Review Winners and Losers - 2016 AFL National Draft

[Old navy]

Is parfitt good

I really rate Parfitt, but he was picked earlier then most expected. Strange that Geelong would take another mid with only average kicking skills.
That's the main knoc on Parfitt.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

You also lost Gault and Witts. So not much tall depth. Maybe you will fill that in the rookie draft.
Cox is very much a project who should never have been getting a game infront of Cloke ,and is a defensive liability in the forward line.

Gault was a list clogger, if we had to play him the seasons stuffed anyway, as for Witts I reckon we'll rookie a mature age ruck as back up, and let's face it, Witts hadn't shown a lot at senior level anyway.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Not having seen many of the players in action I can't really judge any clubs draft but I don't understand North's draft.

Their senior list is clearly light on for midfielders yet from what I can tell they added to their hordes of flankers and kpps with this years draft picks.

It's not midfielders per se that is a big weakness, it's the type of midfielder. We lack speed and spread, and lack creative ball users. With that in mind Simpkin was a no-brainer at 12, and by the time we got to our second rounders the likes of Fisher, Parfitt and Powell-Pepper were gone, while drafting Clarke, Graham or Scharenberg would just give us more of the same type.

I wouldn't have minded Mutch but his pace is a concern. Poholke I liked but he's another who isn't really a mid, more someone who might develop into one. Second round was also probably a bit high for Lyons.

I'm pretty happy with our draft - I think Simpkin is a jet and we filled needs with other picks. Happy to back the likes of Clarke, Mountford, Hrovat and Dumont to fill our midfield needs rather than reaching for them.

 

[Sector 7G]

Gault was a list clogger, if we had to play him the seasons stuffed anyway, as for Witts I reckon we'll rookie a mature age ruck as back up, and let's face it, Witts hadn't shown a lot at senior level anyway.

You will get no argument from me on that front (though most Pies supporters seem to think Witts is a gun starved of chances) but you seem to be missing the point. Collingwood have a lack of tall depth and let sentimentality override their list needs and recruited 2 underside midfielder/small forwards that are not a pressing need for the list, instead of adding to the tall stocks.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Very much spot on, can also be about what clubs did with a certain selection. Did Clubs make the right or wrong call with any given pick.

How can anyone say at this early stage?

What would constitute "losing"?

I do one of these each year; clear winners and questionable calls because jt hasnt been 24 hours too eary to judge yet

Adelaide: win good mix with much needed inside mid in poholke, good athletic runner in galluci and probably not needed but a potential swingman in himmelberg who i rate
Brisbane: win smart recruiting picking up good mates in berry and mclug. Addressed back half ball use and rebound with the loss of hanley; cox and witherden in the 20s steal
Carlton: win kerr late no matched bid for macraedie and fisher who i wont be suprised is the best out of their haul even with sos
Collingwood: questionable; although he was a need mclarty very early even when cox was avaliabke. Had mclarty as a rookie. Father sons and kirkby who isnt a bad get in his range
Essendon: win with clarke and much so late steal like begleys big body
Fremantle: winners of the draft imo. Logue gun, cox gun, ryan late draft steal only query is darcy so high itll take time if they can turn him into a sandilands/mumford mk2 really like their picks with dawson/johnson going soon and replacement for suban/mzungu/c pearce well done.
Geelong: win seem to be going for flare and crowd favourites in narkle rataguleoa and parfitt. Stewart seems a solid pick up dont know a thing about their later picks
Gcs and gws: meh nothing needs to be said
Hawks: win for taking the piss
Melbourne: questionable; dont know anything about their later picks even with ok players in ryan garthwaite etc avaliable
North: ok like larkey late couple academy boys and simpkin. So jealous they seem to always take my favourites; durdin a few years. Back
Richmond: win graham and gartheaite late rate them both, bolton as theirfirst pick is a win hopefully flight risk rumours are false and they can keep him
St kilda: questionable; picking up battle when they have a few pretty good options. Long was a bit early but watching his vfl performances he seems a star
Sydney: close runner up to freo in win. Florent jet, hayward jet, maibum solid,
Cameron finally gets his chance. I dont know how but they seem to be ultra consistent in drafts every year; rose dawson now hayward please send one to alberton
Eagles: third place in win. Really rate venabks and rotham mix aswell as riolli late like sydney know how to pick players
Dogs: Win dont know any kf their late players english could be a steal as lipinski


As for port marshall and powell pepper win. Atley and drew, i would have liked a cleaner user of the footy as pretty much all 3 mids have knocks on their kicking

Any losers?

