2014 Potential Draftee and Trade Watch

Remove this Banner Ad

Turbocat said:
Im less concerned than some about of KPB's. We are in a much better position than 12 months ago imo. Kolo and Toohey give us a chance to have the KPD spot already taken care off if we rate Hamling and possibly Blitz. Doesn't mean we cant add , just that I dont think we are desperate for a kid. Im far more focused on the need of a ruck somewhere , and Id like to add a real goal kicker mid.
Click to expand...
I still have worries around that end of the ground myself.

Kolodjashnij, fine. He can possibly take over from Lonergan down the track (still think he is a bit undersized) but he is only in Year One.

Toohey might lock down CHB but I'll reserve judgement until he gets more games under his belt. Again, it is only his first year.

Blicavs has had some moments in defence but do the coaches want him down there?

Hamling is very much in the "I don't know" bucket. Honestly, I've only seen him a handful of times and I've never been super impressed with him yet others have stated he can play and has a real dip. He is another who I'd like to be settled in one position for a season. He seems to alternate between defence and attack depending on needs (not a bad thing). Right now, the feeling I get with Hamling is the same feeling I got with Brown. That he might look good at VFL level (although I haven't really seen it) but it may not translate to AFL level. With the investment already, I WANT to be wrong on that after the investment in Gillies (a bust) and Brown (looking very shaky now).

Perhaps, as Pure_Ownage mentions, we go for one of those 190-192cm defender who can (hopefully) play both key position and/or 3rd tall.
 
I watched Caleb Daniel play for South Adelaide against the Crows' state league side today. I didn't watch the whole game as I was flicking over during breaks from the Geelong game, so I'll watch the game in full on the recorder a bit later. From what I saw, he was very handy in South's 45 point loss. He ended up with 17 disposals and a goal.

Standing at a very short 167cm, he looked every bit as small as the number suggested, but that didn't stop him getting in there and having a real crack against adults and an Adelaide outfit with 17 AFL listed players. His height will certainly affect his draft position, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't at the very least rookied.

I liked a quote from Tim Ginever, the seven time SANFL premership player with the Port Magpies who was commentating: "If anyone's wondering whether this kid will get drafted to the AFL due to his height... just don't, he's way too good to not be".
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Daniel is a super player but the facts are (and the data shows this) most recruiters are height discriminatory and most players sub 173cm that get drafted do so as rookies, and most at that height miss out altogether. He is a super little player and I am a big fan but he is a chance to not be drafted at all, and if he is drafted it will probably be as a rookie. Anyone who says otherwise is speaking on emotion not reality.

Btw future stars just did their first mock draft and had us taking Langford, with both Lever and Goddard reaching our pick (neither will on draft day and we wouldn't pass on either I don't think). That said, they didn't seem to pay much attention to club needs with their picks so I don't think it represents what will happen. My boy Duggan went pick 9.
 
Pure_Ownage said:
Daniel is a super player but the facts are (and the data shows this) most recruiters are height discriminatory and most players sub 173cm that get drafted do so as rookies, and most at that height miss out altogether. He is a super little player and I am a big fan but he is a chance to not be drafted at all, and if he is drafted it will probably be as a rookie. Anyone who says otherwise is speaking on emotion not reality.

Btw future stars just did their first mock draft and had us taking Langford, with both Lever and Goddard reaching our pick (neither will on draft day and we wouldn't pass on either I don't think). That said, they didn't seem to pay much attention to club needs with their picks so I don't think it represents what will happen. My boy Duggan went pick 9.
Click to expand...

Didn't go unnoticed. Goddard's poor championships means we are in with some chance of him falling to our pick. I tend to think though that he will go in that 10-13 area, tantalizingly close, but just before we get an opportunity to strike. Tall, mobile, big bodied defenders don't grow on trees. I would think that he would be attractive to quite a few clubs.
 
year of the cat said:
Didn't go unnoticed. Goddard's poor championships means we are in with some chance of him falling to our pick. I tend to think though that he will go in that 10-13 area, tantalizingly close, but just before we get an opportunity to strike. Tall, mobile, big bodied defenders don't grow on trees. I would think that he would be attractive to quite a few clubs.
Click to expand...

Yeah he would be a great fit. 5-10 is still my tip for him though.

They didn't seem to think about each club, for example they had Port taking a medium defender when they will clearly be desperate to take a key forward, if they don't trade the pick for Lycett.
 
Pure_Ownage said:
They didn't seem to think about each club, for example they had Port taking a medium defender when they will clearly be desperate to take a key forward, if they don't trade the pick for Lycett.
Click to expand...
With Grundy (seemingly) on the outer (with his mate Kennedy) at Collingwood I wonder if Port have a dash at them both?

