Opinion Draft preview (Thread closed, pls move discussion to new draft 'review' thread)

[Prestige Presti]

Hey Knightmare, good form thus far mate.

So it's pretty obvious Hine looks for very different things in his draftees, evident from us rating Langdon and Marsh the 18th and 30ish best picks respectively (from memory) which is incredibly staggering considering i'd had imagined all list managers would be on the same page, even Hine seemed somewhat surprised, obviously never planning to use those late picks.

So from my basic understanding from interviews and what not, Langdon was rated so highly by Hine because as an over aged second year TAC player, he displayed a mental toughness to bounce back from tragedy (not being drafted) and bettering himself as a player, obviously displaying leadership and skill as captain of his club, and Marsh a fantastic athlete which fits well into Hines' ideology that we should be turning athletes into footballers, that is where the game appears to be going.

So trying to get into Hines fascinating mindset, do you see players that perhaps you don't rate that highly, but based on my speculation of Langdons' and Marshs' traits listed above and other factors, that Hine and co will surprisingly snap up with our later picks? (30+)

Alternatively if you think Langdon and Marsh were drafted for displaying different traits, could you compare them to similar players in this years draft?

 

[boxy99]

I'd be very surprised if Pickett goes at 4! I reckon it's the media just talking crap. As if they would no. We have nearly heard every scenario from them! They have no idea

 

[swoop42]

While I'm not unhappy with any of Grundy, Kennedy or Broomhead you get the feeling if we had those same selections this year it would make for an even better outcome (though Grundy slipping big time would keep it close).

 

[brockbruiser]

Hey KM,

Love your work!

What's your thoughts on our tactics with pick 85, do you think we will leave this for a slider? Personally I hope we use it for this reason. This would obviously mean Frost doesn't get promoted. In this case could be promote Frost during the year?

 

[Hardas]

I'd be very surprised if Pickett goes at 4! I reckon it's the media just talking crap. As if they would no. We have nearly heard every scenario from them! They have no idea

How dare you!

 

[mike123]

We re-interviewed P.Wright this week too, so wouldn't count him out and requested a 2nd medical on him (have to go through AFL now for that).

Well even though I don't want Collingwood to pick Wright up I reckon we still would be mad not to interview him and consider him.

 

[Bring_Back_Brad]

I'd like Nakia cockatoo. He would be a bit of a gamble given his injury this year but he's got Adam Goodes type quality about him and I think in the end he will be the better player of the draft. If it means we had to take him at 5 so he doesn't slip so be it. If he was available at 30 that would be a huge steal.

Pickett I would love cos we desperately need more creativity and xfactor in the team, I personally don't think Gws will take him before pick5, but for us, I think freeman satisfies a similar need and tough as it would be to miss out we desperately need goalkickers, and we have too many small mids.

So I'm still all for taking wright. Cloke is a terribly frustrating KPF. There's a good chance he will get worse over the next few years as he loses his athleticism. Wright is a beautiful straight kick, looks like a good mark, and will get stronger over time, a Cloke/Reid/wright/Darcy/white forward list is pretty ominous, would be very hard to defend against 3-4 of them, picking the in best form of them.

 

[mike123]

Nakia Cockatoo has less chance of getting to 30 than Blakely though

 

[Knightmare]

Hey Knightmare, good form thus far mate.

So it's pretty obvious Hine looks for very different things in his draftees, evident from us rating Langdon and Marsh the 18th and 30ish best picks respectively (from memory) which is incredibly staggering considering i'd had imagined all list managers would be on the same page, even Hine seemed somewhat surprised, obviously never planning to use those late picks.

So from my basic understanding from interviews and what not, Langdon was rated so highly by Hine because as an over aged second year TAC player, he displayed a mental toughness to bounce back from tragedy (not being drafted) and bettering himself as a player, obviously displaying leadership and skill as captain of his club, and Marsh a fantastic athlete which fits well into Hines' ideology that we should be turning athletes into footballers, that is where the game appears to be going.

