List Mgmt. 2018 Draft Prospects aka the West and Khamis thread

[MJ_Dogs]

All I want to say is, Please don’t take someone who has already done a knee.
Evidence is there that it indicates an inherent issue and more likely to happen again than to another player who has never done one.

Especially big men. I’d rather we play Boyd as an actual forward and team him with Schache than go with a King. Then draft the best mid with pick 5 (or 6 or 4 or 3 or whatever it ends up being)

 

[Yojimbo]

All I want to say is, Please don’t take someone who has already done a knee.
Evidence is there that it indicates an inherent issue and more likely to happen again than to another player who has never done one.

Yet the great Clay Smith had never even had an injury until he was drafted and look what happened there.

 

[hatescaptcha]

I think Ben King fits our mantra better, as he has the ability to play forward or back. Would love to nab him.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[MJ_Dogs]

What was Sam Powers role at Carlton again?

Edit: a cross is no longer on an afl list, a tick is still on Carlton’s list, a plane is on another teams list

 

[VitalDread]

What was Sam Powers role at Carlton again?

Problem is though, Recruiters bring in players then its up to the coaches to develop them.
If you have a horrible development program, you will get bad results.

Also Blues were trying to push hard for finals spots and were stuck with their 22 players due to lack of care from Malthouse

 

[dogwatch]

Problem is though, Recruiters bring in players then its up to the coaches to develop them.
If you have a horrible development program, you will get bad results.

Also Blues were trying to push hard for finals spots and were stuck with their 22 players due to lack of care from Malthouse

Add the SOS trading (mostly GWS rejects) and you have the full Carlton catastrophe.

 

[MJ_Dogs]

So what is the makeup of our recruitment team? Power is the director, but who is doing Dals job?

 

[Yojimbo]

So what is the makeup of our recruitment team? Power is the director, but who is doing Dals job?

PETER GORDON: Because it's personal.

 

[VitalDread]

So what is the makeup of our recruitment team? Power is the director, but who is doing Dals job?

From my understanding
Sam Power
Dals right hand man before he left
6 Scouts
5 inter state scouts
Head NGA
3 scouts for NGA

 

[dogwatch]

From my understanding
Sam Power
Dals right hand man before he left
6 Scouts
5 inter state scouts
Head NGA
3 scouts for NGA

Where does Nick Austin fit in?

 

[Sharkey66]

From my understanding
Sam Power
Dals right hand man before he left
6 Scouts
5 inter state scouts
Head NGA
3 scouts for NGA

Where does Austin fit in?

 

[Southern 8]

Is Bains going to be involved like he was at StKilda?

 

[JAMES_B_101]

I get the line of thinking but it's premised on whichever King we get being genuine top 5 over his career and not just an U18 bully.
The most recent big men who have gone inside the top 5 have been:
2017 - none
2016 - none
2015 - Weitering (1), Schache (2)
2014 - P.McCartin (1)
2013 - Boyd (1)
2012 - none
2011 - Patton (1)
2010 - Day (3)
2009 - none
2008 - Watts (1), Natanui (2), Hurley (5)

All of them are making some sort of career but none of them are out and out stars (yet) until you get back to 2008 with Natanui and Hurley. Along the way players like Tom Boyd have been described as the best KPF in a decade or a generation or whatever, but it's been a different story when they start to carve out their career. Admittedly some are still young and big men take time but you can usually see the real quality in big players very early.

The hit rate for midfielders has been much higher and so I'd suggest if we have a rare pick inside the top 5 a midfielder may be a safer bet.

Can somebody convince me that the Kings are genuinely different to so many of the next BIG things touted over the last 10 years of the draft?

I totally agree with all that you've said, and it's all about looking at attributes and recruiters doing their proper diligence before drafting a player top 5. An element of pressure if you have pick 1 and don't pick Tom Boyd in 2013 given he's rated so highly at the time. Even if you aren't convinced, do you want to be the recruiter that doesn't take him if he goes on to be a champion of the game? I am in the boat of taking a mid, just not a mid as similar to West as Smith seems to be. Take West then take a more versatile player that can play forward and still be a good midfielder at the same time. King brothers stand out due to their length and height. Their highest point marking the ball will be impossible to defend. They seem to move well, better than the typical hulking key forwards of the past. Having said that, I still like Lukosius more as do most others. In the modern game you need the tank and workrate to be effective as a key forward, as well as a good contested mark and field kick. King brothers may have some of those attributes but if not all they may not end up progressing as well as others. I can see them having success modeling their game on Ben Brown due to their reach. They have the capability to be equally as tough to defend. Possibilities would be West/KPF, West/reach for a mid, West/Smith or similar type. Option 1 is viable as we have room to improve forward of centre. Option 2 is my favourite but could mean reaching for someone. Will Power and co. be game to do this in their first season in charge? Option 3 is safety first but uses a pair of early picks to address one area rather than spreading the talent across the ground.

