Game Day AFC DRAFT DAY THREAD

[GROTTO]

AFL is determined to get Gold Coast to succeed, they will be given whatever they need and, unlike GWS, they have a very good, well liked and respected coach. I just think all the talk about luring back Luko and Rankine is pointless, how did we go with Pavlich, or prime age Gibbs etc.

Its not.

We will get one of them. Im more confident we will get Luko in fact ahead of Rankine.

When that takes place is another matter, but I am confident the Club is working on one or both of them behind the scenes.

 

[Dangerousfield]

You mean like Lever and Cameron left a side that played off in a GF for Melbourne and Brisbane respectively who were cellar dwellers at the end of 2017?

If we can prove that we are in the right direction and making real strides, then we can attract them (or someone else from GC) with an offer that GC could not match. They will have salary cap pressures in the not too distant future.

and then put them through a club destroying mind game camp!

 

[Stiffy_18]

IIRC didnt we improve the conditions of Betts's contract with us, after a few seasons?

Pretty sure we did and I think we extended the deal as well.

The point is we will need to pay significant money to someone to get them here. Why not SA kid with match winning abilities yet to come into his prime?

We want to bring a group of kids along together and let them play together for year and get that team that has been together long thing happening. We did it with Walker, Dangerfield, Sloane, B. Crouch, Brown, Talia, Lynch, M Crouch, Tippett, Gunston, Marić, Griffin, Davis et Al (granted some left along the way).

We targeted players from other clubs that we rated but that were not getting a game like Jacobs, Lynch, Jenkins, Johnson, etc. We brought them in and backed in our development to develop them into the players we thought they could become. Some didn't work out but most did.

We are following similar plan, probably more aggressive by getting rid off players that don't fit a particular age group or don't bring a lot to a rebuild.

 

[Golumless]

Until this year, who left GWS that they wanted to keep? Everyone that left they were happy to see go as they kept getting very good picks for them, sometimes two very good picks. Most of those they let go had consistency or disposal problems whilst they kept the cream. Only poor coaching stopped them winning flag/s with the plyers that stayed.

AFL is determined to get Gold Coast to succeed, they will be given whatever they need and unlike GWS they have a very good, well liked and respected coach. I just think all the talk about luring back Luko and Rankine is pointless, how did we go with Pavlich, or prime age Gibbs etc.

We've had our best draft ever but like Jones and McHenry who were picks 9 & 16 but don't fill me with confidence they'll make it, this years draftees haven't done anything yet, talk of climbing quickly up the ladder and being attractive to the GC guns is premature. This rebuild will take longer than people think

Using a metric of top 10 picks who left within their first contract, or best 22 players, this is the list of people who left GWS in that time:

From 2014 to 2019: Boyd, O'Rourke (didn't make it at Hawthorn, but was a pick 2 who had left in 2 years), Treloar, McCarty, Steele (was in and out of GWS side in the early part), Marchbank (similar to O'Rourke, top 10 pick who left in his first contract), Pickett (ditto Marchbank), Smith, Wilson, Lobb, Shiel.

They bled a lot of talent in their first window as that's ignoring the more speculative talent (and you could probably field a legal AFL team if we included them as well). Gold Coast will do the same, and there isn't anything Gold Coast can do about it outside of begging the AFL lets them pay half their players out of the cap.

Talk of climbing up the ladder quickly is definitely a fantasy at this point in time. We're a good two years away from it. Attracting someone from Gold Coast is starting to get realistic however, after all, we can certainly pay big dollars and are beginning to shred the toxic label. People will inevitably follow where they are going to get paid, and there are going to be some damn good players that get squeezed out from Gold Coast in the future because they will not be able to afford everyone.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Until this year, who left GWS that they wanted to keep? Everyone that left they were happy to see go as they kept getting very good picks for them, sometimes two very good picks. Most of those they let go had consistency or disposal problems whilst they kept the cream. Only poor coaching stopped them winning flag/s with the players that stayed.

AFL is determined to get Gold Coast to succeed, they will be given whatever they need and, unlike GWS, they have a very good, well liked and respected coach. I just think all the talk about luring back Luko and Rankine is pointless, how did we go with Pavlich, or prime age Gibbs etc.

