List Mgmt. Carlton's 2019 Draft Thread

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I think that by default one may lean towards types one likes, but also should lean to some degree to types that fill needs, in order to complete lists.
Recruiters will say they took best available but that may mean different things to different people.

This time last year we were looking for small/medium goal-kicking forwards - They didn't eventuate but we had posters saying that you simply pick things up via trade. Well guess what? That didn't happen either. What if we go into the next year with the same mindset and come up short again, whilst loading up on mids that now simply play musical chairs through the NB's?

Of course you're looking for best players but as you say - A 7.5/10 player you need may be more impactful to the whole, than an 8/5/10 player that really amounts to surplus to needs. Many variables here but you get the idea.

This is a good point and it is actually quite laughable how certain we were in these type of threads over the last 4 years that we would have FA’s falling over themselves by now to get to the club and fill holes on our list.
I think we have been far too conservative not trying to fill holes but in saying that I can understand why SOS may not have enough confidence in our list yet to make such moves. I like everyone rate our young talent but besides Walsh and Weitering none have done enough to near guarantee that they’ll be anything special.We are building around potential still so I can understand why he would still go best available because it doesn’t take much and we can realistically have holes all over the ground. A McCartin type event to Weitering or Curnow and all of a sudden we will be searching for KPP’s again. Their have been plenty of mids show as much or more then kids like Dow and LOB and end up busts or very small role players. This is another reason blowing late picks and taking or “depth” players shouldn’t be underestimated. We aren’t giving ourselves the chance to fill these long term holes ever how unlikely it is to find a good player their is.
For me, turn the list over more quickly with less short term players (means delisting players like Lang giving us extra picks in the draft) and target holes later in the draft and with more picks but use the top picks on best available still.

 

[JustaBattler]

The logic has been addressed and proved many times over.

As for picking up teenagers straight out of school? ...... You may need to have a little look into this, as plenty of players drafted (out of school, or a little more senior) have done very well in their first years and continued to do well. Just have a little look and see.

Nope you have never responded to sensible commentary on constraints in any full list rebuild - ever.

For every 'outlier' you sorta beat around the bush allude to....there are 95/100 kids drafted most of whom don't make any contribution to AFL in first couple of years if at all - have a look see yourself.

 

[JustaBattler]

This is a good point and it is actually quite laughable how certain we were in these type of threads over the last 4 years that we would have FA’s falling over themselves by now to get to the club and fill holes on our list.
I think we have been far too conservative not trying to fill holes but in saying that I can understand why SOS may not have enough confidence in our list yet to make such moves. I like everyone rate our young talent but besides Walsh and Weitering none have done enough to near guarantee that they’ll be anything special.We are building around potential still so I can understand why he would still go best available because it doesn’t take much and we can realistically have holes all over the ground. A McCartin type event to Weitering or Curnow and all of a sudden we will be searching for KPP’s again. Their have been plenty of mids show as much or more then kids like Dow and LOB and end up busts or very small role players. This is another reason blowing late picks and taking or “depth” players shouldn’t be underestimated. We aren’t giving ourselves the chance to fill these long term holes ever how unlikely it is to find a good player their is.
For me, turn the list over more quickly with less short term players (means delisting players like Lang giving us extra picks in the draft) and target holes later in the draft and with more picks but use the top picks on best available still.

Here is a fact for your consideration - no established Club in the history of AFL has ever had the list turnover that Carlton has gone through over the last 3-4 years. Lots of movement and change - no recruiter/list manager is going to get every pick right or anywhere near it - and going for elite youth from draft is no guarantee either - that is just part of the reality of competitive environment that Clubs and their supporters have to wear- after a decade of mismanagement preceding.

 

[HARKER]

Nope you have never responded to sensible commentary on constraints in any full list rebuild - ever.

For every 'outlier' you sorta beat around the bush allude to....there are 95/100 kids drafted most of whom don't make any contribution to AFL in first couple of years if at all - have a look see yourself.

You've asked for logic. Check with what I replied to Arrow with and counter the logic, if I'm wrong.

What you just said now is that approximately only 5 players from both drafts make any meaningful contribution in their first couple of years.
Did I get this right? Is this what you said after doing some research?

Last year - Walsh, Rozee, Duursma, Stack, Blakey, Smith, Thomas, BKing, Butters, Clark, Parker, Answerth, Atkins...13 and that's only in their first year.

Players that have had two years and contributed meaningfully. - Rayner, Dow, Cerra, Stephenson, Naughton, Higgins, Allen, Tim Kelly, Ryan, Daniels, McCartin.....11+++ Jesus, should I keep going?

Maybe your meaningful and my meaningful, mean different things...Clearly they mean different things. being a regular is more than meaningful.


......as for the List Rebuild. is this something you honestly require for me to put forward?
It's obvious what we've done and what we need.

 

[windows1]

Absolutely. I'm not interested in these numbers as much as filling the gaps and allowing fitness and development to do their job.

I'd happily trade O'Brien for a Rioli and Ryan. I don't care about the numbers. A good system will make things work. Q: Have we a good system?

And how far does this theory stretch? If no trade can be found would you use 9 on the best forward pocket there? So Weightman I guess?

 

[HARKER]

And how far does this theory stretch? If no trade can be found would you use 9 on the best forward pocket there? So Weightman I guess?

