Preview 2022 draft prospects

[Jen2310]

That would mean we're targeting a DFA either before the draft or in the PSD. Or Jeff Browne has no bloody idea what he is talking about.

Still can't see an obvious DFA we'd be going after (based on list needs) and it doesn't make much sense to pick someone up in the PSD from 16th spot does it?

Or maybe a SSP candidate over summer which Wright indicated could happen, for a Ruck if we dont get one in the draft

 

[partypie]

Or maybe a SSP candidate over summer which Wright indicated could happen, for a Ruck if we dont get one in the draft

SSP candidates wont work because they're added as rookies - the problem we have is that we're 4 short of the minimum of 36 senior listed players as things stand right now (and we also have the maximum 6 Cat A rookies). Some have floated promoting Ginnivan but if we wanted to hold onto the extra rookie list spot for an addition during the SSP then why delist / rookie Murley in the first place?

 

[TradeDraft]

We'll be taking 3 picks to the draft (I assume not counting Noble upgrade) according to Jeff Browne this afternoon
Whether its the first 3 and do something with pick 51, or upgrade somehow.. Not sure.

Could we sign a DFA?

 

[jmac70]

Could we sign a DFA?

Hopefully a ruck

 

[manicpie]

Could we sign a DFA?

Yes, if we have a spot or make one

 

[whiskeytown]

Not sure where a mature age ruck will come from… unless they convince a retiring ruck to play on or take one from the state leagues ?

Otherwise when scouring the list it’s slim pickings for rucks as DFAs.

And no point taking a kid ruck with a late pick who is 1. a long shot to make it 2. Won’t be ready for 2-3 years anyhow

 

[TradeDraft]

Not sure where a mature age ruck will come from… unless they convince a retiring ruck to play on or take one from the state leagues ?

Otherwise when scouring the list it’s slim pickings for rucks as DFAs.

And no point taking a kid ruck with a late pick who is 1. a long shot to make it 2. Won’t be ready for 2-3 years anyhow

Already have Faye for that

 

[Jen2310]

Already have Faye for that

He's a long way. A project player you shouldn't be counting your chickens on

 

[whiskeytown]

Already have Faye for that

Begg and Faye…

So I see no point in drafting an 18 year old long shot ruck with pick 51

Better off just rookie listing a mature age one from one of the state leagues

 

[swoop42]

Outside of salary cap considerations why wouldn't you upgrade Ginnivan now?

He's already signed until the end of 2024 and is coming off a 40 goal season.

So either we take a 4th player in a national draft seen as shallow and commit a 2 year deal to them or promote a player who has already justified his place on the primary list for the next two seasons.

While I personally don't care what route the club takes as they've clearly got a plan or plans in mind I do find it somewhat strange how the AFL have allowed the rookie draft to be bastardised beyond it's original intention of giving more players an initial opportunity of an AFL career but one at a lower risk / cost to the club involved.

That intention served Ginnivan and Collingwood well but how any player who has now won themselves a 3rd and 4th season on an AFL list (and in Ginnivan's case become a regular member of the 22) can still be classified a "rookie" is beyond me when we'll have greenhorns landing on our primary list in a months time.

 

[whiskeytown]

Outside of salary cap considerations why wouldn't you upgrade Ginnivan now?

He's already signed until the end of 2024 and is coming off a 40 goal season.

So either we take a 4th player in a national draft seen as shallow and commit a 2 year deal to them or promote a player who has already justified his place on the primary list for the next two seasons.

While I personally don't care what route the club takes as they've clearly got a plan or plans in mind I do find it somewhat strange how the AFL have allowed the rookie draft to be bastardised beyond it's original intention of giving more players an initial opportunity of an AFL career but one at a lower risk / cost to the club involved.

That intention served Ginnivan and Collingwood well but how any player who has now won themselves a 3rd and 4th season on an AFL list (and in Ginnivan's case become a regular member of the 22) can still be classified a "rookie" is beyond me when we'll have greenhorns landing on our primary list in a months time.

100% agree… but the difference between upgrading him or not is?

He is still contracted. And mihocek served out his 3 years on the rookie list before being upgraded. Didn’t hurt.

For mine it’s just another example of how the rookie list is antiquated

Just make every player senior listed… and any player drafted after the 3rd round or taken as a DFA etc, subject to a 1year deal instead of the standard 2

 

[Jen2310]

Outside of salary cap considerations why wouldn't you upgrade Ginnivan now?

He's already signed until the end of 2024 and is coming off a 40 goal season.

So either we take a 4th player in a national draft seen as shallow and commit a 2 year deal to them or promote a player who has already justified his place on the primary list for the next two seasons.

While I personally don't care what route the club takes as they've clearly got a plan or plans in mind I do find it somewhat strange how the AFL have allowed the rookie draft to be bastardised beyond it's original intention of giving more players an initial opportunity of an AFL career but one at a lower risk / cost to the club involved.

That intention served Ginnivan and Collingwood well but how any player who has now won themselves a 3rd and 4th season on an AFL list (and in Ginnivan's case become a regular member of the 22) can still be classified a "rookie" is beyond me when we'll have greenhorns landing on our primary list in a months time.

Noble has been on the rookie list since 2019.
Mihocek in his initial years whilst played pretty much every game. I'm not sure ive seen clubs or at least us, upgrade a player until they have to. But anything is possible.

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

Begg and Faye…

So I see no point in drafting an 18 year old long shot ruck with pick 51

Better off just rookie listing a mature age one from one of the state leagues

Just take the best ruck in the draft in Barnett. Last time we did that he turned into a bloody good player. SA boy too.