We've had our best draft ever but like Jones and McHenry who were picks 9 & 16 but don't fill me with confidence they'll make it, this years draftees haven't done anything yet, talk of climbing quickly up the ladder and being attractive to the GC guns is premature. This rebuild will take longer than people think

The list of players that have left GWS is extensive. Some of those players they wanted to keep but simply couldn't. Treloar, Smith, Shiel are just some that come to mind without doing a deep analysis. Shiel was one of premiere midfielders in the game when he left. He left because GWS overpaid many others to stay. Point is when you have a highly talented list, clubs will make offers that GC will just not be able to compete with.

I am not saying that turnaround for us will be quick. Far from it. When you play the kids you get inconsistencies in performance and result. It's only when players hit that 80-100 game mark that they become consistent, good footballers.

The point is if you show signs and consistent improvement with serious potential, you will attract players.

These are the stages of building a list that we will go through:

1. Go hard to the draft 3-5 drafts and develop your kids.
2. Identify underutilized talented players at opposition clubs in the 19-23 age bracket that fit a need and trade for them. We did this in the past with Jacobs, Jenkins, Lynch, Johnstone (didn't work out), Brown etc. We did it this year with Barely.
3. Get an established star that fits a need by offering big money, longer term deal. We did this with Eddie. We had no trade currency at the time due to Tippett sanctions and back then there was no future picks at play. This doesn't have to be a FA signing.
4. Continue to identify mature players from other clubs that may be underutilized but address a need for your team and fit your style of play (we did this with Seedsman).

It's not going to happen overnight but our blueprint or plan is pretty clear.

Point is we are going to have to spend the money somewhere and it might as well be to bring the talent into the club and not overpay what we have.

When Dangerfield left (again another example of us being closer to flag than Geelong at the time) we had over $1.2 million that we put aside for him but we ended up using all of that on Menzel ($450k), Hampton ($400k) and Seedsman ($350k). Other than Seedsman we got nothing from the other two. I would have rather we dropped that $950k to a $1M on a player that would actually be in our best 22.

Those contract figure are legit. I had a great contact at the time that was at the club and was across the dealings.

 

[Shaz2012]

By the time we are approaching finals again, Gold Coast with their talent laden list will be right in flag contention, Rankine isn't leaving then, no one is leaving Gold Coast now or in the next 5-6 years. This talk is just fantasy stuff, we were wooden spooners, we lost our best mid, we've recruited promising kids but that's all they are, promising.

From memory we had all three of Lever, Gov and Cameron ready and willing to line up for us on GF day, but each still had one foot out the door.

 

[jackster83]

The list of players that have left GWS is extensive. Some of those players they wanted to keep but simply couldn't. Treloar, Smith, Shiel are just some that come to mind without doing a deep analysis. Shiel was one of premiere midfielders in the game when he left. He left because GWS overpaid many others to stay. Point is when you have a highly talented list, clubs will make offers that GC will just not be able to compete with.

That Coniglio deal has backfired on them badly. Worse than us with Sloane even.

 

[Stiffy_18]

That Coniglio deal has backfired on them badly. Worse than us with Sloane even.

Look I can understand why we did the Sloane deal. He could have left a long time ago for more money but stayed loyal and for less. Its our way for repaying him. Along with that, we are embarking on a major rebuild and in rebuild like that you need leadership in the footy club. Sloane is exactly the type of person and a player you want around even if his production drops off. He along with Walker, is doing a lot for these kids off the field. I am not that fussed with Sloane's or Walker's contracts. They (along with Talia) have taken big cuts to stay at the club and also cuts to keep the team together for a tilt at the premiership. When you are rebuilding, you want those players around and you also want to reward them for being selfless in putting team before themselves.

 

[jackster83]

Look I can understand why we did the Sloane deal. He could have left a long time ago for more money but stayed loyal and for less. Its our way for repaying him. Along with that, we are embarking on a major rebuild and in rebuild like that you need leadership in the footy club. Sloane is exactly the type of person and a player you want around even if his production drops off. He along with Walker, is doing a lot for these kids off the field. I am not that fussed with Sloane's or Walker's contracts. They (along with Talia) have taken big cuts to stay at the club and also cuts to keep the team together for a tilt at the premiership. When you are rebuilding, you want those players around and you also want to reward them for being selfless in putting team before themselves.

I'm really not a fan of this.

It's cost us players entering their prime, as well as hurting our ability to attract players via trades.

Our pay structure is a leftover from the days when you could stick blokes on the veterans list and move 50% (IIRC) of their salary outside the cap. It worked well when we had McLeod, Edwards, Goodwin, Roo, etc still playing great football into their 30's, but Sloane, Tex and now Talia have all rapidly started to decline from the age of 28.

