List Mgmt. 2022 AFL Draft & Rookie Draft

[Aphrodite]

 

[TENACIOUS]

Would you do pick 10 and our future first for pick 3?

I wouldn't, we need more top picks not less...

 

[Bletch]

Would you do pick 10 and our future first for pick 3?

Don't think we'd do it, but it's an intriguing proposition. And from GWS perspective, it'd depend on what they thought of who they'd get at 3 (4). They might be happy to trade it out, given they'd be getting an extra pick next year.

But anyway, we can't do it without first getting an extra F2 or F3, we we've already traded out a future 3rd, we can't trade out our future 1st. And then we get into the 2 x 1sts over 4 years issue. Because we traded out in 2020 and 2021, we want to use two first round picks over this year and next, or it will stifle our ability to trade picks over 2023 and 2024. And we'll want to be able to do that, because we have father/sons in 2024. It's complicated, but in short, I don't think we'll consolidate this year's first with next year's first.

Edit: More likely would be 10 and 28 for say 12 and 19.

 

[The Smoking Gun]

Cheers for the write ups, I know you have mentioned Cowan but he looks a possibility of being available at our second picks, other than Hayes, who do you like at 10?

Probably only Phillipou as I doubt that Jefferson slides enough.
Hollands is OK, but I do have some questions regarding the amount of impact per possession he has. I think people can get too seduced by the stats sheet rather than the impact they have. I'm also not sold on the penetration on his kicking. Competitiveness and attack on the ball is good though.
I'd be hoping to get Barnett with our 2nd Pick, which is a little more realistic than expecting Cowan to still be there.
One of the interesting things this year is that the Trade Period and Draft Combine overlap this year so I'm glad Austin has gotten the Acres trade done early.

It'll be interesting to see what Pick trades clubs choose to do on Draft Night. Expect GWS to pull some ridiculous trades trying to get further up the pecking order.

 

[Arr0w]

Combine results will start to filter through late today

 

[Bletch]

Combine results will start to filter through late today

There was an article in the Hun a day or two ago mentioning some kids that had been added to the Combine (Vic state I assume). Know anything more about it? Haven't seen anyone else mention it, and can't see the Hun article as it's paywalled.

 

[Arr0w]

There was an article in the Hun a day or two ago mentioning some kids that had been added to the Combine (Vic state I assume). Know anything more about it? Haven't seen anyone else mention it, and can't see the Hun article as it's paywalled.

Ethan Phillips, Joe Richard's, not sure of the 3 others

 

[The Smoking Gun]

I know you like the idea of using Young as a second ruck, but I am pretty sure our brains trust has him cemented into a key defensive post.

I agree with your thoughts on Young as I'm not convinced he has the natural aggression to be a ruck, or even a KPF, which is why he's in defence.

With McGovern, Marchbank and Kemp, there is hardly room to “blood” a youngster in the foreseeable future.

I'd be looking to replace both Gov & Marchbank sooner rather than later. Neither are simply durable enough to be a permanent part of our defensive unit moving forward in the medium to longer term. Based upon Gov's output, or lack thereof, at either end of the ground I struggle to see his contract being renewed once it expires next year.

Pitto and TDK are our ruck coupling.

I agree with you for at least the next two years. Pitto simply isn't a marking option around the ground or up forward, which is why he's on the bench when not rucking. Even if we drafted Barnett I doubt he'd play much senior footy until at least well into his 2nd year. That said, the longer we take to put a replacement plan into action, the longer it'll take to satisfactorily address the issue.

There is plenty to like about Hayes, but has been kept away from accountable roles almost completely.. One glaring example had him “monstered” by 12cm shorter Underager Harley Reid in the goal square. Not definitive, but I don’t trust him enough as a defender to take him at our first.

OK, so this is where I'm going to disagree with you because both Reid & Hayes are similar weights. This is like trying to fight the same sized fish on a longer fishing rod versus a shorter fishing rod. The shorter fishing rod puts the leverage in favour of the angler while the longer fishing rod puts the leverage in favour of the fish. In this case the leverage advantages Reid. The other thing that needs to be acknowledged is that Reid was easily the most naturally talented footballer in that game and despite his age, Reid's game is much more advanced than Hayes.