 

[Mofra]

Ugle-Hagan is ours

If he keeps growing at the current rate he'll end up a hybrid of Adam Goodes and Paddy Ryder. A lot to like so far.

 

[dogwatch]

I totally agree with all that you've said, and it's all about looking at attributes and recruiters doing their proper diligence before drafting a player top 5. An element of pressure if you have pick 1 and don't pick Tom Boyd in 2013 given he's rated so highly at the time. Even if you aren't convinced, do you want to be the recruiter that doesn't take him if he goes on to be a champion of the game? I am in the boat of taking a mid, just not a mid as similar to West as Smith seems to be. Take West then take a more versatile player that can play forward and still be a good midfielder at the same time. King brothers stand out due to their length and height. Their highest point marking the ball will be impossible to defend. They seem to move well, better than the typical hulking key forwards of the past. Having said that, I still like Lukosius more as do most others. In the modern game you need the tank and workrate to be effective as a key forward, as well as a good contested mark and field kick. King brothers may have some of those attributes but if not all they may not end up progressing as well as others. I can see them having success modeling their game on Ben Brown due to their reach. They have the capability to be equally as tough to defend. Possibilities would be West/KPF, West/reach for a mid, West/Smith or similar type. Option 1 is viable as we have room to improve forward of centre. Option 2 is my favourite but could mean reaching for someone. Will Power and co. be game to do this in their first season in charge? Option 3 is safety first but uses a pair of early picks to address one area rather than spreading the talent across the ground.

West/Rankine would be a good outcome if Rankine is still there at our pick, assuming he passes the no-utter-dickheads test*

* I'm coming round to the view that you need a few dickheads/mongrels in any side as long as they don't reach critical mass and don't ruin a solid team-first hard-work ethic.

 

[ScragCity]

I totally agree with all that you've said, and it's all about looking at attributes and recruiters doing their proper diligence before drafting a player top 5. An element of pressure if you have pick 1 and don't pick Tom Boyd in 2013 given he's rated so highly at the time. Even if you aren't convinced, do you want to be the recruiter that doesn't take him if he goes on to be a champion of the game? I am in the boat of taking a mid, just not a mid as similar to West as Smith seems to be. Take West then take a more versatile player that can play forward and still be a good midfielder at the same time. King brothers stand out due to their length and height. Their highest point marking the ball will be impossible to defend. They seem to move well, better than the typical hulking key forwards of the past. Having said that, I still like Lukosius more as do most others. In the modern game you need the tank and workrate to be effective as a key forward, as well as a good contested mark and field kick. King brothers may have some of those attributes but if not all they may not end up progressing as well as others. I can see them having success modeling their game on Ben Brown due to their reach. They have the capability to be equally as tough to defend. Possibilities would be West/KPF, West/reach for a mid, West/Smith or similar type. Option 1 is viable as we have room to improve forward of centre. Option 2 is my favourite but could mean reaching for someone. Will Power and co. be game to do this in their first season in charge? Option 3 is safety first but uses a pair of early picks to address one area rather than spreading the talent across the ground.

Pick 5 = best available.

It really is that simple.

 

[dogwatch]

Pick 5 = best available.

It really is that simple.

No it's not that simple.
The principle is fine - I'm happy to agree on that - but how do you say with conviction who is "best available"?

If both the Kings really are best available (i.e. fairly safe bets to become elite AFL players) then fine, draft one of them. My earlier point is that there have been no KPFs picked in the top 5 in the last 10 years who have turned out to be elite despite the huge wraps on them. Four were #1 picks and another was a #2 pick. (Patton is maybe the best of them - the argument on him is a bit clouded by his repeat knee injuries.)

 

[Dargonian]

No it's not that simple.
The principle is fine - I'm happy to agree on that - but how do you say with conviction who is "best available"?

