also Armstrong, Shanahan, Faulls, Matt Whitlock, Simms; they all have really good signs. The other thing the back end of the Top 10 to late draft has a lot of tall utility-could-be-midfielders with a higher likelihood that normal of later picks "making it". Smillie, Lalor, Travaglia, Allan, Hynes, Davis, (Urquhart) to name a few.
• In terms of geography, WA will not have a big presence in the Top 20, but this is partly going to be because of the evenness of the draft and the teams that will have picks (and also the F/S and Academy picks). You could argue that when your draftees are going to be behind an established set of players that it is better that they be from their home state (probably true for later draft picks). The flip argument is that if they are from elsewhere, there is a higher probability that they might want to go home, creating an opportunity to "store potential" to cash in. WA has a heap of decent flanker prospects at the back and/or rookie end of this draft, so to me we want to make use of this. Also Bizzell who is an academy prospect is a decent tall which I think we would also just want to casually take as a Cat B rookie.

So given all of that, and I know this is about using the picks as they stand, but if we are not trading the picks out for existing players (which I think is definitely the right first plan), then I would be looking to trade some of the picks back to get more picks (like if you can change the Port into multiple second round/third round) or to trade for likely higher picks in 2025 then I think that is a good strategy. The reason I say this is that using the picks at hand and target players, that is the wrong strategy - the Collingwood and Freo first round picks you would want to play a reactive game where someone who falls through the Top 10 gets picked up - it is hard to say who that is without knowing the strategies of the other clubs in the Top 10. That is probably also true of the Port and Saints pick; nominating a player is hard without knowing what is left on the board.

Late in the draft (I think we have a pick in the 60s-70s?) I would look at WA flankers like Hayes or Artemis - outside but skilled fast dudes, or maybe Urquhart as a tall midfielder / forward (his intent is great but he needs to do some work on his kicking).

 

[thistimeforsure]

I think consideration needs to be given first to the general strategy for the draft which needs to consider both internal needs (short, medium and long) and external components (what is the draft strong and weak in).

With respect to the former, IMO the following is true:

• In the short term we could use some more small forwards (both of the defensive type and offensive type), wingers (ideally can run all day and have decent to very good speed), half back flanks (speed and skill).
• Medium term we need to start to develop a backup for Alex Pearce as the only 200cm defender that can run 20m under 3 seconds who can match up directly on big key forwards.
• Long term I think we need an eye on size and speed around the ball; don't think Young, Serong, Brayshaw and Johnson/ODriscoll/Erasmus/Jackson is too much of an issue now but can see other teams putting at least one talented giant on ball who is difficult to contain, and many have an ultra-quick rover as well. I think we also need to consider that if there is a way to get an advantage in the centre square over every other team then we should try and do it.

And with the later:

• The draft top end is kind of flat and probably at a lesser level than other years. You could argue that Jagga Smith and Harvey Langford (and Levi Ashcroft and Leo Lombard) are at the top on the basis that all the other players (O'Sullivan, Smillie, Draper, Reid, etc.) whilst having very good ceilings also have low floors that scream "might not make it" too many times compared to other Top 10s. The inconsistency of some places question marks on their potential application at the top level. There will be more differences of opinion on the Top 10 than any other year (and the interviews and extra curricula things like Leadership posts will probably mean more than ever); the corollary is that it wouldn't surprise that some players that were a monty to go drop out of the Top 10.
• through the middle to late parts of this draft there are a LOT of good tall (forward) prospects, better than normal. Many hit that athletic sweet spot, and the others have kicked a lot of goals. The Whitlocks to me look like players that whilst again of a low floor have a high ceiling - I reckon Jack will make a lot of drafters look stupid at the end of the day. Gerreyn from WA also I reckon has a bigger than normal probability of making drafters look stupid. Then there is also Armstrong, Shanahan, Faulls, Matt Whitlock, Simms; they all have really good signs. The other thing the back end of the Top 10 to late draft has a lot of tall utility-could-be-midfielders with a higher likelihood that normal of later picks "making it". Smillie, Lalor, Travaglia, Allan, Hynes, Davis, (Urquhart) to name a few.
• In terms of geography, WA will not have a big presence in the Top 20, but this is partly going to be because of the evenness of the draft and the teams that will have picks (and also the F/S and Academy picks). You could argue that when your draftees are going to be behind an established set of players that it is better that they be from their home state (probably true for later draft picks). The flip argument is that if they are from elsewhere, there is a higher probability that they might want to go home, creating an opportunity to "store potential" to cash in. WA has a heap of decent flanker prospects at the back and/or rookie end of this draft, so to me we want to make use of this. Also Bizzell who is an academy prospect is a decent tall which I think we would also just want to casually take as a Cat B rookie.

So given all of that, and I know this is about using the picks as they stand, but if we are not trading the picks out for existing players (which I think is definitely the right first plan), then I would be looking to trade some of the picks back to get more picks (like if you can change the Port into multiple second round/third round) or to trade for likely higher picks in 2025 then I think that is a good strategy. The reason I say this is that using the picks at hand and target players, that is the wrong strategy - the Collingwood and Freo first round picks you would want to play a reactive game where someone who falls through the Top 10 gets picked up - it is hard to say who that is without knowing the strategies of the other clubs in the Top 10. That is probably also true of the Port and Saints pick; nominating a player is hard without knowing what is left on the board.

Late in the draft (I think we have a pick in the 60s-70s?) I would look at WA flankers like Hayes or Artemis - outside but skilled fast dudes, or maybe Urquhart as a tall midfielder / forward (his intent is great but he needs to do some work on his kicking).

Good evaluation there , I think most of our bad losses this year came when we got badly outmuscled … even our defenders are a bit weak in the push and shove

Walls has said many times we start at character and work from there which is probably a great idea for minimising busts but it leaves you a bit light on for athleticism I think

The call it S.P.A.Rk score in America Speed Power Agility Reaction

That’s what we should be shopping for if we hit the draft … any WA lads fit the bill ?


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app