So trying to get into Hines fascinating mindset, do you see players that perhaps you don't rate that highly, but based on my speculation of Langdons' and Marshs' traits listed above and other factors, that Hine and co will surprisingly snap up with our later picks? (30+)

Alternatively if you think Langdon and Marsh were drafted for displaying different traits, could you compare them to similar players in this years draft?

I'm not aware of us rating Langdon and Marsh at 18 and 30 last year in our power rankings/big board but interesting if that was the case. And it's evidence that all clubs as you'll see if you go through my phantom draft and the next persons, the talent evaluations will be very different.

That's a fair summary of what Hine both in his CFC interview and in his podcast where I interviewed him for this board earlier in the season had to say regarding Langdon and Marsh and why he drafted them both.

The overage equivalent to Langdon this year is Jack Steele (who through the Academy system has managed to get to GWS in the second round - from memory North Melbourne at 14 at the time bid on him, forcing GWS to use their next pick on Steele). Steele has to an extent this year had his inconsistencies with some fairly lean games early season but over the second half of the season and June onward he really broke out this year and has become a dominant talent and like Langdon his production was absolutely outstanding. Steele's best game this season was a 25 kick, 13 handball, 15 mark, 9 tackle and 3 goal game v TAC Cup grand finalist Calder Cannons.
In the draft pool Taylor Grace is that other next most like Langdon from the perspective that he is another well performed overager who has improved again on his performed. Ben Cavarra who has played in the VFL this year (though 175cm) is another who has taken another step forward and continued his improvement and has those performances on the board. Howe and Drummond could be others though their numbers don't stick out off the page as say Langdon, Steele or Grace's numbers do.

As for the Marsh equivalent. Marsh's situation was very much at 193cm no guy could run and run offensively like him so he is very much a unique. And add to that he had only in a professional environment for the one season been training there was a sense of untapped potential. That and he also in some games really took over and influenced outcomes. As an athlete Daniel McKenzie as a back flanker seems our preference and he tested incredibly well at the combine. Connor Menadue who probably goes around pick 19/20 to either Carlton or Essendon is another who is tall but can really run and take on the game and has extreme potential for growth and had the game of his season in his only finals appearance this year so he would if we had a pick in the relevant range be very much a Collingwood selection. Nakia Cockatoo same story as a guy who only played the one game (Div 2 v Academy pre grand final) and won best on ground honours. Tom Lamb as a guy around Marsh's height is another unique athlete and can take on the game, with his particularly speciality endurance. Langford and Laverde as early picks are others who are tall but move exceptionally well. So there are a few that to a degree fit the Marsh profile without being as extremely raw.
Rendell in an interview pre-draft combine spoke about valuing the endurance testing more so than the other testing as a test of character and mental strength so a guy like Damien Cavka with a 16.7 beep may come into the frame, particularly with his finals performances although another different type completely.


--
Generally as a rule Collingwood's recruiting procedure is very much along the lines of:
1. Do they play well in big games?
2. Have they played and played well at state league level?
3. Do they fill a need?
4. Do they have the performances on the board and do their numbers and contested ball numbers stack up?
5. Are they high character guys?
6. Are they still growing and is their play overall play trending upward?

Over time these seem very much the procedure we go by in completing our draft board. The overagers specifically fit into that performance category and Langdon as an example played from memory it was 7 VFL games and would have averaged around 20 disposals a game which for an 18/19 year old is terrific. Marsh as more the project player is someone who seemed in the big games to play well during the u18 champs with some really big games mixed in there to be a big game player, but then also seems a guy of good character with his play trending in the right direction.

It seems last year given the recruitment of Freeman and Marsh specifically who dominated at the draft combine with the speed and repeat speed testing, that speed was a real theme in that draft and something we would have identified going in as something we were looking for. So I think those two names were in the most part called out based on a mixture of we liked their talent and we liked the speed they showed in game and we like the dynamic that would add to our team.

