Analysis 2025 Draft watch

[Aphrodite]

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Ask any coach what they think of 'the draft' as far as what they can achieve with a couple of kids- and forget about freakish one off talents like Walsh or Weitering ...and even then look at the LT consequences on playing even the most talented for full seasons - they break down and their LT is impacted negatively

there is a fundamental mismatch between draft 'duration' and coach 'duration' - one is a developmental story and the other is a W/L story - now - or ELSE.

the same people calling fo a coach to play the kids are the same people who call for a coach's head based on W/L.

I'm not disagreeing with anything here, but I don't get what this has to do with the discussion?

 

[Stamos]

The simple comment 'Unless they're a slow inside mid' proves the mantra doesn't hold up.

You draft the best talent that fits a need. Selecting players based purely on talent is idiotic in today's game where balance across the list is more important than ever.

That's why I said "generally".
You need balance, but you shouldn't reach for a type and overlook a better player.

For this draft in particular, if we're picking in the 1st Round, it seems like there are a lot of different types who could easily fit onto our list.

 

[gandaal]

As we all know, everything in our draft really depends on where the Dean bid comes in. If it comes late enough and we just use original pick9 to absorb the bid without trading we may end up with original pick 11 or it may slide only a couple of spots.

So what will be available (ignoring club linked players)

100% gone by our pick:
Duursma, CDT, Robey, Taylor

80% likely gone
Grlj, Cumming, Sharp, Schubert

So unless there's a bolter or a slider the group we're looking at would likely be:

Marsh, Lindsay, Greeves, Dovaston, Hibbins-Hargreaves, Farrow, Phillipou and apparently Pickett.

 

[Matty411]

If I'm honest, I'd be looking at Dean, Ison and a late pick if we're taking 3 - getting more points and another first next year.

 

[katmanblue]

Not sure I follow your line of thinking.

I am not desperate to grab a small forward in this draft, but it would not be “haste”. We have long relied on budget small forward players. The club has not seen them as a priority, while other clubs stockpile them and even build around them as opposed to the time honoured building around talls.

The addition of mid sized Hayward, on top of the developing Moir improves our balance in the front half. Ainsworth is just a rung below elite as a small forward, but sees himself as a high half forward rather than a goal kicker first. Zac Williams is our best small forward from the existing group, but at 31 with a checkered injury history, he likely does not have a long tenure ahead. Frankie Evans was a revelation at the end of last season and has shown the ability to enter the upper echelon of small forwards, if he continues, it is a huge plus. Motlop remains a tease. His best is certainly good enough, but his worst is frustrating to say the least. He needs the penny to drop to provide consistent performances.

Hayward, Ainsworth, Moir, Williams and Motlop would provide us with a very competitive small/medium forward group. Cottrell is a quality high half forward when fit, Fogarty has plenty to like, but just comes up short on x-factor, pace and kicking. Flynn Young was a surprise retention for mine, after acquiring Hayward and Ainsworth. I love the idea, the potential of Young. His left peg can be a weapon, he has the skills, on face value, has the weapons to be a quality league footballer, but he was not quite up to the rise in standard. Voss made him play whatever role opened up as opposed to tailoring a role to maximise his talents. Will be an interesting watch, if he can step up after an AFL pre season could become a real point of difference type. For mine, I wouldn’t have banked on it and used his spot for a younger prospect offering a greater threat around goal. Young seems well liked in the group, but will be 24 next season and is still potential only, I see a bit of Boyd comparison, an almost player.

We definitely have room for a young offensive small forward. Zac is close to the end, and Motlop still needs to consolidate, and could definitely be “upgraded”. I would very much prefer a tall forward developing option with our likely (third) pick, and would also not be against drafting the elite left foot of Josh Lindsay. I am a little torn in Lindsay as I like our developing medium defensive group, Cowan, Carroll, Hollands, and the more subjective Wilson and Charleson. Chesser and Lucas Campo are both wingers who could play back, and we have added Florent who should become a staple, making it hard to justify further investment in that area.

List balance suggests we need a young, developing tall forward after parting with Lemmey, but there is certainly a case for other options.

In 2020 and 2021 we used our first available pick on SF. They haven't really come one.

22 we tried to address out lack of run (after going with SF the last two drafts) with O. Hollands, Binns drafted and Acres signed.

2023 we went with best available but a bit of a risky pick with Moir.

