Do you know McCartin/Goddard/Mckenzie Averages @ Tac/Champs?For comparison, tracca was 115, Laverde 108
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you know McCartin/Goddard/Mckenzie Averages @ Tac/Champs?For comparison, tracca was 115, Laverde 108
Nah I just saw the stat sorry, and they were champs sc scores not tac cup, the info always comes out around sc season next yearDo you know McCartin/Goddard/Mckenzie Averages @ Tac/Champs?
obviously dunstan and acres were two out of the 6 we rated elite were they? Just wondering because we bypassed lewis twice.Looked up Lonie's stats for the last two years at TAC Cup level the other day and he actually played more games (16) last year, than he did this year (15) and also kicked more goals (29 to 21), although he may have been playing closer to goal last year. Kicked 8 goals in his teams two finals this season though (including a bag of 5) and kicked 3 in a final last year and had another bag of 5 in a game earlier that season.
Like say Caleb Daniel this year and Lewis Taylor last year, he is a lot better performed and a lot more talented than his draft number would suggest, only "sliding" so far due to his height deficiency.
I'm told we actually rated him 12th on our board, but presumably we didn't draft him ahead of say McKenzie (14th) because he is so short and weren't prepared to spend such a high pick on someone that short. We also probably thought/knew he was a good chance to still be available at pick 41, for the same reason, while we knew someone like McKenzie was no chance.
It was a similar thing last year, where around the middle of the season I was told that there were 6 who we rated as "elite prospects", with one of them being Lewis Taylor (who many/most rated top 10 on 'talent' at the time), but that in spite of rating him that highly he wasn't in the mix for our first pick in that draft (around that time we were looking like having a pick around 4/5), because he was so short and of course he didn't end up getting taken until pick 28.
I kept on hearing around that time (mid season, champs time) that we were very, very big on Dunstan, but that we, like other clubs, had concerns on his body shape (too chunky ideally for the modern running game) and running ability- hence him "sliding" from a supposed top 5 prospect earlier in the year to pick 18- but that that was the only thing keeping him from being someone that we rated "elite", because he well and truly had the performances on the board to warrant it, plus the character, leadership and so-on. (For this reason I expect the club would be absolutely thrilled with his recent change of body shape and would be hoping it makes the difference to his running).obviously dunstan and acres were two out of the 6 we rated elite were they? Just wondering because we bypassed lewis twice.
cheers for the insight, good to hear the ratings. do you have any idea on where we rated our drafteesI kept on hearing around that time (mid season, champs time) that we were very, very big on Dunstan, but that we, like other clubs, had concerns on his body shape (too chunky ideally for the modern running game) and running ability- hence him "sliding" from a supposed top 5 prospect earlier in the year to pick 18- but that that was the only thing keeping him from being someone that we rated "elite", because he well and truly had the performances on the board to warrant it, plus the character, leadership and so-on. (For this reason I expect the club would be absolutely thrilled with his recent change of body shape and would be hoping it makes the difference to his running).
Acres no, but I do believe we rated him around 10 at draft time and were seriously pumped that he made it through to our picks, and saw him, as Pelchen said after we drafted him, as "the prototypical modern footballer"- hence taking him ahead of the much shorter Taylor, even if we rated Taylor higher. I expect that most clubs probably rated Taylor in their top 10's, but wouldn't have been prepared to pick him anywhere near where they rated him, simply because of how short he was. The same this year with Caleb Daniel, who, on performances, physical attributes (except for his height), skills, work ethic and so-on, would probably have been rated as high as no.1 by some clubs, but who they simply wouldn't have picked anywhere near as high as that because he is sub-170cm. If he was 18cm taller and everything else was equal it's hard to see how he wouldn't have gone top 3, or top 5, at the very least.
If we did rate Blake around 10 I dare say we would have rated him higher than the likes of Lang (who I was told we didn't rate in our top 50!), Apeness, Cripps (both of whom were reasonable surprises in the top 17) and Jones and from what I heard leading up to the draft, probably Freeman and maybe Sheed. Lennon may have been another (he apparently tested terribly athletically at the combine- very slow and poor tank) and perhaps McCarthy (who was a real mystery that some clubs probably would have really rated, while other clubs probably didn't, due to so little exposed form). Some clubs apparently didn't rate Bontempelli anywhere near as high as WB did (it was reported that one club didn't rate him in the first round), either, so we may well have been one of those and may have rated Blake higher than him.
