List Mgmt. Carlton's 2019 Draft Thread

[DangerousD]

Got NFI where to post this, so I’ll chuck it in here.
Was out walking yesterday in an old guernsey. Pulled up to watch a bit of local cricket near some others. Bloke says to me -‘Dan Murphy hasn’t sponsored the club for a while mate’. We struck up a conversation where he introduced himself as an ex-employee if the club. I’m not going to name him, but verified who he was and that he still has a lot of contacts within the club. He tells me that Stephens/Young/Serong we’re our 3 targets inside the Top 10 in that order. We were always confident Kemp would slide but if he went then Cooper Stephens was the next target. The kid we took 2nd pick was always a target, but there was a lot of chatter so they thought they’d pounce early as he had the attributes they wanted. Didn’t rate Robertson much nor Rivers when I asked. Says our 3rd guy isn’t a bad get and Honey is a great project.

Leaves me with. ‘Walsh is right. Setters will be an absolute gun and don’t sleep on Kennedy.’

What does, don’t sleep on Kennedy mean?

 

[DangerousD]

And Zac Williams.

Think Papley is the priority though, Eddie is just a stopgap in on field terms

Zac Williams numero uno for me, more realistic than Whitfield, less of a priority for the Giants (than Whitfield), fills a real need for us.
Do we still have the $$$$ to blow the Giants and others out of the water?

 

[myblueroan]

What does, don’t sleep on Kennedy mean?

oi! pay attention DD.

 

[Dominator68]

I am pleased, as we identified types and backed our development.
We could have taken a few Nick Grahams and viewed to be better off for it......but we didn't.

This is exactly what we should have done, taking into account our list.
Well done CFC......and they won't all work out, but that's not the point. We had a clear focus on who, how and why and we executed without fear.

No Nick Grahams makes me very happy. Shame we couldn’t get him to Adelaide

 

[Robertio]

I presume we had groups of guys in mind at various points in the draft to cover trade down scenarios.
Eg Stephens Young Serong at 9
Kemp and C Stephens at 15
Obviously Flip around the 20
I wonder if Robertson was in the 15 group behind Kemp and Stephens?
Did they have to choose between the guy they wanted at 20 and a slider from the earlier group?
Maybe he wasn't on the list at any point?

Ask the Richmond supporters on the main board, they'll know.

 

[Blue__Balls]

You are clearly not getting it.
Think it through mate.
It is not about Sharp at all. come on, THINK!!!!
AFL can knock back trades that clearly seem way out of whack. They need approving.
Pick 27 for pick 11 next year is not ******* normal trading.
Come on man, you are smarter than this. Surely!

Think you're missing the point, FF.

During the trade period, I'd agree with you 100%. Pick 11 for Pick 27 is not "fair" and should be vetoed. But that's because at that point in time, the only "value" a pick can be judged on is its number.

During the draft, when you're not looking at hypothetical players but actual, guaranteed, "this guy is still on the board at this pick" stuff, the viewpoint changes. GC traded Pick 11 for Jeremy Sharp. Not a stretch for them to say they'd have picked him at 20-ish (and for all we know, they'd been on the phones trying to trade in at an earlier pick than Geelong's). And with the academy kids next year Pick 11 is potentially slipping back into the mid teens, so it may be Pick 15ish on a kid they rate at 20, with a 12 month head start on development.

The flip side is that, while the deal may be "fair" in the eyes of Gold Coast, Geelong would feel like they've committed daylight robbery. But that shouldn't be the measure of fairness, it's the club who stands to "lose" who should need to make their case, and I reckon GC have done just that. Future mid first in a compromised draft for Jeremy Sharp a year earlier.

I'm now curious as to who else GC might have approached. Brisbane targeted Robertson, PA were hot for Williams, Adelaide went local with Schoenberg, Mead was a F/S match, and Sydney got Gould who was a slider who was in the top 15 a few weeks ago. It's possible that none of those clubs were open to trading their pick for GC's future one.

