2016 Draft discussion

[Hollow Knight]

What is the obsession with Grimes on this board.

I think he was pretty widely seen back in 2007 as the player we would have taken if we didn't trade pick 14 for Travis Johnstone.

 

[Milk Steak]

I think he was pretty widely seen back in 2007 as the player we would have taken if we didn't trade pick 14 for Travis Johnstone.

May be solid,but safe to say he hasn't become a player of note. He's not required I'd have thought.

 

[briztoon]

Are you concerned with the pace and outside skill level of our midfield long term with Mathieson, Keays and potentially Clarke ?

Or you think that their contested game will be strong enough, allowing us to add more outside players in following drafts

That's why I have Clarke and SPP together, Clarke can dig in and win the ball and get it out to SPP who can hit the ball at speed, break from the pack and spray it long.

 

[jackess]

We desperately need leadership down back. Grimes has shown he's both a leader and capable down back.

 

[Judge]

We desperately need leadership down back. Grimes has shown he's both a leader and capable down back.

Leadership:maybe

Capable: not on his recent record.

Massive "no" to Grimes from me, and would expect our recruiters to feel the same.

 

[John_Proctor]

Not sure if it was picked up in this thread but knightmares mock had Allison bid on at pick 33. It wasn't clear in his order but he discussed it at the end of the article in a paragraph about bidding.

 

[briztoon]

Not sure if it was picked up in this thread but knightmares mock had Allison bid on at pick 33. It wasn't clear in his order but he discussed it at the end of the article in a paragraph about bidding.

As long as Allison is bid on after the GWS and GC boys. We need those clubs to burn through their late picks, so our late picks climb up the positions, so they're actually worth some points.

 

[luthor]

As long as Allison is bid on after the GWS and GC boys. We need those clubs to burn through their late picks, so our late picks climb up the positions, so they're actually worth some points.

I take it that apart from our well publicised first four picks, that we also have later picks in the 70's and 80's available

Is that right?

I tried finding an indicative draft pick order but all I've been able to come up with is some obsolete page on the Afl site or that stupidly annoying "out of bounds " page.

 

[M Malice]

I take it that apart from our well publicised first four picks, that we also have later picks in the 70's and 80's available

Is that right?

I tried finding an indicative draft pick order but all I've been able to come up with is some obsolete page on the Afl site or that stupidly annoying "out of bounds " page.

this is the one i look at for up to date draft pick information. we have picks 76, 78, 96 and 114 which are all worth zero points according to the thread. we could be in serious points deficit in the 2017 draft if this is in fact true, especially if Allison or Watson are bid on earlier than we expect.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2016-nominal-afl-draft-order.1136636/

 

[luthor]

this is the one i look at for up to date draft pick information. we have picks 76, 78, 96 and 114 which are all worth zero points according to the thread. we could be in serious points deficit in the 2017 draft if this is in fact true, especially if Allison or Watson are bid on earlier than we expect.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2016-nominal-afl-draft-order.1136636/

Ok.

Thanx

 

[jjami15]

If either acadmey boys are bid in the second round I feel we might pass on them due to the fact of it impacting on our second rounder next year.

 

[M Malice]

If either acadmey boys are bid in the second round I feel we might pass on them due to the fact of it impacting on our second rounder next year.

you could be right jj although i think Allison has too much upside/potential for us to pass on him.

 

[luthor]

Ok, so going back the the post by Briztroon that I quoted, I didn't think that Picks could actually go up, only down.

And I further thought that points run out at about pick 72?

So if picks 76,78 96 and 114 are indeed "pointless" picks, there is no mechanism whereby they can be transformed into "worth" something, irrespective of who does what.

Am I right here, or am I labouring under a misconception?

 

[Lace Out]

you could be right jj although i think Allison has too much upside/potential for us to pass on him.

What's the upside,maybe he's going to be deemed as not up to it which I would be perfectly happy with.

 

[Fatcat08]

Ok, so going back the the post by Briztroon that I quoted, I didn't think that Picks could actually go up, only down.

And I further thought that points run out at about pick 72?

So if picks 76,78 96 and 114 are indeed "pointless" picks, there is no mechanism whereby they can be transformed into "worth" something, irrespective of who does what.

Am I right here, or am I labouring under a misconception?