As for a loser it's hard to put a finger on a day after the draft

Yeah, funny that.

It almost makes you think the whole exercise of picking "winners and losers" is no more than a guessing game based on who had early picks and superficial name recognition.

To all the "this is a stupid thread" crowd:

If you don't like it then you can git out...

On topic, I think Brissy smashed it.

I'd need to see a list to be convinced.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Gold Coast - its now about retaining the Victorian boys. In Scrimshaw, Ainsworth and Brodie they have 3 different types - Ainsworth and Brodie are Round 1 ready players with a good pre season behind them, so is Bowes. Scrimshaw is very similar to Kolodjashnij at least initially but may become a taller midfielder in the future and Scheer that late was a bargain

Brisbane - Witherden, Berry and Cox. All good picks for them and McCluggage is a number one pick that slid basically. There medium / small sized back line deficiences were addressed and Allison is a sweetener. Was surprised to see an unmatched bid on Watson, presume because the North bid was just to early for them to even consider a match.


As for a loser it's hard to put a finger on a day after the draft but I was really surprised with the approach North took. Simpkin's a beauty, they get a tick for that and am not surprised that they bid on Brown when they did but Watson seemed a long reach for me when other key position talent was available and than bidding on a real project player in Williams.

We also picked a guy at 70 who was the b&f for the TAC champs

Is parfitt good

FWIW our Quigley rates him very highly - check out his PD.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

You will get no argument from me on that front (though most Pies supporters seem to think Witts is a gun starved of chances) but you seem to be missing the point. Collingwood have a lack of tall depth and let sentimentality override their list needs and recruited 2 underside midfielder/small forwards that are not a pressing need for the list, instead of adding to the tall stocks.

Yeah especially with Reids fragile body, another talented KPP on the list would be handy but if we finally get a decent injury run we should be ok.

And small crumbing forwards were a need for us, Brown wasn't though, I wouldn't have been disappointed if we didn't match the bid TBH.

 

[TradeDraft]

WINNERS:
Brisbane
GC
Essendon
GWS
WCE

LOSERS:
Collingwood
Melbourne
Hawthorn

Pies probably the worst given the off-season in its entirety and the pressure on them

So I guess Collingwood be Bottom 4 Side and Bucks be Sacked by RD 10 then

 

[Lance Uppercut]

McGrath wasn't even in the conversation for the number 1 pick, till GWS told the world how badly they wanted him.

If you believe that I have some real estate I'd like you to consider

 

[Clems Knee]

I published this today on my thread in the Phantom Draft boards. It suggests Richmond was the biggest winner of the draft, and Geelong the biggest loser. Negative numbers mean that the players were selected lower than expected, positive numbers mean that the players were selected higher.

The numbers were generated by combining the numbers for each individual draftee in each club.
These numbers were calculated by subtracting the real draft position from the average draft position for the draftee of all the phantom drafts I could find. Of course this assumes that the combined wisdom of all the Phantom Drafts is worth anything, which we won't know for a few years.

Richmond -45.5
Gold Coast -44.1
Carlton -36.2
Brisbane -28.0
West Coast -26.3
Hawthorn -20.7
Essendon -18.3
Fremantle -5.1
Adelaide -4.7
Sydney 8.6
Port Adelaide 16.7
St. Kilda 22.4
Melbourne 26.0
GWS 27.6
North Melbourne 32.0
Collingwood 36.5
Western Bulldogs 39.0
Geelong 50.4

Overall, Richmond, Gold Coast and Carlton fans should feel happy that they got the biggest bargains, while Geelong, Bulldogs and Collingwood fans will have to trust that their recruiting teams knew what they would were doing, because they reached the most for the players they selected.

My club is at number 8, so it's not just an elaborate effort to pump up my club's tyres.

 

[WilloTree]

The start of a rebuild? Strange perspective.

We got 3 absolute steals in this draft and have 2 1sts, a 2nd and 2 3rds in the deep draft of 2017. Prestia, Caddy and Nankervis off-season inclusions and likely a few more in 2017 FA.

Well placed.