Of course. The types aren't there, then go to plan B.

Let's try this: Would we be a better team next year with Lachie Ash, or a combination of Pickett and Weightman?
I haven't followed the comp this year, so may we well off as I'm now not counting the qualities of the players but the types.

In 2017 SOS really liked Kelly and Liam Ryan would have been the right type for us.
Would SOS sooner have taken the types he liked and needed in those two players or for O'Brien on reflection?

Doesn't discount needs too readily in drafts, even if someone shouts for you to ALWAYS go for needs in them.

 

[JustaBattler]

You've asked for logic. Check with what I replied to Arrow with and counter the logic, if I'm wrong.

What you just said now is that approximately only 5 players from both drafts make any meaningful contribution in their first couple of years.
Did I get this right? Is this what you said after doing some research?

Last year - Walsh, Rozee, Duursma, Stack, Blakey, Smith, Thomas, BKing, Butters, Clark, Parker, Answerth, Atkins...13 and that's only in their first year.

Players that have had two years and contributed meaningfully. - Rayner, Dow, Cerra, Stephenson, Naughton, Higgins, Allen, Tim Kelly, Ryan, Daniels, McCartin.....11+++ Jesus, should I keep going?

Maybe your meaningful and my meaningful, mean different things...Clearly they mean different things. being a regular is more than meaningful.


......as for the List Rebuild. is this something you honestly require for me to put forward?
It's obvious what we've done and what we need.

Like I said - the players most likely to actually 'do something' in AFL in their first couple of years are typically very high picks....and a fair number of players you've quoted came from what was regarded as two of the best draft years in memory - as high picks.

Still all that is just obvious - what you fail to want to understand or acknowledge is that Carlton had to be rebuilt from scratch and what that meant and continues to mean - for starters compromises and misses - forced. Sometimes you have to take a step back to go two steps forward.

You complain about lack of small forwards - I complain about what is (to me) an obvious lack of depth in developed midfield bodies.

Money, picks and trades are limited resources- not infinite. No one can tick every conceivable or perceived need in such a short period of time and also cover for injury and failure to develop as quickly as one might hope - no one, no process, no system, no structure - sometimes we have to be patient.

 

[windows1]

Of course. The types aren't there, then go to plan B.

Let's try this: Would we be a better team next year with Lachie Ash, or a combination of Pickett and Weightman?
I haven't followed the comp this year, so may we well off as I'm now not counting the qualities of the players but the types.

In 2017 SOS really liked Kelly and Liam Ryan would have been the right type for us.
Would SOS sooner have taken the types he liked and needed in those two players or for O'Brien on reflection?

Doesn't discount needs too readily in drafts, even if someone shouts for you to ALWAYS go for needs in them.

Combination of Weightman and Pickett is a trade down argument to get types. It’s not an argument to not pick best available. It’s a strategy discussion. It’s actually a concession to the argument that you draft best available rather than needs. Else if it wasn’t you’d just pick Weightman at 9. Not trade down to get 2 when you could risk missing one of them. I’m not sure Weightman is an afl player to be honest. I suspect he will be easily shut down and doesn’t have other roles he can play. Pickett is a risk. Ash is a almost a lock. If we drafted Ash we’d improve straight away. IMO. Hence we’d be better. I can’t say that with any confidence about the other two.

 

[blue_trinity]

Lists and player positions/best 22’s are so fluid and perpetually evolving that it makes drafting for needs with top picks impossible.

Had we taken a small forward in 2012 we would have been laughed at.

 

[Coona Blues]

I, along with many others have settled on Stephens as my preferred draft option should he get to #9.

I am, however starting to wonder if the club has any such intention. We have a number of young "stars" who could fill an outside midfield role, and have
taken Newnes as a DFA and are likely to get Martin, both are suited to a wing or flank. It is a bit hard to believe we would invest further in this area at the draft.

 

[Pafloyul]

I, along with many others have settled on Stephens as my preferred draft option should he get to #9.

I am, however starting to wonder if the club has any such intention. We have a number of young "stars" who could fill an outside midfield role, and have
taken Newnes as a DFA and are likely to get Martin, both are suited to a wing or flank. It is a bit hard to believe we would invest further in this area at the draft.

I'm one of the many others who are glad you settled on Stephens as your preferred draft option, I always believe people should stick to their guns. I, however, think we should trade it for two picks.

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

According to the phantom drafts floating around at the moment, if we keep pick #9....which will probably slide to #10 after Freo match Demons bid on Liam Henry at pick #8....it would leave us with one of Kemp or Stephens for our first selection.

If we decided to trade pick #10 for picks #15 and 20, that would potentially leave players like Kemp/Stephens, Robertson, Weightman, Jackson, Gould and Rivers still available from pick #11 to 15.....and still give us the opportunity to pick up a Pickett at pick #21.

Chris Doerre has Will Gould and Trent Rivers still available at #15, with Deven Robertson being selected by Cats at #14....although they would pounce on Jackson if he was still available.

So I guess the question is, would we be happier with one of Kemp/Stephens...or Trent Rivers/Deven Robertson/Will Gould and Ky Pickett?

I'll leave that one to our draft experts...although I believe Arr0w is a huge rap for Rivers.