Hey KM,

Love your work!

What's your thoughts on our tactics with pick 85, do you think we will leave this for a slider? Personally I hope we use it for this reason. This would obviously mean Frost doesn't get promoted. In this case could be promote Frost during the year?

It will be interesting to see what we do with that pick 85.

It is probably a similar situation to last year. If there is a guy there we like and we don't want to risk them going before our first rookie pick comes up then we probably take them.

Scharenberg will be a long term injury so Frost can always be pretty easily promoted anyway next year. If there is no super appealing talent then we can just as easily pass on that selection.

As an example of where that end-point might be. I'd say around pick 35 as my best guess. Generally if you go through the drafts most years, and this year is overall relatively reflective of the average based on quality and depth, you usually get around 35 who "make it" out of each draft. So if there is someone available at 85 who we rate inside our best 35 then we probably take them at 85. If it is a guy we rate in the 40s on our draft board then we'd probably pass.

 

[mike123]

Has Pickett played well in big games?

 

[Hardas]

Thanks as always, KM.
Fantastic contributions to BF.

 

[Seedsfan]

Who Collingwood seem to want based on a combination of media rumours and common sense:
Pick 5: Presumably Laverde is the pick and the guy Collingwood want. Perhaps they also have Langford or De Goey on the shortlist for that selection. Perhaps they like Pickett though it looks like he will be gone by this selection.

Pick 30: Connor Blakely Collingwood have been linked to but it depends on availability and it's also against the odds. Damien Cavka with his elite endurance (16.7 beep) as a goalkicking midfielder who had a ripping finals series screams a future Collingwood selection and could be in the mix. Perhaps Daniel McKenzie as an super athletic type with clean but penetrating footskills is another I expect to firmly be in the mix for this selection. Toby McLean as a small forward who can push into the midfield is another I could see Collingwood looking at as another who is well performed and was best on ground in the TAC Cup grand final. Blaine Boekhorst is another as a linebrekaing mature ager from WA is another who has been linked to us and could be a chance here.

Pick 48: If Cavka, McLean or Boekhorst make it through I'm sure they would all be among the shortlist here. Nathan Drummond plausibly could be a consideration with his speed/endurance combination with our liking towards overagers having taken Langdon and Elliott in recent years. A lesser spoken about talent could also at come into play if we're not confident they will be available as a rookie - an example of this could be a Will Fordham as one example.



Who would I take:
Pick 5: Pickett if he falls though to 5 (unlikely with GWS said to be likely to take him at 4). Otherwise I lean towards Laverde. Wright I also like but given I'd be looking to add Reece McKenzie later, Wright would not be necessary.

Pick 30: Connor Blakely would be my pick here if available, failing that Reece McKenzie would be my pick.

Pick 48: If Blakely at 30 happened I'd be going Reece McKenzie here. If McKenzie is not available I'd go for Dean Gore. If Dean Gore is not available Peter Bampton would be my pick.

My dream outcome would be:
Pick 5: Pickett
Pick 30: Blakely
Pick 48: R.McKenzie
Which on my draft board would be three of my top 11 rated talents in this draft and from a needs perspective in my view perfectly compliment our list and give us arguably the best outside running, best pure onballer and the dominant go to key forward in the draft.
Get all that and Darcy Moore and that's a pretty reasonable group going forward to compliment our current young group we have coming through.

What are all these player's point of difference that set them apart from the other in their range?

 

[TradeDraft]

At it looks at the Moment. Pick 5 is out of Wright/Leavarde and De Goey/Langford as long shots

 

[Prestige Presti]

I'm not aware of us rating Langdon and Marsh at 18 and 30 last year in our power rankings/big board but interesting if that was the case. And it's evidence that all clubs as you'll see if you go through my phantom draft and the next persons, the talent evaluations will be very different.