 

[CroCop]

You would think any plans to get another high end 1st would involve trading a player like Mrouch as "part" of the deal IMO.

Yeh considering the phantom draft that was put out for 2021 there is likely to be 4 SA mid in the first 11 picks next year I would be doing this also.

 

[Golumless]

I'm really not a fan of this.

It's cost us players entering their prime, as well as hurting our ability to attract players via trades.

Our pay structure is a leftover from the days when you could stick blokes on the veterans list and move 50% (IIRC) of their salary outside the cap. It worked well when we had McLeod, Edwards, Goodwin, Roo, etc still playing great football into their 30's, but Sloane, Tex and now Talia have all rapidly started to decline from the age of 28.

In terms of overpaying then, you pay the core you've built around and it really doesn't matter if it costs you a mid-tier players prime. A Greenwood is not worth a Sloane at peak.

It isn't hurting our ability to attract players via trades at the moment because our situation is that bad we're not attracting anyone of note either, and the player we're capable of attracting aren't exactly coming here on A grade wages. More kids who see an opportunity to make it that they might not otherwise get. Not only that, but by us moving on Gibbs, we seem to have found ourselves on the cap floor.

Then we have to factor that we're in a rebuild and the pesky thing with a rebuild is you need to meet the 95% cap floor. To do that, you are better paying a few players a lot of money, then spreading it out, so overpaying them for their output is ironically helping us now seeing we'll get their money wiped off the cap when we're beginning to trend upwards, hopefully!

 

[jackster83]

In terms of overpaying then, you pay the core you've built around and it really doesn't matter if it costs you a mid-tier players prime. A Greenwood is not worth a Sloane at peak.

These guys can't play the core roles anymore (well Talia can, but he's starting to become injury prone), that's half the problem.

Our forward line functions better without Tex. Sloane is being outperformed by Matt, Laird and Keays in the midfield too.

 

[Golumless]

These guys can't play the core roles anymore (well Talia can, but he's starting to become injury prone), that's half the problem.

Our forward line functions better without Tex. Sloane is being outperformed by Matt, Laird and Keays in the midfield too.

The full problem is we don't have the talent to replace them, not yet anyway (notwithstanding who we just drafted).

Them eating up a whole lot of salary for this part of the rebuild is ideal (and I wouldn't be against giving Sloane a payrise next season either if we were really struggling to make the 95% threshold and had everyone we wanted locked up), as it either goes to them, or gets spread out to the lesser players. At least this way, we know exactly when those millions get freed up.

Tex this year pays a fair chunk of our 2020 draftees to stick around without changing the salary cap situation, then it becomes a race to be projecting upwards when Sloane goes so we can spin that money into attracting another very promising youth from somewhere.

 

[jackster83]

The full problem is we don't have the talent to replace them, not yet anyway (notwithstanding who we just drafted).

Them eating up a whole lot of salary for this part of the rebuild is ideal (and I wouldn't be against giving Sloane a payrise next season either if we were really struggling to make the 95% threshold and had everyone we wanted locked up), as it either goes to them, or gets spread out to the lesser players. At least this way, we know exactly when those millions get freed up.

Tex this year pays a fair chunk of our 2020 draftees to stick around without changing the salary cap situation, then it becomes a race to be projecting upwards when Sloane goes so we can spin that money into attracting another very promising youth from somewhere.

Hopefully we've got the wriggle room in our cap to move some out of 2022 and into 2021.

We also need to get a move on signing guys up, as half our list falls out of contract next year. ROB, Doedee and McAsey the most important ones to get locked away.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I'm really not a fan of this.

It's cost us players entering their prime, as well as hurting our ability to attract players via trades.

Our pay structure is a leftover from the days when you could stick blokes on the veterans list and move 50% (IIRC) of their salary outside the cap. It worked well when we had McLeod, Edwards, Goodwin, Roo, etc still playing great football into their 30's, but Sloane, Tex and now Talia have all rapidly started to decline from the age of 28.

Who exactly did we lose that we wanted to keep? No one!

That is the whole point here. We let players go that will not be part of our next contention window if you like. We kept around player who are leader and who will set an example for these kids on and off the field. Their best is certainly past them and their on field production is no where near their peak but they are still so valuable not only from a leadership perspective around the place and setting that culture but also from managing the salary cap. You reward these guys now with long term lucrative contracts for their loyalty over the years during a hard rebuild. It means you are not overpaying young kids which sets another example that contracts are earned.