I kept on hearing around that time (mid season, champs time) that we were very, very big on Dunstan, but that we, like other clubs, had concerns on his body shape (too chunky ideally for the modern running game) and running ability- hence him "sliding" from a supposed top 5 prospect earlier in the year to pick 18- but that that was the only thing keeping him from being someone that we rated "elite", because he well and truly had the performances on the board to warrant it, plus the character, leadership and so-on. (For this reason I expect the club would be absolutely thrilled with his recent change of body shape and would be hoping it makes the difference to his running).
Acres no, but I do believe we rated him around 10 at draft time and were seriously pumped that he made it through to our picks, and saw him, as Pelchen said after we drafted him, as "the prototypical modern footballer"- hence taking him ahead of the much shorter Taylor, even if we rated Taylor higher. I expect that most clubs probably rated Taylor in their top 10's, but wouldn't have been prepared to pick him anywhere near where they rated him, simply because of how short he was. The same this year with Caleb Daniel, who, on performances, physical attributes (except for his height), skills, work ethic and so-on, would probably have been rated as high as no.1 by some clubs, but who they simply wouldn't have picked anywhere near as high as that because he is sub-170cm. If he was 18cm taller and everything else was equal it's hard to see how he wouldn't have gone top 3, or top 5, at the very least.
If we did rate Blake around 10 I dare say we would have rated him higher than the likes of Lang (who I was told we didn't rate in our top 50!), Apeness, Cripps (both of whom were reasonable surprises in the top 17) and Jones and from what I heard leading up to the draft, probably Freeman and maybe Sheed. Lennon may have been another (he apparently tested terribly athletically at the combine- very slow and poor tank) and perhaps McCarthy (who was a real mystery that some clubs probably would have really rated, while other clubs probably didn't, due to so little exposed form). Some clubs apparently didn't rate Bontempelli anywhere near as high as WB did (it was reported that one club didn't rate him in the first round), either, so we may well have been one of those and may have rated Blake higher than him.
There was talk in another thread on this. Don't quote me, but from memory, a poster mentioned Goddard at 6, McKenzie at 14, Lonie perhaps as high as top 20, and both rookies inside top 40 or so. Interesting how wildly the ordering would be across teams if that's the case.chee
cheers for the insight, good to hear the ratings. do you have any idea on where we rated our draftees
this year specifically? (including rookies)
I would love to hear more about our list.... aussie rules can you assist please?There was talk in another thread on this. Don't quote me, but from memory, a poster mentioned Goddard at 6, McKenzie at 14, Lonie perhaps as high as top 20, and both rookies inside top 40 or so. Interesting how wildly the ordering would be across teams if that's the case.
There was talk in another thread on this. Don't quote me, but from memory, a poster mentioned Goddard at 6, McKenzie at 14, Lonie perhaps as high as top 20, and both rookies inside top 40 or so. Interesting how wildly the ordering would be across teams if that's the case.
Sorry - don't understand it - if you can't get the ball it doesn't matter what size you are.
So back to my first two rules of recruiting
Can they get the ball?
Can they get rid of it?
41 for Lonie - good deal
46 for Caleb Daniel - steal of the draft. Looks a much better kick than Lonie, 50m plus, plus looks like he's got super footy smarts as well.
To be fair, Lonie has a better forward game, it's midfield or best for Caleb.
Yeah, despite being the size of a small forward Caleb isn't a prolific goal kicker.Does lonie find the goals more then Celeb?
I think it's probably because they give them ratings like out of 10 for each category (potential/upside, output, athleticism, character/work ethic, hardness, leadership, versatility, etc) which add up to an overall number, which puts them in the order they end up in on the board, but it may be only then that some get "marked down" for being too short, for instance, or where you might pick one that you rated lower than another, because you have more of a need for that type, or because you're confident that the one you rated higher will be available at your next pick (both of which could have been the case when it came down to McKenzie v Lonie, for instance).But why have a 'list/ranking' and then bypass it on draft night due to that reason. Build a list based on known facts before the draft! Seems very odd.