No, picks can move up in number and therefore value if multiple picks are used earlier to match bidding. Happened last year

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

That's why I have Clarke and SPP together, Clarke can dig in and win the ball and get it out to SPP who can hit the ball at speed, break from the pack and spray it long.

SPP would address some of the speed issues, but adding both to an already poorly skilled team, needs to be considered.

Personally I don't see the need to address the inside mid this draft, these type of players seem to be one of the quickest developing, and that could potentially be addressed in future Drafts.

I personally hope to add a well rounded "contested beast" type to the side in time, but no one in this draft strikes me as that (Brodie being the exemption, but prefer Ainsworth instead at our first) I'd prefer to target other areas, that seem to offer decent prospects at our later picks.

Having a couple of First rounder already for next year, we could be in a decent spot to land a Worpel or someone similar. Every year there seems to be a Clark type available at that 2nd round stage, if nothing eventuates from the top prospect, I'm sure we can get a similar type down the track.

 

[jjami15]

SPP would address some of the speed issues, but adding both to an already poorly skilled team, needs to be considered.

Personally I don't see the need to address the inside mid this draft, these type of players seem to be one of the quickest developing, and that could potentially be addressed in future Drafts.

I personally hope to add a well rounded "contested beast" type to the side in time, but no one in this draft strikes me as that (Brodie being the exemption, but prefer Ainsworth instead at our first) I'd prefer to target other areas, that seem to offer decent prospects at our later picks.

Having a couple of First rounder already for next year, we could be in a decent spot to land a Worpel or someone similar. Every year there seems to be a Clark type available at that 2nd round stage, if nothing eventuates from the top prospect, I'm sure we can get a similar type down the track.

Well said and agree. It'll be great if those drafted had some leg speed. We are slow and get burnt by teams (most anyway) with quick players.

 

[BigCat2]

While pace is nice to have, we need more smart and skilful players. Good play makes your whole team look faster, whereas turning the ball over and chasing arse will make you look slow.

I have no doubt we will select 1 or 2 quick players with our 4 early picks though.

 

[briztoon]

Ok, so going back the the post by Briztroon that I quoted, I didn't think that Picks could actually go up, only down.

And I further thought that points run out at about pick 72?

So if picks 76,78 96 and 114 are indeed "pointless" picks, there is no mechanism whereby they can be transformed into "worth" something, irrespective of who does what.

Am I right here, or am I labouring under a misconception?

Fatcat08 pretty much covered it. The exact same thing happened in last years draft. As academy teams use multiple lower picks to match bids, those picks disappear, and the picks behind slide up to the draft. As the pre-draft show mentioned last year, the draft is now fluid, with picks able to disappear, move up and down the draft order.

After pick 2, GWS have picks, 15 37 39 45 52 55 57 58 59 60 77. And GC hold pick 73 after their first four top picks.

If Carlton bid on Setterfield at pick 5, GWS will need 1502.4 points to match. Pick 15 is worth 1112 points, and pick 37 is worth 483 points = 1595 points. So pick 15 is used up, and pick 37 disappears, and the balance of points, 92.6 slot back in at 65. But the each pick after pick 37 moves up one spot to fill the vacant spot, until we reach pick the new pick 65, which moves up to pick 64, and Collingwood who currently hold pick 65 remain at pick 65.

Now if Port Adelaide bid on Perryman at pick 9, GWS will match. This will push PA pick 9 back one spot to pick 10 (and every pick after back one spot as well, so Brisbanes pick 16 is pushed back to pick 17, 21 & 22 are pushed back to pick 22 & 23). Now at pick 9, GWS will need 1175.2 points to match, So they use pick 39 (446 points), pick 45 (347 points), pick 52 (246 points) and pick 55 (207 points) to match, with 70.8 points left over, which slots in at pick 67 points value wise. Now each pick after pick 39 moves up one spot, each pick after pick 45 moves up two spots, each pick after pick 52 moves up three spots, and each pick after pick 55 moves up four spots, until we get to the spot where GWS's pick slotted in at pick 67, which in theory moves up three spots to pick 64.

Now as academy picks disappear, and picks behind move up the draft order, they increase in points value relative to their new position. So if GWS and GC are forced to use all their picks in matching bids on academy players before a bid comes in on Allison, Brisbane picks 76 and 78 could in theory have moved up 10 spots and be worth actual points. Not enough to match a bid in the late second round, but enough to maybe keep our second round pick in 2017, still in the second round.

