Recruiting AFL Draft Watch 2025 - Picks 9, 10, 13, 37

[Lore]

 

[doug85]

Only heard it the numerous times cake has said it on this board

I really have to stop scrolling past their posts

 

[ghostdog]

Hobbs was done for me fairly early when he consistently missed the first handball option.

I remember there was a decent glimmer v Carlton where our young mids created a couple of goals in a row from the centre. Hobbs was in the chain, Perkins, Caldwell... can't remember who else. We won that game but it was such a tease.

Am I wrong in recalling some comparing him with Ollie Wines early on though? I wonder if that became part the collective delusion about him for a short while...

 

[joey_jo_jo]

I remember there was a decent glimmer v Carlton where our young mids created a couple of goals in a row from the centre. Hobbs was in the chain, Perkins, Caldwell... can't remember who else. We won that game but it was such a tease.

Am I wrong in recalling some comparing him with Ollie Wines early on though? I wonder if that became part the collective delusion about him for a short while...

I thought tsatas was the wines one, cos of being quadzillas

 

[doug85]

I remember there was a decent glimmer v Carlton where our young mids created a couple of goals in a row from the centre. Hobbs was in the chain, Perkins, Caldwell... can't remember who else. We won that game but it was such a tease.

Am I wrong in recalling some comparing him with Ollie Wines early on though? I wonder if that became part the collective delusion about him for a short while...

I think the early optimism around Hobbs was built on a few factors.

He slid to our pick after looking likely to go as high as pick 6 but if not, somewhere in the top 10. He was exactly what we thought we needed at the time. We hadn’t had a decent inside mid since Jobe. We didn’t realise that Caldwell and Durham were going to make such an impact. He was probably a bit under exposed due to covid too.

 

[ant555]

I don't even recall Hobbs really having a strong period of onball time in the VFL and being able to build a case, yes he did play there, but it was pretty sporadic because we had very clearly and very quickly pivoted to seeing whether he could be a pressure half forward first and then do bitsy stuff in the middle of the ground as a secondary string to the bow. He certainly wasn't given the same extended VFL assignment Tsatas was.

The comparison to Sharp are natural as Hobbs was seen as the best contested ball player in the draft class at the time, as Sharp was and is and they don't really have a natural secondary position. Sharp is certainly the better prospect, bigger, more versatile but there is a natural association there.

And for me at least, there is an element of trepidation there because we have gone down the elite contested ball winning junior who dominates his own cohort path before and it's been nothing short of a disaster to this point, for a variety of different reasons.

He only played 11 VFL games so yes there he did not get an extended run there. It is an interesting point. I am with you as far as asking did playing him as a high half forward for so many games hurt his development as a midfielder.
He averaged 26 disposals and 6 tackles in his 11 games and had 4 30 plus games. So I agree that not playing more VFL in his prefered position did hurt him but I do not think that is all to the story.
For him to make it 3 things had to happen.
Improve his outside game and be able to play a role forward.
Improve his endurance.
Develop a bit more power and muscle.
None of the above really happened so even if we did give him 25 less AFL games and 25 more VFL games we probably end up at the same spot.
At the end of last year and the start of this year I thought he would be of interest to someone else but he just did not improve his running and his outside game and decision making was still poor.
He basically kept getting a game because our small forwards where poor and not as competitive as him.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Imagine having NWM

I remember when WalshistheGOAT was telling me he's an overrated HB.

I was glad we didn't pick him at the time. We were getting bullied in the midfield pretty consistently and I figured the last thing we needed was another skinny flanker who wasn't big on the whole physical contact thing.

Hobbs made a lot of sense, we hadn't had a proper in-and-under inside mid since Watson pulled the pin and Hobbs was drawing comparisons to Selwood as a junior so it felt like a really good fit.

I think a few things went wrong for him. Hobbs' development didn't really come on as anyone would have liked. That might've just been his own limitations but I don't think we were investing a great deal in player development at the time so at a different club maybe his career follows a different trajectory. The other thing that created problems was the competition-wide change in emphasis from pure inside grunt to more balanced midfielders who could win the ball but also hurt sides on the outside and in transition. That change in the dominant play style made Hobbs' 1-wood obsolete and led to the emergence of Durham and Caldwell as the preferred midfielders along with Merrett.