 

[HARKER]

I'm now curious as to who else GC might have approached. Brisbane targeted Robertson, PA were hot for Williams, Adelaide went local with Schoenberg, Mead was a F/S match, and Sydney got Gould who was a slider who was in the top 15 a few weeks ago. It's possible that none of those clubs were open to trading their pick for GC's future one.

It's possible but it seems highly unlikely that no other club cared to grab and that future pick earlier via one means or another, or that Gold Coast just waited that late to get 'their man'....but it is possible.

We're pretty sure that Geelong are laughing all the way to the bank though.

 

[Funk]

Peeps, I found Soapy!

FWIW - Soapy is still around.

Just not in this neighbourhood.

 

[Stamos]

With Gold Coast, it's not so much the huge price they paid for Sharp which is the problem, so much as the currency that they left on the trade table due to a combination of pig-headedness and stupidity.

There'd be a reasonable expectation that their 2nd round pick next year (before compo & bidding) would be pick #20. They could have offered that instead, and thrown in our 2nd and 3rd round picks to get the deal done, and been significantly better off. Or they could have done the deal they did, and had an extra 2nd and 3rd rounder to trade next year. Madness.

 

[Funk]

Got NFI where to post this, so I’ll chuck it in here.
Was out walking yesterday in an old guernsey. Pulled up to watch a bit of local cricket near some others. Bloke says to me -‘Dan Murphy hasn’t sponsored the club for a while mate’. We struck up a conversation where he introduced himself as an ex-employee if the club. I’m not going to name him, but verified who he was and that he still has a lot of contacts within the club. He tells me that Stephens/Young/Serong we’re our 3 targets inside the Top 10 in that order. We were always confident Kemp would slide but if he went then Cooper Stephens was the next target. The kid we took 2nd pick was always a target, but there was a lot of chatter so they thought they’d pounce early as he had the attributes they wanted. Didn’t rate Robertson much nor Rivers when I asked. Says our 3rd guy isn’t a bad get and Honey is a great project.

Leaves me with. ‘Walsh is right. Setters will be an absolute gun and don’t sleep on Kennedy.’

Thanks - but what does “don’t sleep on Kennedy” mean?

 

[Kruezing]

Thanks - but what does “don’t sleep on Kennedy” mean?

Seems pretty clear to me ...

 

[The Bighouse]

Seems pretty clear to me ...

May need its own titled thread.
“Do not sleep on Kennedy”
Do not underestimate #7 Matthew Kennedy in 2020

 

[AT97]

Apologies if this has already been sent.

2019 AFL Draft club review: Carlton Blues

AFTER an improved second half of the season under new coach David Teague, Carlton headed into the AFL Draft confident of finding a quality player at Pick 9. Instead, the Blues made a couple of clubs earn their Academy stars in Stephen Silvagni‘s last year at the desk, and then opted to trade...

afl.draftcentral.com.au

great read. we got a C from the guru on the drafts board. An E had we not taken kemp. Amazing.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Ignore Knightmare's rating, bloke is remarkably one-eyed.

Look at it this way:

We went into the draft with live picks at 9, 43 and 57.

We walked away with the player Knightmare had ranked (as of November 25th) at 5, as well as the players he had going at 24 and 56 in his phantom (published the day of the draft).

Our rookie picks he had rated at 55 and 61.

Seems to have bought into the "academy bids were just stalling tactics" narrative. Describes Philp as a "reach" despite him only being selected 4 positions ahead where he was positioned in KM's own phantom. And says Ramsay "lacks impact compared to others", which I can only assume means he thinks we should have taken Byrnes.

Picks 9, 43, 57 and two rookie picks.
Turned into players 5, 24, 55, 56 and 61.
And Jack Martin for free.

How he can turn around days later and say we get a "C" is truly baffling. We got a "better" return at every pick we took to the draft, based on his own ratings.

 

[DangerousD]

It’s been interesting to read people’s thoughts on our recruitment of Philp over Robertson. I back the recruiters in, although I was big on team Robertson.

What I think people are missing is. We traded pick 22 and pick 55 for Philp, so when assessing Philp vs Robertson or whoever was still available, you need to factor in, it’s Philp vs Robertson and 55 or who we could have got, if we packaged 55 with the pick we used in the 40s.

