Game Day The 2025 Draft Day Thread

[UseR2006]

And a song to sing as we watch,

Hey Matty Clarke by Kevin (Random260) Wilson :

Hey Matty Clarke you campaigner, where the **** is Sharp
I’ve looked at all these other spuds and there’s no one that I like
I wrote you a ****ing letter and posted about it twice
You dopey ****ing Richmond fart, you forgot my ****ing Sharp

If I wanted a stupid ruckman type, I would’ve bloody asked
And this half back flank and temu mid, you can shove right up your arse
You’ve stuffed the bloody order up, it’s enough to make you spew
But it’s not just me who’s snakey, SGIO is dirty too

Next time I come to see ya, I’m going to punch you in the guts
And I’ll sack the other recruiting knobs and kick Toddy in the nuts
You just wait 'til next year when you go back to the draft
And me and me little GIO come stomping through the door
And we'll say, yeah, you wait for it

Hey Pyke and Woosh you smell his breath
And check his bloodshot eyes
And don't listen to him eagles fans 'cause he tells ****ing lies
He's just a ****ing useless campaigner and he's not even very bright
'Cause the stupid ****in' w***er, forgot me ****in' Sharp

Hey Matty Clarke you campaigner, where the **** is Sharp
I’ve looked at all these other spuds and there’s no one that I like
I wrote you a ****ing letter and posted about it twice
You dopey ****ing Richmond fart, you forgot my ****ing Sharp

A Quick Ai rendition: https://suno.com/s/blQP3cSnulhqYb5g
It's funny how it interrupted the lyrics XD

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Fair enough; was a genuine question and not a criticism. I hadn't considered the Williams bid timing factor.

Nonetheless, still seems striking that the damage was really done before the actual draft, and (on the view that Evans and Banfield are genuine quality), that it's a (characteristic) talent ID problem more than a pure list management blunder.

What is frustrating to me is I made a decent assesment pretty early on in the year on that Banfield would be in multiple clubs top 40, now the club for whatever reason doesn't share that assessment. I think they're wrong to not accommodate.

Banfield clearly fits a mold StKilda are looking for, they've gone after versatile players with physicality and a hardened edge. He also had interest from Geelong.

Evans is a different sort of frustration because if he had played a full year then I don't doubt we'd have been forced to match a bid on him before 30. Not bidding is strange in context of the Allen selection, we've chosen a high end athlete who's never put it together on field. Evans is a very different player but it's comparable risk reward.

Evans might need to be played at the ball drop and Brisbane might not be able to accommodate that. If he develops effectively as a hybrid forward then he probably has a pathway there. But I'm probably trying to find a silver lining here because being a better mid than forward isn't really a knock.

In also a bit confused that the club talked about the contest all year and has drafted players with predominantly uncontested bias to their game. It's an area we really neglected the whole way through.

 

[Keys]

I don’t disagree Keys, to be fair that’s probably what we approached the AFL with and I do see the counter argument. A pick for Starcevich and fill out the 22-24yo demographic. In my view this was the wrong approach Whan asking for assistance.

Statistically one, maybe two of the NGAs/FS make it but would far rather we cast this broad net than gain the McCrae/Schoenberg top ups that have shown their fringe ceiling.

The approach we took probably makes us better sooner, but I’m looking to 2029, not 2026. It is 9x18yos but realistically 3-5 make it.

Think that the 3 year expiry date on the extra list spots lends itself to what might be termed stop gap players or list cloggers as they could be more unkindly called

With such a young group by we need to raise the floor of the overall list’s ability. We also need players to help set an example for the draftees and for them to challenge themselves against. Robertson and Macrae both come from successful programs and have a reputation for being strong trainers. Schoenberg might be the same but I know less about him

So get those guys on the list to provide some scaffolding for the young group to develop around and, eventually, overtake in the pecking order. Ideally, in three years time they’ll have served their purpose and can be culled when the list spots expire

If they develop into bona fide AFL players with better opportunities than they had at their previous clubs, then that would be a welcome bonus

It’s a short term approach to help achieve a longer term solution

 

[Eastern Rangers]

I’m happy with Rodriguez as the consolation prize for missing out on Banfield and think he’s a good chance to have the better AFL career of the two.

