List Mgmt. 2018 Draft thread.

[Apex36]

We had another option, that is use the pick in a decent draft pool and get Atu anyway with the same pick we ended up using on him.

I know we’re normally on the same page with this sort of stuff, but I can’t agree with this. A 60+ draft pick is a lottery ticket at best in any draft, and the player we were originally targeting with that pick was clearly already gone. In that situation you have to take a step back, get behind our recruiters and trust their judgement. If Atu was the only player left in the draft pool we actually wanted then we’ve lost nothing by trading this pick away, aside from an extra 2 year contract on the books that’s unlikely to be extended.

I just find it bemusing that we keep overpaying to get deals done even if it is a nothing pick the principal of it after the Treloar, Murray and Beams deals all being overpriced we go and add another to the list.

It’s only overpaying if you think there is someone of value on the table, which our recruiting team obviously didn’t.

And yes I know Beams pick would of went to Quaynor for those of you reading... but that doesn't stop us trading that pick for something and using future 1st and steak knives on Beams or 2018 first rnd and 2019 2ND ETC..

That was another option I guess, but at the end of the day we traded pick 18 + future first for pick 13, no future draft deficit and Beams. It’s hard to argue that’s not good value, just as it’s hard to argue that trading a pick that was going to be used on Atu anyway, for something of future value wasn’t a good decision.

 

[Quicky]

I'm not saying people aren't allowed to have opinions, but the fact is he is down on our entire drafting period, not just Quaynor, is pretty ordinary.

Who should we have taken that was available with pick 41 or pick 44? Jack Bytel? Jack Ross? Wow, sick selections there.

Considering Knightmare rated Quaynor and Kelly around the fifties anyway I don't see what the issue is with drafting them. If the draft went entirely as he viewed the talent we would have taken Quaynor and Kelly with 41 and 44 anyway.

I also disagree with Knights assessment of our draft. But I don't call into question his support of the club for it. I don't think it is ordinary that Knight thinks we had a poor draft; it's just his honest assessment.

 

[Albert Parker]

Happy with what we got.
Would of be exciting to pick up someone we hadn’t talked about for the past 6 months.

We did. That little jar of excitement was Beams in the trade period.
We got in an A grader who can make a big impact in 2019 and still picked up our high quality entitlements at the draft with points instead of 1st and 2nd round picks.

 

[TradeDraft]

But surely you have to objectively use weightings for the picks available to each club.

As in sure IQ, WK and Atu pales in comparison with Lukosious, Rankine And B.King but given our 1st pick was 44ish then we did brilliantly to get a 1st and 2nd round talent.

I was thinking about that this Morning. Considering our Top Pick was 44 that we got 2 Players in the Top 30 without going into Deficit next year was a Huge Win.

Club can then say the Murray and Beams trade did what they wanted to do with Picks we got.(Though I still think Murray Trade was Dumb one)

 

[Knightmare]

I'm not saying people aren't allowed to have opinions, but the fact is he is down on our entire drafting period, not just Quaynor, is pretty ordinary.

Who should we have taken that was available with pick 41 or pick 44? Jack Bytel? Jack Ross? Wow, sick selections there.

Considering Knightmare rated Quaynor and Kelly around the fifties anyway I don't see what the issue is with drafting them. If the draft went entirely as he viewed the talent we would have taken Quaynor and Kelly with 41 and 44 anyway.

Curtis Taylor, Noah Gown, Boyd Woodcock, Sydney Stack and Mitch Podhajski would all have been better choices based on my power rankings. Jack Ross another having outperformed Quaynor during the back end of the season when he joined Oakleigh after school football duties concluded though he was not one I would have prioritised with others higher priority.

Jon Marsh might have been an intriguing possibility as a mature age key defender and a better option in addition to Gown ahead of Kelly to give some names. Marsh is better key defender than Roughead and Kelly in a Collingwood context if Pies want to win now.