 

[Dravid's in]

Ignore Knightmare's rating, bloke is remarkably one-eyed.

Look at it this way:

We went into the draft with live picks at 9, 43 and 57.

We walked away with the player Knightmare had ranked (as of November 25th) at 5, as well as the players he had going at 24 and 56 in his phantom (published the day of the draft).

Our rookie picks he had rated at 55 and 61.

Seems to have bought into the "academy bids were just stalling tactics" narrative. Describes Philp as a "reach" despite him only being selected 4 positions ahead where he was positioned in KM's own phantom. And says Ramsay "lacks impact compared to others", which I can only assume means he thinks we should have taken Byrnes.

Picks 9, 43, 57 and two rookie picks.
Turned into players 5, 24, 55, 56 and 61.
And Jack Martin for free.

How he can turn around days later and say we get a "C" is truly baffling. We got a "better" return at every pick we took to the draft, based on his own ratings.

Again. His Phantom was based on where he thinks players were going to go.

His gradings - rightly or wrongly - were based on his own power rankings.

He ranked Philp at #57 and didn't have Ramsay in his Top 100 hence the C+ which "Would have been an E if not for Kemp".

Good database, but anyone who gives ratings without any idea of proposed upside or character is purely just clickbait.

 

[Blue__Balls]

It’s been interesting to read people’s thoughts on our recruitment of Philp over Robertson. I back the recruiters in, although I was big on team Robertson.

What I think people are missing is. We traded pick 22 and pick 55 for Philp, so when assessing Philp vs Robertson or whoever was still available, you need to factor in, it’s Philp vs Robertson and 55 or who we could have got, if we packaged 55 with the pick we used in the 40s.

Not really, cause then it would be Philp and Ramsay vs. Robertson and whoever we got at a slightly upgraded pick instead of Ramsay.

Exceedingly hard to judge, given we have no idea who might have accepted 47 and 56 and what we would have got back. Best case scenario might be a 10-spot upgrade, but I think that's extremely optimistic.

Still:



Maybe Bryan (though we didn't look at a ruckman at all this year), potentially Rantall or Bianco?

Or maybe we'd still have taken Ramsay.

Philp + Ramsay
vs.
Robertson + Ramsay/Bianco/Rantall

 

[Lace_Out]

What does, don’t sleep on Kennedy mean?

Have you seen the size of his quads? It would be very uncomfortable.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Stamos]

It’s been interesting to read people’s thoughts on our recruitment of Philp over Robertson. I back the recruiters in, although I was big on team Robertson.

What I think people are missing is. We traded pick 22 and pick 55 for Philp, so when assessing Philp vs Robertson or whoever was still available, you need to factor in, it’s Philp vs Robertson and 55 or who we could have got, if we packaged 55 with the pick we used in the 40s.

We weren't taking a selection at #55, and if we packaged it with #47 to move up the draft, we would have still selected Ramsey.

 

[TerryWallet]

Think you're missing the point, FF.

During the trade period, I'd agree with you 100%. Pick 11 for Pick 27 is not "fair" and should be vetoed. But that's because at that point in time, the only "value" a pick can be judged on is its number.

During the draft, when you're not looking at hypothetical players but actual, guaranteed, "this guy is still on the board at this pick" stuff, the viewpoint changes. GC traded Pick 11 for Jeremy Sharp. Not a stretch for them to say they'd have picked him at 20-ish (and for all we know, they'd been on the phones trying to trade in at an earlier pick than Geelong's). And with the academy kids next year Pick 11 is potentially slipping back into the mid teens, so it may be Pick 15ish on a kid they rate at 20, with a 12 month head start on development.

The flip side is that, while the deal may be "fair" in the eyes of Gold Coast, Geelong would feel like they've committed daylight robbery. But that shouldn't be the measure of fairness, it's the club who stands to "lose" who should need to make their case, and I reckon GC have done just that. Future mid first in a compromised draft for Jeremy Sharp a year earlier.