When Hardwick said: "We are where we are, we don't have a lot of really good players" I took it to mean that the list needed a rebuild. Maybe I'm wrong, but if your coach states publicly that your list isn't any good, but don't think it's the start of a rebuild, well... I would be very concerned about the direction of my club and that we weren't heading for a decade of mediocracy.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/richmo...-trade-period-to-rebuild-20160827-gr2r55.html

 

[Sector 7G]

I published this today on my thread in the Phantom Draft boards. It suggests Richmond was the biggest winner of the draft, and Geelong the biggest loser. Negative numbers mean that the players were selected lower than expected, positive numbers mean that the players were selected higher.

The numbers were generated by combining the numbers for each individual draftee in each club.
These numbers were calculated by subtracting the real draft position from the average draft position for the draftee of all the phantom drafts I could find. Of course this assumes that the combined wisdom of all the Phantom Drafts is worth anything, which we won't know for a few years.

Richmond -45.5
Gold Coast -44.1
Carlton -36.2
Brisbane -28.0
West Coast -26.3
Hawthorn -20.7
Essendon -18.3
Fremantle -5.1
Adelaide -4.7
Sydney 8.6
Port Adelaide 16.7
St. Kilda 22.4
Melbourne 26.0
GWS 27.6
North Melbourne 32.0
Collingwood 36.5
Western Bulldogs 39.0
Geelong 50.4

Overall, Richmond, Gold Coast and Carlton fans should feel happy that they got the biggest bargains, while Geelong, Bulldogs and Collingwood fans will have to trust that their recruiting teams knew what they would were doing, because they reached the most for the players they selected.

My club is at number 8, so it's not just an elaborate effort to pump up my club's tyres.

It is interesting how people think picking up a slider is a great thing. Generally there is a reason the professionals don't rate players that amateurs do.

It is like being at the races and seeing the odds on the favourite I have backed lengthening. It is rarely a good thing.

 

[Majunga]

It is interesting how people think picking up a slider is a great thing. Generally there is a reason the professionals don't rate players that amateurs do.

It is like being at the races and seeing the odds on the favourite I have backed lengthening. It is rarely a good thing.

Man speaks wisdom.

 

[Clems Knee]

It is interesting how people think picking up a slider is a great thing. Generally there is a reason the professionals don't rate players that amateurs do.

It is like being at the races and seeing the odds on the favourite I have backed lengthening. It is rarely a good thing.

This is interesting, and may be true. But I can think of players who slid who turned out fine. Jack Darling (not my favourite player, but still...) and Luke Parker come to mind.
Do you know if anyone has done any research into this? Would be good to know either way.

As most of this thread is about how reality differed from expectations, my number crunching gives a pretty good summary of the sliders v bolters argument. IMO.

 

[QLDbeachbabe]

I published this today on my thread in the Phantom Draft boards. It suggests Richmond was the biggest winner of the draft, and Geelong the biggest loser. Negative numbers mean that the players were selected lower than expected, positive numbers mean that the players were selected higher.

The numbers were generated by combining the numbers for each individual draftee in each club.
These numbers were calculated by subtracting the real draft position from the average draft position for the draftee of all the phantom drafts I could find. Of course this assumes that the combined wisdom of all the Phantom Drafts is worth anything, which we won't know for a few years.

Richmond -45.5
Gold Coast -44.1
Carlton -36.2
Brisbane -28.0
West Coast -26.3
Hawthorn -20.7
Essendon -18.3
Fremantle -5.1
Adelaide -4.7
Sydney 8.6
Port Adelaide 16.7
St. Kilda 22.4
Melbourne 26.0
GWS 27.6
North Melbourne 32.0
Collingwood 36.5
Western Bulldogs 39.0
Geelong 50.4

Overall, Richmond, Gold Coast and Carlton fans should feel happy that they got the biggest bargains, while Geelong, Bulldogs and Collingwood fans will have to trust that their recruiting teams knew what they would were doing, because they reached the most for the players they selected.

My club is at number 8, so it's not just an elaborate effort to pump up my club's tyres.

Who did collingwood reach for? Bic

 

[UpTheTigs]

When Hardwick said: "We are where we are, we don't have a lot of really good players" I took it to mean that the list needed a rebuild. Maybe I'm wrong, but if your coach states publicly that your list isn't any good, but don't think it's the start of a rebuild, well... I would be very concerned about the direction of my club and that we weren't heading for a decade of mediocracy.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/richmo...-trade-period-to-rebuild-20160827-gr2r55.html

You just be concerned you follow Fremantle.

