List Mgmt. 2025 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals

[zyzzbruh]

Neither Ling or Stephens were bolters.

They just weren't the favourite choices of posters. Myself included (I wanted Serong too), but I realise they were highly rated and weren't the reaches that some keep saying they were.

Based on the usual draft rankings etc that lots of us read, Sheldrick was a bigger "bolter". Bowman last year was a massive "bolter" despite getting the nod from some who'll use these draft rankings (poorly) to blast the club in hindsight over others. Yes, he got into a top 30 mock draft late, but that just shows where clubs were likely to take him, not where he had been rated all along.

Stephens was definitely a bolter, there's no way around that. Ling was there abouts but not necessarily considered the best in terms of 'type' for the pick itself - kpp's, specialised mids and small forwards will always sit on top in a group of players who are considered similar quality as they are usually less of a risk due to their flexibility and ceiling. So there is no doubt we reached in hope trying to recruit a specific type of player rather than the next best. Twomey isn't usually far off in the final draft rankings vs where they end up, and Stephens and Ling were heavily skewed standouts in comparison.

We did the same with Mcinerney albeit down the order. A needs based pick who wasn't on anyone's radar and likely wouldn't have been picked up if it weren't for us. Played limited representative footy, was essentially a suburban footballer who managed to break into the local senior side early - and luckily for us, and probably due to KB's keen eye for a specific type of player, we somehow came across him, took notice and he became a player of interest. We took a punt despite there being more noticeable players left on the table, and that's what i suspect happened with Stephens and Ling albeit to a much lesser extent. No one ever picks an outside/positionally flexible type player in the top 10, ever.

 

[Bloods86]

Stephens was definitely a bolter, there's no way around that. Ling was there abouts but not necessarily considered the best in terms of 'type' for the pick itself - kpp's, specialised mids and small forwards will always sit on top in a group of players who are considered similar quality as they are usually less of a risk due to their flexibility and ceiling. So there is no doubt we reached in hope trying to recruit a specific type of player rather than the next best. Twomey isn't usually far off in the final draft rankings vs where they end up, and Stephens and Ling were heavily skewed standouts in comparison.

We did the same with Mcinerney albeit down the order. A needs based pick who wasn't on anyone's radar and likely wouldn't have been picked up if it weren't for us. Played limited representative footy, not a private school kid, was essentially a suburban footballer who managed to break into the local senior side early - and luckily for us, and probably due to KB's keen eye for a specific type of player, we somehow came across him, took notice and he became a player of interest. We took a punt despite there being more noticeable players left on the table, and that's what i suspect happened with Stephens and Ling albeit to a much lesser extent. No one ever picks an outside/positionally flexible type player in the top 10, ever.

There is absolutely a way around it. To portray Stephens as a bolter, you'd have to have forgotten the various rankings and articles that had him "anywhere" from our pick 5 to just outside the Top 10. He was not considered some late first round prospect that we swooped on early.

Ling was a needs pick yes, but was talked about in the first round or early 2nd. More of a reach than Stephens if we're going by various draft rankings, but less than a few others we've drafted and as best we can know, bad luck got in the way of us finding out if it was a good or poor decision.

 

[zyzzbruh]

There is absolutely a way around it. To portray Stephens as a bolter, you'd have to have forgotten the various rankings and articles that had him "anywhere" from our pick 5 to just outside the Top 10. He was not considered some late first round prospect that we swooped on early.

Ling was a needs pick yes, but was talked about in the first round or early 2nd. More of a reach than Stephens if we're going by various draft rankings, but less than a few others we've drafted and as best we can know, bad luck got in the way of us finding out if it was a good or poor decision.

I guess i just see a tighter threshold to be considered a bolter the higher the pick. The top 10 are usually the most specialised players in the draft, so i expected Stephens to fall out of that, and the experts also thought the same at the time. So knowing that teams never take a player like that so early, i can't unsee him as a bolter.

The player he became is proof in the pudding really. There are always going to be failures in the first round but even without hindsight he shouldn't have gone that high. I can't think of a poorer top 5 pick in recent times (maybe DGB but atleast he was kpp worth the risk). Even if they don't live up to expectations usually a player that goes that high still ends up being a useful average player.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Bowman kinda got there on the basis of his massive hanger that attracted a lot of attention. Seems a really good kid and a fair to reasonable player. Wouldn't have been my choice at that pick as I wanted a KPP to develop and Matt Whitlock was still there but nothing to get upset about.