We need to spend at least 92% of the salary cap regardless of who is on the list. I would rather us pay big dollars to these club legends who have put the club first in the past and took lesser deals to stick around than kids who are yet to earn their genuine pay bumps. It not only set example of kids but also provides a greater ability to have the cap space open up to attract other players to the club when the time is right for it.

We are in a rebuilding mode now. That means you go to the draft hard, turnover a lot of kids. Some will stick around, some won't but you keep doing it until you get a strong base of your next premiership team. Once you have that in place, these veterans will be freeing up the cap space which will give the club the ability to attract right players at the right time of the rebuild.

We did a very similar thing with Goodwin, McLeod, Hart, Edwards, Torney, Rutten etc back in the day when Walker, Sloane, Dangerfield, Gunston, Tippett, Talia etc were coming through the ranks.

 

[CroCop]

No one from the club has come out and said how they intend to play Himmelberg and Thilthorpe who are the same type of player in the same forward line . Teams will burn us on the rebound defensively with those two.

 

[Runnin Blue]

No one from the club has come out and said how they intend to play Himmelberg and Thilthorpe who are the same type of player in the same forward line . Teams will burn us on the rebound defensively with those two.

They are not the same type of player. Or do you mean they are both tall = they play the same way?

 

[Golumless]

No one from the club has come out and said how they intend to play Himmelberg and Thilthorpe who are the same type of player in the same forward line . Teams will burn us on the rebound defensively with those two.

Himmelberg as the more roaming forward (noting Himmelberg is both a very good pack mark and one of the fittest players in the league), Thilthorpe deeper.

Not only that, but Hinmelberg has been one of the better key forwards when it comes to defense in the past two years and no, every team is carrying two key forwards who don't offer that much defensively. Teams will torch us if we do not get our small/mid forward selections right, as always.

 

[Golumless]

They are not the same type of player. Or do you mean they are both tall = they play the same way?

Actually, they're probably very similar. I doubt it's a bad thing either seeing they both seem to be at least competent at everything a key forward needs to be (outside of Himmelbergs kicking from the right side of the forward 50).

 

[GROTTO]

Ultimately you can only get graded on what you get/do.

What made Adelaide's grade a positive one is the very strong value gets of Cook and Berry in particular. Cook's rate of development is through the roof and Berry is one of the readiest midfielders in the pool.

Thilthorpe, he wouldn't have been my pick, but he has the scope to be good in his own right. Pedlar also possibly wasn't my pick at 11, but I don't hate him either and feel like if I had seen more of him I might have him closer to the 10 mark myself.

And Rowe was suitable for where he was picked and is a plug and play crumbing forward which Adelaide also could use.

By no means a bad draft.

Firstly thank you for your contribution. I genuinely enjoy your thread on Phantom Drafts and prospects of the next generation of kids coming through. Its well written and articulated.

I wanted to take you task here in regards to your ratings.

You claimed that RT would not have been your pick (which probably led you to grade us from an A to B+), but instead gone with McDonald. Which you rate as a tier above.

I genuinely think though its just not that simple. You have accepted the quality that RT is at the moment and potentially could be. You stated in your articles that RT has X factor and can play multiple positions and is faster than McDonald. Surely the SA component coupled with your earlier comments, given RT is "almost" at par with McDonald is a massive variable in the decision making process, esp given the challenges of player retention?

Unless McDonald in your opinion is a generational player, did the Crows did make the right decision or wrong one? In your Phantom Draft you had the Crows taking RT which they did.

When grading did you attribute points to the Crows selecting JUH at pick 1?

For the record, these are the Clubs you rated performed better than Adelaide at the 2020 draft:

You gave an A+ to Carlton, Suns, North, Sydney and Dogs.

You gave an A to Pies , Eagles and Tigers.

I know this whole exercise tbh is nonsensical, given no one knows definitively who really won, until you take a retrospective look at this draft in a few years time. But its summer and its a healthy debate. Thanks.

 

[Mego Red]

It doesn't matter. We were under the cap as well. They freakin cheated too under the rules.

I think they made an error. We tried to do a side agreement to circumvent the cap.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

You claimed that RT would not have been your pick (which probably led you to grade us from an A to B+), but instead gone with McDonald. Which you rate as a tier above.

I genuinely think though its just not that simple. You have accepted the quality that RT is at the moment and potentially could be. You stated in your articles that RT has X factor and can play multiple positions and is faster than McDonald. Surely the SA component coupled with your earlier comments, given RT is "almost" at par with McDonald is a massive variable in the decision making process, esp given the challenges of player retention?

