List Mgmt. 2019 Draft Prospects

[dogwatch]

Last time I made my avatar the draftee I hoped we'd draft it happened so I'm doing it again

You and Chicago should discuss the validity of this over a lucky meal.

 

[0utsider]

Last time I made my avatar the draftee I hoped we'd draft it happened so I'm doing it again

Is that Williams? Seems like a fair reach at 13. We could probably trade down to a late first/early second and still pick him up.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

Is that Williams? Seems like a fair reach at 13. We could probably trade down to a late first/early second and still pick him up.

At this stage it does, I have a feeling we'll start hearing closer to the day that teams are willing to take a punt on him earlier than expected. Just a hunch though, not based on anything concrete.

 

[flipper83]

I think every player from around 12 onwards has some question marks around them so recruiters will have widely varying ratings from that point. Williams definitely has the talent to be in the discussion at pick 13

 

[goodcop badcop]

That's fair, I think it still is all about balance though as long as the list does not have too many of the one type
you could say it's just as bad playing Daniel Cross on the wing and having inside players clogging up the forward
half of the ground. I did not have access to his contested % statistics when I picked him not that it would have
affected my opinion of his attributes outside as they are. Just sleep well knowing it is not me who has our pick.

I agree to a certain extent if there are players rated the same you should look to needs and the balance of the list to determine who to pick. But generally speaking, I think you still pick the best available player in the first round and build your team around them. Than look to balance the list with trading and mid to late draft picks.

For instance if it came down to a choice of say Robertson, Weightman or Sharp, I'd pick Robertson. Whilst he's not a need, I think he's a level above those two and the one most likely to be a gun player which is what I want my first round pick to be. And I think if you focus on needs too much, it's more likely to end in failure which is what I don't want my first round pick to be. That's my thinking at least.

And yeah, I sleep well knowing I'm not making any of these decisions. It's all a bit of fun really

 

[Euku]

I agree to a certain extent if there are players rated the same you should look to needs and the balance of the list to determine who to pick. But generally speaking, I think you still pick the best available player in the first round and build your team around them. Than look to balance the list with trading and mid to late draft picks.

For instance if it came down to a choice of say Robertson, Weightman or Sharp, I'd pick Robertson. Whilst he's not a need, I think he's a level above those two and the one most likely to be a gun player which is what I want my first round pick to be. And I think if you focus on needs too much, it's more likely to end in failure which is what I don't want my first round pick to be. That's my thinking at least.

And yeah, I sleep well knowing I'm not making any of these decisions. It's all a bit of fun really

I agree as much as id love weightman if Robertson is there we take him

 

[paulveed]

Imo drafting for best available is only for the first round.

Nothing personal here Ash, but for Pete's sake will somebody define "best available", clearly and fully. Is it simply most raw talented, best performed at the U/18 level statistically, or what ? Does it take into account potential for development, personality, attitude etc., etc., etc. ? Different teams and recruiters will all have slightly different rankings surely. Ranking players is subjective, not a precise and exact science. So "best available" is a matter of personal opinions. The differences between players in rankings surely becomes narrower the deeper you go into the available field. Therefore beyond the universally [?] accepted "best" few you go, choosing one player only marginally different from the next in ranking [say pick 14 compared to 15, or 20 compared to 22 etc.]and taking a player type you don't need over the next player who is one you absolutely do require makes zero sense to me. I am not suggesting you reach a long way down the ranking list to grab a 'specific type' of player, but part of best available to me is the player who will give a club the best performance coupled with best fit.

 

[doggiesin08]

Depending on how this chips fall could it makes sense to trade up to Ports pick #12?

If no real sliders but McAsey and Gould are both there and we think Port will take the former (who I assume we would rather) but would be happy enough with the later would we Trade picks #13 and #53 for #12 and one of their 4x4ths to make sure we get McAsey?

 

[doggie dog]

Depending on how this chips fall could it makes sense to trade up to Ports pick #12?

If no real sliders but McAsey and Gould are both there and we think Port will take the former (who I assume we would rather) but would be happy enough with the later would we Trade picks #13 and #53 for #12 and one of their 4x4ths to make sure we get McAsey?

I would absolutely make that trade in a heartbeat just on McAsey's talent alone, Just gotta hope that Port are thinking hard about picking Gould due to the local factor, especially after hearing about Gould's weight (106 kegs) at the combined.
Damn that's a big teenager, but mind you he did contribute to Glenelg winning a premiership in the SANFL at 18, there are some runs on the board.

Doggiesin08 do you know if there would be any mature ager Small Fwds that would fit into the doggies at the 4th round or do we stay with Rhylee/Cavarra?

