List Mgmt. 2020 Draft

[George]

 

[CaptainRisky]

No, just someone who has been on here for years calling another poster who has also been on here for years “mate”.
Except that the second poster is a lady.
Always has been.
Small things that amuse my small mind.
That’s all.

No worries mate

 

[Significant]

apologies if posted already, but you guys weren't wrong. he looks awesome:

Lets not all forget as well, this is him playing in his underage year.
He actually has a lot of similarities to Steele in my mind, just the way he moves, keeps upright in traffic, and gets his hands out.
Think he has a lot more xfactor than Steele at the same age, but less of a contested game.
Good pick anyway, but if he can add a contested midfield game, he would be a gem!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I call all of my female friends mate on occasions.

I like to mate with all my female friends.....
if they'd let me .

 

[StCicatriz]

Lets not all forget as well, this is him playing in his underage year.
He actually has a lot of similarities to Steele in my mind, just the way he moves, keeps upright in traffic, and gets his hands out.
Think he has a lot more xfactor than Steele at the same age, but less of a contested game.
Good pick anyway, but if he can add a contested midfield game, he would be a gem!

reminds me a bit of battle too

he could be our next CHF

 

[12Chill]

Lets not all forget as well, this is him playing in his underage year.
He actually has a lot of similarities to Steele in my mind, just the way he moves, keeps upright in traffic, and gets his hands out.
Think he has a lot more xfactor than Steele at the same age, but less of a contested game.
Good pick anyway, but if he can add a contested midfield game, he would be a gem!

If he could develop into a big bodied inside mid then he seems right in the mould of a Steele, Taranto or Yeo type, who are probably the best few in the league (might be missing some) as 2-way mids. His tackling pressure looks immense in those highlights, so you know he's not just a one way runner like some of the top line midfielders in the league.

He looks very dangerous up forward too though. He'd be a serious point of difference if he becomes a good player at AFL level, would love him on our list because of that...

 

[Significant]

He is the flavour of the month. If he goes to someone other than St Kilda, I will be forever pissed, just like past draftees of the same ilk...

 

[Significant]

Also, these are the picks that are going to separate the good and the bad.

Do you take Carroll, who has performed well this year and adds that big bodied mid with HBF potential earlier on, based on this years form, or take a punt on a Ford who hasn't been seen based on what you believe he will be able to deliver and where he fits in in future?

 

[BrutThough]

Twomey has posted his updated form rankings on the AFL website. Just noting that this is a form guide, not a phantom draft.

A few tidbits from a Saints perspective (and in order of rankings):

• Finlay Macrae, we will look at if he does slip (hard to see him still being around)
• Brayden Cook, but more likely at the Collingwood or Richmond pick.
• Jack Carroll, this seems to be more likely, with saying we are his most likely starting point (I do like this pick)
• Nathan O'Driscoll, with a lot of phantom drafts having him higher, I didn't think this was likely
• Zane Trew, a bit of a meh pick as (what I consider) a vanilla mid (accumulator)

Carroll is one I would certainly would be happy with, whilst O'Driscoll hadn't even been on the radar, as I thought he would go earlier.

Anyway, food for thought, however I think there are enough 185cm + midfield potential / flexibility players in or around our pick that seem like a good risk / reward option at that point in the draft.

My preference in order - Ford, Poulter, Carroll, O'Driscoll, Trew!

It would be pretty exciting if either Carroll or O'Driscoll fell to us, as unlikely as it seems.

Would be underwhelmed with Trew.

 

[George]

No idea why we want Ford.

 

[BrutThough]

No idea why we want Ford.

not a fan?

 

[CaptainRisky]

No idea why we want Ford.

 

[George]

not a fan?

View attachment 1021551

The acquisitions to our forward line over the last couple of years would suggest we are after smalls and we see that as the recipe to our success. It's about following trends and predicting how the game will evolve, and it's pretty clear how we envision our side looking when we are back challenging for a flag. Richmond have been the most dominant side of the last 4 years and they've done it with a traditionally small forward line. It seems like we are going for something similar. We are surrounding a key tall with agile forwards and damaging small forwards, Ford is much of what we already have.