Surely we are taking a hybrid mid type. I make no secret I like Phillipou and Hollands. Hotton caught my eye and in the game at the cattery, a standout career high, but lesser body of work last time out has me a bit more circumspect.

I'm not so sure about that. I do like Phillipou, but both Cook and Voss voiced their concern about our lack of depth regarding our tall stocks as soon as they arrived at the club. Sure enough this was the very first area where we were exposed when injuries hit. Sam Durdin's 1 solitary quarter of footy after being plucked from the SANFL mid-year hasn't exactly done much to convince me we've plugged that hole. I still think Hayes is the favourite here.

I struggle to see who we might want to trade up for. There are plenty of reasonable mid hybrid options around the mark. Does it mean we want Jefferson? Too early for generation next, with Harry and Charlie locked away, but the three of them are all athletic, and could conceivably coexist.

100% this. I'd be interested to see what GWS do on Draft Night. 12 & 19 for 10, 49 & 64, or 10 & a Future 2nd??? Hayes, Cowan & Barnett may go some way to addressing some of the issues we face. The other player I like is Coby Burgiel, but I doubt he'd be available around the 20 mark.

Good post Coona Blues that's created some interesting talking points. I'm sure many of us will have differing thoughts as to what we need and what we'd like and also as to how feasible it is to attempt to address both.

 

[Ash24]

What are some realistic ways we can move up the draft order? Because I would love three picks inside the top 40.

It's tough because pick 49 and the pick we get for Dow/Setters are likely pretty irrelevant picks, and if picking that late isn't appealing to us then it probably isn't for other clubs either. I also personally don't see us using any more future picks as we're already one down from the Acres trade.

So from a bit of thinking, if we want three picks inside the top 35-40 there seems to be two main ways to get there...

Split picks - Splitting pick 29 = 2x picks ~ 40, so splitting pick 10 would be the only option. If Collingwood get pick 25 from the Henry trade then I'd look at that pick + 16 for our picks 10 + 42. Or do that same deal on our end for GWS' picks 18 + 19.

Combine picks - In our case it'd likely involve picks 42 + 49. No team will do a pick in the 30s for two picks in the 40s, unless it's for Brisbane's pick 34-38 as they need draft points. Problem is everyone would be after those picks because Brisbane are easy to get a good deal with (seeing they're chasing points and not the best deal player availability wise).

Thoughts? Preferences? Improvements?

Just thought I'd add that if we could get Jefferson/Keeler with one of our picks and Humphrey/Hollands/Hewett/Szybkowski/Hotton with our other I'd be very happy. With whichever method we use to acquire an extra pick in the top 40 I'd just be going for best available (slight preference of another KPP). I'd use our last list spot for a train on player through the SSP, would love Cahill.

 

[Stamos]

What are some realistic ways we can move up the draft order? Because I would love three picks inside the top 40.

Trade #10 down, or
F2, or
package later picks with Setters to Scum for a better pick

 

[windows1]

Surely we offer 10 and 29 for 12 and 19 to gws

 

[Magical_EddieBetts]

Surely we offer 10 and 29 for 12 and 19 to gws

I don’t want our first pick any lower than 10, if we change our first pick then I want us to go in the top 10 I don’t want us to go back. Quality over quantity for me

 

[Stamos]

I don’t want our first pick any lower than 10, if we change our first pick then I want us to go in the top 10 I don’t want us to go back. Quality over quantity for me

Think you might be disappointed

 

[JuddgementDay]

Surely we offer 10 and 29 for 12 and 19 to gws

Why would GWS agree to that?

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

MAKE IT HAPPEN AUSTIN. WE LOVE A GOOD APPRENTICESHIP

 

[thebluenewdeal]

Jeez, I’ve been having a look at keeler from last year to this year and he’s absolutely unreal. I didn’t know he was that good until watching his games. Very surprised he’s around the 15-25 mark. Looks like a top 5 prospect to me easily, . Won’t take pack marks yet but I can see that being the last piece to his game. He’s basically got everything else. High competitiveness, great game awareness and the best technically gifted ruck/fwd I’ve seen coming through for a while. If we can find a way to pick him up on draft night by packaging 28 with a future pick I’d be very happy.

