List Mgmt. 2025 Draft & Trade Thread - Picks 31, 32, 42, 60 and 71

[Ticky009]

 

[Kbroome]

I think that is a complete over reaction.
I took particular note in 4 matches towards the end of the year as to how fewer boundary throw ins would occur with the last disposal rule. In three of the four games it was a differential of 3 and in the other it was 4.
So, with that in mind I'd suggest it's probably more like 10%.

Statistically your using a sample size of 4 games compared to what 10 years of SANFL. There is a legit statistic seen in the screenshot below

 

[smeggaz]

I'd pickup tom Mitchell if he we had a list spot, he was keen and his body fine.

Best case he can contribute, worst case he is depth and can help our VFL team have a better year and with player development.

 

[Kbroome]

Um ok... we didn't play an extra tall though as I said. We've nearly always played 3 + 1 + 3 for many years now. As I said, we may have had a tall as sub, usually if we went smaller in the 22 than usual.

If your argument was to go 1 less KPF than we've nearly always done in recent history, I was on board. But unfortunately in future, we're left with the same backup ruck dilemma as we'd be choosing 2 of our best KPFs which still include players with durability concerns. Ideally in this case you'd have some dedicated medium fwds but we just traded our only full timer.

We have always gone with 3 + Blakey + Ruck + 3 Tall Forwards.

That is too tall of a combination with the hybridy players we have and is what I have been arguing for and thus by extension the need for more small forwards, your assumption that you know best has meant that you can't reading peoples post critically. Maybe if you did you would be able to see that I was saying:

3 + Blakey + Grundy + 3 Tall forwards + McLean is too tall with the 5th bench spot and therefore we need to go with either not having McLean or not having Amartey.

 

[Kiama Chris]

We have always gone with 3 + Blakey + Ruck + 3 Tall Forwards.

That is too tall of a combination with the hybridy players we have and is what I have been arguing for and thus by extension the need for more small forwards, your assumption that you know best has meant that you can't reading peoples post critically. Maybe if you did you would be able to see that I was saying:

3 + Blakey + Grundy + 3 Tall forwards + McLean is too tall with the 5th bench spot and therefore we need to go with either not having McLean or not having Amartey.

There is no point having a conversation with you as you lack critical thinking skills and believe your always right.

Mate, you really should stop playing the man.

 

[Kbroome]

Mate, you really should stop playing the man.

I spent 3 bloody paragraphs across 4 posts saying the same 1 idea. Is it that hard to pick up what i'm putting down if we play McLean we will have the same problems of no forward pressure because we will lack specialist small forwards and play our wingers there instead.

Then in about week 8 you guys will start complaining that we lack forward pressure and that it’s the fault of the small forward in Papley alone to do twice the work. That is because we have a turning circle titanic out there in McLean whose sole job would be to cover Grundy for an early injury, whilst also preventing Amartey from going in the ruck to save him from injury.

 

[Olian]

Kinnear obviously had to give a reason why we passed on him as we would have been charged with draft tampering had the truth been exposed.

No problems you seen to have recollected something which you have no real basis (or involvement) and for which you can’t support your position.

 

[Bonz]

I'd pickup tom Mitchell if he we had a list spot, he was keen and his body fine.

Best case he can contribute, worst case he is depth and can help our VFL team have a better year and with player development.

Like the thinking, but the game has moved on from that style of midfielder.

 

[TheGong]

Does anyone know what the situation is with Harry Kyle? I have a vague recollection that you had to be in the academy for a period of time for a bid to be matched. I remember that Brisbane couldn’t match a bid for Snell because of this. From what I have read Harry only joined the academy last year. Hard to find out what the rules are and maybe they have changed with NGA’s.

 

[Bonz]

Does anyone know what the situation is with Harry Kyle? I have a vague recollection that you had to be in the academy for a period of time for a bid to be matched. I remember that Brisbane couldn’t match a bid for Snell because of this. From what I have read Harry only joined the academy last year. Hard to find out what the rules are and maybe they have changed with NGA’s.

