2016 Draft discussion

[Milux]

This thread?

Yes. Yes it is.

 

[Kent Brockman]

I have some further great news (for us) regarding SPS, but to respect his privacy I don't want to post it here. Happy to PM if anyone wants to hear it, as long as you promise to keep in under wraps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bucking Beads]

I have some further great news (for us) regarding SPS, but I respect his privacy and don't want to post it here. Happy to PM if anyone wants to hear it, as long as you promise to keep in under wraps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[theteamtobeat]

There is a difference between being a Lions supporter and wanting to come to the club though. Schache and Petrevski-Seton are both on record as saying they'd like to play for the Lions.

Clayton is a reasonable chance to come to the Lions if we chased him hard enough when his contract expires next year. He's good mates with Schache, as they were playing for the Murry Bushrangers growing up and he idolises Tom Rockliff. He has a similar passion and affection for the club as Keays has now.

 

[captainrich]

Clayton is a reasonable chance to come to the Lions if we chased him hard enough when his contract expires next year. He's good mates with Schache, as they were playing for the Murry Bushrangers growing up and he idolises Tom Rockliff. He has a similar passion and affection for the club as Keays has now.

unfortunately there is a thing called loyalty in sport and not every player drafted these days is a self entitled twat like the go home 5, ready to jump first chance they get to join their club they supported as kids

0 chance he would move

 

[Balony_pony16]

I just don't have the faith that SPS will be the mid we need. He has Aish written all over him... would be best suited to a team with an already developed midfield. Anyway I posted this on here by accident really should be in the drafting thread.

Moved here mate . I havent paid a great deal attention to this years draft yet as there is still a heap of under 18s to come. Lions need to take the best brute inside mid who has some atheltic & outside/or forward ability. Got a few names to watch out for. Think a Oliver

 

[SizeMatters]

Moved here mate . I havent paid a great deal attention to this years draft yet as there is still a heap of under 18s to come. Lions need to take the best brute inside mid who has some atheltic & outside/or forward ability. Got a few names to watch out for. Think a Oliver

I think someone like powell-pepper or of course Brodie are options that we should seriously consider. IMO if we have a high pick and it comes down to SPS or Brodie I would want us to select Brodie... may not be as talented s SPS but I think he is exactly the player we need.

 

[AFLQLD]

I just realised that with Justin Clarke's retirement, there is now no-one from the 2011 draft left at the Brisbane Lions who was originally drafted by us. Probably the low point of our drafting history in terms of long term outcomes. At least if Clarkey had been able to play on we would have gotten one good long term player out of the draft. Instead: nothing.

And only two left from the 2010 draft (Lester and Green)

And only Harwood and Claye Beams from the 2009 draft.

Only Rich and Rockliff left from 2008 draft.

Only Hanley arrived in 2007 and is still here.

It gets better from 2012 (three still here: Close, Paparone and Mayes)

Seven from 2013 draft still with us.

And obviously we still have all of our 2014 and 2015 draftees.

We really need another good draft to build on the last few and not get in that hole again.

 

[briztoon]

To preface, I know sfa about AFL generally. I did't follow the game during Brisbanes championship era, and I only really got interested when I found out about the AFL draft in 2013. I've followed more draft reportage than any game. My sporting background is the NBA, and most of my comments will be heavily influenced by NBA related observations.

I've just spent a couple of hours reading this thread and a couple of things stand out to me.

First, I don't believe all members who comment here have a full grasp of the Academy bidding system, and it's impact on the Academy clubs, especially when it comes to drafting non academy kids early, especially to a team like Brisbane where there is some fear of the go home factor from interstate kids.

If you are an Academy club having a high draft pick before your projected Academy talent is pure gold. You do not trade it for two mid to lower first round picks, even if it is a projected weak or mediocre draft with a shallow pool of top end talent. Quite simply this opens you up to a game of Blink. If you have picks 14 & 16, and the club with pick 13 bids on Allison what are you going to do? You either have to use pick 14 (my understanding of the rules is you don't have the choice to use pick 16 even if pick 16 points will cover the bid. The points come from your highest available pick/s after the bid and any left over points move back in the draft to where their point value slots them), or or you give up Allison as you don't rate him that high and pick up two interstate kids.

