List Mgmt. 2016 Potential Draft Picks

[PJ Power]

Snoop Dog's Phantom has us taking Hayward, Marshall, Poholke and Clarke. I'd be over the moon with that haul (although if I was being nitpicky I'd probably go Drew over Poholke).

Although completely different prospects, I'm not enamoured by a Marshall + Hayward pairing with 14 and 17. Can't put a finger on why, but I really want us to pick up at least three complementary mids/playmakers:
1. Inside clearance accumulator (Brodie, Clarke, Drew, Scharenberg at worst)
2. Power x-factor beast (SPP, Venables)
3. Smooth moving, creative, goal scoring type (Simpkin, Hayward)

I reckon we need one of Venables or SPP with 14 or 17 to achieve that mix

 

[wilbur_15]

Sounds like there's a decent chance of Brodie getting to pick 9 now.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-18/three-still-in-the-mix-for-essendons-no1-draft-pick

Think that's a major fail for our trading out of that pick.

 

[mic59]

Sounds like there's a decent chance of Brodie getting to pick 9 now.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-18/three-still-in-the-mix-for-essendons-no1-draft-pick
Think that's a major fail for our trading out of that pick.

Could be, but another thing that has to be considered is that if we had kept 9 then we would not have had another pick till 49. Do we take a shot on Brodie, who could be a bust as any highly-rated draft choice can be, or have 4 mid-range picks?

 

[Schulzenfest]

That would almost be a perfect draft IMO - especially if it was Drew instead of Poholke. I do definitely rate Hayward, but I still wonder if maybe we can pick better based on needs though? Think he could get lost in the ressies for a while for lack of opportunity.

I think Hayward isn't a bad need filler. Monfries is retiring within a year or two, Palmer and Houston are pretty average IMO. I've got some hope for Aaron Young in the medium marking forward role, but he's only played about two thirds of a good season in that role so I'm not sure we should be putting all our eggs in that basket just yet.

Eh, screw it. I'll do mine:

14: Simpkin
17: Venables
30: Drew
31: Scharenberg

Rookie:
1st: Narkle
2nd: Ladhams/Comitogianni

Edit: Put Ladhams in if he's there.

For me:

14: Jy Simpkin/Will Hayward
17: Todd Marshall (rate him as more important than Simpkin or Hayward but also rate him as less likely to be poached by Brisbane)
30: Willem Drew
31: Ryan Clarke
85: Matt Guelfi
103: Krak upgrade
121: Pass

Rookie 1: Mason Shaw
Rookie 2: Jordon Sweet

Our defence is already pretty set for the next few years. If we take Simpkin/Hayward and Marshall with our first two picks and they both work out, our forward line is pretty well set too. That basically gives us the next two or three years to focus on drafting mids mids mids, as well as getting a couple of good prospects out of the Drew/Clarke/Atley/Poholke/Scharenberg/Graham pool this year.

As for the late picks, Guelfi would help fill a need for better kicking skills in the middle if he can learn to find more of the ball at senior level, Mason Shaw gives us some desperately needed mature-age KPF depth and is a much better prospect than Eddy IMO, Jordon Sweet gives us a ruck with a lot of potential to develop with Frampton for a few years.

 

[Killer Power]

Could be, but another thing that has to be considered is that if we had kept 9 then we would not have had another pick till 49. Do we take a shot on Brodie, who could be a bust as any highly-rated draft choice can be, or have 4 mid-range picks?

This is bullshit and you are the second poster this week to state it as fact. We traded next year's first rounder so could have kept #9 and still had #19 and #30 as well.

Edit: and here it is to make it clear..... (reference to PA on point 2 should instead be Sydney)
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/you...d/news-story/d4e88d18540530dca3bbf9b52b95a9df

 

[Adz2332]

i personally would prefer 9 19 and 49 to what we have now. but thats me

 

[shewho]

Sounds like there's a decent chance of Brodie getting to pick 9 now.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-18/three-still-in-the-mix-for-essendons-no1-draft-pick

Think that's a major fail for our trading out of that pick.

Wait and see what happens, but if we could have had Brodie and we miss out because of that deal with Sydney, I agree- massive failure of list management.

 

[wilbur_15]

Could be, but another thing that has to be considered is that if we had kept 9 then we would not have had another pick till 49. Do we take a shot on Brodie, who could be a bust as any highly-rated draft choice can be, or have 4 mid-range picks?

All we did was upgrade 49 to 31 which is good if you thought there was going to be little difference between 9 and 14. They would have done that assuming none of the top 5 would possibly slip out to 9. Port would definitely have Brodie in their top 5 so if he gets to 9, I think it's a fail.

 

[Peck]

Sounds like there's a decent chance of Brodie getting to pick 9 now.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-18/three-still-in-the-mix-for-essendons-no1-draft-pick

Think that's a major fail for our trading out of that pick.

It would be annoying but to call it a failure you have to ignore every other outcome that is possible.

Also is Brodie + pick 19 + pick 47 worth more than whoever we get at 14, 17 and 31?