Harry has been a part of the academy for a few years, he just didn't break into the team until last year.

 

[Voula]

I thought the last touch rule was just being thought about, not confirmed. Did I miss some announcement?

They have announced that the bounce down will be abolished, meaning the ball trajectory at centre “bounces” will be more predictable. That will change how those contests look.

That was my understanding as well. The last I read was that it hasn't been confirmed but Greg Swann is trying to get the rule change approved.

Found an article:
AFL scraps centre bounce and sub rule, All-Aus team tweaked - https://www.afl.com.au/news/1435389

But a decision on the mooted 'last disposal' out of bounds rule won't be made until after the next AFL Commission meeting this month.

 

[Wheresbuddy]

Just watched the Chadwick's interview with Kinnear. When asked which player he regrets most not taking he said Caleb Serong

3

Caleb Serong

Age

24

Ht

180cm

Wt

87kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.0

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

6.0

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.6

5star

CL

2.6

4star

D

13.0

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

6.0

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.6

4star

CL

2.6

4star

D

13.0

4star

K

7.0

3star

HB

6.0

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.6

5star

CL

2.6

5star

. Sounds like we were really close to taking him but in Kinnear's said he talked himself out if it.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Kinnear obviously had to give a reason why we passed on him as we would have been charged with draft tampering had the truth been exposed.

I think you are right.

I also recall Dunkley saying he was surprised we didn’t match him and that he wanted to go to the swans.

Makes much more sense now…

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

I am supportive of having a second ruck in addition to three tall forwards. I understand the concerns around forward pressure, but I would counter with:

1. We have an additional player on the bench. Who we choose is not going to change the structure on the field, it is about who we have fresh on the bench and what flexibility do we have if a key player goes down
2. Our three tall forwards are actually all pretty quick. If we can keep them fresher with additional rotations, this will help create forward pressure and support explosiveness when we have the ball.
3. I don’t think Curnow or Logan would be effective second rucks and I don’t believe Amartey has the durability. I also think they are all much stronger forwards and wouldn’t want to waste them.
4. Part of the reason for our lack of forward pressure last year was that we had the lowest contested marks on record (or something close to that). The ball would ping out as a result. With the game continuing the speed up, I think contested marking and bring the ball to ground becomes more important.
5. I suspect Logan will be played back at various times. The back-up ruck on the bench can in practice mean a back-up key defender. We can select three key defenders and not need one on the bench, while ensuring Blakey has no key defender responsibilities.

None of this is to say that an additional small on the bench would not create more pressure also. It’s just on balance I think the extra tall better suits our list.

 

[momentbymoment]

It is like the AFL don't want to expand the talent pool in NSW.

They are happy to expand as long as the players, the dollars and the flags end up flowing south.

 

[Kbroome]

I am supportive of having a second ruck in addition to three tall forwards. I understand the concerns around forward pressure, but I would counter with:

1. We have an additional player on the bench. Who we choose is not going to change the structure on the field, it is about who we have fresh on the bench and what flexibility do we have if a key player goes down
2. Our three tall forwards are actually all pretty quick. If we can keep them fresher with additional rotations, this will help create forward pressure and support explosiveness when we have the ball.
3. I don’t think Curnow or Logan would be effective second rucks and I don’t believe Amartey has the durability. I also think they are all much stronger forwards and wouldn’t want to waste them.
4. Part of the reason for our lack of forward pressure last year was that we had the lowest contested marks on record (or something close to that). The ball would ping out as a result. With the game continuing the speed up, I think contested marking and bring the ball to ground becomes more important.
5. I suspect Logan will be played back at various times. The back-up ruck on the bench can in practice mean a back-up key defender. We can select three key defenders and not need one on the bench, while ensuring Blakey has no key defender responsibilities.

None of this is to say that an additional small on the bench would not create more pressure also. It’s just on balance I think the extra tall better suits our list.

Good though in theory but the numbers don’t add up,

Here is the the tackle statics ranked by contested marks taken (That’s why Sydney is dead last). Adelaide were 3 tall marking forwards yet had one of the worst fwd 50 pressure.