2024 was the Jagga draft

We've had lots of holes to fill, bit limited assets to do it with.

Our best bet would have been the Kemp draft without splitting the pick or the Stocker trade year.

 

[circusdevil]

I’ve said previously that if we were drafting for needs, then my choices in order would be: 1: midfielder with pace; 2: tall forward; 3: small forward.

My guess is that by the time we come to drafting, the midfielders with pace are gone. And perhaps we are happy to wait for Cody anyway. So let’s leave pacy midfielder to the side.

Wing?

 

[JustaBattler]

I'm not disagreeing with anything here, but I don't get what this has to do with the discussion?

you disagreed with ferrisb quote of Arrows -my response is about why I think Ferris via Arrow are correct. No draftee is going to 'fill a hole' to the W/L standards expected from coaches if they are a 'need'., and if supprters expect this to happen they are being unfair opn both draftee and coach .

So you draft for talent and cross your fingers) and trade ( because it is relatively easier) for need.

OF coure ther eare always exceptions wher you can score an outstanding kid to fill a need and they do perfporm - but I wouldnt hang my hat on that as a year in tear out strategy likely to succeed - case in point pointed out by katmanblue above - drafting for small forwards ....how did that go?

 

[Sector 7G]

you disagreed with ferrisb quote of Arrows -my response is about why I think Ferris via Arrow are correct. No draftee is going to 'fill a hole' to the W/L standards expected from coaches if they are a 'need'., and if supprters expect this to happen they are being unfair opn both draftee and coach .

So you draft for talent and cross your fingers) and trade ( because it is relatively easier) for need.

OF coure ther eare always exceptions wher you can score an outstanding kid to fill a need and they do perfporm - but I wouldnt hang my hat on that as a year in tear out strategy likely to succeed - case in point pointed out by katmanblue above - drafting for small forwards ....how did that go?

While I agree with the point that no draftee will fill an immediate hole. Good drafting will be to fill a hole in 3 years time. Losing players you don't expect to puts pressure on your future planning. We have lost 3 key player this off season that ar hard to replace in a draft (talls take longer to develop)

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Some of these proposed deals are shocking.

I think people are undervaluing pick 9 and 11.

For all the talk of the stronger 2026 draft, if a player is available this year that clubs like, there'll be clubs who want the immediate sugar hit.

Think we'll have several options to trade out, that are much better then what's being proposed.

Like what?

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Draft for talent.

Trade for needs.

Arr0w TM

Not always...

I remember back in 2018 he wanted us to draft Lukosius... was supposed to be this "generational talent" that we couldn't pass on...

Surprise surprise, had a pretty big back and forth with him over that... (I wanted Rankine)

Drafting Lukosius while we drafted Harry and Charlie only a couple years prior would have been a big mistake.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

you disagreed with ferrisb quote of Arrows -my response is about why I think Ferris via Arrow are correct. No draftee is going to 'fill a hole' to the W/L standards expected from coaches if they are a 'need'., and if supprters expect this to happen they are being unfair opn both draftee and coach .

So you draft for talent and cross your fingers) and trade ( because it is relatively easier) for need.

OF coure ther eare always exceptions wher you can score an outstanding kid to fill a need and they do perfporm - but I wouldnt hang my hat on that as a year in tear out strategy likely to succeed - case in point pointed out by katmanblue above - drafting for small forwards ....how did that go?

Draftees are coming into the AFL more prepared than ever before and impacting from early on more and more frequently. It's no longer just Walsh and Daicos types we're seeing succeed early days. Some of the best players in the AFL are ages 20-23 and impacting from their 2nd and 3rd seasons rather than taking the 6-7 they used to. Daicos, Sheezel, NWM, Callaghan etc.

Even just looking at Brisbane this year

Ashcroft x 2 (top rated picks similar to Walsh and Daicos as juniors)
Fletcher
Morris
Lohmann
Wilmot
Gallop

All under the age of 22 and a huge part of why they're able to hold onto all their elite talent. Some of these kids are producing performances better than many senior AFL players while being on their base contracts from when they were drafted.

Drafting the best talent and 'crossing your fingers' is an outdated philosophy. Draft the best talent that fills a need and if it isn't at the pick you hold... Either trade up, down or into the next draft, where you're confident a talent that does fill a need will be there for you.

If we select Dyson Sharp or Ollie Greeves because they're the best available talent at our pick despite being completely stacked for slow inside mids I'll just about puke.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Like what?