It just doesn't make sense, keep the high pick to use on the best available talent, and stockpile second and third round picks to use on Academy selections. Just as the Lions did last year.


Second point. A couple of posters have mentioned it, Brisbane's likely period of contending isn't until Schache starts entering his prime years. The club should not be concerned about trading in experienced players right now. Targeting a quality young player languishing in GWS's reserves is fair enough, if the club believes the kid has the potential to develop in to a star in a 2, 3 or 4 years. That's a different story.

I was not a fan of trading away draft picks in 2014 to pick up Beams and Christensen. These are quality players entering their prime. To a rebuilding team, these are luxury players and don't move the needle significantly in the future. Furthermore, they can have a negative effect, they could make the team just good enough to make them irrelevant, floating around the 7th - 9th zone. And pushing the clubs draft pick outside the elite talent in the draft. Mediocrity is purgatory for a sporting team. In many sports, especially those where you draft talent in, you either want to be very, very good where you are competing for titles, or very, very bad where you a drafting future star players. Typically star players are drafted at the top end of the draft. Being stuck in the middle doesn't give you access to draft in star players, but it does allow you to draft in capable players who will keep you in stuck in the middle ground.

Sometimes you have to tear it right down and build from the ground up to have a genuine chance of competing for future titles.

Every sport can point to Stars who were drafted outside of the top of the draft, but this is becoming increasingly less common. Scouting has become more professional, and every team has access to the same information these days.

Clubs do need experienced, professional older players to mentor the young kids coming up through he ranks, but you do not need a plethora of them. Some senior players should be viewed as potential tradeable assets to bring back high current or future draft picks or multiple future draft picks where the value lies in their cumulative points for drafting Academy kids. To my mind, this is any player drafted before 2013, except for Mayes. Mayes can be traded as well if he wants out.


Third. When drafting at the top end, and discussing whether it's a weak, mediocre or strong draft, we should be looking at tiers and where the separation in talent occurs. Especially when it relates to our (projected) top pick. And when drafting at the top end, you should not be drafting for need/position. It should almost always be best player available. If you are drafting at the top end, in all likely hood your team has a dearth of star talent, and you are not drafting for the next season or even the next three seasons. You drafting for 5 years time.

And now Academy players have to be taken in to account when looking at the tiers. You might have the fourth pick in the draft, but if there are only three non Academy top tier kids is your eventual selection going to be a second tier player. Is it worthwhile to try and trade up for a top 3 pick and what do you have to give up? Is the 4th pick and Tom Rockliff worth trading for the chance to draft William Brodie or Petrevski-Seton with the 3rd selection, because realistically Rockliff is not going to help you win a Championship.

I'm not sure how true it is in the AFL, but in many sports, it's the Star players who win you championships. Yes, every team needs a talented squad and talented depth, but it's the stars who step up and win championships in most sports, or at least have you contending for championships. Of course the more stars you have, generally the easier it is to compete for championships.


Not really a point, more a discussion topic. I wonder how much difference the academies have in the development of players, and in particular accelerating development but not really moving the projected ceiling of a player. For example, would Ben Keyes ceiling be same if he had not spent time in the academy set up, or would Mathieson's development have been further along had he spent time in the academy (and conversely he wouldn't have slid and would have been a first or second round selection).

My interest here is whether academy kids are over valued because their skill level, game understanding and physical development is ahead of the curve due to their access to better coaching and professional club structure. But their potential ceiling remains the same it would have been, if they had not spent time in an academy. Or does academy involvement raise a kids potential ceiling as well.

Now I know very little about the academies and how much time the kids spend training with Lions staff as opposed to say training with Morningside. For my mind the kids from about age 13 should involved solely with the Lions and the club should have junior sides in the local competition. This is how it works in some of the European countries with soccer. Kids can be brought in or released from the academy, but where possible kids should be in the system from as early as possible and not splitting time between local clubs and Elite level club academy.