 

[CaptainRisky]

The acquisitions to our forward line over the last couple of years would suggest we are after smalls and we see that as the recipe to our success. It's about following trends and predicting how the game will evolve, and it's pretty clear how we envision our side looking when we are back challenging for a flag. Richmond have been the most dominant side of the last 4 years and they've done it with a traditionally small forward line. It seems like we are going for something similar. We are surrounding a key tall with agile forwards and damaging small forwards, Ford is much of what we already have.

Sorry mate , but we got Butler last year now Higgins and we still have Byrnes , Gresh , Billings, to name just a few smalls who can go forward , we have plenty of the same type , Ford is a different type of player who I'm will to put my left nut on the line and say he will make a very good mid who can go forward and be very dangerous

 

[Significant]

The acquisitions to our forward line over the last couple of years would suggest we are after smalls and we see that as the recipe to our success. It's about following trends and predicting how the game will evolve, and it's pretty clear how we envision our side looking when we are back challenging for a flag. Richmond have been the most dominant side of the last 4 years and they've done it with a traditionally small forward line. It seems like we are going for something similar. We are surrounding a key tall with agile forwards and damaging small forwards, Ford is much of what we already have.

Provocative.

I would say he is nothing like what we already have. The closest thing we have based on his underage year is Membrey, but it sounds like he certainly doesn't see himself as a forward only. He was pushed onto flanks and third tall positions because of his age in 2019.

It takes some projection, but he presents some real X-Factor to our side, whether through the midfield or up forward.

 

[BrutThough]

The acquisitions to our forward line over the last couple of years would suggest we are after smalls and we see that as the recipe to our success. It's about following trends and predicting how the game will evolve, and it's pretty clear how we envision our side looking when we are back challenging for a flag. Richmond have been the most dominant side of the last 4 years and they've done it with a traditionally small forward line. It seems like we are going for something similar. We are surrounding a key tall with agile forwards and damaging small forwards, Ford is much of what we already have.

How can Ford be more of what we already have when your paragraph is saying we have smalls and want more smalls?

And if we are to be looking forward for how the game is going to evolve, why should be just be going after smalls based off Richmond's style created 4 years ago?

I would also argue the improvement and our point of difference compared to others this year was that we weren't afraid to go tall and use our height to our advantage. We did play multiple small forwards but our real x-factor and what troubled other teams was our height. I dont think anything we did last season would suggest we want 1 key target with small forwards around him. If anything, it showed we want multiple tall targets who are also fast and agile to compliment the smalls we do have.

 

[sunny3193]

I call all of my female friends mate on occasions.

They say love is blind.

 

[sammm]

No, just someone who has been on here for years calling another poster who has also been on here for years “mate”.
Except that the second poster is a lady.
Always has been.
Small things that amuse my small mind.
That’s all.

Nah, I don't mind 'mate'.

I have been called worse

 

[Joffaboy]

On Draft Central Ford is likely to go 25 - 30 and Callow 30 to 60.

If we managed those two I wouldn't be upset, however considering I know less than I usually do about draft prospects (which is usually SFA) they both might be totally useless busts.

 

[George]

Sorry mate , but we got Butler last year now Higgins and we still have Byrnes , Gresh , Billings, to name just a few smalls who can go forward , we have plenty of the same type , Ford is a different type of player who I'm will to put my left nut on the line and say he will make a very good mid who can go forward and be very dangerous

I think you are missing my point. I'm saying Ford is more of what we already have meaning I don't believe we need many more medium sized forwards because that doesn't seem to be our strategy, as you explained in your post - we have Byrnes, Gresham, Billings, Higgins, Butler. Our strategy forward is to surround King with smalls and rotate them through the midfield so guys like Steele, who can kick goals, can rest forward too. It doesn't make sense to me to add another medium sized forward when we already have enough of them - Membrey & Battle. To say I think Ford is more of what we already have (medium sized forward) does not mean I want another small forward. I want genuine mids.

Provocative.

I would say he is nothing like what we already have. The closest thing we have based on his underage year is Membrey, but it sounds like he certainly doesn't see himself as a forward only. He was pushed onto flanks and third tall positions because of his age in 2019.