That's a fair summary of what Hine both in his CFC interview and in his podcast where I interviewed him for this board earlier in the season had to say regarding Langdon and Marsh and why he drafted them both.

The overage equivalent to Langdon this year is Jack Steele (who through the Academy system has managed to get to GWS in the second round - from memory North Melbourne at 14 at the time bid on him, forcing GWS to use their next pick on Steele). Steele has to an extent this year had his inconsistencies with some fairly lean games early season but over the second half of the season and June onward he really broke out this year and has become a dominant talent and like Langdon his production was absolutely outstanding. Steele's best game this season was a 25 kick, 13 handball, 15 mark, 9 tackle and 3 goal game v TAC Cup grand finalist Calder Cannons.
In the draft pool Taylor Grace is that other next most like Langdon from the perspective that he is another well performed overager who has improved again on his performed. Ben Cavarra who has played in the VFL this year (though 175cm) is another who has taken another step forward and continued his improvement and has those performances on the board. Howe and Drummond could be others though their numbers don't stick out off the page as say Langdon, Steele or Grace's numbers do.

As for the Marsh equivalent. Marsh's situation was very much at 193cm no guy could run and run offensively like him so he is very much a unique. And add to that he had only in a professional environment for the one season been training there was a sense of untapped potential. That and he also in some games really took over and influenced outcomes. As an athlete Daniel McKenzie as a back flanker seems our preference and he tested incredibly well at the combine. Connor Menadue who probably goes around pick 19/20 to either Carlton or Essendon is another who is tall but can really run and take on the game and has extreme potential for growth and had the game of his season in his only finals appearance this year so he would if we had a pick in the relevant range be very much a Collingwood selection. Nakia Cockatoo same story as a guy who only played the one game (Div 2 v Academy pre grand final) and won best on ground honours. Tom Lamb as a guy around Marsh's height is another unique athlete and can take on the game, with his particularly speciality endurance. Langford and Laverde as early picks are others who are tall but move exceptionally well. So there are a few that to a degree fit the Marsh profile without being as extremely raw.
Rendell in an interview pre-draft combine spoke about valuing the endurance testing more so than the other testing as a test of character and mental strength so a guy like Damien Cavka with a 16.7 beep may come into the frame, particularly with his finals performances although another different type completely.


--
Generally as a rule Collingwood's recruiting procedure is very much along the lines of:
1. Do they play well in big games?
2. Have they played and played well at state league level?
3. Do they fill a need?
4. Do they have the performances on the board and do their numbers and contested ball numbers stack up?
5. Are they high character guys?
6. Are they still growing and is their play overall play trending upward?

Over time these seem very much the procedure we go by in completing our draft board. The overagers specifically fit into that performance category and Langdon as an example played from memory it was 7 VFL games and would have averaged around 20 disposals a game which for an 18/19 year old is terrific. Marsh as more the project player is someone who seemed in the big games to play well during the u18 champs with some really big games mixed in there to be a big game player, but then also seems a guy of good character with his play trending in the right direction.

It seems last year given the recruitment of Freeman and Marsh specifically who dominated at the draft combine with the speed and repeat speed testing, that speed was a real theme in that draft and something we would have identified going in as something we were looking for. So I think those two names were in the most part called out based on a mixture of we liked their talent and we liked the speed they showed in game and we like the dynamic that would add to our team.



It will be interesting to see what we do with that pick 85.

It is probably a similar situation to last year. If there is a guy there we like and we don't want to risk them going before our first rookie pick comes up then we probably take them.

Scharenberg will be a long term injury so Frost can always be pretty easily promoted anyway next year. If there is no super appealing talent then we can just as easily pass on that selection.

As an example of where that end-point might be. I'd say around pick 35 as my best guess. Generally if you go through the drafts most years, and this year is overall relatively reflective of the average based on quality and depth, you usually get around 35 who "make it" out of each draft. So if there is someone available at 85 who we rate inside our best 35 then we probably take them at 85. If it is a guy we rate in the 40s on our draft board then we'd probably pass.

