Analysis 2016 Draft...

[Vader]

Haha, yeah me too a bit, hence why I reckon he was in complete drivel mode in attempts to not give anything up. The other thing is he talks about having his deepest list ever, but then if he only used 4 picks our final pick would be in the 60's which is hardly deeper than we've gone before.

Drivel mode is one possibility. Any way you care to look at it, the maths just doesn't add up.

• Adelaide delisted/traded/retired 6 players before the first List Lodgement. They also upgraded ROB at the same time, leaving 5 vacancies.
• Shaw's retirement was announced just before the 2nd List Lodgement. We assumed he was removed from the list at that time, but we don't have confirmation. He could be on the 2017 list for salary cap purposes.
• Rookie upgrades no longer take place via the National Draft. They are automatic, though they do count towards the minimum 3 draft selections.
• The "Final Draft Order" on the AFL website lists us having 6x draft picks - 13, 43, 53, 66, 82, 90.
• Hamish was talking about making 4-5 draft selections.

Any way you care to look at it, the maths just doesn't add up. If Shaw wasn't delisted, then we should only have 5 selections in the ND (yet the website says we have 6). If he was delisted, then WTF was Hamish talking about with comment about 4-5 picks?

 

[Vader]

http://www.afc.com.au/news/2016-11-23/deep-draft-full-of-talent-ogilvie


Vader I want to run this by you.
We know that if the Club runs with a list of 39 and 5 rookies they can upgrade a Cat A rookie at any time, But can they upgrade a Cat B rookie, as that would effectively give them 40 plus 5 Cat A rookies
During the year yes they can with an LTI but I don't believe they can in this case. I unsure but the AFL rules tend to point that way.
So I believe they are planning on a list of 38 with 5 rookies leaving a spot for a Cat B upgrade. or a list of 39 with 4 rookies
Which would explain Hamish mentioning only using 4-5 picks?

Yes, they can nominate a Cat B rookie. However, I've got a strange feeling that we wouldn't be allowed to list them as Cat B rookies again in 2018. Don't ask me where that "strange feeling" is coming from - I may be imagining things.

 

[ad victoriam]

Yes, they can nominate a Cat B rookie. However, I've got a strange feeling that we wouldn't be allowed to list them as Cat B rookies again in 2018. Don't ask me where that "strange feeling" is coming from - I may be imagining things.

Think North promote a Cat B and he had to be on the Cat A list or main list the next year, unsure if that was because of the 2-year date. only going off memory.
I have been thinking about why did he mention the 4-5 picks for while running thru all these possibilities,
Problem is, it's bugging me as to why was it a simple mistake ??

 

[Bacon8]

Drivel mode is one possibility. Any way you care to look at it, the maths just doesn't add up.

• Adelaide delisted/traded/retired 6 players before the first List Lodgement. They also upgraded ROB at the same time, leaving 5 vacancies.
• Shaw's retirement was announced just before the 2nd List Lodgement. We assumed he was removed from the list at that time, but we don't have confirmation. He could be on the 2017 list for salary cap purposes.
• Rookie upgrades no longer take place via the National Draft. They are automatic, though they do count towards the minimum 3 draft selections.
• The "Final Draft Order" on the AFL website lists us having 6x draft picks - 13, 43, 53, 66, 82, 90.
• Hamish was talking about making 4-5 draft selections.

Any way you care to look at it, the maths just doesn't add up. If Shaw wasn't delisted, then we should only have 5 selections in the ND (yet the website says we have 6). If he was delisted, then WTF was Hamish talking about with comment about 4-5 picks?

Was confirmed by the AFL:


(words for those on tapatalk)
List 2 deadline today. 5 deletions to club lists. Out: S Shaw (Adel)

 

[GROTTO]

I will say if we go by some chance for a player expected to go in the 30s, I will be livid that we didnt try and change our pick 13 for two picks inside the top 30.

 

[Pdub]

 

[Danger in Texas]

Knightmare's phantom is up.

Has us taking Gallucci, Oscar McInerney, Lipinski, Liam Baker and Jarman.

 

[ad victoriam]

Was confirmed by the AFL:


(words for those on tapatalk)
List 2 deadline today. 5 deletions to club lists. Out: S Shaw (Adel)

Daylight at last.
Looks like our pick 82 moves to 84, pick 90 to 94 and we get an another pick at 97 (used for ROB)

 

[Danger in Texas]

So Isaac Cumming is now attending the draft.

****

 

[Danger Zone]

So Isaac Cumming is now attending the draft.

****

How did you hear about this?

I normally try not to get too upset as I don't watch enough junior games to judge. BUT, do we really need another young medium sized half back flanker, well before where they are expected to be worth?

 

[Danger in Texas]

How did you hear about this?

I normally try not to get too upset as I don't watch enough junior games to judge. BUT, do we really need another young medium sized half back flanker, well before where they are expected to be worth?

Twomey.

He's definitely not one I'd take at 13, can't see too much midfield potential.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Twomey.

He's definitely not one I'd take at 13, can't see too much midfield potential.

Only on the wing - very outside

 

[Danger Zone]

Twomey.

He's definitely not one I'd take at 13, can't see too much midfield potential.

Appreciated. That was my take as well, would be a disappointing choice. At some taking the 'Best Available' isn't the right option if we have massive deficiencies in other areas.

 

[cammo6556]

Knightmare's phantom is up.

Has us taking Gallucci, Oscar McInerney, Lipinski, Liam Baker and Jarman.

Ive done zero research on Gallucci as he resembles Douglas, and i don't want to revisit that well... however, he's a ripper athlete isnt he?