Rodriguez had very little interest from AFL clubs and is a victim like Lindsay of being over analysed.

 

[Elite Pete]

Is it too early for predictions for next year? Who we will be chasing (reported) Any Essendon-Weddel type offers reported?

Walter (OOC)
Warner (1 year left)
Ben Miller (FA, Tiger, WA)
Neale (OOC)
Charlie Banfield
Ed Allen (can’t have too many Al’s + OOC)
Matt Johnson (OOC Erasmus version)
Alex Davies (OOC the new Dev)
Max Knobel (OOC)
Zane Duursma (OOC)
Hardeman (OOC)
Sweet (OOC)
Dodson (OOC pay them back)
Sanders (OOC)
Buss (OOC it’s time)

I have a feeling they will want a big name ready made but hard to see who unless Chad wants out early and Swans want better compo then Band 1 in Tassie draft.

 

[TerryFilk]

Is it too early for predictions for next year? Who we will be chasing (reported) Any Essendon-Weddel type offers reported?

Walter (OOC)
Warner (1 year left)
Ben Miller (FA, Tiger, WA)
Neale (OOC)
Charlie Banfield
Ed Allen (can’t have too many Al’s + OOC)
Matt Johnson (OOC Erasmus version)
Alex Davies (OOC the new Dev)
Max Knobel (OOC)
Zane Duursma (OOC)
Hardeman (OOC)
Sweet (OOC)
Dodson (OOC pay them back)
Sanders (OOC)
Buss (OOC it’s time)

I have a feeling they will want a big name ready made but hard to see who unless Chad wants out early and Swans want better compo then Band 1 in Tassie draft.

Throw 1.5-1.7M at Zac Bailey just to annoy Brisbane.

 

[eaglevision]

What is frustrating to me is I made a decent assesment pretty early on in the year on that Banfield would be in multiple clubs top 40, now the club for whatever reason doesn't share that assessment. I think they're wrong to not accommodate.

Banfield clearly fits a mold StKilda are looking for, they've gone after versatile players with physicality and a hardened edge. He also had interest from Geelong.

Collingwood were going to take Banfield at their next selection (55) as well.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Collingwood were going to take Banfield at their next selection (55) as well.

Small mercies.

 

[Keys]

I do wonder what the reaction would’ve been if we passed on Williams in order to match on Banfield instead. Feel like, right or wrong, there’d be less blowback on the club if they did.

 

[TerryFilk]

I do wonder what the reaction would’ve been if we passed on Williams in order to match on Banfield instead. Feel like, right or wrong, there’d be less blowback on the club if they did.

There would be which is funny because Williams and Evans > Banfield, but we should’ve had all of them.

 

[eaglevision]

I do wonder what the reaction would’ve been if we passed on Williams in order to match on Banfield instead. Feel like, right or wrong, there’d be less blowback on the club if they did.

A father-son is very different to NGA IMO. I’d be happy if academies were abolished, but I’d never want to get rid of father-son provided there is fair cost.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

I do wonder what the reaction would’ve been if we passed on Williams in order to match on Banfield instead. Feel like, right or wrong, there’d be less blowback on the club

List needs Williams then Evans over Banfield.

 

[MrAsh7777]

Linsday - Falcons and Vic Country Captain
Allen - Oakleigh Chargers Captain
Rodriguez- WA Captain

When in doubt, go the Captain route!

 

[WCE777]

Something like that.