Wish I could like this more than once mate, awesome form and thanks again.

 

[swoop42]

Laverde vs Langford vs De Goey, Wright vs Moore vs R.Mckenzie


Laverde:
Games:10
Goals:15
Ave. disposals:18.6
Kicking efficiency:67.3%
Ave. marks:5
Ave. cont. marks:1
Ave. tackles:2.7
Ave. handball receives:6.2

Langford:
Games:7
Goals:14
Ave. disposals:17.6
Kicking efficiency:66.7%
Ave. marks:8
Ave. cont. marks:1.6
Ave. tackles:4.3
Ave. handball receives:4.1

De Goey:
Games:6
Goals:9
Ave. disposals:17.7
Kicking efficiency:64.9%
Ave. marks:6.2
Ave. cont. marks:1
Ave. tackles:2.8
Ave. handball receives:4.2

Wright:
Games:11
Goals:31
Ave. disposals:14.8
Kicking efficiency:59.4%
Ave. marks:7.3
Ave. cont. marks:1.8
Ave. tackles:0.8
Ave. handball receives:2.4

Moore:
Games:13
Goals:15
Ave. disposals:11.2
Kicking efficiency:56.4%
Ave. marks:5.2
Ave. cont. marks:2.1
Ave. tackles:1.5
Ave. handball receives:1

R.McKenzie:
Games:10
Goals:35
Ave. disposals:13.1
Kicking efficiency:61.5%
Ave. marks:7.1
Ave. cont. marks:3.7
Ave. tackles:1.4
Ave. handball receives:1.4

P.S-Hey Knightmare why isn't Cavka seen as a top 20 prospect?

Cavka:
Games:9
Goals:9
Ave. disposals:21.2
Kicking efficiency:61.2%
Ave. marks:6.6
Ave. cont. marks:0.6
Ave. tackles:4.8
Ave. handball receives:6.4

Killed it during the TAC cup finals apparently averaging 28 disposals and 4 goals across 2 games.

Happy to take him at 30.

 

[Knightmare]

Laverde - Combination of tricks rather than just the one - from evasiveness, to skillset, to ability to use his pace and get by you to 1v1 ability to his ability overhead.

Langford - For a mid sizer it's his marking overhead that is special. Just reads it so well, gets to the drop of the ball and for a skinny guy just so strong overhead. His mobility and scoreboard impact are his other points of difference by type.

De Goey - For a mid/fwd he is another where he is just so strong overhead.

Blakely - Inside game - and it's the totality of his inside game. He has the performances on the board in the WAFL and U18 champs but winning the contested ball, winning the clearances, tackling, movement in traffic, skillset/efficiency. He is inside the complete package.

D.McKenzie - Athleticism with his kicking efficiency and penetration further strengths.

Cavka - Endurance.

T.McLean - Overhead marking and leap for a small.

Boekhorst - Ability to take on the game with his pace.

Drummond - Explosiveness.

Pickett - Ability to take on the game just about every time he gets his hands on it. He just goes, goes around you and bursts past you.

R.McKenzie - Contested marking.

 

[Knightmare]

Laverde vs Langford vs De Goey, Wright vs Moore vs R.Mckenzie


Laverde:
Games:10
Goals:15
Ave. disposals:18.6
Kicking efficiency:67.3%
Ave. marks:5
Ave. cont. marks:1
Ave. tackles:2.7
Ave. handball receives:6.2

Langford:
Games:7
Goals:14
Ave. disposals:17.6
Kicking efficiency:66.7%
Ave. marks:8
Ave. cont. marks:1.6
Ave. tackles:4.3
Ave. handball receives:4.1

De Goey:
Games:6
Goals:9
Ave. disposals:17.7
Kicking efficiency:64.9%
Ave. marks:6.2
Ave. cont. marks:1
Ave. tackles:2.8
Ave. handball receives:4.2

