Analysis 2025 Draft watch

[Aphrodite]

 

[Blue__Balls]

For all the talk of it being a weak draft if 3 picks at the back of the 20s could secure Shubert, Hibbins- Hargraves and Greeves, it can't be too weak.

Why?

They look like stock-standard early second round players - bit of talent, plenty of question-marks. The fact that they were being talked up as top 12 possibilities earlier in the year is likely why the "weak draft" assessment was so prevalent.

 

[Blue and Silver]

I wonder if the ranking of Dean also reflects a broader reality that key defensive prospects are less common then key forward and ruck prospects.

It seems that tall kids either want to be key forwards or coaches are pushing them that way.

It's harder to get a kid who has been primarily a key defender, a role that has a lot of nuance and planning go into it, then a key forward. And the kids who get swung back in their draft year are still learning a lot of the tricks

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Likewise Sydneys 2027 first round could easily be in the 40s.
We just don't know at this stage.

You really come up with some bizarre stuff. In the 40s?

 

[Robertio]

I can agree with that and at the same time be annoyed at WC for the bullshit bid.

It's just frustration at the situation.

Can't blame the club for that.

I just hope that when the shoe is on the other foot, we really **** WC and don't squirm out of making them pay.

 

[Blue__Balls]

The chances that pick will be in the 40s would be next to 0.

Mid 30s is about as bad as it would get.

Sydney for premiers, 7 picks added to the first round for Tassie, 2-3 Band 1 free agents, half a dozen father/son or academy players across the first round. That would be worst case and would push the Sydney pick to 34.

I think anyone who reckons Charlie is gonna magically take Sydney to a flag at his age, with his injury issues, and joining a list with an inexperienced coach who just took the Swans from minor premiers to 10th in his first season despite it being an internal handover - flag possibility, sure, flag favourites - no way. Reassess in 12 months of course, but I reckon they'll be in "wildcard" territory.

2027 first rounder starting at 11, pushed back 6 spots by Tassie, pushed back 1 spot by a free agent compensation pick, and pushed back 3 spots for bid-matching movements. Pick ~21.

 

[Soapy V]

You really come up with some bizarre stuff. In the 40s?

Bottom line it's collateral. We could trade it, use it on a trade, use it next year for upgrade etc

Great thing is we have options. Past 5 -6 years we have been very limited

 

[marcmurphy3]

I wonder if the ranking of Dean also reflects a broader reality that key defensive prospects are less common then key forward and ruck prospects.

It seems that tall kids either want to be key forwards or coaches are pushing them that way.

It's harder to get a kid who has been primarily a key defender, a role that has a lot of nuance and planning go into it, then a key forward. And the kids who get swung back in their draft year are still learning a lot of the tricks

I think Dean is just very bankable. Easy to see what he becomes. Can slot in at CHB for the next 10 years. Has all the traits to play that role at AFL level. Great if youre a rebuilding club.

Thats a rarity if you look at the top of the draft board this year. There are alot of talented guys whose role at the next level isn't clear.

 

[katmanblue]

I would - they have already got close to half a team through father sons and academy players - why give them any more of an advantage.

Exactly.

They get Harris Andrews through their academy but we have to use pick 1 on Weitering to fill the same spot.

But WC want to make us pay. Cretins.

 

[teddy-hopkins]

I'd take out Young, Coffield and Scrimshaw as they weren't KPPs.

And Moore was considered as much a forward as a defender.

That leaves less than one KPD a year in the top 10 each year. And none higher than pick 5 bar Weitering who was/is an exception.

Admittedly the success rate of those listed is pretty decent.

You have to include Naughton. Recruited as a CHB.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Mid 30s is about as bad as it would get.

Sydney for premiers, 7 picks added to the first round for Tassie, 2-3 Band 1 free agents, half a dozen father/son or academy players across the first round. That would be worst case and would push the Sydney pick to 34.