 

[Arr0w]

If you always take best available in the draft all you are doing is collecting talent and not actually building a team. I don’t think trades will cover all the holes that will be created by just taking best available.

That doesn’t mean you reach too far for the right type but you want to draft players that will actually have an impact for the club by bringing something you don’t have.

I thought It had been dismissed years ago this idea that clubs just take best available.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

If anything it is more relevant than ever, but what has changed is how recruiters rate or access players.

Let's take ruckmen, if that's all they can do and lack versatility they would not rate as high as a lesser ruckman that could also play KPD and KPF

So, Gawn is a superior ruckman compared to say a Blicavs, but how would that rating look like in terms of value

Reaching for what?
I don't understand your headline.

My point about Worpel was more about Hawthorns development of players.
The guy could play and was overlooked for reasons (obviously) but Hawthorn made good........but somehow something will balance out?
What does that even mean? Other players will get better but he cannot?

You ALWAYS select best available? Cliche that doesn't stack up and we've covered this ground before, but just for fun and applying your method -
We rate Luke Jackson as the best player at our pick - We have to take him.
At our next pick another ruckman happens to be on top of the page - We have to take him too?
The next pick comes along and guess what? A ruckman - He's best available and you ALWAYS take best available.

Silly isn't it and doesn't play out that way at all unless you want to be seen as a 'hero' recruiter but a poor List Manager.
Who gives a s**t if you have 6 good ruck-men on your list, when only one and a half can front up at any one time, you spoil the others for lack of development and opportunity and are then forced to re-invent what you have. Same applies for KPF's, KPD's, Mids etc.

You don't take poor players but you have to have an eye out for needs. It's folly suggesting this not to be important.

It's not that hard to comprehend Harks, Worpel is more advanced body wise, as was SPP. Players reach maturity at different levels, some have more growth than others. I find it amusing that so many bang on about Clarkson and Hawthorn, yet with an average side this year, they had average results

Yes we have covered and debated best available before, yet you always seem to use extreme cases, but we will use your extremes. As above, if the best available was 3 Blicavs type players, would you concede you could use each of them as a KPD, KPF and a run with player as he has shown in the past?

So now let's focus on mid size players, what about Dusty, would you say no to drafting 3 of him?

I am not talking about marginal differences, what I find bizzare is people rating Weightman so high, given he is a small forward, yet as pure talent and effectiveness to a side, I wouldn't draft him in the top 30

So despite what you or others think or wish for, the best recruiters draft best available, especially with picks in the first 2 rounds. After that, they may look to add projected talent, or a need, like a recycled KPD as a back up if they are thin in that area.

Most needs based acquisitions comes from trading

 

[JEZZAS BLUES]

According to the phantom drafts floating around at the moment, if we keep pick #9....which will probably slide to #10 after Freo match Demons bid on Liam Henry at pick #8....it would leave us with one of Kemp or Stephens for our first selection.

If we decided to trade pick #10 for picks #15 and 20, that would potentially leave players like Kemp/Stephens, Robertson, Weightman, Jackson, Gould and Rivers still available from pick #11 to 15.....and still give us the opportunity to pick up a Pickett at pick #21.

Chris Doerre has Will Gould and Trent Rivers still available at #15, with Deven Robertson being selected by Cats at #14....although they would pounce on Jackson if he was still available.

So I guess the question is, would we be happier with one of Kemp/Stephens...or Trent Rivers/Deven Robertson/Will Gould and Ky Pickett?

I'll leave that one to our draft experts...although I believe Arr0w is a huge rap for Rivers.

I cant see Pickett being drafted before the third round but i like the idea of 2 picks for one i would like to see us get Sharp with one of those picks...

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

So despite what you or others think or wish for, the best recruiters draft best available, especially with picks in the first 2 rounds. After that, they may look to add projected talent, or a need, like a recycled KPD as a back up if they are thin in that area.

Most needs based acquisitions comes from trading

Totally agree with you here Arr0w, but just following up on my previous rant. If we decided for example to trade pick #9 to GCS for #15 and 20, do we then look at the best player at #15, say a Rivers or Robertson or Gould....and then target a more 'needs required' at #20 like a Pickett?

The logic being that Pickett may not be the best available at that pick, but given our lack of quality smalls, and having Eddie on board right now in an on field mentoring role, he may be the best fit.

 

[Arr0w]

Totally agree with you here Arr0w, but just following up on my previous rant. If we decided for example to trade pick #9 to GCS for #15 and 20, do we then look at the best player at #15, say a Rivers or Robertson or Gould....and then target a more 'needs required' at #20 like a Pickett?

The logic being that Pickett may not be the best available at that pick, but given our lack of quality smalls, and having Eddie on board right now in an on field mentoring role, he may be the best fit.