 

[Call Me Cake]

I was glad we didn't pick him at the time. We were getting bullied in the midfield pretty consistently and I figured the last thing we needed was another skinny flanker who wasn't big on the whole physical contact thing.

Hobbs made a lot of sense, we hadn't had a proper in-and-under inside mid since Watson pulled the pin and Hobbs was drawing comparisons to Selwood as a junior so it felt like a really good fit.

I think a few things went wrong for him. Hobbs' development didn't really come on as anyone would have liked. That might've just been his own limitations but I don't think we were investing a great deal in player development at the time so at a different club maybe his career follows a different trajectory. The other thing that created problems was the competition-wide change in emphasis from pure inside grunt to more balanced midfielders who could win the ball but also hurt sides on the outside and in transition. That change in the dominant play style made Hobbs' 1-wood obsolete and led to the emergence of Durham and Caldwell as the preferred midfielders along with Merrett.

I don't agree with this. While it's true the game has changed to prefer dynamic faster mids, it did not eradicate the need for good big body mids. The difference is clubs began having more of the former than the latter as opposed to it being the other way around before. Thing is, while other clubs already had that one good big body mid or two and most of the good teams do, we had none and didn't address it properly. Even when they were in vogue we were lacking. Whereas other teams had done their due dilligence in that time and thus were able to put speed around the good big body mids they had on the fly.

Hobbs' issue is that he wasn't a big body mid nor capable of good. He was also more the "scrap heap" and wasn't touted like the earlier picks (hence why he was 13). Also the draft war room back then was so Dodo centric with everyone just being soundboards for Dodo to speak to, a polar opposite of how it's looked in recent years where everyone's adding in, there's a "plan" and a noticeable show of excitement. The entire aura feels different (and P.S NWM went before our pick but the fact that Dodo was excited about that because it meant Hobbs was more of a chance is enough said).

 

[Yoda_]

Smaller midfielders who are still valuable in todays game are powerful, can exit a stoppage, distribute &/or are great decision makers, all things Hobbs lacked imho

I remember at the time we were stoked to get him at 13, was rated as highly as top 5 by more educated than us amateurs at one point in time but easy to see in hindsight why he slipped as far as he did.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Smaller midfielders who are still valuable in todays game are powerful, can exit a stoppage, distribute &/or are great decision makers, all things Hobbs lacked imho

I remember at the time we were stoked to get him at 13, was rated as highly as top 5 by more educated than us amateurs at one point in time but easy to see in hindsight why he slipped as far as he did.

Twomey had him after our pick (going to West Coast) and for good reason. He wasn't rated highly. Nevertheless the selection of Hobbs wasn't the biggest issue, he was technically best available at where we found ourselves, it's the delusion that he was something he never was that was the main problem. Thankfully we've learned from that and the fact that the club was able to pull the pin early whereas in previous years we would've dived into a sunk cost fallacy is a good sign for the future (which is a partly a positive consenquence of Dodo being gone as we're more likely to admit to it being a bust).

 

[Yoda_]

Twomey had him after our pick (going to West Coast) and for good reason. He wasn't rated highly. Nevertheless the selection of Hobbs wasn't the biggest issue, he was technically best available at where we found ourselves, it's the delusion that he was something he never was that was the main problem. Thankfully we've learned from that and the fact that the club was able to pull the pin early whereas in previous years we would've dived into a sunk cost fallacy is a good sign for the future (which is a partly a positive consenquence of Dodo being gone as we're more likely to admit to it being a bust).

by draft time he had slipped, after an underwhelming championships and a sub expected combine, his game has been found out.

 

[FootyGuru]

The comparison to Hobbs is also a bit of a weird one because there was very clearly little to no appetite to play Hobbs in preferred position which would have masked some of the flaws and emphasised the strengths.

Hobbs the pure midfielder was essentially written off by us more than 2 years ago.