 

[Lionmoe21]

how good is balleden at this stage. is he top 3 pick, top 10, top 20 or 2nd round because the article on afl.com about him made him seem a top talent but that might have been cause he is a new zelander

 

[dlanod]

To preface, I know sfa about AFL generally. I did't follow the game during Brisbanes championship era, and I only really got interested when I found out about the AFL draft in 2013. I've followed more draft reportage than any game. My sporting background is the NBA, and most of my comments will be heavily influenced by NBA related observations.

No worries, I'll try and give a bit of an AFL perspective. Anything I snip out I basically agree with, which is most of it.

Sometimes you have to tear it right down and build from the ground up to have a genuine chance of competing for future titles.

This is where the AFL differs a bit from most other sports.

There's very limited freedom of movement (limited free agency, long guaranteed contracts, players can only enter through the draft, no intraseason signings, player veto on trades), so "building from the ground up" ala Melbourne means you literally need to nail every draft pick because you're replacing a dozen or more players. It's not like others where you can get the top talent cheaply through the draft and then surround them with average or slightly better talent through free agency.

Clubs do need experienced, professional older players to mentor the young kids coming up through he ranks, but you do not need a plethora of them. Some senior players should be viewed as potential tradeable assets to bring back high current or future draft picks or multiple future draft picks where the value lies in their cumulative points for drafting Academy kids. To my mind, this is any player drafted before 2013, except for Mayes. Mayes can be traded as well if he wants out.

Similar to the above, player vetoes on trading massively limit the feasibility of considering players as tradeable assets. You're more likely to end up with a disgruntled playing group than improving your list, given you're suggesting sending them to crappy clubs as they're the ones with high draft picks.

And now Academy players have to be taken in to account when looking at the tiers. You might have the fourth pick in the draft, but if there are only three non Academy top tier kids is your eventual selection going to be a second tier player. Is it worthwhile to try and trade up for a top 3 pick and what do you have to give up? Is the 4th pick and Tom Rockliff worth trading for the chance to draft William Brodie or Petrevski-Seton with the 3rd selection, because realistically Rockliff is not going to help you win a Championship.

The downsides of trading a club stalwart are huge, the upside negligible. In the AFL you're better off having two above average players than one star, so no - it's not generally worth giving up pick 4 and Rocky for pick 3. Bear in mind that we got offered pick 2 alone for Rocky a couple of years ago.

I'm not sure how true it is in the AFL, but in many sports, it's the Star players who win you championships. Yes, every team needs a talented squad and talented depth, but it's the stars who step up and win championships in most sports, or at least have you contending for championships. Of course the more stars you have, generally the easier it is to compete for championships.

AFL has 18 players on the field per team, so there's a limited amount a single star can do. You're better off with a spread of above average players more often than not, as Carlton with Judd or Gold Coast with Ablett or us with Brown or other examples show. The comparable total is the NFL, and there's no position in the AFL with the single importance that quarterbacks have in that league.

My interest here is whether academy kids are over valued because their skill level, game understanding and physical development is ahead of the curve due to their access to better coaching and professional club structure. But their potential ceiling remains the same it would have been, if they had not spent time in an academy. Or does academy involvement raise a kids potential ceiling as well.

Academy kids tend to be overvalued by the media and the fans, but undervalued a little by the clubs if last year's draft is anything to go by - simply by comparing the players to those taken around them.

 

[dlanod]

how good is balleden at this stage. is he top 3 pick, top 10, top 20 or 2nd round because the article on afl.com about him made him seem a top talent but that might have been cause he is a new zelander

He's a big lad, but we'll have to wait and see at this stage - he's still almost 18 months away from being drafted. The current consensus is that he will be a high pick but so much can change in that time.

 

[jasonrampage2010]

I have some further great news (for us) regarding SPS, but to respect his privacy I don't want to post it here. Happy to PM if anyone wants to hear it, as long as you promise to keep in under wraps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's the news?