 

[The Phantom]

Salary cap wise, isn’t the advantage of the rookie list that the first $80k sits beyond the cap?
So with two extra rookies do we not add $160k to the player budget?
And that’s why we leave players like checkers, noble and others on there for as long as possible.
Contrastingly, a team like Norf wouldn’t do this because you have to spend the base cap and they don’t have the extra $$$s.
Can someone confirm my thoughts?

 

[Quicky]

I think the whole idea of this draft for us is to get 2 bookends which we can develop at our own pace, that's why we got McStay and Frampton. We will take best available talls in this draft with our first 2 picks

It's the right approach imo. I hope our scouting and drafting nail it.

 

[The Phantom]

I really love watching strong marking key position forwards mark.
Checkers is the best we’ve had since Cloke.
I really hope we add a couple.
I know they’re not as fashionable, but it’s what the crowds love to see.

So I’m still hoping we go for Keeler and Lemmey in that order. (Although I do like the sound of Hayes & Barnet) And I admit that I know little about prospects compared to many here.

I’m not into anymore risks on NQR afflicted players; Scharenberg and Stevo killed that for me.

And a good midget is not as good as a good medium sized player. So I’m dubious on any player under 180cms.
But god bless Jamie Elliott.

Derek Hine, Alan Shepherd and Geoff Brown will all be at Club42 in a couple of weeks.
Be interesting to hear what they share.
But I won’t be able to tell you here.

 

[Quicky]

Chief blocked the links to KM’s espn articles because he was posting them instead of manually inputting his power rankings/phantoms to BF.

It was a childish, dick move imo, and resulted in KM not posting on BF anymore, hence no almanac for 2022 on the D&T board.

I think there is a post by Chief addressing this somewhere. From what I remember Knightmare was given leeway with his ESPN articles, something other posters were never given for their external content. Knightmare started linking to cryptocurrency articles in his signature block, was asked not to, continued doing it anyway, got his privleges to his signature block removed, he then decided to leave.

 

[No SPIN]

Yeah on the basis of eyeballs which then leads to advertising and BF is a competitor of ESPN’s for advertising revenue…

I think it would be a different story if Jon Ralph came on here linking us to a Hun article of his.

Historically your argument had merit.
Today things are very different with free to air channels frequently taking add revenue from competitors eg Netflix. Similarly Radio stations advertising podcasts.
The media landscape is changing rapidly, with advertisers having far more options than the past, thus forcing traditional media to be more pragmatic about what advertising to accept.

 

[Quicky]

IDK I really doubt anyone is being drawn to BigFooty to read KM’s stuff. If I were running a business and someone was diverting traffic to a competitors site I wouldn’t cop it especially considering BF was the platform that built KM’s career…

You're wrong on this one Sco. Knightmare pulled in a lot of traffic. There did need to be a line though and that line was crytocurrency advertising not his footy articles. At least what I remember from Chiefs post on it.

 

[No SPIN]

If we land Brayden George I'd be over the moon.

Kid is a jet!!!
And we could get him for unders

At 189cm Ollie Henry was undersized as a FWD and George is only 186cm.

So what X factor above and beyond Ollie, does he have to suggest he’ll make it despite lacking height.

 

[gouki88]

At 189cm Ollie Henry was undersized as a FWD and George is only 186cm.

So what X factor above and beyond Ollie, does he have to suggest he’ll make it despite lacking height.

Henry was undersized as a marking forward, not as a forward generally. George has explosive speed and is a power athlete, neither of which Henry has. Reminds me of Stephenson's speed off the mark, before he went off the deep end

 

[Scodog10]

At 189cm Ollie Henry was undersized as a FWD and George is only 186cm.

So what X factor above and beyond Ollie, does he have to suggest he’ll make it despite lacking height.

From what I understand George is more your Rayner type power forward than a leap and mark Henry style forward. I personally don’t think size comes into it for George as a fwd.

Your post does highlight the knowledge gap when assessing these kids. I mean with George’s injury I’m going off what he did early year and I have no point of reference as to what his opponents were like. Same goes for Barnett some on here are drooling over his athletic prowess in highlights, but forgetting it’s SANFL jnr level where the gap between AFL relevant and making up the numbers is vast.

 

[Quicky]

It always seems we have picks too low for realistic key position prospects. Twomeys latest rankings have Jefferson 10 and Busslinger at 14 just outside our reach. I wouldn't go near Keeler as a low intensity key forward with variable effort. Lemmey looks a tweener to me. Not quite a ruck and not quite key position.

 

[Carlthetruth]

From what I understand George is more your Rayner type power forward than a leap and mark Henry style forward. I personally don’t think size comes into it for George as a fwd.

Your post does highlight the knowledge gap when assessing these kids. I mean with George’s injury I’m going off what he did early year and I have no point of reference as to what his opponents were like. Same goes for Barnett some on here are drooling over his athletic prowess in highlights, but forgetting it’s SANFL jnr level where the gap between AFL relevant and making up the numbers is vast.

So true, how many people got uber excited when a Scully or Keeler kicked a bag in the Sanfl u18's and it's up against the poor old 5'8 kid playing fullback for Central Districts.

 

[sr36]

SSP candidates wont work because they're added as rookies - the problem we have is that we're 4 short of the minimum of 36 senior listed players as things stand right now (and we also have the maximum 6 Cat A rookies). Some have floated promoting Ginnivan but if we wanted to hold onto the extra rookie list spot for an addition during the SSP then why delist / rookie Murley in the first place?

I think we might be hoping to take that WA ruck who's rated quite highly in the draft. If we take him, go with 4 players in the draft. If we don't take him, 3 in the draft and go with an SSP ruck and upgrade a rookie.