 

[DangerousD]

Surely we offer 10 and 29 for 12 and 19 to gws

Why do you think GWS will trade down and not up? They want pick 1

 

[Sheephead]

I don’t want our first pick any lower than 10, if we change our first pick then I want us to go in the top 10 I don’t want us to go back. Quality over quantity for me

Sorry mate - gotta disagree.

GWS have 12,15,18,19
Swans have 14,17

You gotta consider an opportunity to get 2 Top 20 picks if you can. 12 and 19 gets you 2 very good kids. 10 and 29 probably gets you 1. 14 and 17 gets you 2 very good kids also, maybe a bit better.

 

[Sheephead]

Why do you think GWS will trade down and not up? They want pick 1

? Why is is it a trade down?? They have 4 picks in the 12-19 range. 10 is somewhat more attractive than 12 for a trade up. Top 10 is a very convincing argument in a trade. 3 and 10 gets you 1 I believe.

Having said that, I don’t see why GWS need 1. Their main target is Cadman. I see NM taking a mid when they lose JHF. WC may take Busslinger or a mid also.

 

[Ash24]

Sorry mate - gotta disagree.

GWS have 12,15,18,19
Swans have 14,17

You gotta consider an opportunity to get 2 Top 20 picks if you can. 12 and 19 gets you 2 very good kids. 10 and 29 probably gets you 1. 14 and 17 gets you 2 very good kids also, maybe a bit better.

I agree, would love to have 3 picks inside the top 30-35.

Sadly GWS are trading pick 3 + 12 for North's pick 1, so splitting our pick 10 for pick 18 + 19 would be great.

 

[Sheephead]

MAKE IT HAPPEN AUSTIN. WE LOVE A GOOD APPRENTICESHIP

Just my uneducated opinion - but if we’re interested, he’ll be there at 10. He’s not elite at anything, if anything, to me, he’s a tweener. Too heavy and slow for a mid or high HF. Too small for a KP. He’s a U18 bully. Just not getting the hype.

 

[Sheephead]

I agree, would love to have 3 picks inside the top 30-35.

Sadly GWS are trading pick 3 + 12 for North's pick 1, so splitting our pick 10 for pick 18 + 19 would be great.

Ok, didn’t see that. Good luck to them for whatever their reasoning for wanting 1. 15 and 18 though, not 18 and 19. We’d lose 29. GWS have lost plenty. 1, 10, 19, 29 gets them a good haul.

 

[Ash24]

Ok, didn’t see that. Good luck to them for whatever their reasoning for wanting 1. 15 and 18 though, not 18 and 19. We’d lose 29. GWS have lost plenty. 1, 10, 19, 29 gets them a good haul.

That's fine as long as after picks 15 and 18 you're comfortable with picking at 49. Even if we wanted to package up 49 and the pick for Setters, I doubt anyone would do it for a decent pick inside the top 40.

 

[macky99]

Sorry mate - gotta disagree.

GWS have 12,15,18,19
Swans have 14,17

You gotta consider an opportunity to get 2 Top 20 picks if you can. 12 and 19 gets you 2 very good kids. 10 and 29 probably gets you 1. 14 and 17 gets you 2 very good kids also, maybe a bit better.

There looks to be plenty of quality in the 1st 10-12 selections, we should be able to obtain one quality long term player by holding our selection there is a good chance there will be 1-3 good choices at our pick, you lose control by trading down in your choices.

l don't see the difference between 19vs 29 being a major difference would rather we hold our selection and focus on quality at our 1st pick.
If anything moving up would be a better outcome than trading down.

 

[Arr0w]

If North get a hold of pick 2, to go with pick 1, GWS know Cadman will be gone

GWS get pick 1, they will take Cadman

 

[esoteric]

If North get a hold of pick 2, to go with pick 1, GWS know Cadman will be gone

GWS get pick 1, they will take Cadman

North should trade pick 1 to a club that won't take Cadman. I wonder if there's a club with a couple of Coleman medallists on long term contracts?