I'm now curious as to who else GC might have approached. Brisbane targeted Robertson, PA were hot for Williams, Adelaide went local with Schoenberg, Mead was a F/S match, and Sydney got Gould who was a slider who was in the top 15 a few weeks ago. It's possible that none of those clubs were open to trading their pick for GC's future one.

Agree with the tone of this and have said as such earlier.

To answer 2 of your queries BB, Gold Coast have said they were going to draft Sharp with their Pick 15 before trading it to us. They rated him that high.

They also have said they offered that future #11 to other clubs at the top of the 2nd night ahead of Geelong but Geelong was the first one to take the offer.

I would suggest:

Bris were set on Robertson.

Port had Williams set for their 3rd pick a long way out and actually got him and 2 lots of points for Mead with some clever trading with that 3rd selection.

Adel weren't interested because they already had an extra 1st next year and had delayed their rebuild enough courtesy of SOS.

Sydney wanted and got Gould.

Then Geelong were next.

That Sharp for future #11 deal is fine as they rated him Top 15.

The Jack Martin stuff was just stupidity, but i doubt Geelong were accepting a couple of 2nd's anyway for that deal.

 

[ferrisb]

OK, I have a HUGE q for the draft watchers.

What are the key differences between what a kid does at u18 level vs what you think they will do at AFL level? How do you project talent?

I tend to be an output-focused guy. If a player's main job is to get the ball, then I look for the guys that can get the ball. I don't care if a guy can run like the wind and do the extra-ordinary. Coz unless he's actually doing it on a regular basis, then who cares? Someone like Gary Rohan looks amazing on paper, but (injuries aside) has not been very effective at AFL level in my eyes. Because of my biases, I tend to overvalue guys that end up vanilla (not Sam Walsh style) at AFL level.

Deven Robertson is a great example. Ok, his kicking is a bit messy and he lacks x-factor. But if it was that bad, how was he voted the best kid at the champs? Sam Philp is the opposite, he didn't even make the champs, but he's blistering quick. And he got picked earlier. This is not about drafting Philp vs Robertson, but these two are almost the perfect example of differing output vs characteristics prospects. I am only using these guys for illustrative purposes.

I get a few things like

• A ball butcher will probably always be a ball butcher
• Sometimes a short guy is good at underage level, but just won't make it against taller, stronger opposition
• Lack of fitness/endurance can be fixed - but having said that the junior elite runners end up as the AFL's elite runners
• A skinny guy can get stronger
• Some kids are still growing
• A late convert to footy will likely have more development
• You may draft a kid to play a different position (therefore you look at attributes more than output)
• Leadership, off-field and interviews also impact on where a kid gets drafted and how he fares at AFL level

I guess some kids get the ball 20 times a match at u18 but end up getting 30 at AFL level. Or vice versa. I mean Pat Kerr was u18 AA FF, was drafted late and is now delisted. Harry kicked a couple of goals here and there at junior level but was tall, athletic and could mark. He was drafted early and is looking like a serious AFL player in the making.

I mostly look at stats and highlights, so I can't really get a true feel for a what a player will/can become. Please tell me, how do you assess draft prospects and work out which ones will make it at AFL level and which ones won't?

 

[ctwenty1]

OK, I have a HUGE q for the draft watchers.

What are the key differences between what a kid does at u18 level vs what you think they will do at AFL level? How do you project talent?

I tend to be an output-focused guy. If a player's main job is to get the ball, then I look for the guys that can get the ball. I don't care if a guy can run like the wind and do the extra-ordinary. Coz unless he's actually doing it on a regular basis, then who cares? Because of that I know that I probably tend to overvalue guys end up vanilla (not Sam Walsh style) at AFL level.

Deven Robertson is a great example. Ok, his kicking is a bit messy and he lacks x-factor. But if it was that bad, how was he voted the best kid at the champs? Sam Philp is the opposite, he didn't even make the champs, but he's blistering quick. And he got picked earlier. This is not about drafting Philp vs Robertson, but these two are almost the perfect example of differing output vs characteristics prospects. I am only using these guys for illustrative purposes.