They'd have to give up a bit but I could seem them fitting in at Alberton. Port have made it known they are looking at ruckmen...

Anyway, finally finished off my viewing of the games I had recorded.

VIC METRO

Pure_Ownage's boy Duggan didn't played too badly out of defence. Picked up a few touches and has quick hands (handy in defence). I keep hearing that his skills are right up there but, while good, I don't know if I'd be using the term "elite" based on what I saw. He is a neat player and there is a good base to work from but I'd say there is still a bit of improvement (especially when watching Wigg put balls down team-mates throats when kicking out for SA).

In a nod to Turbocat, De Goey picked up the second most touches of any VM player. He did it in such an unobtrusive I didn't realise how often he got his hands on it (although, it was only 14 times so it has hardly earth shattering stuff). He does use the ball well and clearly knows how to find it but he is just a little too "vanilla" for me. I'd question whether he hus much "hurt" factor once he gets it.

Duggan's Jets teammate, Jayden Laverde, is the one who stood out for me. A tall midfielder who was pushed forward in this game and kicked goals. He has a nice burst of speed, terrific height and uses the ball (in this game at least) very well. Laverde is a great prospect because he has shown an ability to play well through the midfield but also has the ability to get the job done in the forward line. And up forward he is an awkward match-up because of his height and pace.

Ahern was a little quieter against SA but still showed some flashes. Displayed an ability to win some contests and I think has a bit of upside.

Ed Vickers-Willis was another who showed a little bit coming out of defence. Has a bit of dash for 190cm and backed himself a few times.

Then there were the usual suspects, Brayshaw and Petracca who lifted during the game. Cavka was another who started slow but got better and Miller also did some good things (especially after half time). Daniel Neilson looks like the kind of defender who, when given a task, just gets it done.

SA

Back-to-back winners and once again have a bit of talent to choose from.

Might as well start with the kid who will cause all sorts of discussions, Caleb Daniel. I agree with P_O in that his height is going to count against him (rightly or wrongly) come draft time. However, if I completely discount his height (and basing my thoughts solely on the 2 games I watched him) he is a top 15 selection. He doesn't get tackled but loves laying tackles. He has a penetrating and accurate kick and, importantly, has super vision. Daniel can play and play well but that 167cms is going to be a millstone around his neck. Based on these games (and depending on how he goes back in the SANFL for the rest of the year - I think he is playing senior footy over there now) I think someone will select him, possibly late second or in the 3rd round. He is too good to be a rookie.

Dean Gore, who I noticed in the first SA game I watched, really put together an excellent game against VM. Playing through the midfield, Gore was usually the guy clearing the ball for SA. He ended up with 8 clearances and laid 7 tackles. Across 6 matches, Gore laid 39 tackles (6.5 a games) and averaged just over 15 touches a game. He'll probably get lost among more higher profile players but he could be a good snaffle later in the draft.

Hard to miss Wigg's kicking out from fullback during the game. It was laser-like and regularly set SA away from defence. On a windy day in Geelong against VC his kicking wasn't as pinpoint but against VM he put on a clinic. Get the ball into his hands and he could become a real weapon at AFL level once he finds his groove.

I'm going to give Callum Wilke a pat on the back. He didn't touch it all day but he was assigned Moore and kept VM's potential match-winner up forward under wraps. May still have some growing to do but right now he is probably suited to the 3rd tall defender's role but when you consider Moore is a likely Key Postion who will ultimately end up needing your best defender you get an idea of how well Wilke did to control him. Does he get drafted? Who knows, but I thought he played the shutdown role well.

Another kid who I haven't seen discussed much (so much so I assumed he wasn't of draft age) is Alex Neal-Bullen. Averaging 18.5 disposals a game and nearly 5 clearances I think this guy, along with Gore, could present some value. A little sloppy but still finds a lot of ball.

Gregson, Rose and small forward Hone were also amongst it.
 
The Pivotonian .....
Again , nice job Piv , the vision I saw from this game Laverde played forward and show not only speed but the gaul to use it. Whe I saw him he was mainly being played back , to also be used forward..my guess is he may really jump up the ratings. I saw the Future Stars program and they had mock like this. GWS going for Wright , which I feel would be a waste. To me they could easily get another pick in a Tyson type deal , perhaps Shiel , perhaps JOR or someone else , and then they would jump at Laverde.
Also they show a bit of Lever , and what I saw look a lot better than what I had previously seen. Id be surprised if he got to 15

1 STK - Pat McCartin
2 BL - Christian Petracca
3 MELB - Angus Brayshaw
4 GWS - Peter Wright
5 WB - Sam Durdin
6 CARL - Paul Ahern
7 RICH - Jarrod Pickett
8 WC - Jayden Laverde
9 AC - Liam Duggan
10 GC - Caleb Marchbank
11 NM - Corey Ellis
12 COLL - Darcy Moore
13 GEEL - Kyle Langford
14 GC - Tom Lamb
15 FREO - Jake Lever
16 PA - Ed Vickers-Willis
17 HAW - Hugh Goddard
18 SYD - Isaac Heeney
19 GWS - Jordy De Goey
20 ESS - Lachie Weller
 
Gotta be honest, I didn't notice Langford at all. :eek:

That list is very Victorian centric - who put it together?