 

[dlanod]

Given our paucity of ruck options I wouldn't mind us having a look at Max Lynch after his performance on the weekend. Strong marking at both ends, good ground coverage and already a big lad. Not much comment on his actual rucking because of so many ruck infringement penalties and it's hard to determine the winner unless one is really dominant or you can see the stats. I know he's a GWS academy boy but it's really hard to see him fitting on to their list with Mumford and Lobb in the team, and Simpson, Downie and Flynn in the reserves.

 

[JasRulz63]

How did Nate Dennis go?

 

[SizeMatters]

To preface, I know sfa about AFL generally. I did't follow the game during Brisbanes championship era, and I only really got interested when I found out about the AFL draft in 2013. I've followed more draft reportage than any game. My sporting background is the NBA, and most of my comments will be heavily influenced by NBA related observations.

I've just spent a couple of hours reading this thread and a couple of things stand out to me.

First, I don't believe all members who comment here have a full grasp of the Academy bidding system, and it's impact on the Academy clubs, especially when it comes to drafting non academy kids early, especially to a team like Brisbane where there is some fear of the go home factor from interstate kids.

If you are an Academy club having a high draft pick before your projected Academy talent is pure gold. You do not trade it for two mid to lower first round picks, even if it is a projected weak or mediocre draft with a shallow pool of top end talent. Quite simply this opens you up to a game of Blink. If you have picks 14 & 16, and the club with pick 13 bids on Allison what are you going to do? You either have to use pick 14 (my understanding of the rules is you don't have the choice to use pick 16 even if pick 16 points will cover the bid. The points come from your highest available pick/s after the bid and any left over points move back in the draft to where their point value slots them), or or you give up Allison as you don't rate him that high and pick up two interstate kids.

It just doesn't make sense, keep the high pick to use on the best available talent, and stockpile second and third round picks to use on Academy selections. Just as the Lions did last year.


Second point. A couple of posters have mentioned it, Brisbane's likely period of contending isn't until Schache starts entering his prime years. The club should not be concerned about trading in experienced players right now. Targeting a quality young player languishing in GWS's reserves is fair enough, if the club believes the kid has the potential to develop in to a star in a 2, 3 or 4 years. That's a different story.

I was not a fan of trading away draft picks in 2014 to pick up Beams and Christensen. These are quality players entering their prime. To a rebuilding team, these are luxury players and don't move the needle significantly in the future. Furthermore, they can have a negative effect, they could make the team just good enough to make them irrelevant, floating around the 7th - 9th zone. And pushing the clubs draft pick outside the elite talent in the draft. Mediocrity is purgatory for a sporting team. In many sports, especially those where you draft talent in, you either want to be very, very good where you are competing for titles, or very, very bad where you a drafting future star players. Typically star players are drafted at the top end of the draft. Being stuck in the middle doesn't give you access to draft in star players, but it does allow you to draft in capable players who will keep you in stuck in the middle ground.

Sometimes you have to tear it right down and build from the ground up to have a genuine chance of competing for future titles.

Every sport can point to Stars who were drafted outside of the top of the draft, but this is becoming increasingly less common. Scouting has become more professional, and every team has access to the same information these days.

Clubs do need experienced, professional older players to mentor the young kids coming up through he ranks, but you do not need a plethora of them. Some senior players should be viewed as potential tradeable assets to bring back high current or future draft picks or multiple future draft picks where the value lies in their cumulative points for drafting Academy kids. To my mind, this is any player drafted before 2013, except for Mayes. Mayes can be traded as well if he wants out.


Third. When drafting at the top end, and discussing whether it's a weak, mediocre or strong draft, we should be looking at tiers and where the separation in talent occurs. Especially when it relates to our (projected) top pick. And when drafting at the top end, you should not be drafting for need/position. It should almost always be best player available. If you are drafting at the top end, in all likely hood your team has a dearth of star talent, and you are not drafting for the next season or even the next three seasons. You drafting for 5 years time.

And now Academy players have to be taken in to account when looking at the tiers. You might have the fourth pick in the draft, but if there are only three non Academy top tier kids is your eventual selection going to be a second tier player. Is it worthwhile to try and trade up for a top 3 pick and what do you have to give up? Is the 4th pick and Tom Rockliff worth trading for the chance to draft William Brodie or Petrevski-Seton with the 3rd selection, because realistically Rockliff is not going to help you win a Championship.