I think - not really across the details because I haven’t really seen any as the announcement was pretty vague and/or I didn’t look too deeply into it

But my basic understanding is that clubs retain the rights to NGA status of a player for 3 years although we might need to nominate him again next year - our rights to nominate remain but the nomination itself might not

I also have no idea where he can or can’t play next year. He’s tied to Subiaco so might want to continue there or, depending on how interested he is to actually get on our AFL list, might look to play with our WAFL side. We’d probably need Subi to clear him for that to happen

I did think we might be able to sign him up over the preseason but after some quick research I’m not sure that’s possible - our window to add him added to the Cat B list seems to have opened and closed in the hours between the main draft finishing and the rookie draft closing

Disclaimer: All of the above might be wrong- I’m not sure on any of it

I’m happy with Rodriguez as the consolation prize for missing out on Banfield and think he’s a good chance to have the better AFL career of the two. But in a perfect world, I’d have Banfield on the list if for no other reason than the optics would look better having the son of a dual premiership player in our colours instead of a rival’s.

I get the run out of credits view after the last half a decade of poor performances, that has, in part, been due to decisions predating these past 5 years.

But I also think 2024, despite the lack of wins, was the first step towards getting this club back on its feet - even if we took a necessary step backwards to move forward. It was McQualter’s first year in charge and it was spent identifying what we had and what was needed to improve

Hence, the implementation of what I consider to be a carefully and meticulously designed plan on how to get the best results from our playing list. I can see what they’re trying to do but also accept why some won’t think it’s the right path

If you haven’t already, go watch the Jamie Maddocks interview in the media thread. I’d never heard him speak before, had no knowledge of his existence before he was appointed head of development a year ago and if he sat next to me as I watched a training session I wouldn’t have recognised him.

But I was buoyed by what he had to say. Firstly, despite having not played at AFL level, he was very switched on and his background in coaching is extensive, particularly in development.

He discussed the challenges of developing such a young list and the need to educate them on how to prepare and train to be an AFL player and that he felt we were a long way behind were we needed to be when he arrived. The addition of those SSP players feeds into what he talked about was needed for a young group to learn from. He also said he believed there was significant progress made in how the players were preparing towards the back end of the year which I think might partially explain the retention of the likes of Barnett and Johnston

In short, I get the sense from what he said and what we did in the draft that there is a definite plan. Only time will tell if it’s a good one

As for the specific players you mentioned
• Barnett doesn’t necessarily need to become a best 22 player to justify his retention. He does need to become a consistent, and at times, dominant WAFL player who can at least be competitive if/when he gets a senior game
• Cripps I hope isn’t our leading goal kicker. Ideally he won’t even be in our top 5. In a perfect world he’ll be overtaken as a best 22 player as the year progresses (it would actually be a good thing if Owies steps up to replace him but I digress). That wouldn’t mean keeping him on the list was a mistake because his presence in the WAFL would be very useful
• Schoenberg winning the Samdover would be excellent. It’d mean he’d have served his purpose by and large - helping the younger players to play in a competitive side without taking AFL game minutes away from our developing players

Longer response than I intended sorry but I do try to work out the reasons for club decisions that I might not initially agree with or understand. Spent too long thinking about our draft but think I’ve made peace with it and get what the objectives are

this

 

[eaglevision]

Think that the 3 year expiry date on the extra list spots lends itself to what might be termed stop gap players or list cloggers as they could be more unkindly called

With such a young group by we need to raise the floor of the overall list’s ability. We also need players to help set an example for the draftees and for them to challenge themselves against. Robertson and Macrae both come from successful programs and have a reputation for being strong trainers. Schoenberg might be the same but I know less about him

So get those guys on the list to provide some scaffolding for the young group to develop around and, eventually, overtake in the pecking order. Ideally, in three years time they’ll have served their purpose and can be culled when the list spots expire

If they develop into bona fide AFL players with better opportunities than they had at their previous clubs, then that would be a welcome bonus

It’s a short term approach to help achieve a longer term solution

This is all sound rationale for the path we took. pantskyle says we asked for the pre-listing, it’s disappointing this wasn’t granted. As many have pointed out knowing the players you’re getting helps shape your overall drafting strategy.

The Beagles will be instantly better, perhaps this accelerates the development of Gross, Grego et al and offsets the loss of the broad NGA/FA net that could have been cast.