Perhaps, but still needs to be in range of those ratings. I certainly see other small/medium forwards ahead of Weightman long term, such as Taylor and Pickett who have scope to win the ball further up the ground

Another consideration is how our season progressed in the 2nd half of the year, where we were more than competitive against sides mid table and lower, without having so called dedicated small forwards

The biggest change was more inside 50's through quick ball movement, so I still believe bolstering our midfield is more important, Newnes and Martin certainly helps

Again, let's focus on the benchmarks over the last 2 years in terms of goal averages

Tigers - Lynch, Riewoldt and a resting mid in Martin

WC - Kennedy, Darling and Ryan who played a fair bit further up the ground rather than a dedicated small forward role

 

[HARKER]

It's not that hard to comprehend Harks, Worpel is more advanced body wise, as was SPP. Players reach maturity at different levels, some have more growth than others. I find it amusing that so many bang on about Clarkson and Hawthorn, yet with an average side this year, they had average results

Yes we have covered and debated best available before, yet you always seem to use extreme cases, but we will use your extremes. As above, if the best available was 3 Blicavs type players, would you concede you could use each of them as a KPD, KPF and a run with player as he has shown in the past?

So now let's focus on mid size players, what about Dusty, would you say no to drafting 3 of him?

I am not talking about marginal differences, what I find bizzare is people rating Weightman so high, given he is a small forward, yet as pure talent and effectiveness to a side, I wouldn't draft him in the top 30

So despite what you or others think or wish for, the best recruiters draft best available, especially with picks in the first 2 rounds. After that, they may look to add projected talent, or a need, like a recycled KPD as a back up if they are thin in that area.

Most needs based acquisitions comes from trading

1. Wines had a big body. Cripps had a big body. Petracca had a big body. De Goey had a big body ...etc etc.
We just pick and choose as to why some 'Big bodies' will develop further and others won't. Doubt there's any science behind your claim. Just bias.
Hawthorn? They take players and develop them for specific roles and they do it well. Smart.....and who cares where they finished this year when you know that their formula works whilst we'll still be trying to find the best players and not build the best team.

2. Extreme cases? It's quite feasible for such scenarios to arise.
You said always and even had to magnify it with an 'ALWAYS' So is it always or not? It's not always is it? It's a long way from always.

Whether recruiters look at it that way or not come selection time, I don't know, but the notion of 'just get the best player and we'll work out how he fits later' is so wrong on so many fronts. It smacks of a mindset that suggests 'let's find a future Brownlow medalist ahead of building a Premiership team'
RIDER: I probably didn't explain this well and some will say why can't you have both but I'm talking about the mindset.

3. Dusty at 3? I know who he is now so how do I answer that question and which team do I compare it to?
Would I sooner had had a #13 and the #20 instead of the #3 and reeled in Talia and Fyfe? The answer would be an easy YES.

In summary we see things differently and a lot depends on where you are at the time as to how you should draft.
You're rebuilding - Get the best players by all means as you have gaps everywhere.
You've passed your 88 game rebuild - It may be time to clean up around the edges, given you couldn't get things done via trade and may not be able to again.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - For this draft period (and at this stage), I'd like for us to trade down should the situation present, given we're more likely (or even forced to) pick up a couple of 'needs' type players rather than something we have and that may seem to be better for now.

P.S. I still don't know what you headline was about, but that's OK

 

[Eiffel 65]

1. Wines had a big body. Cripps had a big body. Petracca had a big body. De Goey had a big body ...etc etc.
We just pick and choose as to why some 'Big bodies' will develop further and others won't. Doubt there's any science behind your claim. Just bias.
Hawthorn? They take players and develop them for specific roles and they do it well. Smart.....and who cares where they finished this year when you know that their formula works whilst we'll still be trying to find the best players and not build the best team.

2. Extreme cases? It's quite feasible for such scenarios to arise.
You said always and even had to magnify it with an 'ALWAYS' So is it always or not? It's not always is it? It's a long way from always.

Whether recruiters look at it that way or not come selection time, I don't know, but the notion of 'just get the best player and we'll work out how he fits later' is so wrong on so many fronts. It smacks of a mindset that suggests 'let's find a future Brownlow medalist ahead of building a Premiership team'
RIDER: I probably didn't explain this well and some will say why can't you have both but I'm talking about the mindset.

3. Dusty at 3? I know who he is now so how do I answer that question and which team do I compare it to?
Would I sooner had had a #13 and the #20 instead of the #3 and reeled in Talia and Fyfe? The answer would be an easy YES.

In summary we see things differently and a lot depends on where you are at the time as to how you should draft.
You're rebuilding - Get the best players by all means as you have gaps everywhere.
You've passed your 88 game rebuild - It may be time to clean up around the edges, given you couldn't get things done via trade and may not be able to again.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - For this draft period (and at this stage), I'd like for us to trade down should the situation present, given we're more likely (or even forced to) pick up a couple of 'needs' type players rather than something we have and that may seem to be better for now.

P.S. I still don't know what you headline was about, but that's OK

There's one option here that no one is really talking about.

We could trade our future first and say 2 x 3rd rounders (an agreed amount of points) to GWS for pick 6.

If GWS are finding it too difficult to deal with Melbourne and potentially Adelaide, they may see the best option is to match a bid for Green with back end picks and transfer their first rounder into the 2020 draft.

Some will argue that we need that currency for a high priced trade next season. I honestly believe we've passed that point and are more in need of specific role players such as your Nic Newman's and Jack Newnes types.

 

[LemmingMaster]

It is that time of year again when the BF phantom draft gets underway, go check it out on the draft board.

 

[windows1]

It is that time of year again when the BF phantom draft gets underway, go check it out on the draft board.

I’ll be happy if in order you tick off Flanders, Ash, Stephens, Young, Henry (bid and marched) Serong and Kemp.