I'm biased but there is no way known (based on what I saw) Weller goes before Blakely.
 
Last edited:
When you look at that list, regardless of whether we finish 1st or 5th we'll end up with a very good first pick. I'm not as enamoured with Langford or Lamb (can't see the fuss about this guy to be honest) as the others on that list but aside from those 2 would be happy with any of the others. Laverde looks a beauty to me. Unbelievably athletic but with good skills to match. I could see him continuing to climb as the year goes on.

I wonder whether Wright may drop as the year goes on, as Grundy did last year. I realise he has a few more strings to his bow than Grundy but he isn't a super tall ruckman and probably isn't going to end up playing permanant key position. His versatility may be very attractive to clubs but clubs may also be unsure about where he exactly fits.

It's looking more likely from a "best available" basis that we will take another mid sized player.
 
The Pivotonian said:
Gotta be honest, I didn't notice Langford at all. :eek:

That list is very Victorian centric - who put it together?

I'm biased but there is no way known (based on what I saw) Weller goes before Blakely.
Click to expand...

Well its from the TAC Cup show , so yes its biased but didn't some one say it maybe 60% Vic this year? And we have history of going elsewhere with our first pick don't we.That will change , wait till the Combine
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Turbocat said:
Well its from the TAC Cup show , so yes its biased but didn't some one say it maybe 60% Vic this year? And we have history of going elsewhere with our first pick don't we.That will change , wait till the Combine
Click to expand...
Well, Victoria always gets mined. Happens all the time. But 80% of the Top 20!!

SA did win the thing...

If Lever gets in, surely Bampton can as well. :rolleyes:

Funnily enough, the one WA player picked wasn't one I would have guessed (well, I might have got there but you know what I mean).

I know Pickett had a belter in one of the non-televised matches but when I watched WA I thought he was kinda 'meh'.

Has a bit of toe and went on a few runs but there were WA guys I liked more than him.

Interesting.
 
Last edited:
Gents, after reading the Draft thread on the Main board I got to thinking, and I probably need guys like thejester, dazbroncos and maybe even fantasy sports players (darren forssman) to comment.

Could the AFL adopt an auction type Draft or is it too tricky/unfair?

The bidding already exists for F/S and Academy players, couldn't we just extend it out to all players within a round?

Perhaps first round is too radical, maybe trial it in the 3rd round or something?

I dunno, just throwing it out there for discussion/thoughts.

EDIT: After chatting with Dazzling (and posting in the Main Board thread) I think I might be considering 'bidding' as part of the process if Southern state clubs were aligned to TAC Cup Teams or clubs in the WAFL/SANFL.

For example, in SA, say Norwood, Sturt, South Adelaide & Glenelg were aligned to Adelaide while Central Districts, North Adelaide, Woodville-West Torrens & West Adelaide were aligned to Port Adelaide.

Sam Durdin is considered SA's best player.

Durdin plays for West Adelaide.

Port flag him as a 'priority player'.

Geelong bids their first selection for Durdin. If Port don't match it Geelong takes Durdin.

If Port wants him, like F/S or Academy players, they have to match Geelong's bid.

If multiple clubs bid on Durdin and Port fails to match the bid, the team finishing lower get him.
 
Last edited:
Im not a fan of the lottery thing. Bit of a gimmick actually. I get the worst team gets the most balls in the lottery but I'm still not drawn to it.

The NFL has it right for draft I feel. Reverse finishing order gets the picks same as us.

The difference for the NFL is that those picks can be traded for other picks or players. The downside is if you do an "all in" type trade and get it wrong or he gets hurt it can cripple the club for years. They also allow trading future picks. EG: Hawkins traded to Doggies for 2014, 15 and 16 first round picks.

Now if Hawk stays healthy Doggies win and the Cats get 3 higher picks plus they keep their own but if he gets hurt, does not wanna play or goes out on the piss every night and gets cut the Doggies are done for Rd1 picks till 2017.

Trading picks can be interesting and on draft day the deals that are done make it exciting to see what clubs really want certain players and what they do to get them.

We would need to change stuff if the AFL allowed trading of players to be included in this.

The trading of current and future picks might work.