If both the Kings really are best available (i.e. fairly safe bets to become elite AFL players) then fine, draft one of them. My earlier point is that there have been no KPFs picked in the top 5 in the last 10 years who have turned out to be elite despite the huge wraps on them. Four were #1 picks and another was a #2 pick. (Patton is maybe the best of them - the argument on him is a bit clouded by his repeat knee injuries.)

You’re conveniently not including Hogan, Cameron or Joe Daniher who all would have easily been top 5 draft picks (most likely 1 or 2) So the hit rate is really closer 50/50. Not so bad when you look at it like that. If there good enough you back the club in to develop them.

 

[dogwatch]

You’re conveniently not including Hogan, Cameron or Joe Daniher who all would have easily been top 5 draft picks (most likely 1 or 2) So the hit rate is really closer 50/50. Not so bad when you look at it like that. If there good enough you back the club in to develop them.

Are you suggesting I "conveniently" left them out on purpose so I could make a stronger argument? You probably don't know me then.

I take your point about Hogan and Cameron, snapped up early as 17yos. Joe Daniher went at 10 but I agree he would certainly have gone top 5 (quite possibly #1) if not a FS. All three are elite IMO.

However you also need to consider Darcy Moore (went at 9 but could well have gone top 5 if not a FS). Moore shows some promise but is going no better than most of the other top 5 picks I've mentioned. Then there's Ayce Cordy who went at 13. If we had pick 5 and somebody bid on him before then would we have still pulled the trigger? Maybe. Maybe not. It's hard to believe it now but he was a hot item in his draft year.

So I suggest the hit rate is still well below that of midfielders. The uncertainty is greater despite a few celebrated failures like Toumpas, Trengove (Melb) and Tambling. I haven't taken the time to crunch the numbers on midfielders going in the top 5 but it would be a worthwhile exercise.

I'm not saying it definitely won't work out, but I remain uneasy about using a top 5 pick on either of the Kings especially Max with his bad knee injury.

 

[ScragCity]

No it's not that simple.
The principle is fine - I'm happy to agree on that - but how do you say with conviction who is "best available"?

If both the Kings really are best available (i.e. fairly safe bets to become elite AFL players) then fine, draft one of them. My earlier point is that there have been no KPFs picked in the top 5 in the last 10 years who have turned out to be elite despite the huge wraps on them. Four were #1 picks and another was a #2 pick. (Patton is maybe the best of them - the argument on him is a bit clouded by his repeat knee injuries.)

Pick 5 = Best available*







*as determined by our recruiting staff to the best of their ability


My point is that whoever is in charge on draft night isn't going to be thinking about whether player X complements player Y or how many KPDs we project that we might have in 2022, when we use our first rounder. With a pick that high you just take whichever player is likely to be the best (definition of "best" being somewhat subjective) regardless of position. Obviously our recruiting team can't see the future and aren't infallible, but their job is to make a guess about who will be the next Shaun Burgoyne or Nick Reiwoldt to the closest degree of probability that can be realistically expected.

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

No it's not that simple.
The principle is fine - I'm happy to agree on that - but how do you say with conviction who is "best available"?

If both the Kings really are best available (i.e. fairly safe bets to become elite AFL players) then fine, draft one of them. My earlier point is that there have been no KPFs picked in the top 5 in the last 10 years who have turned out to be elite despite the huge wraps on them. Four were #1 picks and another was a #2 pick. (Patton is maybe the best of them - the argument on him is a bit clouded by his repeat knee injuries.)

The only way you are going to get a top KPF is through the draft and with a first round pick.

With the exception of Tex and Ben Brown the top KPFs in the league now all were low picks - Kennedy, Buddy, Roughead, Hawkins, Daniher, Curnow, Riewaldt, Hipwood, Dixon, Lynch, Hogan.

I guess you could hope 2016 (flag with no KPF) is repeated but it is certainly reducing your odds of another flag.

 

[ScragCity]

Are you suggesting I "conveniently" left them out on purpose so I could make a stronger argument? You probably don't know me then.

I take your point about Hogan and Cameron, snapped up early as 17yos. Joe Daniher went at 10 but I agree he would certainly have gone top 5 (quite possibly #1) if not a FS. All three are elite IMO.