 

[Yojimbo]

And yeah, I sleep well knowing I'm not making any of these decisions. It's all a bit of fun really

I listened to Darren Flannigan who works for the stingrays today and his thoughts made me re-work my whole
draft, Luke Jackson fits GWS perfectly, but if they match on Tom Green and Fremantle don't take him where
does he go then ? Could be another Grundy situation, pushed my rookie tall options way back. I am happy
with a small forward, I am happy with McAsey or some run and carry outside, but no more inside midfielders
for me even if as you say it does increase the risk of a pick failing. Don't know how they will stretch it out to
sixty six odd live picks with so little variety.

 

[dogwatch]

Nothing personal here Ash, but for Pete's sake will somebody define "best available", clearly and fully. Is it simply most raw talented, best performed at the U/18 level statistically, or what ? Does it take into account potential for development, personality, attitude etc., etc., etc. ? Different teams and recruiters will all have slightly different rankings surely. Ranking players is subjective, not a precise and exact science. So "best available" is a matter of personal opinions. The differences between players in rankings surely becomes narrower the deeper you go into the available field. Therefore beyond the universally [?] accepted "best" few you go, choosing one player only marginally different from the next in ranking [say pick 14 compared to 15, or 20 compared to 22 etc.]and taking a player type you don't need over the next player who is one you absolutely do require makes zero sense to me. I am not suggesting you reach a long way down the ranking list to grab a 'specific type' of player, but part of best available to me is the player who will give a club the best performance coupled with best fit.

Good question. "Best available before meeting a list need" has become something of an article of faith - at least for first round picks - but the expression does warrant some scrutiny.

One of the problems is that neither term has an agreed textbook definition so I don't think you're going to get much satisfaction here.

As you say, assessment of raw talent is highly subjective so every recruiter will assess best available slightly differently. It comes back to recruiting still being more an art than a science despite so much effort being put into testing and measuring a wide range of physical characteristics and abilities. How do you quantify leadership, determination, team spirit, dedication to recovery from injury, freakish flair and so on? How do you know which of the talented but wayward "rough colts" will end up as "good stallions" and which will fail to mature (and perhaps end up at an abattoir in Brisbane)? Dustin Martin and Jake Stringer make good case studies.

The same sort of problems appear with "list need". It's never a straight yes or no, it's how well does that player fit the identified role ... 100%, 90%, 75%? Also is the list need expressed as a complete player with detailed specs (eg we need a fast, goalscoring forward who will rove packs and apply great defensive pressure) or for general attributes where the side has deficiencies (we need more players with contested marking, pace, ability to kick both feet, accuracy in front of goal, etc)?

We tend to reduce all this to a simple binary "best available vs list need" but it's obviously a lot more nuanced than that and it is usually going to come down to some form of consensus based on the recruiting panel's gut judgement. The great draft clangers of the past have been where recruiters have got the balance right out of whack, usually by being impatient and reaching for a player in the first round who might still have been available in the second (or someone similar). Christian Howard comes to mind as an example of that.

To me "best available before list need" simply means if you have a player in the first round who is clearly well ahead of all the others then you pick him, even if you are already well-stocked in that sort of player. If it's line-ball then all sorts of other factors come into play.

If it's a later round then it's more of a lottery and we tend to be much more forgiving. Dalrymple was cut a lot more slack for selecting a speculative Matt Fuller in the 40s than he was for selecting Christian Howard at 15.

 

[Mofra]

Depending on how this chips fall could it makes sense to trade up to Ports pick #12?

If no real sliders but McAsey and Gould are both there and we think Port will take the former (who I assume we would rather) but would be happy enough with the later would we Trade picks #13 and #53 for #12 and one of their 4x4ths to make sure we get McAsey?

"Trading up" to get a target is fraught with danger.

When we held pick 4 (Bontempelli) a lot of people wanted us to trade up to get pick 1 (Boyd).
When we held picks 5 (Macrae) & 6 (Stringer) people wanted us to trade up to grab Jimmy Toumpas.
When we held pick 9 (Naughton) some wanted us to trade up to grab Coffield.

I say hold pick 13, take the best available, then consider needs when we take our pick ~51 to draft (could end up in the mid 40s after bid matches for Green, Henry, Mead, etc)

 

[Virgin Dog]

When we held picks 5 (Macrae) & 6 (Stringer) people wanted us to trade up to grab Jimmy Toumpas.

 

[Virgin Dog]

This really is one of the worst possible drafts we'd want to be trading up for. The level of talent really does plateau from around Picks 6-15. There's little point in trading up when we're likely to get just as good quality with Pick 13 as we would with Pick 8 or whatever. Unless we were able to land one of Young or Flanders, I just don't see the point

 

[Yojimbo]

View attachment 770020

Jimmy Toumpas Versus Jonathon O'Rourke in the octagon, make it happen UFC although I think they both work
at KFC now selling chicken to Will Gould.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Jimmy Toumpas Versus Jonathon O'Rourke in the octagon, make it happen UFC although I think they both work
at KFC now selling chicken to Will Gould.

I hear the McGoverns alone help their store stay afloat

 

[Mofra]

I hear the McGoverns alone help their store stay afloat

I learned late yesterday that Mitch's nickname at Carlton is "Brackets" because that's what his no 11 looks like across his stretched jumper at the back.