I think anyone who reckons Charlie is gonna magically take Sydney to a flag at his age, with his injury issues, and joining a list with an inexperienced coach who just took the Swans from minor premiers to 10th in his first season despite it being an internal handover - flag possibility, sure, flag favourites - no way. Reassess in 12 months of course, but I reckon they'll be in "wildcard" territory.

2027 first rounder starting at 11, pushed back 6 spots by Tassie, pushed back 1 spot by a free agent compensation pick, and pushed back 3 spots for bid-matching movements. Pick ~21.

Need to remember there will also be compensation picks for anyone that signs with Tassie, thats out of contract. Although, youd think some clubs choose not to take those picks in 2027, as they have the choice and that draft will be so diluted.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Wait so…

If WC bids at 3 we definitely trade out our picks and their pick 13 doesn’t improve.

If WC doesn’t bid and a bid comes later, we may actually match with our original picks and WC’s pick 13 will come into pick 12.

Even if they do think Dean is worth 3, why wouldn’t they skip the bid in the hope the second scenario plays out and they improve from 13 to 12?

edit: thx Stam.

 

[Stamos]

Wait so…

If WC bids at 3 we definitely trade out our picks and their pick 13 doesn’t improve.

If WC doesn’t bid and a bid comes later, we may actually match with our original picks and WC’s pick 13 will come into pick 11.

Even if they do think Dean is worth 3, why wouldn’t they skip the bid in the hope the second scenario plays out and they improve from 13 to 11?

Their 13 would only come in 1 pick if we hold our original picks, not 2.
As is suggested, their pick will move back 1.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Okay gang I've figured it all out, here's what we do to get the upper hand:

We trade picks 9, 11 and our F1 (Syd) to WCE for pick #2

We then select Harry Dean at Pick #2.

Cop that Eagles!!

 

[Opium]

You really come up with some bizarre stuff. In the 40s?

Typo, that's supposed to read 30s

 

[Poorman53]

Bottom line it's collateral. We could trade it, use it on a trade, use it next year for upgrade etc

Great thing is we have options. Past 5 -6 years we have been very limited

Tassie have to trade some of their picks, I'm guessing it may be used to nab one of those.

 

[RPCB]

If a club throws in a "bogus" bid at pick 3 and we have to scramble to match it for Dean, does that bidding club get pushed to the back of the order afterwards?
Can someone help clarify?

If so, you just know Dillon will be wetting himself with excitement to hand that club a package of draft picks to help out in the future.

 

[TheBlueCampaigner]

Pick 3,4,5,6.. nobody will give a shit once this kids cements his spot in the side and shows us all what he can do. He’s the real deal.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Pick 3,4,5,6.. nobody will give a shit once this kids cements his spot in the side and shows us all what he can do. He’s the real deal.

That's not how this works.

There will be a corp of posters who assume we could/should have somehow secure an arbitrary pick (let's call it 20) through better dealing/negotiation/bluffing/voodoo, and any player taken from that point of the draft onwards who turns out to be any good could/should/would have been ours if the club were more competent. or if said posters were managing our list.

That kid who got taken at 43, worked his arse off, came good, kicked 4 goals in a game against us in 2028? Should have been a Blue.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

That's not how this works.

There will be a corp of posters who assume we could/should have somehow secure an arbitrary pick (let's call it 20) through better dealing/negotiation/bluffing/voodoo, and any player taken from that point of the draft onwards who turns out to be any good could/should/would have been ours if the club were more competent. or if said posters were managing our list.

That kid who got taken at 43, worked his arse off, came good, kicked 4 goals in a game against us in 2028? Should have been a Blue.

I don’t mind hearing it from posters who say we shouldn’t take Dean and take 9 and 11 to the draft. Totally disagree with it but they do have a valid argument

 

[Jimmae]

Excuse the intrusion, but I believe you started this by trading Owies to us.

The real crime is what your football department did with the picks and player we gave you.

Owies was a list fill you overpaid for in contract numbers.

If you are going to quote us the West Coast options to make a point, please ensure you give accurate information.