If we don't take Bowman we wouldn't have taken Bice, and Bowman was the type we needed (med FWD). The spread last year was well done by the recruiters. Apparently WCE were massive into Bowman at their next pick anyway

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I guess i just see a tighter threshold to be considered a bolter the higher the pick. The top 10 are usually the most specialised players in the draft, so i expected Stephens to fall out of that, and the experts also thought the same at the time. So knowing that teams never take a player like that so early, i can't unsee him as a bolter.

The player he became is proof in the pudding really. There are always going to be failures in the first round but even without hindsight he shouldn't have gone that high. I can't think of a poorer top 5 pick in recent times (maybe DGB but atleast he was kpp worth the risk). Even if they don't live up to expectations usually a player that goes that high still ends up being a useful average player.

Under no planet was Stephens a bolter, he's only seen as a poor choice as Serong was there for the taking, but Stephens was seen as the premier inside/outside in that range. He didn't work, but he wasn't a bolter.

Ling don't get me started again please, it was a shocking pick, and it ended up being worse than that. My issue was not the pick itself but for goodness sakes trade down and do it, banking an extra pick.

 

[Deccas]

Ling turned out to be a busy but it's hard to blame that on the drafting. As I recall he was considered a pretty interesting but divisive prospect in that he was clearly the fastest player in his class and had pretty good but not great skill.

He got himself turf toe a month or two into his time at the swans and spent a couple of years without being able to train or play. We ended up delisting because the AFL rules mean we have to delist a few every year and he had less exposed form than anyone else.

He doesn't do himself turf toe and who knows how his career pans out.

Anyway in terms of list management spending and the soft cap I think we're better of prioritising development of talent ID. Lots of players really become something at the swans (and Geelong too for that matter) because we do a great job of preparing people to get the best out of themselves in specific roles. It's no coincidence we are both perennial contenders and I think it's that we are both able to get really solid contributions from players like Amartey or Rampe, or in their case players like Neale etc.

 

[Kiama Chris]

If we don't take Bowman we wouldn't have taken Bice, and Bowman was the type we needed (med FWD). The spread last year was well done by the recruiters. Apparently WCE were massive into Bowman at their next pick anyway

Without arguing about Bowman in particular we had already picked Dattoli as a small forward possibly to progress later to the midfield and while we had a fair number of KPPs the board consensus seemed to be that they lacked somewhat in quality. I felt at the time (still do) that we had an opportunity in that draft to pick up a decent KPP and put in the development. Matt had shown capability and flexibility to play at both ends (as we saw on the weekend). I would have been quite prepared to pass on Bowman to get him. There was Armstrong as well.
Our recruiters felt otherwise and that's their job. Time will tell.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Under no planet was Stephens a bolter, he's only seen as a poor choice as Serong was there for the taking, but Stephens was seen as the premier inside/outside in that range. He didn't work, but he wasn't a bolter.

Ling don't get me started again please, it was a shocking pick, and it ended up being worse than that. My issue was not the pick itself but for goodness sakes trade down and do it, banking an extra pick.

By bolter i dont mean he wasn't worth a top 12 or so pick at the time - but being that outside type going at pick 5 is what makes it a bolter for me.

Take last year as an example -Tobie Travaglia went at pick 8, fair pick, he's a top 10 prospect after all. But the Stephens pick for me was the equivalent of if Richmond picked Travaglia at number 1, or Carlton at number 3. They're both top 10 players but that's still an absolute bolt. You just don't see any team taking an outside/flexible player in the top 10 let alone top 5. Stephens was booked in to go at around 10-14 which would've made sense once the cream mids and kpps were off the table.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Without arguing about Bowman in particular we had already picked Dattoli as a small forward possibly to progress later to the midfield and while we had a fair number of KPPs the board consensus seemed to be that they lacked somewhat in quality. I felt at the time (still do) that we had an opportunity in that draft to pick up a decent KPP and put in the development. Matt had shown capability and flexibility to play at both ends (as we saw on the weekend). I would have been quite prepared to pass on Bowman to get him. There was Armstrong as well.
Our recruiters felt otherwise and that's their job. Time will tell.