Sharp has a few more tools and I genuinely think he'll be a star but you'd also certainly bloody hope he gets more of a fair dinkum crack at it than Hobbs did.

Hobbs wasn’t composed in congestion or able to effectively handball or kick under pressure. Hobbs didn’t deserve to play midfield based on being unable to do those key things up forward.

He wasn’t hard done by he just wasn’t good enough.

 

[bombersim]

There is 100% room for inside midfielders. How do you think the outside running players are going to get a touch?
It is such an overreaction it is not funny.
The new ruck rules will favour good tap rucks and inside midfielders who can read it.
The only players who are being made redundant are the guys that are very slow and have suspect endurance.
As Vindicater mentioned the Hobbs comparison with Sharp is simply wrong. Hobbs is an undersized midfielder with poor skills and average endurance. That is not Sharp.

You’ve completely misinterpreted my comments, then attacked me for it lol.

The actual question was to do with the mix that we took - were people happy, not, “are inside mids relevant?”.

Never said inside mids aren’t relevant, or that we don’t need inside mids - of course we do. But our main mids are caldwell and Durham, both pure inside, now we’ve added robey and sharpe, both of which are inside mids, making 4. That and the game is moving away from contest - that’s overs.

I’d have taken Taylor with one of the initial picks rather than kondogiannis who seems like more a project player.
Particularly considering Ridley is permanently injured and Cox is one concussion from retirement (and did t look like making it anyway).

So, rather than-

• inside mid
• inside mid
• Half back

I’d have preferred:

• inside mid
• 3rd tall / interceptor
• halfback

 

[ant555]

You’ve completely misinterpreted my comments, then attacked me for it lol.

The actual question was to do with the mix that we took - were people happy, not, “are inside mids relevant?”.

Never said inside mids aren’t relevant, or that we don’t need inside mids - of course we do. But our main mids are caldwell and Durham, both pure inside, now we’ve added robey and sharpe, both of which are inside mids, making 4. That and the game is moving away from contest - that’s overs.

I’d have taken Taylor with one of the initial picks rather than kondogiannis who seems like more a project player.
Particularly considering Ridley is permanently injured and Cox is one concussion from retirement (and did t look like making it anyway).

So, rather than-

• inside mid
• inside mid
• Half back

I’d have preferred:

• inside mid
• 3rd tall / interceptor
• halfback

Not sure I attacked you but hey if you feel I did then sorry it was not intentional.

Remember that Robey is not just an inside midfielder. He has real forward form and is more an explosive midfielder rather than a pure inside bull. Think more DeGoey if he reaches his full potential. He has just as much medium forward form as he has midfield form.

Sharp also has some form in the forward half at SANFL level.

I rated Taylor a lot. I would have taken him over Farrow but I see why they like Farrow who is actually a decent intercept player anyway. He is just not as fierce at the contest in the way Taylor is.

We have picked multi position players.
Also think leadership is a factor. Sharp and Kondogianis are very highly rated leaders. An area we have been very thin for a long while.
Throw in the fact that we are also pushing Gerryn to play back half, so he is another project option.
Hayes was also a good intercept player and has decent disposal.
Johnson being groomed to play half back. Clarke half back / wing.
Roberts attacking half back.

Just want to also say Durham is not simply a pure inside midfielder. He has form as a forward and on the wing. Caldwell also has an outside game and has forward form. We have actually been small in the midfield for a long time. It needed to change. We need a better range of players.

I stand by my over reaction comment about where the game is going. They have changed the ruck rule which will favour the better tap rucks which then favours the better inside midfielders. The last touch out of bounds is predicted to produce under 5 less boundary throw ins a game. The changes as far as head high stuff go are actually restricting those who are tackling rather than those intent on winning the ball.
The game changes every 5 or 6 years as coaches find ways to do something different.

 

[faible]

caldwell and Durham, both pure inside

robey and sharpe, both of which are inside mids

This is a very inaccurate description of these players.

Durham is a pretty modern inside-outside transition style midfield.

Robey as a mid would be your 'striker' style powerfully build forward-midfielder.