 

[Arr0w]

1. Wines had a big body. Cripps had a big body. Petracca had a big body. De Goey had a big body ...etc etc.
We just pick and choose as to why some 'Big bodies' will develop further and others won't. Doubt there's any science behind your claim. Just bias.
Hawthorn? They take players and develop them for specific roles and they do it well. Smart.....and who cares where they finished this year when you know that their formula works whilst we'll still be trying to find the best players and not build the best team.

2. Extreme cases? It's quite feasible for such scenarios to arise.
You said always and even had to magnify it with an 'ALWAYS' So is it always or not? It's not always is it? It's a long way from always.

Whether recruiters look at it that way or not come selection time, I don't know, but the notion of 'just get the best player and we'll work out how he fits later' is so wrong on so many fronts. It smacks of a mindset that suggests 'let's find a future Brownlow medalist ahead of building a Premiership team'
RIDER: I probably didn't explain this well and some will say why can't you have both but I'm talking about the mindset.

3. Dusty at 3? I know who he is now so how do I answer that question and which team do I compare it to?
Would I sooner had had a #13 and the #20 instead of the #3 and reeled in Talia and Fyfe? The answer would be an easy YES.

In summary we see things differently and a lot depends on where you are at the time as to how you should draft.
You're rebuilding - Get the best players by all means as you have gaps everywhere.
You've passed your 88 game rebuild - It may be time to clean up around the edges, given you couldn't get things done via trade and may not be able to again.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - For this draft period (and at this stage), I'd like for us to trade down should the situation present, given we're more likely (or even forced to) pick up a couple of 'needs' type players rather than something we have and that may seem to be better for now.

P.S. I still don't know what you headline was about, but that's OK

You are being selective again Harks, but lets's entertain the idea, despite misunderstanding what I have posted

1. How much growth have we seen in Wines? His first 12 game season he averaged 25 odd disposals a season, conveniently he is still on a similar average. Cripps grew height wise from his draft year, averaged 26.9 disposals in his 2nd full season 28.1 this year, massive growth? De Goey 18.2 in his 2nd season, 16.8 this season. Tell me Harks, how much growth have those 3 had? No bias, just facts. Worpel was never a 1st round prospect, nor should he have slid into the 3rd round. Long term he is a early to mid 2nd round talent long term. This messiah complex with Clarkson and Hawthorn is hilarious. What would you make of Hartung, Garlett, Wilsmore, Webster, Ross, Hatherley, Tatupu, O'Rourke, Miles, Pittonett, Hardisty, Miller-Lewis, Langford, Fitzpatrick, Lovell, Surmane, Stewart, all from 2013-2015? Yet you want to hang your hat on a mature body draftee, who is clearly an exception to the rule given the above names

2. Yes, ALWAYS best available when drafting and I have never deviated from that statement

3. This is where you have completely misunderstood my previous post. Not Dusty at 3, I stated "would you say no to drafting 3 of him? " https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/carltons-2019-draft-thread.1209887/page-50#post-63538590 . 1 the square/pocket, 1 on a HFF, 1 in the guts. Go on tell me best available is not effective with a player like Martin. Perhaps you want an example of a lesser player? Perhaps Shane Edwards, who could play HB, Mid or Small forward, should we not draft 3 of him as they are too much alike?

"In summary" you don't bypass better talent to reach for needs. That was the mantra of Rogers and Hughes, not one that I would use as a strategy for any form of success.

Then you go on in other posts about "best available" has been disproved, show me evidence of where that has failed? Perhaps rather than debating Best Available v Needs, perhaps you/I/others should be debating how and who we rate as best available and why.

As for the headline, "Reaching again Harks?" You would rather bypass 20 odd players that have greater talent and select a player of need, the headline is fitting Harks and I am grateful, SOS does not subscribe to your form of Rogers/Hughes mantra/recruiting

 

[Coona Blues]

I have been busy here for a while, trying to rationalise the probability that Pickett could last until our second pick #43 (or whatever it ends up at after bids and deals). The statistics are a little more positive than I expected.

Handy players in the sub 175cm range in recent times. Done in alpha sequence by club
Betts (PSD) - 174
Stengle - Rookie - 173
L.Murphy - Rookie - 173
Zorko and Gibbons both 175cm as mature age players
McDonald-Tipungwuti - Rookie - 171
D.Smith at 174 an outlier as a first rounder
D.MacPherson - Rookie -174
B.Daniels - 170 is another outlier in the second round at a team desperate for forward pressure.
Puopolo - mature age at pick 66 - 173
Kennedy-Harris- 173 - 3rd round delisted after 6 years
Spargo - 2nd round - 173 looks promising, but Demons said to be "desperate" for Weightman
L.Baker - Rookie - 173 Plenty to like, but definitely had to earn a game the hard way.
a couple in the range have not been seen at the level and would be unknown by most here, with perpetually overlooked Cavarra at Bulldogs not getting a game first season, but did have plenty of injury issues.

At 170cm Pickett ties for the shortest listed, with most in this range getting overlooked, taken late or having to prove themselves at state league level first.
Have seen him play, have seen very little re attitude, athletic testing etc. Haven't heard any "slows" but would not take much to slide on historic data. "short people" have had a bit of a resurgence in very recent times. Most "rated" players tend to be closer to 180cm. Maybe we don't give up hope. I have my fingers crossed.