One proviso to consider would be the number of players allowed on the list. NFL at draft time has no restrictions on list size. The 90 for training camp, the cuts to 70, then 60 , then 53 aren't made until much later before the season starts so gaining 3 extra picks by gibing up your first rounder does not hurt right away.

Overall, i don't think the competition is big enough to support too many draft rule changes but if they allowed the trading of picks only ( not players) and expanded the list spots available by say 4 players that could be carried until the end of the pre season, you might see a lot more movement on draft day.

Also, during the FA period before the draft, you could have players traded with picks. So again, Hawkinns goes to Doggies for 3 x Rd1 picks. Cats then trade their 2014 Doggies pick to WC and a second rounder to move up to overall pick #2 for example ( presuming WC had second overall pick).

Agais its just a rough overview. Not saying it would be good change but it might work well if controlled and implemented clearly and governed well.

Go Catters

and NO, I have no interest in trading Hawk. It was just for example purposes.
 
dazbroncos said:
Im not a fan of the lottery thing. Bit of a gimmick actually. I get the worst team gets the most balls in the lottery but I'm still not drawn to it.
Click to expand...
As a Pistons fan, I too am NOT a fan of the lottery system. :eek:

Seriously, I don't actually mind the lottery but that might change if I was more vested in it. Watching from afar it seems a fair enough way to do it.
 
I can't beleive I had not seen this thread.
I could have saved you 26 pages.

Find a kid that missed the carnival through injury and has a first name starting with J.

thx bye
 
vinum coupe said:
I can't beleive I had not seen this thread.
I could have saved you 26 pages.

Find a kid that missed the carnival through injury and has a first name starting with J.

thx bye
Click to expand...
That'll be Jake Lever then.
 
Really?
Right, that's our man.
Close thread :)
 
vinum coupe said:
Really?
Right, that's our man.
Close thread :)
Click to expand...
Dead set.

Captained Vic Metro as a bottom ager last year. Did his knee and missed this year.

Highly regarded key defender.

You could have saved us some time.
 
vinum coupe said:
I can't believe I had not seen this thread.
I could have saved you 26 pages.

Find a kid that missed the carnival through injury and has a first name starting with J.

thx bye
Click to expand...

The Pivotonian said:
That'll be Jake Lever then.
Click to expand...

Man that will be gold if we end up with hm , which is not totally out of the realms of possibility.
 
The Pivotonian ,

Re: Lottery ..im not sure it has worked real well in NBA , has it? The bottom side has missed on the best pick a lot . For good or bad I think the AFL has a system that is flawed but its designed to help most those in most need ie bottom. Does it?Is it the best system , I don't know.

Would it be better over more than 1 year , take one bad run with injuries out of it? Would it be better with a 1st Round with only the non finals team in it? What would happen I wonder if there was no draft , no zones , no FS , no anything. You just sign for who you want to sign for? Stay within the SC and you go where you want go? Probably favour the big clubs or the interstate clubs.
Maybe FA agents going to bottom clubs should get an incentive of some sort because three or four FA's probably have an immediate effect, where as a drafted group no so much.

The trouble with a bidding system for the Zones/Accademies compared to FS is the regular supply it would deliver.IF WC and Freo got take the best two kids(for what ever pick) from WA , IF Crows and PAFC did that in SA , my guess is they would end up ahead of the Vic clubs splitting it 10 ways. Look at Sydney kid , Heeney worth P5 ish will take him no matter where the Swans finish. When was the last time we got someone like that , probably Hawkins/Selwood , but the Swans may rollup next year and do it again with Mills
 
For the record, I'm pretty comfortable with the draft system we currently use.

The intent is right.

Regarding the Academies - sure, Sydney get Heeney this year and Mills next.

But the following year there may be no-one.

I don't mind the idea of bidding (but am glad we secured Hawkins before it occurred :cool:) but perhaps it could be tweaked a bit (zoned players or not).

Under current rules, if I'm reading them right, bidding reverts to the next pick if a club has first call. For example, last year Adelaide bid it's 3rd Round selection (#46) for Jono Freeman (a Lions Academy player).

Brisbane "matched" that and got Freeman with their 4th rounder (#59).

Is that "fair"?

I actually think that if Adelaide were prepared to part with their pick 46 they should have "won" Freeman (unless Brisbane used #34 to "out bid" Adelaide).

Melbourne landed Viney under the Father-Son rule a similar way (and will likely get Stretch in similar fashion - bidding is great if you are on the bottom of the ladder.)

If any club is prepared to bid for Heeney with a selection higher than Sydney's first selection - then it should be up to Sydney to better that bid.

This year, that would be difficult (unless they start trading players to get a better slection).

That would make for an interesting trade week, if Sydney really wanted Heeney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top