 

[ManOfClay]

Wasn't Will Gould rated a top 2 pick in this year's draft about 6-12 months ago?

How come he's slipped? Is it all the KFC? Or has the field just caught up with him (peaked early)?

talking about peaking early, I don’t know if I’ve posted this before but I’ve known Gould since he was 12 and dominating little athletics.

he was close to 190cm then so hasn’t grown all that much.

 

[Triple Baileys]

"Trading up" to get a target is fraught with danger.

When we held pick 4 (Bontempelli) a lot of people wanted us to trade up to get pick 1 (Boyd).
When we held picks 5 (Macrae) & 6 (Stringer) people wanted us to trade up to grab Jimmy Toumpas.
When we held pick 9 (Naughton) some wanted us to trade up to grab Coffield.

I say hold pick 13, take the best available, then consider needs when we take our pick ~51 to draft (could end up in the mid 40s after bid matches for Green, Henry, Mead, etc)

Few bullets dodged there. Phew!

 

[doggiesin08]

"Trading up" to get a target is fraught with danger.

When we held pick 4 (Bontempelli) a lot of people wanted us to trade up to get pick 1 (Boyd).
When we held picks 5 (Macrae) & 6 (Stringer) people wanted us to trade up to grab Jimmy Toumpas.
When we held pick 9 (Naughton) some wanted us to trade up to grab Coffield.

I say hold pick 13, take the best available, then consider needs when we take our pick ~51 to draft (could end up in the mid 40s after bid matches for Green, Henry, Mead, etc)

Noting those are compelling examples, presumably the exact inverse hypotheticals also exist. For all instances where the player selected 1-3 picks ahead of a teams eventual selection turned out to be substantially better you could argue trading up would have been a good decision. Imagine we traded up from pick 6 (Williams) to pick 4-5 and took Franklin.

I know very little of this draft crop and not doubting there may not be much to separate players 5-15 quality wise (but obviously there is a lot of variability in the type of player), my main query is would giving up a pick in mid-40s be worth it to get the player within that range who are all equally “best available” but who is the best “fit” for us positionally.

If we don’t care (for example) between Weightman and McAsey and they’re both still available at pick 12 then sure you wouldn’t trade up but if it’s Weightman/McAsey vs an inside mid then I probably would.

 

[Mofra]

Noting those are compelling examples, presumably the exact inverse hypotheticals also exist. For all instances where the player selected 1-3 picks ahead of a teams eventual selection turned out to be substantially better you could argue trading up would have been a good decision. Imagine we traded up from pick 6 (Williams) to pick 4-5 and took Franklin.

IIRC that draft we rated Roughead marginally behind Griffen. Plenty of teams rated Tambling very highly too so if we traded up from 6 we might have ended up with Tambling. Again, it highlights the danger - and that's before we consider the additional cost of trading up.

I'm happy to just take pick 13 to draft and take best available. As for the inside mid example - if Dev Robertson is available, I'd be taking him regardless. Absolute gun.

 

[LittleG]

IIRC that draft we rated Roughead marginally behind Griffen. Plenty of teams rated Tambling very highly too so if we traded up from 6 we might have ended up with Tambling. Again, it highlights the danger - and that's before we consider the additional cost of trading up.

I'm happy to just take pick 13 to draft and take best available. As for the inside mid example - if Dev Robertson is available, I'd be taking him regardless. Absolute gun.

Yes, Dev is a gun and shouldn’t be passed up for needs. I would argue that Gould is a gun too. Played well against men, reads the play exceptionally well and kicks better & longer than almost anyone. Is the makings of a future AA.

Both could be best available at our pick. You would take Dev, I would take Gould. Some would take Kemp. It’s hard to rank players, glad we have some gun professionals at our club.


Small forwards, a big need:
Weightman isn’t at their level.... Henry is but tied to Freo. Taylor, again not at that level.

I hope we don’t reach for needs.

 

[Mofra]

Small forwards, a big need:
Weightman isn’t at their level.... Henry is but tied to Freo. Taylor, again not at that level.

I hope we don’t reach for needs.

I'm certain we take best available at pick 13, then consider needs with later picks. Most mocks tend to have taking McAsey or Weightman which I'm happy with either way.

 

[LittleG]

I'm certain we take best available at pick 13, then consider needs with later picks. Most mocks tend to have taking McAsey or Weightman which I'm happy with either way.

IF we trade back to pick 20, then Weightman. Before then, too many better players available.


A mature age small forward at ~pick50, should be the go. We still need a wingman. Not a year for them, unless at pick 13.

 

[Mojorisin]

IF we trade back to pick 20, then Weightman. Before then, too many better players available.


A mature age small forward at ~pick50, should be the go. We still need a wingman. Not a year for them, unless at pick 13.

Weightman probably won't be available at 13 let alone 20