Yep, spot on with those numbers, from what I've been told, with us apparently rating Payne just inside 30 around the middle part of the year, when he was doing very well in the champs (haven't heard where we rated him by the end, presumably lower, maybe by a fair bit) and Sinclair just inside 40.There was talk in another thread on this. Don't quote me, but from memory, a poster mentioned Goddard at 6, McKenzie at 14, Lonie perhaps as high as top 20, and both rookies inside top 40 or so. Interesting how wildly the ordering would be across teams if that's the case.
Yep, spot on with those numbers, from what I've been told, with us apparently rating Payne just inside 30 around the middle part of the year, when he was doing very well in the champs (haven't heard where we rated him by the end, presumably lower, maybe by a fair bit) and Sinclair just inside 40.
I think most clubs would have walked out of this draft in particular extremely happy with what they ended up with, as given it was such an even draft, clubs would have likely had wildly different ratings of everyone and as such it's likely that they would have been able to nab a few who they rated a lot higher than they ended up getting them at, simply because other clubs didn't rate them as highly. Pelchen said in that recent article on the AFL website that it isn't BS when the clubs say things like "we couldn't believe he was still available at our pick", as the clubs can rate talent so differently from each other (more likely to be so in an "even draft").
Looked up Lonie's stats for the last two years at TAC Cup level the other day and he actually played more games (16) last year, than he did this year (15) and also kicked more goals (29 to 21), although he may have been playing closer to goal last year. Kicked 8 goals in his teams two finals this season though (including a bag of 5) and kicked 3 in a final last year and had another bag of 5 in a game earlier that season.
Like say Caleb Daniel this year and Lewis Taylor last year, he is a lot better performed and a lot more talented than his draft number would suggest, only "sliding" so far due to his height deficiency.
I'm told we actually rated him 12th on our board, but presumably we didn't draft him ahead of say McKenzie (14th) because he is so short and weren't prepared to spend such a high pick on someone that short. We also probably thought/knew he was a good chance to still be available at pick 41, for the same reason, while we knew someone like McKenzie was no chance.
It was a similar thing last year, where around the middle of the season I was told that there were 6 who we rated as "elite prospects", with one of them being Lewis Taylor (who many/most rated top 10 on 'talent' at the time), but that in spite of rating him that highly he wasn't in the mix for our first pick in that draft (around that time we were looking like having a pick around 4/5), because he was so short and of course he didn't end up getting taken until pick 28.
Im not Saying your talking BS but eitherYep, spot on with those numbers, from what I've been told, with us apparently rating Payne just inside 30 around the middle part of the year, when he was doing very well in the champs (haven't heard where we rated him by the end, presumably lower, maybe by a fair bit) and Sinclair just inside 40.
I think most clubs would have walked out of this draft in particular extremely happy with what they ended up with, as given it was such an even draft, clubs would have likely had wildly different ratings of everyone and as such it's likely that they would have been able to nab a few who they rated a lot higher than they ended up getting them at, simply because other clubs didn't rate them as highly. Pelchen said in that recent article on the AFL website that it isn't BS when the clubs say things like "we couldn't believe he was still available at our pick", as the clubs can rate talent so differently from each other (more likely to be so in an "even draft").
As I said, I've only heard that we had Payne just inside the top 30 around the middle part of the year, when he was doing very good things at the champs, so for all I know we could have had him much lower by the time the draft came around, whereas I don't believe we had Sinclair as high as we did Eli last year, so I don't think we'd consider him to be as much of a "standout", necessarily.
As I said on here on the day of the RD, after the ND was completed (and a couple of days before the RD was held) I enquired as to whether there was anyone that we rated as worth taking in the ND who didn't get drafted in the ND, and Sinclair and Payne were 2 of the 5 names that I was told we rated who got through undrafted, so given how good that mail looks to have been (especially considering they weren't exactly "household names" and weren't being spoken about at all on here (that I remember)- I'd never even heard of Sinclair!) I have no reason to not believe where we rated them (and the others), when told that news a few days after the RD was completed. That's all I know.
As for how we do our ratings, apparently clubs can vary a hell of a lot in their methods of talent identification, but ours looks to be working very well for us, so however we do it I have no complaints!