 

[Doro]

You are being selective again Harks, but lets's entertain the idea, despite misunderstanding what I have posted

1. How much growth have we seen in Wines? His first 12 game season he averaged 25 odd disposals a season, conveniently he is still on a similar average. Cripps grew height wise from his draft year, averaged 26.9 disposals in his 2nd full season 28.1 this year, massive growth? De Goey 18.2 in his 2nd season, 16.8 this season. Tell me Harks, how much growth have those 3 had? No bias, just facts. Worpel was never a 1st round prospect, nor should he have slid into the 3rd round. Long term he is a early to mid 2nd round talent long term. This messiah complex with Clarkson and Hawthorn is hilarious. What would you make of Hartung, Garlett, Wilsmore, Webster, Ross, Hatherley, Tatupu, O'Rourke, Miles, Pittonett, Hardisty, Miller-Lewis, Langford, Fitzpatrick, Lovell, Surmane, Stewart, all from 2013-2015? Yet you want to hang your hat on a mature body draftee, who is clearly an exception to the rule given the above names

2. Yes, ALWAYS best available when drafting and I have never deviated from that statement

3. This is where you have completely misunderstood my previous post. Not Dusty at 3, I stated "would you say no to drafting 3 of him? " https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/carltons-2019-draft-thread.1209887/page-50#post-63538590 . 1 the square/pocket, 1 on a HFF, 1 in the guts. Go on tell me best available is not effective with a player like Martin. Perhaps you want an example of a lesser player? Perhaps Shane Edwards, who could play HB, Mid or Small forward, should we not draft 3 of him as they are too much alike?

"In summary" you don't bypass better talent to reach for needs. That was the mantra of Rogers and Hughes, not one that I would use as a strategy for any form of success.

Then you go on in other posts about "best available" has been disproved, show me evidence of where that has failed? Perhaps rather than debating Best Available v Needs, perhaps you/I/others should be debating how and who we rate as best available and why.

As for the headline, "Reaching again Harks?" You would rather bypass 20 odd players that have greater talent and select a player of need, the headline is fitting Harks and I am grateful, SOS does not subscribe to your form of Rogers/Hughes mantra/recruiting

This is the crux of the matter really. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder to a large degree. There isn't any massively reliable statistical base to assess junior footballing ability/talent so best available is largely subjective in terms of ranking. List management in terms of needs definitely needs to come in to play

 

[Arr0w]

This is the crux of the matter really. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder to a large degree. There isn't any massively reliable statistical base to assess junior footballing ability/talent so best available is largely subjective in terms of ranking. List management in terms of needs definitely needs to come in to play

Needs does and should always be part of the strategy of building/maintaining a strong list, but I believe that comes from trading

 

[The Smoking Gun]

The main area I'd like SOS to tackle is our transition from defence to attack. It's simply far too slow. Draft Prospects such as Trent Bianco, Jeremy Sharp, Lachie Ash and Dylan Stephens help to address this area with speed, acceleration, endurance, accumulation and elite foot skills. The other area I'd like to see SOS address is finding a young ruckman to develop. The fact that Essendon attempted to bring Sandilands out of retirement should indicate that the current batch of backup ruckmen on AFL lists simply don't measure up.

2019 Picks: 9, 43, 57, 70, 85
Future Picks: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th.

Draft Strategy with Pick 9.
SOS can either spend Pick 9 or trade Pick 9, but if he does choose to trade Pick 9 then it will happen on the night. According to rumours I've heard (but unable to confirm) SOS has been approached by three clubs, Gold Coast, Fremantle & Geelong. Interestingly, they're supposedly all after the same draft prospect, Luke Jackson.

Rumoured/Potential Trade Scenarios
Trade 1: Gold Coast

The Suns approached SOS about trading Pick 9 and our Future 2nd for Picks 15 & 20. There will be an Academy Selection and potentially 2 Father/Son Selections as well as an NGA selection so these Picks could end up being 19 & 24. SOS and Brodie have declined this offer, but informed the Suns they open to trading Pick 9 if they consider the offer good enough.​

Trade 2: Fremantle

Freo are very, very keen on Jackson, but are concerned the Cats will beat them to the punch. The Dockers have offered up Picks 10 and 69 for Pick 9. SOS & Brodie are adamant that any deal must include Pick 22. Should it go ahead, the final deal may look something like:​

Picks 10 & 22 to Carlton > Picks 9 & Future 2nd to the Dockers.​

Trade 3: Geelong

Like us, the Cats have issues with their ruck division and have made no secret of their wish to acquire Jackson. SOS is supposedly more open to dealing with Wells due to potential of greater exposure to the 2019 National Draft. While I haven't any details (the mail wasn't that good), potential trades could look like, but not necessarily limited to:​

Pick 9 & Future 1st to Geelong > Picks 14, 17 & 24 to Carlton​

Pick 9 & Future 2nd to Geelong > Picks 14 & 17 to Carlton​

Pick Swaps
Swap 1: Geelong

Despite the potential trade scenarios above, even if they can't get Pick 9, I think Wells and his team may be amenable to orchestrating a Pick swap, because that still gives them plenty of exposure in this years National Draft while potentially improving their position in next years draft. One needs to remember though that Pick 17 may well become Pick 19 or 20 by the time you account for Father/Son, NGA & Academy selections.​

Future 1st to Geelong > Pick 17 & Cats Future 1st to Carlton.​

Ideal Scenario (at least in a perfect world).
Trade 2: Fremantle

Pick 9 & Future 2nd to Fremantle > Picks 10 & 22 to Carlton​

Pick Swap: Geelong

Future 1st to Geelong > Pick 17 & Cats Future 1st to Carlton​

Gives us great selection of Picks in the 2019 National Draft while leaving us with a 1st Rounder in the 2020 National Draft.