It takes some projection, but he presents some real X-Factor to our side, whether through the midfield or up forward.

Think we already have enough of it, we need genuine midfielders.

How can Ford be more of what we already have when your paragraph is saying we have smalls and want more smalls?

And if we are to be looking forward for how the game is going to evolve, why should be just be going after smalls based off Richmond's style created 4 years ago?

I would also argue the improvement and our point of difference compared to others this year was that we weren't afraid to go tall and use our height to our advantage. We did play multiple small forwards but our real x-factor and what troubled other teams was our height. I dont think anything we did last season would suggest we want 1 key target with small forwards around him. If anything, it showed we want multiple tall targets who are also fast and agile to compliment the smalls we do have.

Well it can be more of what we already have because we seemingly already have enough medium sized forwards otherwise we would've gone after one over the last 2 years. I don't think our strategy is to bring in more medium/tall forwards, it's clear with the inclusion of Higgins, Butler and the want to play midfielders up forward, our strategy isn't to have a tall forward line.

I didn't say our strategy was based entirely off of Richmond. Richmond won the flag this year, and have been the best side over the last four years. I don't think it matters at all when the strategy was implemented because it still works now.

I'm basing my opinion off of what we've done in trade and draft and the way our forward line operated in Ratten's first year. Doesn't seem to me at all like we want to go taller up forward. Resting Ryder/Marshall forward is more to do with our strategy in the ruck IMO than anything up forward - the fact they can both kick goals is a bonus.

 

[CaptainRisky]

I think you are missing my point. I'm saying Ford is more of what we already have meaning I don't believe we need many more medium sized forwards because that doesn't seem to be our strategy, as you explained in your post - we have Byrnes, Gresham, Billings, Higgins, Butler. Our strategy forward is to surround King with smalls and rotate them through the midfield so guys like Steele, who can kick goals, can rest forward too. It doesn't make sense to me to add another medium sized forward when we already have enough of them - Membrey & Battle. To say I think Ford is more of what we already have (medium sized forward) does not mean I want another small forward. I want genuine mids.


Think we already have enough of it, we need genuine midfielders.


Well it can be more of what we already have because we seemingly already have enough medium sized forwards otherwise we would've gone after one over the last 2 years. I don't think our strategy is to bring in more medium/tall forwards, it's clear with the inclusion of Higgins, Butler and the want to play midfielders up forward, our strategy isn't to have a tall forward line.

I didn't say our strategy was based entirely off of Richmond. Richmond won the flag this year, and have been the best side over the last four years. I don't think it matters at all when the strategy was implemented because it still works now.

I'm basing my opinion off of what we've done in trade and draft and the way our forward line operated in Ratten's first year. Doesn't seem to me at all like we want to go taller up forward. Resting Ryder/Marshall forward is more to do with our strategy in the ruck IMO than anything up forward - the fact they can both kick goals is a bonus.

Im not missing your point , you didn't read what i said , i said he is nothing like the ones i mentioned , he will end up a bull mid who can go forward , not like the others who are mostly forwards who can do some mid time

 

[Significant]

I think you are missing my point. I'm saying Ford is more of what we already have meaning I don't believe we need many more medium sized forwards because that doesn't seem to be our strategy, as you explained in your post - we have Byrnes, Gresham, Billings, Higgins, Butler. Our strategy forward is to surround King with smalls and rotate them through the midfield so guys like Steele, who can kick goals, can rest forward too. It doesn't make sense to me to add another medium sized forward when we already have enough of them - Membrey & Battle. To say I think Ford is more of what we already have (medium sized forward) does not mean I want another small forward. I want genuine mids.


Think we already have enough of it, we need genuine midfielders.


Well it can be more of what we already have because we seemingly already have enough medium sized forwards otherwise we would've gone after one over the last 2 years. I don't think our strategy is to bring in more medium/tall forwards, it's clear with the inclusion of Higgins, Butler and the want to play midfielders up forward, our strategy isn't to have a tall forward line.

I didn't say our strategy was based entirely off of Richmond. Richmond won the flag this year, and have been the best side over the last four years. I don't think it matters at all when the strategy was implemented because it still works now.