However you also need to consider Darcy Moore (went at 9 but could well have gone top 5 if not a FS). Moore shows some promise but is going no better than most of the other top 5 picks I've mentioned. Then there's Ayce Cordy who went at 13. If we had pick 5 and somebody bid on him before then would we have still pulled the trigger? Maybe. Maybe not. It's hard to believe it now but he was a hot item in his draft year.

So I suggest the hit rate is still well below that of midfielders. The uncertainty is greater despite a few celebrated failures like Toumpas, Trengove (Melb) and Tambling. I haven't taken the time to crunch the numbers on midfielders going in the top 5 but it would be a worthwhile exercise.

I'm not saying it definitely won't work out, but I remain uneasy about using a top 5 pick on either of the Kings especially Max with his bad knee injury.

FWIW I agree that drafting talls in the top 5 is very hit-and-miss and I'd be fine if we passed on the Kings etc. for that reason. My point is that I think it would be a foolish to draft in the top 5 based on list needs as other posters have suggested. For all we know Boyd could retire due to mental health issues, English/Adams/Naughton could request a trade home, Schache could do three consecutive knees etc.

Given that talls usually take 5 years to get to the point that they are really impacting games I think it would be insane to pass on one just because we have an abundance of them right now.

Having said that I really hope our current talls work out and we do get a gun mid or Rankine at 5.

 

[MJ_Dogs]

The only way you are going to get a top KPF is through the draft and with a first round pick.

With the exception of Tex and Ben Brown the top KPFs in the league now all were low picks - Kennedy, Buddy, Roughead, Hawkins, Daniher, Curnow, Riewaldt, Hipwood, Dixon, Lynch, Hogan.

I guess you could hope 2016 (flag with no KPF) is repeated but it is certainly reducing your odds of another flag.

This is a good point. Name all the top forwards and where they were taken in the draft.

It’d be worthwhile doing the same for the top midfielders.

Of course, too midfielders is more subjective but we can all agree on the obvious ones.

Who wants to give it a crack?

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

FWIW I agree that drafting talls in the top 5 is very hit-and-miss and I'd be fine if we passed on the Kings etc. for that reason. My point is that I think it would be a foolish to draft in the top 5 based on list needs as other posters have suggested. For all we know Boyd could retire due to mental health issues, English/Adams/Naughton could request a trade home, Schache could do three consecutive knees etc.

Given that talls usually take 5 years to get to the point that they are really impacting games I think it would be insane to pass on one just because we have an abundance of them right now.

Having said that I really hope our current talls work out and we do get a gun mid or Rankine at 5.

Seems to me that the attrition rate of talks is very high ATM.

In the last 2 weeks NicNat, Patton, Dunn and Ryder have all gone down.

My rule would be that if you have 8 on your list you can expect at least 2 to be unavailable at any one time. The more quality KPPs you can get the better.

 

[Dargonian]

Are you suggesting I "conveniently" left them out on purpose so I could make a stronger argument? You probably don't know me then.

I take your point about Hogan and Cameron, snapped up early as 17yos. Joe Daniher went at 10 but I agree he would certainly have gone top 5 (quite possibly #1) if not a FS. All three are elite IMO.

However you also need to consider Darcy Moore (went at 9 but could well have gone top 5 if not a FS). Moore shows some promise but is going no better than most of the other top 5 picks I've mentioned. Then there's Ayce Cordy who went at 13. If we had pick 5 and somebody bid on him before then would we have still pulled the trigger? Maybe. Maybe not. It's hard to believe it now but he was a hot item in his draft year.

So I suggest the hit rate is still well below that of midfielders. The uncertainty is greater despite a few celebrated failures like Toumpas, Trengove (Melb) and Tambling. I haven't taken the time to crunch the numbers on midfielders going in the top 5 but it would be a worthwhile exercise.

I'm not saying it definitely won't work out, but I remain uneasy about using a top 5 pick on either of the Kings especially Max with his bad knee injury.

No just that you didn't include the success ones. You also should measure each draftee on there individual skills and attributes not on the past failure rate of half a dozen KPF's. If we had pick 1 you wouldn't draft Lukosius because of a high failure rate of KPF's?

If you want an elite KPF your going to have to use a top draft pick on him. You just hope for some luck with injuries and back the club in to develop him.
When you're only paying 1 or 2 KPF in a side at one time you will always have a lower hit rate than midfielders. Where there is probably 12-15 blokes running around who played midfield in there junior days. So its not an even playing field if you're going to compare numbers like that too.