Having pick 14 and 17 is a really really good position to be in in terms of decision making as well. We will basically have 4 players to deal with instead of the 10 between 9 and 19, meaning we can be much more confident that whoever we want at 17 will be there if we pass on them at 14. Same can be said for 30 and 31 vs 30 and 49.

Easier decisions are seriously underrated, they can have a huge impact towards limiting mistakes.

 

[shewho]

All we did was upgrade 49 to 31 which is good if you thought there was going to be little difference between 9 and 14. They would have done that assuming none of the top 5 would possibly slip out to 9. Port would definitely have Brodie in their top 5 so if he gets to 9, I think it's a fail.

And would put enormous pressure on who we get at 14 to measure up to Brodie.

 

[Forzaport]

If Brodie gets to pick 9, we have to see how pick 14 + 31 perform in comparison. We probably won't know for a while if it was a win or a loss unless we draft Brodie at 14, then it's an obvious win.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Killer Power]

It would be annoying but to call it a failure you have to ignore every other outcome that is possible.

Also is Brodie + pick 19 + pick 47 worth more than whoever we get at 14, 17 and 31?

Having pick 14 and 17 is a really really good position to be in in terms of decision making as well. We will basically have 4 players to deal with instead of the 10 between 9 and 19, meaning we can be much more confident that whoever we want at 17 will be there if we pass on them at 14. Same can be said for 30 and 31 vs 30 and 49.

Easier decisions are seriously underrated, they can have a huge impact towards limiting mistakes.

Again and this wasn't the options on offer. Please read my post a few above yours.

That aside and yes it could be argued that even your wrong example is potentially worth more. All a moot point if he doesn't make it through to #9 though or slides to #14 (which would make it one of the greatest trades in our history).

 

[KenOath]

It would be annoying but to call it a failure you have to ignore every other outcome that is possible.

Also is Brodie + pick 19 + pick 47 worth more than whoever we get at 14, 17 and 31?

Having pick 14 and 17 is a really really good position to be in in terms of decision making as well. We will basically have 4 players to deal with instead of the 10 between 9 and 19, meaning we can be much more confident that whoever we want at 17 will be there if we pass on them at 14. Same can be said for 30 and 31 vs 30 and 49.

Easier decisions are seriously underrated, they can have a huge impact towards limiting mistakes.

Given 9 + 19 could now very easily be Brodie + Marshall, the second trade isn't looking so great right now but we won't know for sure until draft night.

The second trade was nowhere near as bad as the first one but in a draft where there is a lot of uncertainty about where players will go I wonder where our "would have picked him at 9 anyway" player is currently sitting on draft boards, compared to during trade week!?

 

[OneGreatClub]

Sounds like there's a decent chance of Brodie getting to pick 9 now.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-18/three-still-in-the-mix-for-essendons-no1-draft-pick

Think that's a major fail for our trading out of that pick.

We actually won't know whether it's a win or a fail for a few years.

 

[Peck]

There is no doubt that Brodie being picked by the crows at 13 would really hurt. The point is that our trade needed to account for dozens of possibilities.

I can't guarantee our club actually did the math of course.

 

[wilbur_15]

It would be annoying but to call it a failure you have to ignore every other outcome that is possible.

Also is Brodie + pick 19 + pick 47 worth more than whoever we get at 14, 17 and 31?

Having pick 14 and 17 is a really really good position to be in in terms of decision making as well. We will basically have 4 players to deal with instead of the 10 between 9 and 19, meaning we can be much more confident that whoever we want at 17 will be there if we pass on them at 14. Same can be said for 30 and 31 vs 30 and 49.

Easier decisions are seriously underrated, they can have a huge impact towards limiting mistakes.

Don't know what you're talking about with "Also is Brodie + pick 19 + pick 47 worth more than whoever we get at 14, 17 and 31?".

It's Brodie +19+30+49 vs 14+17+30+31.

I think Port would have McLuggage, Brodie, SPS and Mcgrath as the top 4 on our draft board. Brodie could be as high as 2 there. If he were to make it to pick 9 where we could've claimed him, there is no way the pick 49 to 31 upgrade is worth it.

Obviously it's still drafting so Brodie could be a bust for all we know. But the chances of success in terms of getting a couple of quality players from these 4 picks (including hopefully a star) are significantly higher with Brodie+19+30+49 than 14+17+30+31 if we have Brodie as high ranked as I'm assuming.

 

[Chrizzt]

If Brodie gets to pick 9, we have to see how pick 14 + 31 perform in comparison. We probably won't know for a while if it was a win or a loss unless we draft Brodie at 14, then it's an obvious win.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

The whole thought exercise is a silly one - you need to take into account how different players develop in different environments, who fills what need, injuries, etc. So I don't think you will ever really be able to compare.

No way Brodie gets past the crows, but as much as I like him I am more than happy that we have 4 picks inside 31. We should still end up with a few guns.

 

[vozzon]

I think Hayward isn't a bad need filler. Monfries is retiring within a year or two, Palmer and Houston are pretty average IMO. I've got some hope for Aaron Young in the medium marking forward role, but he's only played about two thirds of a good season in that role so I'm not sure we should be putting all our eggs in that basket just yet.