 

[Clems Knee]

Who did collingwood reach for? Bic

Name. club. draft pick. Predicted - draft pick.
Sam McLarty Collingwood 30 27.5
Callum Brown Collingwood 35 4.5
Kayle Kirby Collingwood 50 14.3
Josh Daicos Collingwood 57 -9.9
Total 36.5

Mostly Sam McLarty and Kayle Kirby.

 

[Clems Knee]

You just be concerned you follow Fremantle.

Says a supporter of the only team that has a worse record than us over the life of our club.

Edit: sorry, for some reason I thought you were quoting me. Comment stands though.

 

[UpTheTigs]

Says a supporter of the only team that has a worse record than us over the life of our club.

Edit: sorry, for some reason I thought you were quoting me. Comment stands though.

Haha okay Fremantle.

 

[Old navy]

How can anyone say at this early stage?

What would constitute "losing"?

Any losers?



Yeah, funny that.

It almost makes you think the whole exercise of picking "winners and losers" is no more than a guessing game based on who had early picks and superficial name recognition.

I'd need to see a list to be convinced.

Didn't you make a tread called who Won the 2016 draft, so we can predict winners but not losers ?
If you don't like the tread, no one is forcing you to participate in it.

Taking Venables at pick 12 was a pretty big reach, can't say the other players WC picked fill me with envy either.
I would say WC had a poor draft considering they had some reasonable picks and failed IMO to get maximum value out of them.

 

[QLDbeachbabe]

Sam McLarty Collingwood 30 27.5
Callum Brown Collingwood 35 4.5
Kayle Kirby Collingwood 50 14.3
Josh Daicos Collingwood 57 -9.9
Total 36.5

Mostly Sam McLarty and Kayle Kirby.

Yeh I don't think you can call it a reach when the first pick they had is pick 30 and I'm sure the blood line picks are spot on at the right draft pick range but each to there own opinion that I respect.

 

[Clems Knee]

Yeh I don't think you can call it a reach when the first pick they had is pick 30 and I'm sure the blood line picks are spot on at the right draft pick range but each to there own opinion that I respect.

It's a reach because the average of all phantom drafts and rankings had McLarty at 57.5. So if the phantoms got it right, he would still be available at their 4th round draft pick.
In other words, I think you've got it the wrong way round.
In Collingwood's case, Daicos was predicted to go at 48.1, so he slid.

And this isn't my opinion. It's the combined opinion of 76 drafts. I just collated them. Of course, Collingwood could be right, and the 76 phantoms wrong. They are the professionals, after all.

Edit: sorry I realise I should have explained what the numbers in the post above meant. Will edit.

 

[QLDbeachbabe]

It's a reach because the average of all phantom drafts and rankings had McLarty at 57.5. So if the phantoms got it right, he would still be available at their 4th round draft pick.
In other words, I think you've got it the wrong way round.
In Collingwood's case, Daicos was predicted to go at 48.1, so he slid.

And this isn't my opinion. It's the combined opinion of 76 drafts. I just collated them. Of course, Collingwood could be right, and the 76 phantoms wrong. They are the professionals, after all.

Phantom draft's don't mean nothing. Specially with injuries and other obticals and under development etc. Fremantle had a solid draft I think.

 

[Clems Knee]

Phantom draft's don't mean nothing. Specially with injuries and other obticals and under development etc. Fremantle had a solid draft I think.

If you don't look at expectations of who a club would pick, then every pick is a great pick and all clubs should be rated A+. Which is fine if you don't want to have a discussion about it.
But if you want to compare drafting to expectations, at least the phantom drafts were put out before the draft. Much better to use them than rely on a one eyed fan to say "we got the best draft, the other clubs suck, Lol" in an honest way.

According to the phantom drafts, Fremantle reached with Sean Darcy and Griffin Logue, but Brennan Cox and Luke Ryan slid.

 

[QLDbeachbabe]

If you don't look at expectations of who a club would pick, then every pick is a great pick and all clubs should be rated A+. Which is fine if you don't want to have a discussion about it.
But if you want to compare drafting to expectations, at least the phantom drafts were put out before the draft. Much better to use them than rely on a one eyed fan to say "we got the best draft, the other clubs suck, Lol" in an honest way.

According to the phantom drafts, Fremantle reached with Sean Darcy and Griffin Logue, but Brennan Cox and Luke Ryan slid.

You Just think you know it all and come across as sour grapes so I rather respect other's unbiased opinion as let's be honest you are a no body just like me but no hard feelings.