 

[Danger in Texas]

Ive done zero research on Gallucci as he resembles Douglas, and i don't want to revisit that well... however, he's a ripper athlete isnt he?

Look I don't mind Gallucci, very good athlete, can play inside and outside, very good speed, disposal can be a bit rushed at times. Would be okay with him at 13. Not my first preference.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Ive done zero research on Gallucci as he resembles Douglas, and i don't want to revisit that well... however, he's a ripper athlete isnt he?

A lot more athletic than Douglas but less skill

The best vertical leap to ever do a draft camp and top 5% in repeat sprints ( I think best of this year )

Kicking short / medium distances seems ok to me , sprays them at times longer and when he sprays one he certainly does

Bit small and not great contested ball and without an obvious best position at this stage

 

[Elite Crow]

I dont think the experts have a clue who we will pick as we would tell them jack shit.

 

[cammo6556]

A lot more athletic than Douglas but less skill

The best vertical leap to ever do a draft camp and top 5% in repeat sprints ( I think best of this year )

Kicking short / medium distances seems ok to me , sprays them at times longer and when he sprays one he certainly does

Bit small and not great contested ball and without an obvious best position at this stage

Sounds like he's got a bit to work with...

 

[Mismatched]

A lot more athletic than Douglas but less skill

The best vertical leap to ever do a draft camp and top 5% in repeat sprints ( I think best of this year )

Kicking short / medium distances seems ok to me , sprays them at times longer and when he sprays one he certainly does

Bit small and not great contested ball and without an obvious best position at this stage

Appears to be able to kick very well at times, but rushes at others, has a very neat, Jaensch like kicking a action which for mine given time within an elite environment will become quite efficient and reliable. Also one of the few who appear to be dual sided.

 

[Archie87]

Ive done zero research on Gallucci as he resembles Douglas, and i don't want to revisit that well... however, he's a ripper athlete isnt he?

To be fair on Douggie, and while he has flaws, he's a better player than most of the players drafted after him in his draft year of 2005, except for Bernie Vince and maybe one or two more and that's pretty much the name of the game. All a recruiter can do is make sure he gets the best available player at each pick. We essentially did that with Douglas.

Picks in the teens are always going to be more difficult to pick and getting a gun is harder as the elite, bonafide talent is usually gone.

This draft is ridiculously even after the cream is gone in the first few picks which makes the recruiters job even harder. All pick 13 needs to be is better than those taken after him.

 

[cammo6556]

To be fair on Douggie, and while he has flaws, he's a better player than most of the players drafted after him in his draft year of 2005, except for Bernie Vince and maybe one or two more and that's pretty much the name of the game. All a recruiter can do is make sure he gets the best available player at each pick. We essentially did that with Douglas.

Picks in the teens are always going to be more difficult to pick and getting a gun is harder as the elite, bonafide talent is usually gone.

This draft is ridiculously even after the cream is gone in the first few picks which makes the recruiters job even harder. All pick 13 needs to be is better than those taken after him.

I get that... but im keen on elite... which i hope is available in such a "deep" draft

 

[huludicidal]

We seemed to be linked to a lot of players this year at pick 13! The main ones seem to be...

C Cox
Gallucci
Brodie
Berry
Hayward
Perryman (GWS would surely match all bids on him though)
EDIT: and Cumming!!

Plus you'd have to think we'd at least seriously consider all of the following if they were still available:

Florent
Scrimshaw
Simpkin
Venables

Cue Hamish to select one of Todd Marshall or Griffin Logue!

 

[Elite Crow]

We seemed to be linked to a lot of players this year at pick 13! The main ones seem to be...

C Cox
Gallucci
Brodie
Berry
Hayward
Perryman (GWS would surely match all bids on him though)

Plus you'd have to think we'd at least seriously consider all of the following if they were still available:

Florent
Scrimshaw
Simpkin
Venables

Cue Hamish to select one of Todd Marshall or Griffin Logue!

I want English just to see Wayne melt.

 

[matty p]

Assuming that McGrath, Taranto, McCluggage, Ainsworth, Setterfield, Petrevski-Seton, Scrimshaw, Logue and Bowes will all definitely be gone before our pick, we should have at least ONE of the following available at our pick:
- Brodie
- Florent
- Berry
- Simpkin
- Hayward

I'd be disappointed if we don't swoop on whoever's left out of that group. We may even have 2 of those players to choose from if one of the teams before us (likely GC, Frem or WC) take English. I'd take them in the order I've listed them above.

In addition, it's likely we'll bid on Perryman if he's still on the board at our pick, although I can't seen GWS not matching that bid.

I see all of the above players as being in the pick 8-15 range and would be great picks at our spot.

The next group - Gallucci and Venables - are probably more in the 15-20 range and we'd be slightly reaching at our pick. As I said before, we shouldn't actually need to dip this low with our pick as there will be at least 1, maybe 2 players from the previous 8-15 group available. Hopefully we won't settle for Gallucci or Venables. Same goes for Witherden and Marshall.

Further down the list are players we've been linked to in the 20-30 range:
- Cox
- Cumming

Once again, given that at least one of the elite 8-15 prospects will be available at our pick, there should be no reason to reach for Cox or Cumming. Maybe if we had a pick in the 15-20 range it'd be a good idea, but given the quality of prospects that will be available at pick 13, it would be an unnecessary risk to pass on all of them and take a flyer on an inferior prospect based on a "hunch".

 

[Squiba]

Honestly the amount of names we are linked too suggests that the media have nfi what is going on...