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

I also disagree with Knights assessment of our draft. But I don't call into question his support of the club for it. I don't think it is ordinary that Knight thinks we had a poor draft; it's just his honest assessment.

I honestly did not know he barracks for Collingwood.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Who does Knightmare barrack for? Because honestly his constant criticism of Quaynor gets tiring. Real missed opportunity taking two players that other clubs objectively rate as top 30 rather than waiting to use picks in the forties.

I don’t mind the draft specialists articulating their belief in the order of players.

I disagree he’s constantly criticising Quaynor. Though he has not rated him as highly (as the club has and ostensibly GWS did) I don’t think he’s criticising him, just placing in in the value of his belief system.
But never in tones that shows disrespect.

Push comes to shove the Club has decided Quaynor is worth the position he was taken.

 

[TradeDraft]

I also disagree with Knights assessment of our draft. But I don't call into question his support of the club for it. I don't think it is ordinary that Knight thinks we had a poor draft; it's just his honest assessment.

Yeah. Having a Go at him about who he Suppots has nothing to do with Knightmare Rating.

I also don't Agree with his Ratings but I respect he has seen quite a Bit of the Kids so he gives us an idea on the Prospects.

Draft is a Opionon Based so Differs between lot of People

 

[TradeDraft]

 

[Knightmare]

KM tends not to rate Quaynor.
Also tends to rate Hawthorn over the odds in my view.

But they are his views articulated well and deserving of respect.

Hawthorn had very little in picks to use but found relative value with those picks they had.

Collingwood wanted Koschitzke who Hawthorn took.

They took other than Mohr every player later than they were expected to go.

Mohr is the only pick I mark Hawthorn down for - with my assessment being all relating to relative value of picks taken based on my own power rankings extended. Golds is another I wouldn't have picked but I wouldn't mark down as a rookie selection having been expected to go ND.

Matthew Walker I like and view as developable, likewise Greaves. Koschitzke while not my preferred KPP is one of those I'm ok with relative to others taken. Based on my own rankings. They're all solid for where they were taken.

 

[TradeDraft]

 

[TradeDraft]

Collingwood wanted Koschitzke who Hawthorn took.

But with the Limited Picks we had would we taken him over Atu?

 

[TradeDraft]

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Hawthorn had very little in picks to use but found relative value with those picks they had.

Collingwood wanted Koschitzke who Hawthorn took.

They took other than Mohr every player later than they were expected to go.

Mohr is the only pick I mark Hawthorn down for - with my assessment being all relating to relative value of picks taken based on my own power rankings extended. Golds is another I wouldn't have picked but I wouldn't mark down as a rookie selection having been expected to go ND.

Matthew Walker I like and view as developable, likewise Greaves. Koschitzke while not my preferred KPP is one of those I'm ok with relative to others taken. Based on my own rankings. They're all solid for where they were taken.

I’m obviously tarred with Koschitzke and St Kilda.
I likely am judging the cousin harshly, as he’s his own person.

 

[Knightmare]

But with the Limited Picks we had would we taken him over Atu?

Pies weren't high enough in the order to take Koschitzke after bids matched for Quaynor and Kelly.

 

[sr36]

We had another option, that is use the pick in a decent draft pool and get Atu anyway with the same pick we ended up using on him.

I just find it bemusing that we keep overpaying to get deals done even if it is a nothing pick the principal of it after the Treloar, Murray and Beams deals all being overpriced we go and add another to the list.

Taking someone else with 63 and then Atu with our last pick wasnt an option because we didn't have the list space. We could have taken someone else with 63 and then crossed our fingers and hoped that nobody else would take Atu and then we could have added him as a cat b. But if Atu was the highest on our draft board left at 63, that would have been a dumb risk.