I'm not sure how true it is in the AFL, but in many sports, it's the Star players who win you championships. Yes, every team needs a talented squad and talented depth, but it's the stars who step up and win championships in most sports, or at least have you contending for championships. Of course the more stars you have, generally the easier it is to compete for championships.


Not really a point, more a discussion topic. I wonder how much difference the academies have in the development of players, and in particular accelerating development but not really moving the projected ceiling of a player. For example, would Ben Keyes ceiling be same if he had not spent time in the academy set up, or would Mathieson's development have been further along had he spent time in the academy (and conversely he wouldn't have slid and would have been a first or second round selection).

My interest here is whether academy kids are over valued because their skill level, game understanding and physical development is ahead of the curve due to their access to better coaching and professional club structure. But their potential ceiling remains the same it would have been, if they had not spent time in an academy. Or does academy involvement raise a kids potential ceiling as well.

Now I know very little about the academies and how much time the kids spend training with Lions staff as opposed to say training with Morningside. For my mind the kids from about age 13 should involved solely with the Lions and the club should have junior sides in the local competition. This is how it works in some of the European countries with soccer. Kids can be brought in or released from the academy, but where possible kids should be in the system from as early as possible and not splitting time between local clubs and Elite level club academy.

Agree with the bolded part. Just look at Richmond who have been middle ground now for a decade. Good solid players but no stars. That has been their major knock on them the past few years when they were top 8 material.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I don't know if I care much for the draft. Early round picks just mean more years developing players and getting pummeled in the mean time.

 

[Eons]

I don't know if I care much for the draft. Early round picks just mean more years developing players and getting pummeled in the mean time.

It's bittersweet. Great to get more talent on the list then reality hits that they are years away from being consistent contributors.

 

[dlanod]

How did Nate Dennis go?

"Not much comment on his actual rucking because of so many ruck infringement penalties and it's hard to determine the winner unless one is really dominant or you can see the stats."

Other than the above, wasn't really impressed. Didn't seem to offer much around the ground and seemed a bit tentative or maybe didn't know where to head.

 

[Quigley]

I thought Dennis was the best in the actual ruck of those that went in there. He did pick up an injury though and did not play in the last.

 

[Quigley]

Given our paucity of ruck options I wouldn't mind us having a look at Max Lynch after his performance on the weekend. Strong marking at both ends, good ground coverage and already a big lad. Not much comment on his actual rucking because of so many ruck infringement penalties and it's hard to determine the winner unless one is really dominant or you can see the stats. I know he's a GWS academy boy but it's really hard to see him fitting on to their list with Mumford and Lobb in the team, and Simpson, Downie and Flynn in the reserves.

There are some good ruck options this year. I like Goddard who seems to be falling in the eyes of many.

 

[briztoon]

I don't know if I care much for the draft. Early round picks just mean more years developing players and getting pummeled in the mean time.

And how is that different to the last decade? Seriously, when was the last time the Lions were relevant? I would rather three seasons at rock bottom, picking in the top two or three picks at the very top of the draft, then another three or four seasons slowly climbing the ladder to the playoffs. Give me 3 genuine future super star players and 3 or 4 complimentary star players to put our Academy players and second and third round draftees around.

As dlanod said in response to my post, unless a player wants to be traded to the Lions, what chance have we of picking up genuine start talent in free agency? The only way the Lions are going to compete in the future for a flag is to draft genuine super star talent. As the post championship era Lions with Brown and the current Suns with Ablett demonstrate, a single super star player isn't going to help you win anything without other super star and star players in the same team.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

Sorry if this has been asked but do Essendon get draft picks based on where they finish or have they been relegated/excluded from the draft?

 

[captainrich]

Sorry if this has been asked but do Essendon get draft picks based on where they finish or have they been relegated/excluded from the draft?

where they finish

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

where they finish

Thanks. Seems a bit perverse though. They get players rubbed out for a year because they doped and then get a draft pick because of it even though they are likely to finish mid table or better next year.