Sharp is an inside midfielder, but he's quite mobile and capable of being involved in transition.

Caldwell also not a pure inside player.

 

[Yoda_]

Not sure I attacked you but hey if you feel I did then sorry it was not intentional.

Remember that Robey is not just an inside midfielder. He has real forward form and is more an explosive midfielder rather than a pure inside bull. Think more DeGoey if he reaches his full potential. He has just as much medium forward form as he has midfield form.

Sharp also has some form in the forward half at SANFL level.

I rated Taylor a lot. I would have taken him over Farrow but I see why they like Farrow who is actually a decent intercept player anyway. He is just not as fierce at the contest in the way Taylor is.

We have picked multi position players.
Also think leadership is a factor. Sharp and Kondogianis are very highly rated leaders. An area we have been very thin for a long while.
Throw in the fact that we are also pushing Gerryn to play back half, so he is another project option.
Hayes was also a good intercept player and has decent disposal.
Johnson being groomed to play half back. Clarke half back / wing.
Roberts attacking half back.

Just want to also say Durham is not simply a pure inside midfielder. He has form as a forward and on the wing. Caldwell also has an outside game and has forward form. We have actually been small in the midfield for a long time. It needed to change. We need a better range of players.

I stand by my over reaction comment about where the game is going. They have changed the ruck rule which will favour the better tap rucks which then favours the better inside midfielders. The last touch out of bounds is predicted to produce under 5 less boundary throw ins a game. The changes as far as head high stuff go are actually restricting those who are tackling rather than those intent on winning the ball.
The game changes every 5 or 6 years as coaches find ways to do something different.

the biggest thing about the mids was they weren't just replacements but changing the dynamics of the group. Of the favoured ones we mainly used this year, they each brought a different aspect, the ones we're now looking to the future for are simply bigger versions (potentially). Sharp stylistically could be a bigger version of Parish, Robey a bigger version of Durham, Farrow a bigger version of Caldwell possibly? (hard one but meh).

I liked the mix we've gone for, bar Duursma, we've got probably the best available midfielder of the draft, the best kicking defender of the draft and the highest upside fwd/mid of the draft. How could one not be happy with the mix

 

[TheUnicorn]

Calling Durham just an inside player has offended me greatly! clutches pearls

 

[bombersim]

Not sure I attacked you but hey if you feel I did then sorry it was not intentional.

Remember that Robey is not just an inside midfielder. He has real forward form and is more an explosive midfielder rather than a pure inside bull. Think more DeGoey if he reaches his full potential. He has just as much medium forward form as he has midfield form.

Sharp also has some form in the forward half at SANFL level.

I rated Taylor a lot. I would have taken him over Farrow but I see why they like Farrow who is actually a decent intercept player anyway. He is just not as fierce at the contest in the way Taylor is.

We have picked multi position players.
Also think leadership is a factor. Sharp and Kondogianis are very highly rated leaders. An area we have been very thin for a long while.
Throw in the fact that we are also pushing Gerryn to play back half, so he is another project option.
Hayes was also a good intercept player and has decent disposal.
Johnson being groomed to play half back. Clarke half back / wing.
Roberts attacking half back.

Just want to also say Durham is not simply a pure inside midfielder. He has form as a forward and on the wing. Caldwell also has an outside game and has forward form. We have actually been small in the midfield for a long time. It needed to change. We need a better range of players.

I stand by my over reaction comment about where the game is going. They have changed the ruck rule which will favour the better tap rucks which then favours the better inside midfielders. The last touch out of bounds is predicted to produce under 5 less boundary throw ins a game. The changes as far as head high stuff go are actually restricting those who are tackling rather than those intent on winning the ball.
The game changes every 5 or 6 years as coaches find ways to do something different.

All good.
I agree that our new mids have the potential to be inside – outside, but I was referring to them as inside mids as opposed to pure hard running outside modern mid that runs up and down the wing with speed (and typically is a precise user).
The new guys I don’t think are that (except possibly sharpe?). This is not necessarily a bad thing - I think that they will be good players, but simply pointing out that they are different type of midfielder.
With regards to the type of player we selected with our top three pics, I think we were limited somewhat by the lack of depth in the draft - it may have been different had some of the academy players been available?