Wright:
Games:11
Goals:31
Ave. disposals:14.8
Kicking efficiency:59.4%
Ave. marks:7.3
Ave. cont. marks:1.8
Ave. tackles:0.8
Ave. handball receives:2.4

Moore:
Games:13
Goals:15
Ave. disposals:11.2
Kicking efficiency:56.4%
Ave. marks:5.2
Ave. cont. marks:2.1
Ave. tackles:1.5
Ave. handball receives:1

R.McKenzie:
Games:10
Goals:35
Ave. disposals:13.1
Kicking efficiency:61.5%
Ave. marks:7.1
Ave. cont. marks:3.7
Ave. tackles:1.4
Ave. handball receives:1.4

P.S-Hey Knightmare why isn't Cavka seen as a top 20 prospect?

Cavka:
Games:9
Goals:9
Ave. disposals:21.2
Kicking efficiency:61.2%
Ave. marks:6.6
Ave. cont. marks:0.6
Ave. tackles:4.8
Ave. handball receives:6.4

Killed it during the TAC cup finals apparently averaging 28 disposals and 4 goals across 2 games.

Happy to take him at 30.

I'd have no major issue with Cavka myself at 30.

My knocks are primarily footskills and pace. Additionally he can at times have a feel of he can rack up some cheap touches and at other times his touches don't feel impactful in the sense that you won't necessarily always notice all his touches. Some will ask where his best position/best role is. So for those reasons he isn't a first round talent as more a maybe Van Berlo given his ability to play many roles, maybe a Stanton on a wing as a guy with excellent endurance and can provide some scoreboard impact. They'd be roughly the types of players you'd hope Cavka develops into.

But with his endurance on such an elite level, with a guy like Hiscox going to Sydney through the academy at 38. I assume given Cavka has stronger performances on the board that he would be in the frame for selection closer to pick 30 rather than later.

 

[ace andy]

I was just wondering why you think others do not seem to rate Reece McKenzie as high as you do? Obviously he must have some flaws and I assume that you believe that those flaws are not that bad where as others are more concerned?

 

[Knightmare]

I was just wondering why you think others do not seem to rate Reece McKenzie as high as you do? Obviously he must have some flaws and I assume that you believe that those flaws are not that bad where as others are more concerned?

The perception that R.McKenzie is a man-child seems a common one due to the fact that he is 196.9cm, 106.9kg but while he is that big he isn't purely your Hawkins in the sense that he will only take advantage of you due to size, in addition to being able to do this he is also a genuinely strong mark who takes it at the highest point and can take it v any amount of contact as I'd argue the strongest contested mark in this draft.

He is a mark and goal forward - like Cloke and being that you can if you find someone equally strong/with elite closing speed/capable in the air he could be shutdown, but just being so extremely explosive on the leap and such a high leaper but then able in the air to take it at the highest point personally I just don't see how you can defend all that even as a mark and goal forward.

There was a perception that he lacked pace and athleticism but finished equal second in the 20m and top 10 in the vertical. His repeat time is strong. There is a perception that he lacks agility, though interestingly he tested in the top 50%.

Additionally he relatively although not badly lacks endurance with a 13.3 beep (bottom 15%) though as a genuine full forward and more a power/fast twitch athlete I consider that forgiveable. It is also something he is said to be working on so that will improve.

Some talk say he doesn't perform v better opposition and is more someone who will kill weak opposition and struggle against better teams/better opponents. It's true to an extent in that he had his two biggest games v Eastern who missed the finals and NT who are undersized. But personally I'd have no major issue with his performance v the better teams with the more obvious statistical trend to me his improvement from July onward/the second half of the season where he really elevated his game.

 

[THATSGOLD]

I like Pickett and I think we won't take him because our running are mostly short and we are looking to add some size to the running department.