Any way, that is my understanding. I could be right or I could be wrong. Probably wrong.

 

[John_Proctor]

If either acadmey boys are bid in the second round I feel we might pass on them due to the fact of it impacting on our second rounder next year.

I doubt it. Why wouldn't we take an academy prospect independently rated and bid o. In the top 35 of this draft.

We'd effectively be trading our 2nd rounder next year (pick 20ish) for pick 33 this year and pick 33 next year (based on a 450 point defects dropping 20 to 33ish)

 

[lionsbest]

Perhaps somewhere over the Rainbow.....

Yes his nickname will be skittles , sponsored by the maker of skittles with the headline, recruit the rainbow,play the rainbow ,watch the rainbow.

 

[John_Proctor]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-27/close-to-80-live-picks-expected-at-next-months-nab-afl-draft

This article has some discussion on picks moving up in the order it suggests the Hawks pick 88 is likely to actually be roughly pick 66 by the time it's used on the night.

So with some luck out picks 76,78 end up 60-65 and at least have some points value.

 

[Lace Out]

I'm a bit of percentage guy,I reckon with pick 3 and you look back in 10 years and he's top 5 you've done well.Seems like 2 or 3 of the top 5,in retrospect,come from outside of top 10 you just
don't know who they are

 

[luthor]

Fatcat08 pretty much covered it. The exact same thing happened in last years draft. As academy teams use multiple lower picks to match bids, those picks disappear, and the picks behind slide up to the draft. As the pre-draft show mentioned last year, the draft is now fluid, with picks able to disappear, move up and down the draft order.

After pick 2, GWS have picks, 15 37 39 45 52 55 57 58 59 60 77. And GC hold pick 73 after their first four top picks.

If Carlton bid on Setterfield at pick 5, GWS will need 1502.4 points to match. Pick 15 is worth 1112 points, and pick 37 is worth 483 points = 1595 points. So pick 15 is used up, and pick 37 disappears, and the balance of points, 92.6 slot back in at 65. But the each pick after pick 37 moves up one spot to fill the vacant spot, until we reach pick the new pick 65, which moves up to pick 64, and Collingwood who currently hold pick 65 remain at pick 65.

Now if Port Adelaide bid on Perryman at pick 9, GWS will match. This will push PA pick 9 back one spot to pick 10 (and every pick after back one spot as well, so Brisbanes pick 16 is pushed back to pick 17, 21 & 22 are pushed back to pick 22 & 23). Now at pick 9, GWS will need 1175.2 points to match, So they use pick 39 (446 points), pick 45 (347 points), pick 52 (246 points) and pick 55 (207 points) to match, with 70.8 points left over, which slots in at pick 67 points value wise. Now each pick after pick 39 moves up one spot, each pick after pick 45 moves up two spots, each pick after pick 52 moves up three spots, and each pick after pick 55 moves up four spots, until we get to the spot where GWS's pick slotted in at pick 67, which in theory moves up three spots to pick 64.

Now as academy picks disappear, and picks behind move up the draft order, they increase in points value relative to their new position. So if GWS and GC are forced to use all their picks in matching bids on academy players before a bid comes in on Allison, Brisbane picks 76 and 78 could in theory have moved up 10 spots and be worth actual points. Not enough to match a bid in the late second round, but enough to maybe keep our second round pick in 2017, still in the second round.

Any way, that is my understanding. I could be right or I could be wrong. Probably wrong.

Ah yes, of course

Your explanation makes perfect sense to me so let's hope you are indeed right.

I think where I was getting it wrong was in overlooking the effect of the later picks being used up and being condensed into one , as in your Port/GWS example.

Once again, thanks.

 

[POBT]

I doubt it. Why wouldn't we take an academy prospect independently rated and bid o. In the top 35 of this draft.

We'd effectively be trading our 2nd rounder next year (pick 20ish) for pick 33 this year and pick 33 next year (based on a 450 point defects dropping 20 to 33ish)

A benefit of the Academy is that we have so much more intelligence on players than the rest of the market. It allows us a far more informed assessment of a player's worth.

We've proven that we won't match a pick that we believe overvalues a player (eg Wagner last year). Only one club has to rate an academy player significantly higher than we do and we won't match the pick. So I really don't think it is beyond all possibility that we'll let Allison go if he's bid on too early.