Unfortunately the club doesn't keep me in the loop about that sort of thing lol.

But there are 18 clubs. Confident at least a few will have kids they're eyeing off and be keen for an early pick.

Rumors in trade period Pies wanted Hawks top 10 pick. Apparently Melbourne keen for another early pick to grab Pickett. Adelaide's rumoured to be keen.

Those are just from whats been heard so far.

 

[gandaal]

If I'm honest, I'd be looking at Dean, Ison and a late pick if we're taking 3 - getting more points and another first next year.

We'll certainly need points for Ison later, we don't have enough.

 

[goreds]

While I agree with the point that no draftee will fill an immediate hole. Good drafting will be to fill a hole in 3 years time. Losing players you don't expect to puts pressure on your future planning. We have lost 3 key player this off season that ar hard to replace in a draft (talls take longer to develop)

Hmmm, not sure it makes sense with the way the draft is so compromised, especially the next 3-5 years!

Good drafting is a science, similar to good breeding in a G1 racehorse (plenty of luck still required either way and no injuries).

The safer option would be to stockpile first and second rounders and get into the ear of talls and forwards now that are getable in 1-3 years..

Imagine if you had 5 or 6 first rounders over the next 3 years...

 

[TerryWallet]

Not sure I follow your line of thinking.

I am not desperate to grab a small forward in this draft, but it would not be “haste”. We have long relied on budget small forward players. The club has not seen them as a priority, while other clubs stockpile them and even build around them as opposed to the time honoured building around talls.

The addition of mid sized Hayward, on top of the developing Moir improves our balance in the front half. Ainsworth is just a rung below elite as a small forward, but sees himself as a high half forward rather than a goal kicker first. Zac Williams is our best small forward from the existing group, but at 31 with a checkered injury history, he likely does not have a long tenure ahead. Frankie Evans was a revelation at the end of last season and has shown the ability to enter the upper echelon of small forwards, if he continues, it is a huge plus. Motlop remains a tease. His best is certainly good enough, but his worst is frustrating to say the least. He needs the penny to drop to provide consistent performances.

Hayward, Ainsworth, Moir, Williams and Motlop would provide us with a very competitive small/medium forward group. Cottrell is a quality high half forward when fit, Fogarty has plenty to like, but just comes up short on x-factor, pace and kicking. Flynn Young was a surprise retention for mine, after acquiring Hayward and Ainsworth. I love the idea, the potential of Young. His left peg can be a weapon, he has the skills, on face value, has the weapons to be a quality league footballer, but he was not quite up to the rise in standard. Voss made him play whatever role opened up as opposed to tailoring a role to maximise his talents. Will be an interesting watch, if he can step up after an AFL pre season could become a real point of difference type. For mine, I wouldn’t have banked on it and used his spot for a younger prospect offering a greater threat around goal. Young seems well liked in the group, but will be 24 next season and is still potential only, I see a bit of Boyd comparison, an almost player.

We definitely have room for a young offensive small forward. Zac is close to the end, and Motlop still needs to consolidate, and could definitely be “upgraded”. I would very much prefer a tall forward developing option with our likely (third) pick, and would also not be against drafting the elite left foot of Josh Lindsay. I am a little torn in Lindsay as I like our developing medium defensive group, Cowan, Carroll, Hollands, and the more subjective Wilson and Charleson. Chesser and Lucas Campo are both wingers who could play back, and we have added Florent who should become a staple, making it hard to justify further investment in that area.

List balance suggests we need a young, developing tall forward after parting with Lemmey, but there is certainly a case for other options.

Nice post. On your last sentence, i've got a certain reluctance to get another very tall, tall forward. I quite like HOK as a tall developing competitive forward who can pinch hit ruck. There are similar types making a go of this role in the AFL at the moment. With Harry, HOK and maybe potentially even HOF up forward, i'm not sure i'd want another tall tall.

I think i would prefer a more mobile smaller tall to complement. Someone in the mould of a Georgiades, Gunston, Curnow, Waterman, Langford etc mould.

For instance, if we traded up a bit to an Essendon pick, would we want to draft a Schubert to add to our tall talls?

Or if we traded with Adelaide for that rumoured 16, F1 and a few more points this year, would we like to draft a Mitch Marsh as more of that smaller more higher mobile tall?