Their no. 1 KPD is now Harry Edwards who has had an excellent grounding and became much sought after in the Eastern states as an emerging “gun”. He did have some injury interruptions in ‘25 which gave rookie Sandy Brock a run, Brock was squeezed out at the Suns with their quality group of tall defenders and the need for spots to accommodate trades and particularly academy signings. Brock performed very admirably. The other quality KPD they have at their disposal is ex Richmond Tylar Young who the Tigers tried to keep. He is coming off an ACL, but had quickly established himself as best 22 before the injury.

Granted none are superstars, but they have a very workable defensive group post McGovern’s early demise. Commonsense says West Coast’s greatest need is mids and “ball players”. It is doubtful they would select Harry Dean if all academy and F/S players were available in an open pool. Absolutely they would like him, but if they are being honest with “needs” Uwland, Patterson and Annable would all be above him. If they weren’t seduced by Duursma and CDT, fair chance Dyson Sharp, Cumming and Robey would also be ahead.

It is what it is and Dean is a high talent not out of place at the pointy end, the bid is still mischievous and likely designed as an opportunity to get their hands on one of our first rounders first and foremost.

initially I saw it like this too, that it was a ploy to get your sweet sweet draft picks.

Then I thought about it a bit more. And a bit more.

Our defenders this year were Harry Edwards who despite rapid and drastic improvement from delist prospect is still at best B grade, Sandy Brock who wasn’t even on our list until January and Reuben Ginbey having to play lockdown.

That’s not even depth level talent let alone starting / sole squad level depth. We lost elite defenders in Barrass and McGovern. It is a genuine area of need.

Yeah because at no point could you swing any of your 3 spare ruck/forwards into defence or pick up someone like Sam Frost or Wade Derksen...

Not a chance your list management team would waste a top pick when you're already top heavy unless they add a massive point if difference, which is CDT and Robey, not Dean.

Its a competition

Any way to disrupt your opponents or stuff up their plans

Need more of this going forward

Clubs have been way too nice to each other for faaaaaaar too long

The lever has swung too far the other way, particularly if GWS also bid on Kyle, who has shown shit all.

If I were Sydney I'd pass.

My question is if Dean wasn't a F/S where would he get picked up?

The more I read and hear it is easily Top 4-5

Pretty confident it would have been 8-14.

What's the odds WCE don't bid, we do trades that haven't been mentioned and get a really good player after Ison?

If he gets through to Richmond I think we're in with a shot to trade for their 2nd pick after executing other trades while retaining 9.

I've come to terms with the mail (Cal is almost never wrong) but it'd be hilarious if WC were bluffing hard, didn't bid on Dean after we traded 9+11.

I suppose we just wait / ask for extra time after the bid comes in to allow time for trades though.

That's exactly what happens, yes. So if they're bluffing, we go to our next set of trades.

Would everyone still be up in arms if the bid came at pick 3 under the previous DVI system?

Yes, because the system is the system, the ordinance is what hurts us the most and isn't commensurate.

Notice Archie Ludowyke has slipped down most orders and not picked in Twomeys Top 30
Sandringham Dragons/Vic Metro
FWD, 197cm

Not sure why he has slipped so far (i know he was inj) Might be available late for us? Mobile Key Forward that looks good to me. Very Jeremy Cameron like

Get him and Dean and it could set us up KP wise

It's more that Schubert is sliding, Thredgold is rising, alongside his injury/consistency issues.

Looks like they're preparing for an early Addinsal bid.

Jai Murray.

Think they are letting Addinsal go. Have Coulson who will get interest in the 30's as well

Murray as well, they're hoping to stave off a first round deficit. Coulson seems a solid chance to make it into the free hit zone.

Clubs have every right to and should be bidding on players where they genuinely rate them. As long as they're not going early just because they have nothing to lose.

For years we cheered on SOS for keeping other teams honest. We shouldn't get pissed off if our players are bid on at reasonable levels.

I don't recall SOS pressing hard on Scrimshaw or anyone else back in the day.

OK. Here are the defenders taken in the top 10 from 2014-2023.