For me:

14: Jy Simpkin/Will Hayward
17: Todd Marshall (rate him as more important than Simpkin or Hayward but also rate him as less likely to be poached by Brisbane)
30: Willem Drew
31: Ryan Clarke
85: Matt Guelfi
103: Krak upgrade
121: Pass

Rookie 1: Mason Shaw
Rookie 2: Jordon Sweet

Our defence is already pretty set for the next few years. If we take Simpkin/Hayward and Marshall with our first two picks and they both work out, our forward line is pretty well set too. That basically gives us the next two or three years to focus on drafting mids mids mids, as well as getting a couple of good prospects out of the Drew/Clarke/Atley/Poholke/Scharenberg/Graham pool this year.

As for the late picks, Guelfi would help fill a need for better kicking skills in the middle if he can learn to find more of the ball at senior level, Mason Shaw gives us some desperately needed mature-age KPF depth and is a much better prospect than Eddy IMO, Jordon Sweet gives us a ruck with a lot of potential to develop with Frampton for a few years.

Dont mind this. Such an open draft and realistically we have no clue which clubs like which players so very hard to pick what we would want let alone the other picks.

I put what my preferences are, only based on there like for like player comparisons given throughout the threads and looking at our list perspective a few years from now:


14: Jy Simpkin/Gallucci (if brodie is available then hear obviously)
17: Berry/Witherland or the above 2 if still here
30: Willem Drew/Clarke
31: Ryan Clarke/Kerr/Battle/Mutch
85: Not sure who's available but a prospective KPP or ruck. if not best mid. Jordon Sweet ??
103: Not sure who's available but a prospective KPP or ruck. if not best mid.
121: Player upgrade/snelling or krak

Rookie 1: Jordon Sweet
Rookie 2: KPP or ruck.

 

[wilbur_15]

We actually won't know whether it's a win or a fail for a few years.

Not entirely true. If our recruiter's are even half competent, they'd have some rating on each kid and should be trying to get the best combination they can with our draft currency. You've got to be judged on how you make that work using your ratings on prospects at the time (ie. now). Whether or not they are good at picking talent (which you see in a few years time) is another matter altogether which is what you're referring to.

The point I'm trying to make is that they would've made the call that a top 4 or 5 talent (Brodie) had no chance of getting to pick 9, hence they traded it out. I agree with that move in principle, but you need to be very certain on that initial assumption. If the main premise of that trade is flawed, as it appears now just a few weeks later, I'm calling it a fail.

 

[Chrizzt]

Not entirely true. If our recruiter's are even half competent, they'd have some rating on each kid and should be trying to get the best combination they can with our draft currency. You've got to be judged on how you make that work using your ratings on prospects at the time (ie. now). Whether or not they are good at picking talent (which you see in a few years time) is another matter altogether which is what you're referring to.

The point I'm trying to make is that they would've made the call that a top 4 or 5 talent (Brodie) had no chance of getting to pick 9, hence they traded it out. I agree with that move in principle, but you need to be very certain on that initial assumption. If the main premise of that trade is flawed, as it appears now just a few weeks later, I'm calling it a fail.

But you are completely predicating this judgement on the fact that Brodie was the be all and end all of Port's drafting strategy. If he slips past 9, it's because there were other prospects that clubs saw as better so it's reasonable to expect Port would think the same.

 

[wilbur_15]

But you are completely predicating this judgement on the fact that Brodie was the be all and end all of Port's drafting strategy. If he slips past 9, it's because there were other prospects that clubs saw as better so it's reasonable to expect Port would think the same.

Yes I am. Not quite "the be all and end all" but top 4 imo. Just because GC have a ridiculous penchant for more flashy outside types, doesn't make them auto top 10 on PAFC's draft board.

 

[Check-Raise !]

Please Santa, for one of our 4 picks can I have -

1 big forward of either: a Marshall, a Battle or a Kerr
1 small forward of either: a Simpkin, a Hayward or a Bolten
2 mids of either: a Gallucci, a Berry, a Florent, a Venables, an Atley or an SPP

 

[Forzaport]

The whole thought exercise is a silly one - you need to take into account how different players develop in different environments, who fills what need, injuries, etc. So I don't think you will ever really be able to compare.

No way Brodie gets past the crows, but as much as I like him I am more than happy that we have 4 picks inside 31. We should still end up with a few guns.

It's great for conversation though!

 

[Killer Power]

But you are completely predicating this judgement on the fact that Brodie was the be all and end all of Port's drafting strategy. If he slips past 9, it's because there were other prospects that clubs saw as better so it's reasonable to expect Port would think the same.

Would take a lot of convincing to believe that we wouldn't have taken Brodie at #9 was he there. All commentary around at trade period suggested he wouldn't fall outside of top 6.

 

[Killer Power]

Sorry for the error. But we still would have only had two 1st and 2nd round picks whereas now we have 4 so the point I was making stands.

No. We would have had one 1st round (#9) and two 2nd rounds (#19 & #30).