Collingwood in all statistics are the best at FWD 50 pressure because they have specialist small forwards

 

[Wolfgang West]

I spent 3 bloody paragraphs across 4 posts saying the same 1 idea. Is it that hard to pick up what i'm putting down if we play McLean we will have the same problems of no forward pressure because we will lack specialist small forwards and play our wingers there instead.

Then in about week 8 you guys will start complaining that we lack forward pressure and that its the fault of the small forward in Papley alone to do twice the work because we have a turning circle titanic out there in McLean whose sole job would be to cover Grundy for an early injury whilst also preventing Amartey from going in the ruck to save him from injury

Punctuation may help you get your point across more succinctly.

 

[dosser]

This thread has become an absolute mess.

 

[Wolfgang West]

I don't think we play a second ruck every week. It'll come down to the opposition and match ups. I think in the hardest running version of the 23 Amartey and McDonald give Grundy a rest.

When the ball is in the back half perhaps because that's where he will be planted. At least early in the season or until the move fails like the McCartin experiment. I could be wrong but the jungle drums are beating that Logan McDonald will be trialed to be the second coming of Heath Grundy.

 

[Wolfgang West]

This thread has become an absolute mess.

Peel back the layers and you will find blame lies with Charlie Curnow.

 

[dosser]

Peel back the layers and you will find blame lies with Charlie Curnow.

I hate myself for sounding like Bedders, but shouldn't the "who is playing our 2nd ruck role next year" be on another thread? I came here to see if there was any draft info this morning and had to scroll through numerous posts about the subject which has no relevance. It is the same subject being discussed in the CC thread, so maybe it belongs there?

Wow. I need a coffee. I can't believe I just wrote that...

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Cal Twomey's October rankings are out:

Cal Twomey's Phantom Form Guide: Top draft prospects' October ranking

AFL.com.au's draft guru Cal Twomey delivers his fourth Phantom Form Guide ahead of the 2025 Telstra AFL Draft

www.afl.com.au

He has Max at 25 (down from 23), and one Harry Kyle now in at 27

He's even speculated Harry might get bid on ahead of Max, and has also made the Callaghan comparison (maybe he's lurking around here somewhere!)

He's not had Carmichael in his top rankings all year


Also had a quick look through the RMC draft profiles to see where they have the Academy guys' draft ranges:

King 15-30

Carmichael 20-30

Kyle 25-40

Chamberlain 35-50

 

[dosser]

Cal Twomey's October rankings are out:

Cal Twomey's Phantom Form Guide: Top draft prospects' October ranking

AFL.com.au's draft guru Cal Twomey delivers his fourth Phantom Form Guide ahead of the 2025 Telstra AFL Draft

www.afl.com.au

He has Max at 25 (down from 23), and one Harry Kyle now in at 27

He's even speculated Harry might get bid on ahead of Max, and has also made the Callaghan comparison (maybe he's lurking around here somewhere!)

He's not had Carmichael in his top rankings all year


Also had a quick look through the RMC draft profiles to see where they have the Academy guys' draft ranges:

King 15-30

Carmichael 20-30

Kyle 25-40

Chamberlain 35-50

Wow. What a fall from grace for Chamberlain.

 

[rustycrate]

I hate myself for sounding like Bedders, but shouldn't the "who is playing our 2nd ruck role next year" be on another thread? I came here to see if there was any draft info this morning and had to scroll through numerous posts about the subject which has no relevance. It is the same subject being discussed in the CC thread, so maybe it belongs there?

Wow. I need a coffee. I can't believe I just wrote that...

Thanks Bedders.

 

[bedford]

Peel back the layers and you will find blame lies with Charlie Curnow.

Not really

 

[Wolfgang West]

Not really

The thread went sideways with the have and have nots of Curnow and the sensitivity around departures to allow for his recruitment. Fast forward a couple of weeks and it is deteriorating at a rapid rate over the balance of the side around the forward / ruck set up. Common denominator ?

Charlie.