We do have both areas reasonably covered with McKay, O'Keefe, O'Farrell, Kemp, Hayward, Moir. But i just don't quite like adding another tall tall. McKay will lead the forward line and roam a fair bit. I see HOK as a competitive bruising deep target forward pinch hitting ruck. I see Kemp best suited deep. Hayward is a hard working skilful but also defensive forward. He'll be great glue for our forward line. No need to carry Fog anymore for defensive stuff up there.

I just see an extra hit-up smaller tall a good fit. Marsh is a hit-up player with good mobility, hands and left foot kick. And hits the SCOREBOARD.

Maybe thats the idea behind the mooted trade with Adelaide, and maybe even the Lemmey delisting.

 

[Pixelshooter]

Can someone explain the rationale of another club picking a kid they know will be going to another club as a father/son? Is it just to ensure that club pays a high enough price? Has to give up more points so later picks for a club may have more value? I've always found it slightly odd.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Can someone explain the rationale of another club picking a kid they know will be going to another club as a father/son? Is it just to ensure that club pays a high enough price? Has to give up more points so later picks for a club may have more value? I've always found it slightly odd.

To make sure the club pays up. In the past there was less incentive to bid early, and it was more about the principle. But now you can wipe valuable picks off the board, so it becomes more advantageous.

 

[ctwenty1]

To make sure the club pays up. In the past there was less incentive to bid early, and it was more about the principle. But now you can wipe valuable picks off the board, so it becomes more advantageous.

But I'd argue then also less likely for the club to match because the picks needed for matching are more valuable. You dont want a player on your list due to a failed draft strategy.

While there maybe some gamesmanship on draft night, I think that whoever is doing the bidding will have to be happy with that player at that club as I reckon the chance of not macthing has increased

 

[marcmurphy3]

But I'd argue then also less likely for the club to match because the picks needed for matching are more valuable. You dont want a player on your list due to a failed draft strategy.

While there maybe some gamesmanship on draft night, I think that whoever is doing the bidding will have to be happy with that player at that club as I reckon the chance of not macthing has increased

If you put in a ridiculous bid, of course there is that risk. But we aren't talking about that. We are just talking about clubs bidding for players roughly where they sit, maybe the upper end of that, instead of letting players slide like they have been. Clubs nominate their F/S and academy players pre-draft. That's essentially committing to them unless something silly happens.

 

[gandaal]

If I was West Coast I'd be picking like this:
1) Duursma
2) Uwland bid
3) Patterson bid
4) Annable bid
5) Dean bid
6) Robey

Who knows what it could free up with a later pick? It would certainly wipe out Gold Coast and Carlton from the draft.

 

[JuddgementDay]

If I was West Coast I'd be picking like this:
1) Duursma
2) Uwland bid
3) Patterson bid
4) Annable bid
5) Dean bid
6) Robey

Who knows what it could free up with a later pick? It would certainly wipe out Gold Coast and Carlton from the draft.

That would be risky - or are these nominated clubs too far committed to not match the bid?

 

[ctwenty1]

If I was West Coast I'd be picking like this:
1) Duursma
2) Uwland bid
3) Patterson bid
4) Annable bid
5) Dean bid
6) Robey

Who knows what it could free up with a later pick? It would certainly wipe out Gold Coast and Carlton from the draft.

as long as its that order then I think we could be ok and still get someone decent along with Dean and Ison

 

[ctwenty1]

That would be risky - or are these nominated clubs too far committed to not match the bid?

I reckon everyone matches in that instance although I actually think maybe we slide one further with Richmond bidding on Dean at 6

 

[macky99]

If I was West Coast I'd be picking like this:
1) Duursma
2) Uwland bid
3) Patterson bid
4) Annable bid
5) Dean bid
6) Robey

Who knows what it could free up with a later pick? It would certainly wipe out Gold Coast and Carlton from the draft.

Any team that is going to play that game, at some point in the future is going to comeback to them the other way.

l doubt West Coast will take this path, in fact l see them doing a deal with Essendon for Cooper Duff Tyler giving up their 2nd pick.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Any team that is going to play that game, at some point in the future is going to comeback to them the other way.

l doubt West Coast will take this path, in fact l see them doing a deal with Essendon for Cooper Duff Tyler giving up their 2nd pick.

In the highly unlikely event that a club didn't match, I reckon Westcoast would be pretty happy with any of those guys at 2.