Bowman isn't a small forward, so completely different type, after Hayward it's slim picking as a medium forward, yeah Clary might be able to key word being might. Can't say I was that high on either of the Whitlock boys, but Armstrong I was surprised to see slip but maybe there's a reason

 

[LukeParkerno1]

By bolter i dont mean he wasn't worth a top 12 or so pick at the time - but being that outside type going at pick 5 is what makes it a bolter for me.

Take last year as an example -Tobie Travaglia went at pick 8, fair pick, he's a top 10 prospect after all. But the Stephens pick for me was the equivalent of if Richmond picked Travaglia at number 1, or Carlton at number 3. They're both top 10 players but that's still an absolute bolt. You just don't see any team taking an outside/flexible player in the top 10 let alone top 5. Stephens was booked in to go at around 10-14 which would've made sense once the cream mids and kpps were off the table.

Huh, Stephens was rated a 4-10 pick in every single rated draft analysis at the time. We have took the guy in that range, not as if we've taken someone rated 50 at not 5. It didn't work and yes it's made worse by Serong being there and was wanting us to draft him. At the time we were after a hybrid mid not a pure inside though. All we've done is taken a guy at the higher range of his range that's it

 

[zyzzbruh]

Bowman isn't a small forward, so completely different type, after Hayward it's slim picking as a medium forward, yeah Clary might be able to key word being might. Can't say I was that high on either of the Whitlock boys, but Armstrong I was surprised to see slip but maybe there's a reason

I'm hoping Bowman can become a Will Hoskin Elliot type. Maraud between the wing and forward pocket just causing havoc, good hands, good for a goal or two.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm hoping Bowman can become a Will Hoskin Elliot type. Maraud between the wing and forward pocket just causing havoc, good hands, good for a goal or two.

not the worse comparison better be a bit better on production than WHE lol

 

[zyzzbruh]

Huh, Stephens was rated a 4-10 pick in every single rated draft analysis at the time. We have took the guy in that range, not as if we've taken someone rated 50 at not 5. It didn't work and yes it's made worse by Serong being there and was wanting us to draft him. At the time we were after a hybrid mid not a pure inside though. All we've done is taken a guy at the higher range of his range that's it

How on earth did he ever get rated so highly. He's so bad. I can't imagine he was any more imposing even against other 18 yr olds.

He's picked up the name Cat Stephens on the Norf board.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Bowman isn't a small forward, so completely different type, after Hayward it's slim picking as a medium forward, yeah Clary might be able to key word being might. Can't say I was that high on either of the Whitlock boys, but Armstrong I was surprised to see slip but maybe there's a reason

As I said, I won't discuss the merits or otherwise of Bowman personally but I felt and still feel that we have enough avenues to cover Hayward but the opportunity to develop a high potential KPP without HAVING to play him is a blessing.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

How on earth did he ever get rated so highly. He's so bad. I can't imagine he was any more imposing even against other 18 yr olds.

He's picked up the name Cat Stephens on the Norf board.

Through juniors he got away with some things he didn't at AFL level first and foremost, and wasn't able to work on them. When he has the ball in space etc you get why he was rated that high it's the other stuff. Unfortunately I get worried all the time when I hear the words 'hybrid', you'd want to be very good because hybrid just screams not good enough in two positions.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

As I said, I won't discuss the merits or otherwise of Bowman personally but I felt and still feel that we have enough avenues to cover Hayward but the opportunity to develop a high potential KPP without HAVING to play him is a blessing.

Either way I was fine, that second round pick was the hardest one for me to pick, I did have us going a small forward first up much to a few on here's annoyance lol, got my wish there. I would have picked Armstrong myself but I don't know why he slipped so far there must be a reason.

 

[Bloods86]

Under no planet was Stephens a bolter, he's only seen as a poor choice as Serong was there for the taking, but Stephens was seen as the premier inside/outside in that range. He didn't work, but he wasn't a bolter.

Ling don't get me started again please, it was a shocking pick, and it ended up being worse than that. My issue was not the pick itself but for goodness sakes trade down and do it, banking an extra pick.

You've just said you're ok with getting Bowman where we did because the Eagles were interested at their next pick.