 

[Bleedblueandgold]

What is frustrating to me is I made a decent assesment pretty early on in the year on that Banfield would be in multiple clubs top 40, now the club for whatever reason doesn't share that assessment. I think they're wrong to not accommodate.

Banfield clearly fits a mold StKilda are looking for, they've gone after versatile players with physicality and a hardened edge. He also had interest from Geelong.

Evans is a different sort of frustration because if he had played a full year then I don't doubt we'd have been forced to match a bid on him before 30. Not bidding is strange in context of the Allen selection, we've chosen a high end athlete who's never put it together on field. Evans is a very different player but it's comparable risk reward.

Evans might need to be played at the ball drop and Brisbane might not be able to accommodate that. If he develops effectively as a hybrid forward then he probably has a pathway there. But I'm probably trying to find a silver lining here because being a better mid than forward isn't really a knock.

In also a bit confused that the club talked about the contest all year and has drafted players with predominantly uncontested bias to their game. It's an area we really neglected the whole way through.

It feels like that the lower rated NGA/FS simply have a lesser chance of us matching them due to us already selecting more players before they are bid on and having already exhausted spots.
At that point, we would just be hoping that other teams leave them alone and they slip past the draft. I honestly believe that the reduction of 2 main list spots in 2020 is a major culprit of many teams' list squeeze.
Before this we often went into the rookie draft with an extra rookie list spot after drafting 1 less player than the maximum 40 player main list size.
The fact is that we decided to prioritise recruiting mature delisted players through SSP rather than adding more youth by dropping some players to the rookie list and being able to match more late bids as required.
If Evans really turned out to be a 1st round prospect with a full season and was a better rated prospect than Williams, we might have not matched a bid on Williams since he was bid on after the Sam Allen pick. A real sliding doors moment.

 

[bzparkes]

Linsday - Falcons and Vic Country Captain
Allen - Oakleigh Chargers Captain
Rodriguez- WA Captain

When in doubt, go the Captain route!

 

[eaglesnutcase]

The same people who're melting about us not taking Banfield are the same people who wanted us taking Fred Rodriguez or Ollie Greeves at pick 19. Both went undrafted.

Think that the 3 year expiry date on the extra list spots lends itself to what might be termed stop gap players or list cloggers as they could be more unkindly called

With such a young group by we need to raise the floor of the overall list’s ability. We also need players to help set an example for the draftees and for them to challenge themselves against. Robertson and Macrae both come from successful programs and have a reputation for being strong trainers. Schoenberg might be the same but I know less about him

So get those guys on the list to provide some scaffolding for the young group to develop around and, eventually, overtake in the pecking order. Ideally, in three years time they’ll have served their purpose and can be culled when the list spots expire

If they develop into bona fide AFL players with better opportunities than they had at their previous clubs, then that would be a welcome bonus

It’s a short term approach to help achieve a longer term solution

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

 

[Bleedblueandgold]

Is it too early for predictions for next year? Who we will be chasing (reported) Any Essendon-Weddel type offers reported?

Walter (OOC)
Warner (1 year left)
Ben Miller (FA, Tiger, WA)
Neale (OOC)
Charlie Banfield
Ed Allen (can’t have too many Al’s + OOC)
Matt Johnson (OOC Erasmus version)
Alex Davies (OOC the new Dev)
Max Knobel (OOC)
Zane Duursma (OOC)
Hardeman (OOC)
Sweet (OOC)
Dodson (OOC pay them back)
Sanders (OOC)
Buss (OOC it’s time)

I have a feeling they will want a big name ready made but hard to see who unless Chad wants out early and Swans want better compo then Band 1 in Tassie draft.

Evans probably more chance than Banfield lol. Banfield might get more game time at St Kilda and will be happy there, vs Evans who might have trouble getting a game for the double reigning premiers.

 

[Monocle]

Small mercies.

Pies took Angus Anderson from Sturt not long after Banfield came off the board, so I am not surprised that they were into Charlie Banfield, IMO Angus and Charlie have some similar trait that they bring to the game.