 

[ace andy]

The perception that R.McKenzie is a man-child seems a common one due to the fact that he is 196.9cm, 106.9kg but while he is that big he isn't purely your Hawkins in the sense that he will only take advantage of you due to size, in addition to being able to do this he is also a genuinely strong mark who takes it at the highest point and can take it v any amount of contact as I'd argue the strongest contested mark in this draft.

He is a mark and goal forward - like Cloke and being that you can if you find someone equally strong/with elite closing speed/capable in the air he could be shutdown, but just being so extremely explosive on the leap and such a high leaper but then able in the air to take it at the highest point personally I just don't see how you can defend all that even as a mark and goal forward.

There was a perception that he lacked pace and athleticism but finished equal second in the 20m and top 10 in the vertical. His repeat time is strong. There is a perception that he lacks agility, though interestingly he tested in the top 50%.

Additionally he relatively although not badly lacks endurance with a 13.3 beep (bottom 15%) though as a genuine full forward and more a power/fast twitch athlete I consider that forgiveable. It is also something he is said to be working on so that will improve.

Some talk say he doesn't perform v better opposition and is more someone who will kill weak opposition and struggle against better teams/better opponents. It's true to an extent in that he had his two biggest games v Eastern who missed the finals and NT who are undersized. But personally I'd have no major issue with his performance v the better teams with the more obvious statistical trend to me his improvement from July onward/the second half of the season where he really elevated his game.

Thanks for the detailed response!

 

[sr36]

--
Generally as a rule Collingwood's recruiting procedure is very much along the lines of:
1. Do they play well in big games?
2. Have they played and played well at state league level?
3. Do they fill a need?
4. Do they have the performances on the board and do their numbers and contested ball numbers stack up?
5. Are they high character guys?
6. Are they still growing and is their play overall play trending upward?

Hine has always said that he rates decision making extremely highly. Which helps to explain why he rated Pendlebury and Reid much higher than they were expected to go.

I think the big games thing was a Malthouse edict.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

As an example of where that end-point might be. I'd say around pick 35 as my best guess. Generally if you go through the drafts most years, and this year is overall relatively reflective of the average based on quality and depth, you usually get around 35 who "make it" out of each draft. So if there is someone available at 85 who we rate inside our best 35 then we probably take them at 85. If it is a guy we rate in the 40s on our draft board then we'd probably pass.

I doubt we will do this to be honest, as I am almost certain we will pick someone at pick 85 regardless of who is available. Clubs need to hold a specific number of players meaning taking one less senior player means we will be required to take one more rookie. Even if we rate the player available at pick 85 as the 50th best player in the draft, it is still better to pull the trigger as the alternative is a late round rookie pick, at which point we are likely to rate the player available as being outside the best 100 players in the pool. Electing to pass on pick 85 would be a deliberate weakening of the overall list, which would not make sense.

 

[Knightmare]

I doubt we will do this to be honest, as I am almost certain we will pick someone at pick 85 regardless of who is available. Clubs need to hold a specific number of players meaning taking one less senior player means we will be required to take one more rookie. Even if we rate the player available at pick 85 as the 50th best player in the draft, it is still better to pull the trigger as the alternative is a late round rookie pick, at which point we are likely to rate the player available as being outside the best 100 players in the pool. Electing to pass on pick 85 would be a deliberate weakening of the overall list, which would not make sense.

For salary cap or matchday selection reasons (such as if we want Frost to play) are the reasons for passing. But your reasoning is generally why clubs utilise the full senior list rather than carrying that extra rookie. We've done it in the past. It's just a wait and see job.

My personal preference is like yours. If you have a senior list position open. Use it to maximise your chances of getting the best mix of talents so as not to risk someone you like not being available.

 

[Matt_352]

Dream turn out for me:

5. Jayden Laverde
9. Darcy Moore
30. Connor Blakely
48. Reece McKenzie
85. Ed Langon

Then pick up Panos in rookie draft