Unless McDonald in your opinion is a generational player, did the Crows did make the right decision or wrong one?

Wouldn't logic dictate that if McDonald was a generational player ....if we overlooked at pick #1, shouldn't North have jumped all over him at pick #2 ?

I'm curious of these RUMORS that McDonald interviewed poorly ....was he trying to get to a certain team (SYD LOL), or was there ??? on his personality after interviewing ?

Again I stress unsubstantiated rumors

 

[GROTTO]

Wouldn't logic dictate that if McDonald was a generational player ....if we overlooked at pick #1, shouldn't North have jumped all over him at pick #2 ?

I'm curious of these RUMORS that McDonald interviewed poorly ....was he trying to get to a certain team (SYD LOL), or was there ??? on his personality after interviewing ?

Again I stress unsubstantiated rumors

Yes. Thanks.

You just reminded me in regards to Knightmare rating of McDonald, how did North end up with an A+ if they passed on McDonald.

Again this is not a shot at Knightmare, just curious and I thin personally he got his assessment of our drafting decisions wrong.

 

[Jirkago75]

By the time we are approaching finals again, Gold Coast with their talent laden list will be right in flag contention, Rankine isn't leaving then, no one is leaving Gold Coast now or in the next 5-6 years. This talk is just fantasy stuff, we were wooden spooners, we lost our best mid, we've recruited promising kids but that's all they are, promising.

I disagree, when all the extra CG has been given. They will eventually have to get the list numbers down and all these high draft picks will demand more money and there will be players leave like GWS. The only question is will they be successful before they leave or will the AFL let them do what they want until success is found

 

[Knightmare]

Firstly thank you for your contribution. I genuinely enjoy your thread on Phantom Drafts and prospects of the next generation of kids coming through. Its well written and articulated.

I wanted to take you task here in regards to your ratings.

You claimed that RT would not have been your pick (which probably led you to grade us from an A to B+), but instead gone with McDonald. Which you rate as a tier above.

I genuinely think though its just not that simple. You have accepted the quality that RT is at the moment and potentially could be. You stated in your articles that RT has X factor and can play multiple positions and is faster than McDonald. Surely the SA component coupled with your earlier comments, given RT is "almost" at par with McDonald is a massive variable in the decision making process, esp given the challenges of player retention?

Unless McDonald in your opinion is a generational player, did the Crows did make the right decision or wrong one? In your Phantom Draft you had the Crows taking RT which they did.

When grading did you attribute points to the Crows selecting JUH at pick 1?

For the record, these are the Clubs you rated performed better than Adelaide at the 2020 draft:

You gave an A+ to Carlton, Suns, North, Sydney and Dogs.

You gave an A to Pies , Eagles and Tigers.

I know this whole exercise tbh is nonsensical, given no one knows definitively who really won, until you take a retrospective look at this draft in a few years time. But its summer and its a healthy debate. Thanks.

I actually rate McDonald even the two tiers above Thilthorpe. I've got Jamarra and McDonald in that top tier of top 1-3 on list quality guys. Phillips as that stand alone top-5 on list quality guy in that tier just below. Then I've got Hollands/Thilthorpe/Jones as that next group down from there as players I categorise as top-10 on list quality. I cover the tier list in full in my AFL tier list video on my YouTube. So on McDonald v Thilthorpe, I'm very strongly of the opinion McDonald is the pick. But a draft and how good it is doesn't have to be determined by the success of just one player.

Thilthorpe absolutely is a pick I mark Adelaide down for, and quite sharply, even though I do very much respect and rate Thilthorpe's game and view him as someone who should still in his own right become an excellent footballer. But the other selections for Adelaide though on the other hand I do rate which does move Adelaide's rating into the positive. Pedlar is someone I rate just outside my top-20, but he's someone had I seen more, I could see myself rating around where Adelaide picked him, so I didn't want to put too much weighting into that next selection. But the other picks, that's where the rating becomes very positive. Cook I rate inside my top-15, Berry inside my top-20. Excellent value selections! Rowe? He was worth what was paid and fills a need, so I can respect that pick also.

What if this is a draft where Adelaide took x5 players in the draft and all five become best-22 players? I think there a genuine possibility of that, even if Adelaide missed on that generational key forward. So that's the lens I'm looking at Adelaide's draft through.

I did also give Adelaide some slight credit in my grade in bidding on Jamarra, but given he was matched, there isn't too much credit that can be given, as it only had so much impact on the final outcome of Adelaide's night.