What I found annoying ( polite version ), with us not acquiring Banfield, was the huge amount of growth and improvement that he showed post Championships, with each game he just got better and better.

I also am of the opinion that he will continue this trend as he was an emerging accelerating talent in the Colts, the Saints may well have a really good player on their hands after pickpocketing us.

Charlie is a scrapper and wills himself to the contest and invariable wins it, or at least negates it.
He is an old fashioned style player, that puts his head over the ball and wins it at the coal face, because he plays with a hard edge, we don't have too many of that sort.

So when you get the quality of player he was projecting to be, and couple that with him playing with a style and role that we are both in need of and short on, then I would have thought it would have been a no brainer to have made sure that we did what ever was necessary to ensure that he ended up on our list.

Alas, sadly I think he will be the one that got away.

 

[Shuestar13]

I would have liked Banfield for the father son aspect, I know some people say it doesn’t have it’s place in the “modern” AFL, but there is a genuine romanticism about it, especially now that our club is ageing (as are some of us supporters ). I would have seen a lot of Banners senior’s career and then Charlie’s, eek.

Digressing. The warning signs were there before the draft with the non committal and choosing the list size we did to take in.

Hope it’s one that doesn’t come back to bite us.

One disappointment amongst an overall genuinely positive post season. Can’t wait to see what the new draftees bring and here’s hoping for some positive surprises from our mature agers coming in

 

[maverick001]

FRrod does? Best 2x available youngsters in country doesn't do anything for you? all that matters is scraps at bottom of barrel hey? which is what all of this is.

Gee settle petal
Who we take with our top 2 picks in the draft can be viewed in isolation to what we do with our later picks
We don’t just ignore everything that happens after pick 2

 

[Eastern Rangers]

It feels like that the lower rated NGA/FS simply have a lesser chance of us matching them due to us already selecting more players before they are bid on and having already exhausted spots.
At that point, we would just be hoping that other teams leave them alone and they slip past the draft. I honestly believe that the reduction of 2 main list spots in 2020 is a major culprit on many teams' list squeeze.
Before this we often went into the rookie draft with an extra rookie list spot after drafting 1 less player than the maximum 40 player main list size.
The fact is that we decided to prioritise recruiting mature delisted players through SSP rather than adding more youth by dropping some players to the rookie list and being able to match more late bids as required.
If Evans really turned out to be a 1st round prospect with a full season and was a better rated prospect than Williams, we might have not matched a bid on Williams since he was bid on after the Sam Allen pick. A real sliding doors moment.

List sizes are a problem. The amount of kids who don't pursue football once they hit a road block at 16 or 17 because of WAFL politics or miss the U16 or U18 squad because they're a few cm too short is far too high.

Academies have their problems but they've proven a gulf in development between what the AFL clubs can provide and what junior and state programs can provide. It's only after giving players 2-3 healthy years in an AFL program that you known what they're going to be.

I heavily discount the potential of recycled AFL players like Dev, Macrae and Schoenberg. You're hoping a change of scenery and more opportunity exposes latent talent, and it's unlikely. What you've seen is what you're going to get.

I think Schoenberg has a chance because he's a type of smaller hybrid mid/forward that we refuse to draft or can't identify.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Would have preferred Banners Jnr to Williams but I hope that Williams proves me wrong.

 

[eagles rule]

I'm curious about the bidding thing though. As was brought up, no club has ever bid 3 consecutive times.

Of course, we could've alleviated that by bidding on Patterson instead of Dean but perhaps we really didn't rank him as high as HD/CDT.

Lots of dodgy stuff goes on behind closed doors at the AFL I'm sure.

Another curiosity with bidding , do teams have to be formally notified to expect a bid or can teams ambush them ..It seems GCS had the playbook of WCE bidding strategy in front of them and same for Carlton ..
I presume we warned them or the AFL leaks openly .

 

[Cuzz09]

I have never seen a pic of Rodriguez and 100% pictured the little Mexican guy from Napoleon Dynamite then when I saw a picture of him with Woosha I was like "buh?"