Final Draft Position
2019 Picks: 10, 17, 22, 43, 57, 70
2020 Picks: Cats 1st, 3rd, 5th.

Draft Selections - Top Ten
Pick 1: Matthew Rowell - Gold Coast

Well knock me down with a feather....​

Pick 2: Noah Anderson - Gold Coast

De Goey clone. Dunno what they see in him tbh.​

Pick 3: Tom Green - GWS (matching bid from Melbourne)

Fits the Demons MO perfectly, but unfortunately the Giants have first dibs.​

Pick 4: Sam Flanders - Melbourne

Seriously good forward pocket with vice-like hands that is tremendous at finding his own ball inside 50 or through the midfield. Would love him at the Blues.​

Pick 5: Caleb Serong - Adelaide

Will provide a point of difference both up forward and through the middle for the Crows. Great addition to go with Chayce Jones from last year.​

Pick 6: Hayden Young - Sydney

The Swans need a lot of things as they start their rebuild. Don't be surprised if they take Deven Robertson here as their midfield is another area that requires refurbishment.​

Pick 7: Lachie Ash - Fremantle

With an ageing Stephen Hill and after losing Brad Hill, the Dockers will be looking for someone with elite disposal and speed. Ash fits the bill.​

Pick 8: Brodie Kemp - Melbourne

After trading Hogan, Weideman not coming on and McDonald's injury and form issues, the Demons got found out for a lack of tall forwards last year. Kemp's versatility could be exactly what they're looking for......although he's unlikely to be much help next season.​

Pick 9: Luke Jackson - Fremantle (traded from Carlton)

Along with the Cats & Suns, the Dockers are very, very keen on Jackson.​

Pick 10: Dylan Stephens - Carlton (traded from Fremantle)

Speedy outside mid with a huge tank that can accumulate possessions and has a penetrating left foot.​

​

Our Draft Selections
Pick 10 - Dylan Stephens 183cm, 74kg, 8/1/2001, Outside Midfielder, Norwood SA.

Outside midfielder with pace to burn, good acceleration and has a massive tank. Like many natural lefties Stephens has an accurate, raking kick with good penetration, but tends to be deadliest over longer distances rather than shorter ones. Apart from the U18 Nationals, all of Stephens games have been at SANFL League or Reserves level against men where he averaged 19 disposals/match and 31 disposals/match respectively. One of the issues I tend to have with outside midfielders is their ability to find their own ball. Stephens essentially played an outside role at League level with only 33% of his possessions were contested, but when asked to play a more inside/balanced role at Reserve level over 61% of his possessions were contested......so he can find his own ball when required. The other thing I like about Stephens is his excellent work rate. His defensive running and preparedness to tackle is first rate, which is something many of our current midfielders lack. I think a line-breaking midfielder with excellent disposal and the running power of Walsh would be a fantastic addition to our list. Although only lightly-framed at this stage, I think Stephens has already demonstrated that he's good enough that he'll be pushing for a spot from Round 1.​

Pick 17 - Cooper Stephens 188cm, 83kg, 17/1/2001, Inside Midfielder, Geelong Falcons, Vic Country

I'm one who believes when you see a bargain you take it and that you can never have enough players who know how to get their hands on the ball. Had the Geelong Falcon's Co-Captain not broken his leg in the 3rd Round of the NAB League, I suspect we could be talking about Stephens as a potential Top 10 Pick. His best work is done around the stoppages with clean, sharp hands and short kicks based upon good decisions, however his long kicking when running flat knacker needs work. The traits that typify Stephens are his effort, application, consistency, work ethic and hardness around the contest. Stephens' was held in such high regard that despite being ruled out of the U18 Champs he was still named as Vice-Captain of the Vic Country squad. Although arriving at the Draft Combine with a limited fitness base Stephens still managed to top the demanding Yo-Yo test recording 21.8 and running vertical jump of 83cm. While I would expect Stephens to spend much of his first year at VFL level honing some areas of his game and rebuilding some of his fitness base he's demonstrated that he's already got much of the physical size and endurance he'll require at AFL level. I think it's also important not pigeon-hole players to a certain position as Stephens has also demonstrated his ability to play some good footy across half-back as an underager during the 2018 U18 Nationals against a very powerful SA side.​

*Pick 17 is likely to become Pick 19 or 20 with potential bids on Maginness, Henry and Mead pushing it out.​

Pick 22 - Trent Bianco 178cm, 70kg, 20/1/2001, Defender, Oakleigh Chargers, Vic Metro