Pick 1 - Jacob Weitering
Pick 5 - Mac Andrew
Pick 6 - Denver Grainger-Barrass, Fisher McAsey, Caleb Marchbank
Pick 7 - Hayden Young, Jack Scrimshaw
Pick 8 - Nick Coffield, Griffin Logue
Pick 9 - Darcy Moore, Josh Gibcus
Pick 10 - Zach Reid

Now I might have got one or two wrong there, but that's the list to my eyes.

A couple of high profile busts in there (DGB and McAsey) but other than that it's a pretty good strike rate.

Only quality KPD that have played 100 games are Weitering, Moore (recruited as a forward and Gibcus.

Rest are either not KPD, already gone or still to early to judge.

I'd take out Young, Coffield and Scrimshaw as they weren't KPPs.

And Moore was considered as much a forward as a defender.

That leaves less than one KPD a year in the top 10 each year. And none higher than pick 5 bar Weitering who was/is an exception.

Admittedly the success rate of those listed is pretty decent.

Mac Andrew was drafted as a ruck/forward, I rated DGB and McAsey as reaches at the time.

Once Cal posts his, they all copy his homework and change it just enough to be unique.

And Cal used to copy someone else...

Probably won't. Would depend how they rate the top 10, and in particular CDT. Not much tall timber outside him and Dean. On draft index points it's not a great deal, but some later future picks/swaps could offset that.

Just pointing out that WC may have additional plans in motion.

There's literally Robey, who is a key forward that can pivot to being a big mid, and Taylor, who can go either way too from defence despite being 191.

For all the talk of it being a weak draft if 3 picks at the back of the 20s could secure Shubert, Hibbins- Hargraves and Greeves, it can't be too weak.

Why?

They look like stock-standard early second round players - bit of talent, plenty of question-marks. The fact that they were being talked up as top 12 possibilities earlier in the year is likely why the "weak draft" assessment was so prevalent.

The word is they're all mostly sliding for non-football reasons.

 

[bmaurizio]

Mid 30s is about as bad as it would get.

Sydney for premiers, 7 picks added to the first round for Tassie, 2-3 Band 1 free agents, half a dozen father/son or academy players across the first round. That would be worst case and would push the Sydney pick to 34.

I think anyone who reckons Charlie is gonna magically take Sydney to a flag at his age, with his injury issues, and joining a list with an inexperienced coach who just took the Swans from minor premiers to 10th in his first season despite it being an internal handover - flag possibility, sure, flag favourites - no way. Reassess in 12 months of course, but I reckon they'll be in "wildcard" territory.

2027 first rounder starting at 11, pushed back 6 spots by Tassie, pushed back 1 spot by a free agent compensation pick, and pushed back 3 spots for bid-matching movements. Pick ~21.

Agree Swans will be definitely be a solid flag possibility, one would expect Charlie to relish and explode given the lace out ball delivery he'll be receiving.
He'll rip it up, allowing their other tall forwards to enjoy their football and shine.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Their 13 would only come in 1 pick if we hold our original picks, not 2.
As is suggested, their pick will move back 1.

I guess if they hadn’t made a deal with Brisbane then bidding on Dean at 5 could work perfectly for them.
Wipes 9 and gets 11 just behind 13.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Their 13 would only come in 1 pick if we hold our original picks, not 2.
As is suggested, their pick will move back 1.

I guess if they hadn’t made a deal with Brisbane then bidding on Dean at 5 could work perfectly for them.
Wipes 9 and gets 11 just behind 13.

 

[Ninja Worrier]

I don’t mind hearing it from posters who say we shouldn’t take Dean and take 9 and 11 to the draft. Totally disagree with it but they do have a valid argument

They have an argument, not sure about validity

 

[Blue__Balls]

I don’t mind hearing it from posters who say we shouldn’t take Dean and take 9 and 11 to the draft. Totally disagree with it but they do have a valid argument

As long as they are saying we shouldn't take Dean and take 12 and 14 to the draft as well as a points deficit on our 2026 first rounder (or passing on Ison as well).