I get a few things like

• A ball butcher will probably always be a ball butcher
• Sometimes a short guy is good at underage level, but just won't make it against taller, stronger opposition
• Lack of fitness/endurance can be fixed - but having said that the junior elite runners end up as the AFL's elite runners
• A skinny guy can get stronger
• Some kids are still growing
• A late convert to footy will likely have more development
• You may draft a kid to play a different position (therefore you look at attributes more than output)
• Leadership, off-field and interviews also impact on where a kid gets drafted and how he fares at AFL level

I guess some kids get the ball 20 times a match at u18 but end up getting 30 at AFL level. Or vice versa. I mean Pat Kerr was u18 AA FF, was drafted late and is now delisted. Harry kicked a couple of goals here and there at junior level but was tall, athletic and could mark. He was drafted early and is looking like a serious AFL player in the making.

I mostly look at stats and highlights, so I can't really get a true feel for a what a player will/can become. Please tell me, how do you assess draft prospects and work out which ones will make it at AFL level and which ones won't?

The crapiness of their haircut is directly proportional to talent - ie the crappier the better

 

[Eiffel 65]

Zac Williams numero uno for me, more realistic than Whitfield, less of a priority for the Giants (than Whitfield), fills a real need for us.
Do we still have the $$$$ to blow the Giants and others out of the water?

Zac Williams is no chance. A local player from NSW and absolutely loves the club.

GWS sound very confident on Whitfield too. Don't think his contract is going to drag out like Coniglio's.

It's a good thing we've drafted our stars Exciting times ahead

 

[TerryWallet]

OK, I have a HUGE q for the draft watchers.

What are the key differences between what a kid does at u18 level vs what you think they will do at AFL level? How do you project talent?

I tend to be an output-focused guy. If a player's main job is to get the ball, then I look for the guys that can get the ball. I don't care if a guy can run like the wind and do the extra-ordinary. Coz unless he's actually doing it on a regular basis, then who cares? Someone like Gary Rohan looks amazing on paper, but (injuries aside) has not been very effective at AFL level in my eyes. Because of my biases, I tend to overvalue guys that end up vanilla (not Sam Walsh style) at AFL level.

Deven Robertson is a great example. Ok, his kicking is a bit messy and he lacks x-factor. But if it was that bad, how was he voted the best kid at the champs? Sam Philp is the opposite, he didn't even make the champs, but he's blistering quick. And he got picked earlier. This is not about drafting Philp vs Robertson, but these two are almost the perfect example of differing output vs characteristics prospects. I am only using these guys for illustrative purposes.

I get a few things like

• A ball butcher will probably always be a ball butcher
• Sometimes a short guy is good at underage level, but just won't make it against taller, stronger opposition
• Lack of fitness/endurance can be fixed - but having said that the junior elite runners end up as the AFL's elite runners
• A skinny guy can get stronger
• Some kids are still growing
• A late convert to footy will likely have more development
• You may draft a kid to play a different position (therefore you look at attributes more than output)
• Leadership, off-field and interviews also impact on where a kid gets drafted and how he fares at AFL level

I guess some kids get the ball 20 times a match at u18 but end up getting 30 at AFL level. Or vice versa. I mean Pat Kerr was u18 AA FF, was drafted late and is now delisted. Harry kicked a couple of goals here and there at junior level but was tall, athletic and could mark. He was drafted early and is looking like a serious AFL player in the making.

I mostly look at stats and highlights, so I can't really get a true feel for a what a player will/can become. Please tell me, how do you assess draft prospects and work out which ones will make it at AFL level and which ones won't?

It's all in the judgement Ferris. Either a recruiter has good judgement or he doesn't. What goes into that judgement is a million pieces of data, but what the computer(brain) spits out after the data is Judgement.

There are good judges and bad judges.

SOS is a good judge in 2 areas of life.

Conversely, Shane Rogers and Geoff Edelsten respectively are poor judges in those two areas.

 

[ferrisb]

The crapiness of their haircut is directly proportional to talent - ie the crappier the better

Dustin Martin thread....