So why isn't the Ling pick given the same courtesy? We trade down only a few spots, into the range where he was touted to go (though at least one of the draft rankings had his range from 12), we risk losing him.

We identified a player and locked him in, to avoid the risk of missing out. If anything the Bowman pick was a far bigger "reach" as he was usually talked about as being rated (different to Twomey's phantom) much later e.g. 40s onwards.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Through juniors he got away with some things he didn't at AFL level first and foremost, and wasn't able to work on them. When he has the ball in space etc you get why he was rated that high it's the other stuff. Unfortunately I get worried all the time when I hear the words 'hybrid', you'd want to be very good because hybrid just screams not good enough in two positions.

That's why the 'hybrid' rated 4-10 should go at 10, not 5. Hence why he's a bolter

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You've just said you're ok with getting Bowman where we did because the Eagles were interested at their next pick.

So why isn't the Ling pick given the same courtesy? We trade down only a few spots, into the range where he was touted to go (though at least one of the draft rankings had his range from 12), we risk losing him.

We identified a player and locked him in, to avoid the risk of missing out. If anything the Bowman pick was a far bigger "reach" as he was usually talked about as being rated (different to Twomey's phantom) much later e.g. 40s onwards.

There is a difference between doing it in the second round and the first round, there is a big difference. You needs pick from the 2nd onwards, no issue. My issue is taking bolters and not preparing yourself and it's 10 times worse the higher you get. Trade down to the late teens pick up a 3rd or something whatever. If we missed him, damn might have to take Oscar Allen or Ed Richards, oh no.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

That's why the 'hybrid' rated 4-10 should go at 10, not 5. Hence why he's a bolter

I understood the selection at the time, he was in the range, but it was on the high end. For me a bolter is a guy at 25 and you pick the bloke at 5-6

 

[Neverwas]

Bowman kinda got there on the basis of his massive hanger that attracted a lot of attention. Seems a really good kid and a fair to reasonable player. Wouldn't have been my choice at that pick as I wanted a KPP to develop and Matt Whitlock was still there but nothing to get upset about.

Ned runs a 3 second 20m and a very good 2 km. He is also a really good kick, both long and straight. His marking is excellent as we know. I think the main performance in his favour was the U18s championship game where SA lost convincingly, yet after playing back in the first half, he was moved forward and kicked 3 goals in the second half.

 

[Bloods86]

Through juniors he got away with some things he didn't at AFL level first and foremost, and wasn't able to work on them. When he has the ball in space etc you get why he was rated that high it's the other stuff. Unfortunately I get worried all the time when I hear the words 'hybrid', you'd want to be very good because hybrid just screams not good enough in two positions.

Stephens played a dozen senior SANFL matches in his draft year, received plaudits for both his outside work (yes his bigger role) and defensive efforts. He wasn't "getting away with things" in juniors.

For whatever reason, we/he just didn't continue the development.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Stephens played a dozen senior SANFL matches in his draft year, received plaudits for both his outside work (yes his bigger role) and defensive efforts. He wasn't "getting away with things" in juniors.

For whatever reason, we/he just didn't continue the development.

Played both outside and in at SAFL, was the hybrid, weirdly his better games at least late were more inside which seems a bit of what on earth but they were, those were the games that shot him up the rankings. Unfortunately when he got to AFL he played like he was unsure of his role, I still do maintain we should have tried him as an inside mid but it still may have flopped. Every club makes a shocker, it happens, heck clubs have stuffed up no1 picks.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Not inconsistent - really! In the first, I was referring to the improvement in his ranking. In the second, why maybe he wasn't a dud pick. Great pickup though!

 

[Bloods86]

Played both outside and in at SAFL, was the hybrid, weirdly his better games at least late were more inside which seems a bit of what on earth but they were, those were the games that shot him up the rankings. Unfortunately when he got to AFL he played like he was unsure of his role, I still do maintain we should have tried him as an inside mid but it still may have flopped. Every club makes a shocker, it happens, heck clubs have stuffed up no1 picks.

He was playing a fair bit inside in the VFL in late 2023, and while otherwise prolific, his kicking into F50 let him down. If he'd had better vision and not done generic 40m kicks in a straight line in front of him, I'd have been more upset to see him go.