I'm basing my opinion off of what we've done in trade and draft and the way our forward line operated in Ratten's first year. Doesn't seem to me at all like we want to go taller up forward. Resting Ryder/Marshall forward is more to do with our strategy in the ruck IMO than anything up forward - the fact they can both kick goals is a bonus.

He is Steele

 

[Tommy Wigs]

It's worth watching the whole SA all stars game to see the stuff that didn't make the highlights. This kid is something very different..

That’s my first vision of him. Slinks around like Clark. What do you mean by different - positive or negative?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

That’s my first vision of him. Slinks around like Clark. What do you mean by different - positive or negative?

Hopefully not Eljay Connor type different.

 

[StCicatriz]

I think you are missing my point. I'm saying Ford is more of what we already have meaning I don't believe we need many more medium sized forwards because that doesn't seem to be our strategy, as you explained in your post - we have Byrnes, Gresham, Billings, Higgins, Butler. Our strategy forward is to surround King with smalls and rotate them through the midfield so guys like Steele, who can kick goals, can rest forward too. It doesn't make sense to me to add another medium sized forward when we already have enough of them - Membrey & Battle. To say I think Ford is more of what we already have (medium sized forward) does not mean I want another small forward. I want genuine mids.


Think we already have enough of it, we need genuine midfielders.


Well it can be more of what we already have because we seemingly already have enough medium sized forwards otherwise we would've gone after one over the last 2 years. I don't think our strategy is to bring in more medium/tall forwards, it's clear with the inclusion of Higgins, Butler and the want to play midfielders up forward, our strategy isn't to have a tall forward line.

I didn't say our strategy was based entirely off of Richmond. Richmond won the flag this year, and have been the best side over the last four years. I don't think it matters at all when the strategy was implemented because it still works now.

I'm basing my opinion off of what we've done in trade and draft and the way our forward line operated in Ratten's first year. Doesn't seem to me at all like we want to go taller up forward. Resting Ryder/Marshall forward is more to do with our strategy in the ruck IMO than anything up forward - the fact they can both kick goals is a bonus.

only problem is battle is not played as a forward. he's used a utility, mainly played on the wing. before that down back. that's where the majority of his football has come from. i believe battle is a genuine forward, but to date the club hasn't gone that way.

tim is 27 next year. given it takes 4 years for a draftee to usually develop, that would put old mate in the perfect hand over window.

also worth remembering that the game changes and quickly, because richmond have gone with a certain structure doesn't mean that's where the next successful era is coming from now. before the acquisition of Lynch, richmond went in with a very short forward line. they also didn't care about things like clearance and a dominant ruck.

we on the other hand have gone with a dominant ruck and played two.

so our structure is quite different from richmond, remembering we play one of marshall and ryder there, along side king and membrey. with battle floating down there off the wing or per needs basis.

based on the mock drafts. which are always taken with a grain of salt, i'd say its unlikely ford even gets to our pick.

 

[George]

Im not missing your point , you didn't read what i said , i said he is nothing like the ones i mentioned , he will end up a bull mid who can go forward , not like the others who are mostly forwards who can do some mid time

Yep and my point is that we already have medium sized forwards and I believe our strategy isn't to have anymore of them. I think we need genuine midfielders I don't believe Ford is that.

He is Steele

No I don't think he is a genuine mid which is what I think we need.

only problem is battle is not played as a forward. he's used a utility, mainly played on the wing. before that down back. that's where the majority of his football has come from.

tim is 27 next year. given it takes 4 years for a draftee to usually develop, that would put old mate in the perfect hand over window.

We didn't play Battle on the wing and in the backline because of preference or choice. He was drafted as a medium sized forward and in an ideal world that is where he will play a majority of his football.

It doesn't matter that Membrey is 27, Battle will fill that role IMO. I think one genuine tall forward and one genuine medium sized forward is all we need. King & Battle. Surround them with damaging small forwards - and going by our draft/trade history over the last 24 months that looks exactly like what we want to do.

I mean why would we want to develop a kid that we picked at ~20 for an entire four years. You want your first pick to be best 22 or borderline 22.