Anyway, I’m not completely unhappy with our selections - I think they will be AFL standard or higher, my initial discussion was more on type of player we selected (but I think you cover that in your response so all good there ).

 

[bombersim]

Not sure I attacked you but hey if you feel I did then sorry it was not intentional.

Remember that Robey is not just an inside midfielder. He has real forward form and is more an explosive midfielder rather than a pure inside bull. Think more DeGoey if he reaches his full potential. He has just as much medium forward form as he has midfield form.

Sharp also has some form in the forward half at SANFL level.

I rated Taylor a lot. I would have taken him over Farrow but I see why they like Farrow who is actually a decent intercept player anyway. He is just not as fierce at the contest in the way Taylor is.

We have picked multi position players.
Also think leadership is a factor. Sharp and Kondogianis are very highly rated leaders. An area we have been very thin for a long while.
Throw in the fact that we are also pushing Gerryn to play back half, so he is another project option.
Hayes was also a good intercept player and has decent disposal.
Johnson being groomed to play half back. Clarke half back / wing.
Roberts attacking half back.

Just want to also say Durham is not simply a pure inside midfielder. He has form as a forward and on the wing. Caldwell also has an outside game and has forward form. We have actually been small in the midfield for a long time. It needed to change. We need a better range of players.

I stand by my over reaction comment about where the game is going. They have changed the ruck rule which will favour the better tap rucks which then favours the better inside midfielders. The last touch out of bounds is predicted to produce under 5 less boundary throw ins a game. The changes as far as head high stuff go are actually restricting those who are tackling rather than those intent on winning the ball.
The game changes every 5 or 6 years as coaches find ways to do something different.

Also Ant, was there a big difference in quality between Taylor and Kondogianis? From my little knowledge of the two it seemed like Kondogianis can’t defend but they thought they could teach him that, perhaps getting him to Taylors level eventually? Do you know what their thought process was there? Can you give me your assessment in comparing the two (ie who is the better kick etc).
Just curious in your opinion, there is no trap coming LOL.

 

[faible]

the biggest thing about the mids was they weren't just replacements but changing the dynamics of the group. Of the favoured ones we mainly used this year, they each brought a different aspect, the ones we're now looking to the future for are simply bigger versions (potentially). Sharp stylistically could be a bigger version of Parish, Robey a bigger version of Durham, Farrow a bigger version of Caldwell possibly? (hard one but meh).

I liked the mix we've gone for, bar Duursma, we've got probably the best available midfielder of the draft, the best kicking defender of the draft and the highest upside fwd/mid of the draft. How could one not be happy with the mix

I’m not sure any of those comparisons match.

 

[Yoda_]

I’m not sure any of those comparisons match.

stylistically

 

[Vindicater]

stylistically

What does that mean?

Parish is a one touch clearance player with little to no physicality. Sharp is a big bodied crash and bash type who seeks to draw the contact from the opposition.

Their styles are nothing alike?

 

[brownezaka]

Our top 3 draft picks stylistically don’t match with any of our current players, you could argue sharp is similar to setterfield but hopefully for our sakes a more polished version but other than that you really can’t compare them to anyone on our list. The only pick we took that has similarities to someone in our list is Kondog. Who has all the tools to be a Ridley replacement. Whether or not that come to fruition, time will tell.

 

[Milanista28]

I'm predicting our 1st 4 picks in this draft will become 250 game players!

 

[Yoda_]

What does that mean?

Parish is a one touch clearance player with little to no physicality. Sharp is a big bodied crash and bash type who seeks to draw the contact from the opposition.

Their styles are nothing alike?

You're thinking too deeply man, Sharp is an inside midfielder, Parish is an inside midfielder. I'm not arguing semantics about the type players each are.

I should have maybe said positionally, thats on me, sorry!

 

[Bipolar Bear]

I'm predicting our 1st 4 picks in this draft will become 250 game players!

At which club?