In terms of what we could get for selling pick 63, on face value your assertion initially appears correct that we should have been able to sell it for more, eg. a fourth rounder this year for a fourth rounder next year. But that assertion doesn't factor in a significant part of the value of a fourth rounder - academy points. By the time we sold our pick 63, it had effectively lost it's points value, because you no longer needed points to match a bid, whereas hawthorn's 4th rounder next year still has points attached and thus has significantly more value than our pick had at the time of sale, thus we threw in our fifth rounder. It was a good deal for us, even though it will probably amount to nothing in the end.

 

[TradeDraft]

Pies weren't high enough in the order to take Koschitzke after bids matched for Quaynor and Kelly.

So I guess by going by that We rated Kelly Higher then him and Koschitzke was a Possible Back Up Plan IF We could not Match Kelly's Bid

 

[TradeDraft]

“We see Isaac and Will, in particular, as first round picks. We’ve effectively given up two first round picks for those guys plus Dayne Beams. We’re pretty happy with the net result at the end of the trade and draft.”

Very Interesting Quote. Be we are Very Happy with Will being in our top 20 to get a Bid for him at 29

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2018-11-23/the-draft-all-you-need-to-know

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I think we tend to forget each single draft there are 18 teams competing for limited high end talent, more medium level talent and lots of hopeful talent.

Of course amongst the medium talent and hopeful talent some gems may just emerge.

Eg Kelly for us.
Is he discussed as high end talent like Lukosius or a King?
No.

But he’s likely the next level down as a long term fine key back.
Reality dictates if he has a key back career like his dad (with more finesse) or say Michael Christian then we have hit the proverbial success story. It’s sufficient to our needs.
If he became a Billy Picken level player then we’ve hit the golden jack pot.

Quaynor needs to be a long term piece for us; if he was say Lumumba like (without those extra steps he tended to take) we’ve won the draft pick.

Bosenavulagi if he became Leon Davis like (and played well in GF’s) we’d have won the pick.

That too me is how these things are judged. If we can’t get the high end supreme talent then the picks we get need to translate to fine contributors.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Very Interesting Quote. Be we are Very Happy with Will being in our top 20 to get a Bid for him at 29

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2018-11-23/the-draft-all-you-need-to-know

I have a feeling of all the picks, Will Kelly will be our fine long term piece.
Think of him as Michael Christian level as a minimum, and who knows maybe even Ben Reid level (when fit and firing).

 

[TradeDraft]

 

[frizzle]

I’ll back our recruitment team in over any so called Big Footy experts any day of the week.

 

[Apex36]

I honestly did not know he barracks for Collingwood.

Too hard to look at the little black and white icon next to his name when he posts?

 

[Albert Parker]

I don’t mind the draft specialists articulating their belief in the order of players.

I disagree he’s constantly criticising Quaynor. Though he has not rated him as highly (as the club has and ostensibly GWS did) I don’t think he’s criticising him, just placing in in the value of his belief system.
But never in tones that shows disrespect.

Push comes to shove the Club has decided Quaynor is worth the position he was taken.

I don't agree with all of his views, and certainly not how he goes about constructing his mock draft, but I agree with your sentiment on Knightmare's views. He is always respectful and usually has some evidence to justify his views. For a young guy, he is also restrained given the level of criticism he cops at time on this forum. A credit to him.

Re Quaynor, I may not correctly interpret what you are saying, but that may not be the case that the club decided he was worth 13th pick versus say 18th or 20th. But the club has definitely believed that Quaynor was worth more than the picks we used up to get him relative to what we may have otherwise been able to get with those picks in the 40's.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I don't agree with all of his views, and certainly not how he goes about constructing his mock draft, but I agree with your sentiment on Knightmare's views. He is always respectful and usually has some evidence to justify his views. For a young guy, he is also restrained given the level of criticism he cops at time on this forum. A credit to him.

Re Quaynor, I may not correctly interpret what you are saying, but that may not be the case that the club decided he was worth 13th pick versus say 18th or 20th. But the club has definitely believed that Quaynor was worth more than the picks we used up to get him relative to what we may have otherwise been able to get with those picks in the 40's.

You’ve summed it up.