Bianco is a small running defender, much in the style of Jayden Short or Kade Simpson, but probably a little more capable of finding his own ball when required. Bianco generally plays on the outside where he accelerates down the ground before picking out a team mate with his sublime foot skills. He is an extremely damaging player simply due to sheer amount of metres he takes off the opposition before they can react. The Oakleigh Chargers' skipper had a superb 2019 NAB League season where he averaged almost 27 disposals/match with around two-thirds of those distributed by his lethal kicking. One of the things I really like about Bianco is how good his decision-making and execution is at top speed and as a result he rarely makes mistakes or commits clangers. Other things I like are his effort, application and consistency, so you know exactly what you're going to get from him each time he takes the field. Bianco's strengths can also be his weakness at times and he can find himself caught out of position occasionally, especially if the team mate he's just delivered the ball to turns it over. Bianco is very light-bodied at this stage and will need to hit the gym, but as Simmo and Short have already demonstrated, you don't need to be built like Arnie to play this role.​

*Pick 22 could end up being around Pick 25 or 26.​

*I also looked hard at Sharp here, but preferred Dylan Stephens earlier.​

​

Pick 43 - Nick Bryan 202cm, 87kg, 22/10/2001, Ruck, Oakleigh Chargers, Vic Metro

At some point you've got to bite the bullet and develop a ruckman and I won't lie, Bryan will take somewhere in the 2-4 year range to bring up to AFL standard. Not only is he tall, but he runs 20m in 2.91sec, has a standing vertical leap of 69 cm and has very clean hands at ground level. Although he's not Ben King quick, it was quite amazing to watch him run away from the opposition when he decides to use his speed. One area where Bryan has significantly improved this year is his contested marking. At this stage he is obviously still very raw, but I think he's got enormous scope for development and improvement in his game. I see our ruck division as our achilles heal. We have a once-in-a-generation midfielder in Cripps and potentially another one in Walsh, without a quality ruckman to give them a regular first look at the ball. Kreuzer struggles to get off the ground these days and was comfortably pantsed by virtually every quality ruckman he came up against this year. Pittonet's aggression will be more than welcome, but like Kreuzer, he doesn't often get off the ground and he's relatively slow. Anyone who has watched TDK at VFL level will tell you that he's yet to show he's got the tank to be a full-time ruck and Casboult is really a fill-in. As stated earlier, at some point you've got to bite the bullet and develop a ruckman and Nick Bryan would make for an exciting start.​

*Pick 43 may come in to around Pick 41.​

Pick 57 - Hugo Ralphsmith 186cm, 77kg, 9/11/2001, Forward, Sandringham Dragons, Vic Metro

Ralphsmith is one of a number of medium X-Factor forwards available for selection in the 2019 National Draft that also includes Elijah Taylor and Miles Bergman. Ralphsmith is capable dragging down spectacular marks, running rings around opponents, bursting away from traffic at break-neck speed and kicking unbelievable goals, but like many X-Factor types he can also go missing for extended periods of time. Where Ralphsmith is different to many X-Factor types is that he's not limited by a lack of endurance and he tested extremely well in the Yo-Yo test and the 2km time trial. While there have been some comparisons with Jaidyn Stephenson and he may look not dissimilar to Stephenson with ball in hand he is not. I watched Stephenson single-handedly rip apart an SA side at U18 National Championship level with 30 disposals and 5 goals from a wing, the most Ralphsmith has achieved is 20 disposals and 1 goal at NAB League level. There's a big difference. Apart from consistency, the other areas of his game he'll need to improve upon is his defensive work-rate and tackling, which is relatively poor given his speed and endurance. Despite his obvious talent and appeal, unlike Bergman, Ralphsmith is yet to demonstrate he can win a game off his own boot and for this reason I think he'll go a little later than many expect.​

Rookie Draft
I'm only looking to take one Rookie, but I'd really like to see SOS get away from these lost souls of dubious character such as Bugg & Fasolo simply because they've got a senior body. Having said that, one player I would potentially look at that's had a couple of cracking years across half-back and through the middle at SANFL level is Jack Trengove. Otherwise I'd be happy to look at a couple kids who know how to get their hands on the ball. Potential prospects to choose from could include:

Option 1 - Cameron Wild 184cm, 80kg, 28/11/2001, Outside Midfielder, Murray Bushrangers.

Wild moved from Northern to Murray this year where he was able to substantially develop his game and improved his average output from 12.8 disposals/match to 23.8 disposals per match over 13 games. He also represented Vic Country for 2 games at 2019 U18 Nationals where he averaged 15 disposals/match on limited game time. While he's not as quick as Trent Bianco or Dylan Stephens, he's still more than quick enough to put himself into space where he can run with ball in hand and cause the opposition headaches if they don't pay him due attention or respect. While only a third of his possessions are contested, Wild still averages over 3 clearances/game proving he's more than capable of finding his own ball when required.​

Option 2 - Zakery Pretty 183cm, 80kg, 27/7/2001, Balanced Midfielder, Eastern Ranges.

Had an excellent year for Eastern averaging 25.2 disposals over 17 games. Plays as a true balanced midfielder with almost a 50/50 split between contested and uncontested possession. Generally plays within his limitations and as a result he prefers to dish off to a player in the clear by hand rather than foot. One area that's not so pretty is his defensive rating and this is another area he'll need to work on to make it at the next level. I suspect he might be just a little too Pretty to make it into the Rookie Draft, but you just never, never know​

​